Blues Man
Diamond Member
- Aug 28, 2016
- 35,513
- 14,901
If they can change then they can be anything man wants them to be ergo they are opinions and not firm rules rooted in logic.I never said they were just opinions you said that.My point is that if you believe morals are just opinions instead of standards which exist for logical reasons then you have no basis to think your opinions are any better than anyone else's. Ergo you have no basis in logic to oppose anyone else's opinions of right and wrong.You would have zero basis it to oppose it because according to you morals are just opinions. So what makes your opinion any better than anyone else's? It's the stupidest thing I have ever heard.I wouldn't excuse it.And they were wrong. But in your world you would excuse it because you believe morals can be anything man says.So you could determine that fucking little kids was moral?man determines his own standards.No, dummy. Logic determines what standards are. Standards exist for logical reasons. Man is subjective and can ass fuck logic when it is in his interest. For example, there was a time when man believed it was moral to own human beings. That is man ass fucking logic. Unless of course you believe they were morally justified in owning humans, do you?Morals are created by humans therefore they cannot be universalNo. Man's perception of right and wrong can change over time because man is subjective. Logic is not subjective. Morals are based upon logic.correct.What you say is good or bad might not be considered good or bad by someone else.
So you're saying that an absolute, universally objective standard of morality doesn't exist?
Morals have changed over time as humans and societies have evolved
And FYI logic as we know is man made. Logic is nothing but man's attempt to analyze his own reasoning process.
We discarded slavery as our societies evolved because the people who believed slavery was not justifiable outnumbered the people who thought it was.
I wouldn't but I'm sure some cultures and societies have in the past
I have been raised in a society that finds child molestation to be reprehensible. That does not mean that there haven't been societies that didn't find child molestation reprehensible.
You have no understanding of history, anthropology or sociology.
I oppose it because I am a product of my society and my thoughts, behaviors , morals and ethics are part of that conditioning.
And where did I say my opinion was better than anyone else?
You're the one who feels threatened by a differing opinion since you have resorted to ad hominem attacks after my first post here.
BTW what do the tenets of logic say regarding ad hominem alltacks?
I said that morals change over time as societies change over time.
So unless you want to stop telling me what I said and ignore what I actually say then this discussion will be worthless.
The can and have changed over the history of humankind.