Orange Room Supporter
Just in case I didn’t make myself clear in my last post to you, please stop tagging me, I have no intention of engaging.@LiNk @freelebanon @spacecreature @The Jade @walidos @SeaAb @Iron Maiden @manifesto @Nonan @Muki @Rock @gramsci @Death To Google @loubnaniTO @joseph_lubnan @Jorje @Frisbeetarian @dodzi @Danny Z
much material is being laid in here that can be used to expose your position for what it really is and by that pave the way for Truth (in the upcoming days insha'allah), but now i'd like to have a quick passing word
by claiming there's no objective morality, you would be automatically conceding what this claim entails; that your morality, like that of others, is not objective; if your morality is not objective then why should anyone or any group of people endorse it rather than endorse a different/opposite morality with different/opposite outcome/consequence to yours? on what ground should 'the other' subscribe to your morality, other than the ground of 'having it forcibly imposed, followed and applied blindly'? on what ground would you be able to defend your morality against a differing one that may contradict yours (or be exclusive of you and your way of life), but, like yours, is forcibly imposed and followed blindly, rendered to following divine/unjustified commands, where the will supersedes reason, where something is true and moral because 'i' or some other authority/entity says/commands/wills so? your 'relativistic' worldview, where objective truth doesn't exist, entails that the different/competing moralities have the same merit/validity as yours, and that they (their endorsers) would therefore be as much justified as yourselves in shouting out 'slippery slope' from inside their own safe-space against those who challenge them on it, or in imposing their morality on others when they are out on their mission
indeed, this dangerously farcical worldview of yours pushes its adherents between a rock and a hard place; you cannot rationally/objectively support your position, and when you attempt to, you'd be invalidating it and contradicting yourselves; attempting to objectively state and defend the view that 'objective truth doesn't exist'. so other than shit-eating grins, what do you have to offer in defense of it?