u can leave the A-s for me then ('-')

Deep down we all know that the Republic was peak.

This was written by a man

Wow that IS kinda interesting.

Correct me if I’m wrong, the point you were pursuing here is basically: if we are so upset about people potentially polluting the gene pool, why don’t we also encourage people “improving” the gene pool (or equivalently, punish people who don’t improve it)?

And on the criminal note I agree, courts have to ejudicate case by case. I’m not a lawyer but I guess intent is of major importance in any case.

And on Zucest you are the one and only authority so I leave that to your tenure.

I have many socks like that...

thx
go to church

Alright time to go to your shift at Wendy's

Congrats for willfully misquoting me and deriving a "contradiction" from your own misquotation.

The full quote being "because *by and large* there is no objective standard of morality" [my asterisks]

First of all, I challenge you to find an objective foundation to any moral belief ever.

Second. It IS a subjective value judgement that non-violence and cooperation is better than a war of all against all. There is no objective reason why someone shouldn't prefer a society where everyone uses violence to get forward in life, instead of cooperation. And many people do, hood culture has this conflice with liberal society for example (I guess you would prefer it too to "lib values"). So you are wrong if you think that I see these criteria as objective.

But this really would lead to a contradiction. A society that doesn't rest on cooperation and non-violence to SOME degree at least, is not a society. Society by definition is the cooperation of individuals, and if peace is not enforced by the state (or the community/king/chieftain whatever) it ceases to be a society. So on a purely logical ground it is true to say that the goal of society is non-violent cooperation. You can reject this "liberal morality" that peaceful cooperation and non-violence is necessary, but then you also get rid of society as a whole.

So I wouldn't call this a moral rule, but a logical rule. It is the smallest necessary condition for society, in fact the defining trait of a society. And this is where liberal social philosophy derives this "rule".

Oh also congrats for giving words into my mouth with "If you are going to say ethics are socially constructed or something". I never said that, you said it. Morals are not made by anyone, they emerge through a variety of ways, and have a process of development and change that no single people control, whether they are based in tradition, religious faith, new philosophical ideas, scientific ideas, whatever.

So no need to pull things out of your ass to scare yourself with.

I'm loathed to admit that there are people who are more delusional than commies.

yes. I'm loathed to admit it, but yes.