Why do people want the chains of morality still?

[Wootah]

Jesus would say you whitewashed tombs to the Pharisees because they looked good on the outside but inside were rotten.

Why do we want to do bad things (like abortion) and still worry about whether we are moral?

Morality is clearly not real, we can say God is not real but morality we cling to?

One reason might be evolution. The veneer of morality helps us in society to get our way?

Others. Yeah yeah God exists, morality is objective but who wants to hear that ....

[2ndRateMind]

Why do people want the chains of morality still?

It occurs to me to suggest that morality is God's law, and the way He prefers us to live out our lives. The only thing is, nowhere, not even in scripture, are we explicitly told what is moral, and what is not. It seems we must i) work out for ourselves what is moral, and ii) find the moral fibre to live that way.

Best wishes, 2RM.

[RightReason]

[Replying to Purple Knight in post #20]

I agree. But just as you must believe that more of that fundamental eternal moral truth is sometimes revealed and discovered, you can't prove that the woke people are not prophets who are doing just that.

Yes, you can. Like I said, moral truth is knowable and wokism can be exposed for its distortion of truth.

Put yourself in place of someone who was doing something against one of the less intuitive Commandments, and then suddenly, Moses comes down from the mountain and he has some new rules. Hold on, you say, my graven images weren't hurting anyone. And my parents are heathens - I shouldn't have to honour them. What is this new crud? Morality doesn't change.

Again, you are misunderstanding moral truth and seeing it as arbitrary or simply something the latest group in power randomly decides. And yes, even if your parents are heathens, you ought to honor them. It doesn’t mean you do as they do, but it means you show them respect in being your parent – that’s what we mean by moral truth. And worshipping graven images is harmful because it means worshipping (giving time and adoration) to something that is not true or won’t bring peace/fulfillment, whether that is fame, money, lust, superstitions, good luck charms, etc)

Again, just because a person or a culture wants to reject moral truth, does not mean it does not exist.

Morality might not change, but to those who aren't in possession of the whole shabang yet, it effectively changes. I just demonstrated that.

Correction – as you agreed, morality does not change, but societal laws do.

RightReason wrote: ↑Tue Aug 16, 2022 11:58 amAgain, you seem to be oblivious to your own contradiction: You want to impose your value judgment that we can’t impose value judgments? Hmmmm . . .
Not at all, I just want to leave any place where people impose values.

Sure. To impose your own values. You value no values. And you want to impose that value on anyone who inhabits your little planet. Oh, the irony . . .

If people want to impose their values, they can... in some other place. I have nothing against imposing moral values on others. I agree it's right. I just want to be away from it.

To escape to a place where you want to impose your values?

Ha, ha, ha . . . it doesn’t work that way. Also, you can’t get away from moral truth. You can’t hide from it. You can’t run and establish your own planet free from moral truth. Truth is imposed on us from the world we live in, like it or not.

Plus, you don’t really want no values. You simply believe sometimes there is an overarching imposition of proclaimed values that you either disagree with or that you believe shouldn’t be societally imposed. To which most people would probably agree with you. You actually see much of this wokism as unjust, which it is, proving we recognize injustice and have a desire/need to see justice.

So you say, morality isn't about benefit of mankind. So far we agree. That's what I'm demonstrating. But you also say we can use logic and reason to decipher morality. So what is your first assumption you build on? If you don't have one then logic can't be used.

I said it isn’t entirely about ‘benefit of mankind’. At least, not in the way you are describing it. There may be no immediate demonstratable benefit in doing some moral behavior. Or there may be no immediate negative demonstratable consequence in doing some immoral behavior, but we can still see/know that which is right/good vs. that which is wrong/bad. It requires acknowledging the science/reason/facts and logically concluding what makes sense. We can come to understand, via observation and reason, the order/function of something and conclude proper functioning/order vs. that which is disordered or wrong. It’s how we operate on a daily basis.

all you have to do is look at the statistics and find that yes, as members of the dominant group, all whites are racist by definition.

No. That does not logically follow. Also, how do you explain something like the Rwanda genocide where one African tribe hated a different African tribe? There are examples of black on black racism everywhere. But we would never say all black people are racists because of what happened in Rwanda. That’s nonsense.

They do this in the definition of the word. Only the dominant group can commit racism, and everyone with even a slight prejudice (which we both know is everyone) is racist. So yes it follows. Only white people can be racist. It's not surprising then, since their first assumption is that racism is bad and should be eliminated, that whites are targeted. It follows. Perfectly. They've defined the terms so that it does follow. You can disagree that it's fair but you can't say it doesn't follow.

I absolutely can say that it doesn’t follow, because it doesn’t. And my example of the genocide in Rwanda debunks your theory.

A bird doesn't just build a nest to protect her eggs because that makes sense, she also does so because she wants to reproduce and make more birds and that is unjustified morally.

Why would making more birds not be moral?

So we have science. You say that's good. And we have logic. You say that's good. So far we agree. We can use logic on the results of science because we just got both. We still agree, I think. If there is no moral premise introduced which we must trust without reason then there's nothing more, just science and logic. So what's there beyond science and logic that you're saying we can't get to Truth without?

Nothing. You misunderstand. We use science and logic to get to moral truth. In other words, there is nothing unreasonable about moral truth. It isn’t random or arbitrary and can be demonstrated. Scientism though is not science. Scientism is believing science alone, without exercising logic/reason, simply collecting scientific facts, we can speak about Truth. It would be like thinking/believing the only things that are true are somehow the things that are scientifically verifiable. Like thinking I can only believe in our solar system because I can see the planets and stars through a telescope, but I can’t believe in God, because I can’t see Him via a telescope. One would be guilty of scientism to insist there is nothing beyond what we currently know or that can be measured.

I'm not dealing in should and shouldn't. They are. Those who will come and chastise me if I guess wrong.

Because it isn’t about guessing. No need to guess.

I have to look at other people to do what you do from your little cricket. I don't want to, because I don't like being at this sort of disadvantage. Therefore I want a world with rules for all, laws for all, and no morality imposing more rules on some people.

You don’t know what you are asking. It makes no sense. Moral truth is built into the world we live in. You don’t really get to pick and choose.

Morality is about morality. You should see how this puts the immoral at a disadvantage, just having to do whatever the moral tell them to.

This is the most illogical statement I have ever heard. It would be like saying, Truth is about Truth. You should see how this puts the liars at a disadvantage, just having to accept whatever Truth dictates.

you can't prove bestiality is wrong with just science.

Yes, I can. We can observe how the human body works. We can observe how our reproductive systems work. We can observe consequences of behavior. We can scientifically see how the reproduction system of a cow does not work in conjunction with the reproductive system of a human being.

Yes, if society wants to. And if instead, society wants to impose a law against rape, we do that. But until society does want that, moral people shut the heck up.

You once again seem to be confused about what morality is. You seem to think unless something is a societal law, it cannot be declared right/wrong. That is absurd. Slavery use to be legal, but was always wrong. Thank goodness all those “moral” people didn’t shut the heck up about slavery.



You wouldn’t desire laws against rape if you didn’t already believe in moral truth. Otherwise, who are you to say or think the world would be a better place without rape? Who says it’s wrong? Why assume it is? Because you know it is wrong and moral truth speaks out against injustice.

Go through the proper channels. Get a law. Don't harass people. Don't heckle people. And don't protest either. You have your vote. No signatures necessary, put an issue forth and we all vote on it.

I’m pretty sure that’s what most of us upholding moral truth have been trying to do.

It could be said, before there was an end to slavery, people were being harassed. Some civil rights advocates were in people’s faces. They weren’t all that eager to wait for a vote because of the injustice we are talking about. So, they fight and get in people’s faces and rightly so.

On my planet, green baseball caps are protected by default, meaning Joe is allowed to wear one. And so is Bob shooting Joe. But so is everyone else shooting Bob. The only thing you can't do is proselytize, so if you're caught whipping up a mob against MAGA hats, you go get kicked out of the society. This is how it works until the society agrees there should be a law.

What if you are whipping up a mob against pedophilia, because some places still say its legal? Is that proselytizing?

“Who are these moral people saying I can’t love who I want to love? If they don’t want to engage in pedophilia they don’t have to, but they can’t tell me that man/boy love can’t be beautiful and good.”

Should we remain silent and not risk getting thrown out because some idiots are cool with pedophilia?

Suppose he says the same except he replaces 4-year-old with 19-year-old? Do you see why he's making my life suck? Because he gets to unilaterally decide what's right, and what I can and cannot do. It's about whether I get input, not about whether I might happen to agree with him.

No. No. No. He does not get to unilaterally decide what’s right, what is right is there for all to know. You greatly misunderstand.

Some things are moral, some aren't. End of story. No reason, no science, those things just speak to practicality.

Not exactly.

As an example, I can use science to determine that a fertile chicken egg should be heated to a temperature of 99.5 degrees Fahrenheit for 21 days in order to produce a baby chicken. But this says nothing about the morality of producing a baby chicken. Nothing can tell you that but a moralist who doesn't have to justify anything.

We can use what we know via science/reason/logic to determine moral truth.


No, you don’t. What you want is to live in a place that actually upholds moral truth and the moral law. You simply recognize that we currently live in a place that actually doesn’t do a very good job at that. Utopia could only exist in adherence to moral Truth.

“Whoever fights monsters should see to it that in the process he does not become a monster.” -Nietzche

That is an unfortunate temptation for many who may be attempting to fight for moral truth. And I think it is that which you hate. Which I would agree with. We can have the best intentions and be on the side of moral truth, but then succumb to our own power trip.

“The surest way to work up a crusade in favor of some good cause is to promise people they will have a chance of maltreating someone. To be able to destroy with good conscience, to be able to behave badly and call your bad behavior ‘righteous indignation’—this is the height of psychological luxury, the most delicious of moral treats.” -Aldous Huxley

These are the things you and I hate, but again they will always remain part of the human condition – that we can become corrupt, even while telling ourselves we are fighting for moral truth. It happens. Of course, it doesn’t mean we stop fighting for moral truth. It merely means we stay on guard to not fall to some of this corruption and we try our hardest to continue to fight the good fight. Because, well, there is nothing else worth fighting for.

[JoeyKnothead]

Jesus would say you whitewashed tombs to the Pharisees because they looked good on the outside but inside were rotten.

We can't even confirm if Jesus existed to even utter him a word.

Why do we want to do bad things (like abortion) and still worry about whether we are moral?

Would that despots and tyrants, rapists and murderers had been aborted before they could inflict their evils.

Morality is clearly not real, we can say God is not real but morality we cling to?

Social Studies is a good help for understanding the concept of morality.

One reason might be evolution. The veneer of morality helps us in society to get our way?

Not always to get our way, but to help society function.

Others. Yeah yeah God exists, morality is objective but who wants to hear that ....

If claims regarding a violent, vitriolic God being moral could be somehow confirmed, maybe folks wouldn't turn em a deaf ear to your message.

[Purple Knight]

It could be said, before there was an end to slavery, people were being harassed. Some civil rights advocates were in people’s faces. They weren’t all that eager to wait for a vote because of the injustice we are talking about. So, they fight and get in people’s faces and rightly so.

This is a perfect example. People were absolutely harassed out of slavery and now they're being harassed out of "whiteness" - the result of the harassment and bullying will be that the moral people get their way irrespective of any moral truth that comes from Nature like you're talking about. Saying moral bullying should* be allowed is like saying shooting people in the street should* be allowed because one time a bad person was shot this way.

*Note that I'm not even dealing in should here, but you are, so it's confusing. I'm not saying moral bullying shouldn't be allowed. I'm just saying a lot of people would be happier if it wasn't. You among them, actually, since you may find yourself a target of woke bullies and you may have no recourse.

I agree. But just as you must believe that more of that fundamental eternal moral truth is sometimes revealed and discovered, you can't prove that the woke people are not prophets who are doing just that.

Yes, you can. Like I said, moral truth is knowable and wokism can be exposed for its distortion of truth.

Somewhere in the 1840's or so, there's some plantation owner who's saying the exact same thing, except from anti-slavery instead of anti-wokism. He thinks Nature supports him. He sees a queen bee, and slaves. He sees an alpha wolf, and slaves. He sees a V-shaped formation of birds and assumes they are following the leader. He noted that many of the slaves harvested from Africa were already property when they were bought from there! He's not even wrong. In Nature, it is often that one organism finds itself in the service of another, even if they are the same species, and even if it is not to the serving one's best interest. Don't get me started on naked mole rats and being enslaved by your own species.

It could be said, before there was an end to slavery, people were being harassed. Some civil rights advocates were in people’s faces. They weren’t all that eager to wait for a vote because of the injustice we are talking about. So, they fight and get in people’s faces and rightly so.

What if you are whipping up a mob against pedophilia, because some places still say its legal? Is that proselytizing?

Yes. On my planet, no whipping up mobs, and no harassing people. If most people want slavery then there will be slavery. It won't be a moral place unless most people want that. But the slaves can always leave since there is right of escape.

Again, you are misunderstanding moral truth and seeing it as arbitrary or simply something the latest group in power randomly decides. And yes, even if your parents are heathens, you ought to honor them. It doesn’t mean you do as they do, but it means you show them respect in being your parent – that’s what we mean by moral truth. And worshipping graven images is harmful because it means worshipping (giving time and adoration) to something that is not true or won’t bring peace/fulfillment, whether that is fame, money, lust, superstitions, good luck charms, etc)

Again, just because a person or a culture wants to reject moral truth, does not mean it does not exist.

Morality might not change, but to those who aren't in possession of the whole shabang yet, it effectively changes. I just demonstrated that.

Correction – as you agreed, morality does not change, but societal laws do.

Morality does not change, meaning that every single time a new commandment has been given legal form (a new moral edict has been put into law) it means, morality was actually like that all along, we just discovered more of it, more moral truth. You didn't even address what this feels like to someone who has done a thing all his life thinking it wasn't hurting anybody, and now that golden calf he loved is exposed as having been this bad thing all along, just like you and I have been exposed as having been racist all along and now we need to stop doing a lot of what we were doing and thought was fine before.

You really think giving time and adoration won't bring peace and fulfillment? You just said to give respect to one's parents whether they deserve it or not. In the same breath you say unearned adoration is good, and that it is bad.

Not at all, I just want to leave any place where people impose values.

Sure. To impose your own values. You value no values. And you want to impose that value on anyone who inhabits your little planet. Oh, the irony . . .

The lack of values are not a value. And the difference in effect is: If you want a value, I am not saying you are wrong. In fact, you're probably right. Just don't impose... here. Go impose your values elsewhere. This is taking the form of a law, one to benefit people, not a moral declaration.

Ha, ha, ha . . . it doesn’t work that way. Also, you can’t get away from moral truth. You can’t hide from it. You can’t run and establish your own planet free from moral truth. Truth is imposed on us from the world we live in, like it or not.

I agree, and I hate that. And you don't like that any more than I do. You can't prove wokism is not moral. You keep saying you can, but you can't. You need a leg to stand on - premises both parties agree are true - to prove ANYTHING, EVER. Your moral views are founded on looking at Nature and seeing how things work, but the woke people disagree with that. Their moral views are founded on justice, equality, and righteousness for the sake of righteousness. In other words, if some act is moral and good, it's still moral and good even if it hurts everybody involved.

Plus, you don’t really want no values. You simply believe sometimes there is an overarching imposition of proclaimed values that you either disagree with or that you believe shouldn’t be societally imposed. To which most people would probably agree with you. You actually see much of this wokism as unjust, which it is, proving we recognize injustice and have a desire/need to see justice.

No. No should or shouldn't about it. Values probably should be imposed. I'm just sick of it, I think it makes life terrible, and I imagine there are lots of others who are sick of it too. I see wokism as justice, but I'm sick of justice. And it's not hurting anybody if I escape justice, as long as I find a place where everyone also wants to escape justice and there's the right of escape.

Let's agree for the sake of metaphoric example that bashing one another over the heads with mallets is morally wrong. Well, if I and some other cartoon character want to escape to cartoon land where not only do we do it all the time and we're happier that way, but it also doesn't hurt us, why are you bothering trying to stop us? What horrible atrocity is it that two people both want to get away from the place where bashing with mallets is unacceptable? We both want it. Who are we hurting by this? You? Woke people? The Easter Bunny?

I said it isn’t entirely about ‘benefit of mankind’. At least, not in the way you are describing it. There may be no immediate demonstratable benefit in doing some moral behavior. Or there may be no immediate negative demonstratable consequence in doing some immoral behavior, but we can still see/know that which is right/good vs. that which is wrong/bad. It requires acknowledging the science/reason/facts and logically concluding what makes sense. We can come to understand, via observation and reason, the order/function of something and conclude proper functioning/order vs. that which is disordered or wrong. It’s how we operate on a daily basis.

you can't prove bestiality is wrong with just science.

Yes, I can. We can observe how the human body works. We can observe how our reproductive systems work. We can observe consequences of behavior. We can scientifically see how the reproduction system of a cow does not work in conjunction with the reproductive system of a human being.

One of the facts in question is that humping everything sometimes leads to a viable offspring, so it might be that we, as a species, are wired to have a few members that will hump anything. So bestiality might not be unnatural in the way you think it is. By your own logic, you can't tell him not to stick it in a cow unless you know that it'll never happen, and all you know is that it probably won't. And if the reason a person humping a cow is wrong is that it won't make a baby, then having sex with a woman who is infertile is exactly as wrong, because your reproductive system won't work in conjunction with hers. Heck, having sex while using a condom properly is wrong.

Do you see how if I apply your reasons universally, they fail? That's probably because you and the entire human race got the correct answer from your little cricket (in this case, that bestiality is wrong) you're just justifying it post-hoc.

all you have to do is look at the statistics and find that yes, as members of the dominant group, all whites are racist by definition.

No. That does not logically follow. Also, how do you explain something like the Rwanda genocide where one African tribe hated a different African tribe? There are examples of black on black racism everywhere. But we would never say all black people are racists because of what happened in Rwanda. That’s nonsense.

Look at their definitions. Look at their definitions of racism, their definitions of power, and their definitions of privilege. It all follows, it's just built on definitions you don't like. There's no bad logic, just definitions you don't agree with and potentially premises you think aren't true. They might say the dominant group doing that to the oppressed group in Rwanda was racist, and they might also say it wasn't racism because the groups were the same race: Black.

https://apnews.com/article/entertainmen ... 51261fff1f
“White doesn’t represent a shared culture and history in the way Black does,” The New York Times said on July 5 in explaining its decision [to capitalise Black and not white].

Do you get it? They will simply fail to categorise something as racism if it's Black on Black. Or they might not. The point is, their conclusions follow from their definitions. They define racism as abuse of an oppressed group by a dominant group (of another race, I assume), so a Black man beating a white one to death simply for being white might be prejudiced, it might be misguided, it might even be an atrocity (I don't think they'd go that far, but they might) but it isn't racism because racism is not defined that way.

A bird doesn't just build a nest to protect her eggs because that makes sense, she also does so because she wants to reproduce and make more birds and that is unjustified morally.

Why would making more birds not be moral?

Because some moral person has some reason it's not. They have a how-dare-you they can stand on and bully people with. This is my whole issue. For example, they might say worms have a right to live, and the birds eat the worms. Just switch the spotlight and you can usually come up with a good how-dare-you.

Nothing. You misunderstand. We use science and logic to get to moral truth. In other words, there is nothing unreasonable about moral truth. It isn’t random or arbitrary and can be demonstrated.

Science and logic deal with how we interpret data. Without data to start with, science and logic can't be used. What are we starting with that we get to use science and logic upon? Just the natural world and how it works? That's failed thrice. It's failed once because we see an animal's muscles are for moving that animal, not for you to eat. It's failed again because slavery exists in nature. It's failed a third time because by your logic that a human is immoral to have sex with a cow because the reproductive systems don't work together, it's also immoral to have sex with a woman whose uterus has been removed.

Morality is about morality. You should see how this puts the immoral at a disadvantage, just having to do whatever the moral tell them to.

This is the most illogical statement I have ever heard. It would be like saying, Truth is about Truth. You should see how this puts the liars at a disadvantage, just having to accept whatever Truth dictates.

It's just like that. I completely agree. Now imagine everyone is always calling you a liar, and you don't know what's true. You've even stopped making claims to truth altogether unless you hear that claim from them first, but this doesn't stop the fingers pointing and the shaming and the LIAR LIAR LIAR, STOP LYING YOU FILTHY LIAR!!! Imagine that you've got a pretty good idea they just say, "Liar!!!" whenever they want to bully you and make you kowtow, because it somehow always works out to their benefit and hurts you in some way, but you don't have the means to know that they're doing it and you can't prove it so you just have to trust that they're in the right, because they know the truth and you don't. Understand now?

Yes, if society wants to. And if instead, society wants to impose a law against rape, we do that. But until society does want that, moral people shut the heck up.

You once again seem to be confused about what morality is. You seem to think unless something is a societal law, it cannot be declared right/wrong. That is absurd. Slavery use to be legal, but was always wrong. Thank goodness all those “moral” people didn’t shut the heck up about slavery.

No, I'm not confusing those at all. I just personally want laws that protect people from moralists bullying them. In that case the laws are morally wrong, but again, so what, if the right of escape is also protected? If anyone can leave at any time, what injustice could such a society as I want possibly commit that remains so horrible if anyone, at any time, can simply walk away from it?

You wouldn’t desire laws against rape if you didn’t already believe in moral truth. Otherwise, who are you to say or think the world would be a better place without rape? Who says it’s wrong? Why assume it is? Because you know it is wrong and moral truth speaks out against injustice.

Maybe it's because I don't want to be raped up my rear end and get AIDS. I don't care if rape is wrong, I prefer a world without it. I can still have sex without rape, I just have to be nice. And then I get what I want and I don't get AIDS.

On my planet, green baseball caps are protected by default, meaning Joe is allowed to wear one. And so is Bob shooting Joe. But so is everyone else shooting Bob. The only thing you can't do is proselytize, so if you're caught whipping up a mob against MAGA hats, you go get kicked out of the society. This is how it works until the society agrees there should be a law.

“Who are these moral people saying I can’t love who I want to love? If they don’t want to engage in pedophilia they don’t have to, but they can’t tell me that man/boy love can’t be beautiful and good.”

Should we remain silent and not risk getting thrown out because some idiots are cool with pedophilia?

Personally I would be willing to accept it unless the child objects. Then it's rape. I want laws against rape. I don't honestly believe everyone in my society will be cool with paedophilia. This is probably about 3% of the evil population of psychopaths like me and I can't imagine more than 10% of the ultra-moral, halo-wearing priestly population. And in my world, the minority gets bullied because everyone has an equal say in the laws.

But if it somehow ends up that paedophilia is legal? To live in a world where I can eat a burrito I made wrong without feeling guilty, I'll make that deal. I'll vote against it, but to tell you the truth I think a real paedo is a legal adult (18+) with a 12-year-old or younger. 13 is sexually mature. Again, if it's rape, if it's involuntary, if one party says they don't want it, that's different, but I had sexual desires at 13 so I'm not sure how you want me to feel about it.

Suppose he says the same except he replaces 4-year-old with 19-year-old? Do you see why he's making my life suck? Because he gets to unilaterally decide what's right, and what I can and cannot do. It's about whether I get input, not about whether I might happen to agree with him.

No. No. No. He does not get to unilaterally decide what’s right, what is right is there for all to know. You greatly misunderstand.

All, but not me, because you disagree. And not the paedo, because you disagree with him. And not cow guy, because you disagree with him too. In "for all to know..." the all just sounds like "me and the people I agree with," which it should sound like to you when it's the woke people doing it to you and saying everyone can see right from wrong and that you're intentionally being evil by choice.

Some things are moral, some aren't. End of story. No reason, no science, those things just speak to practicality.

Not exactly.

As an example, I can use science to determine that a fertile chicken egg should be heated to a temperature of 99.5 degrees Fahrenheit for 21 days in order to produce a baby chicken. But this says nothing about the morality of producing a baby chicken. Nothing can tell you that but a moralist who doesn't have to justify anything.

We can use what we know via science/reason/logic to determine moral truth.

How? In this example about the baby chicken, how do we use science and reason to come to moral truth?

What can you say when someone comes up to you and smashes your incubator because chickens are immoral due to all the vital, beautiful, Black and Brown bugs they eat? Make no mistake, this is true. Chickens can hurt soil quality precisely because they gulp down so many of the various little invertebrate micro-buddies that keep the soil healthy (and because their poop is alkaline). People say that about cows now. We shouldn't raise cows. Cows kill the environment.

So what do you say to this? It's based on science and reason, and the way the world works.

No, you don’t. What you want is to live in a place that actually upholds moral truth and the moral law. You simply recognize that we currently live in a place that actually doesn’t do a very good job at that. Utopia could only exist in adherence to moral Truth.

I don't want a utopia. I don't need a society that even works well. I just want to be bloody left alone unless I'm [s]hurting somebody[/s] doing something to somebody that society, without anybody bullying anybody, has agreed should be illegal and that is just as illegal if he were to do it to me.

Constantly having to kowtow to the most moral halo-wearing windbag is exhausting. I want to be released from the obligation to do it, ever again, and you'd be better off being released from it too.

“Whoever fights monsters should see to it that in the process he does not become a monster.” -Nietzche

That is an unfortunate temptation for many who may be attempting to fight for moral truth. And I think it is that which you hate. Which I would agree with. We can have the best intentions and be on the side of moral truth, but then succumb to our own power trip.

“The surest way to work up a crusade in favor of some good cause is to promise people they will have a chance of maltreating someone. To be able to destroy with good conscience, to be able to behave badly and call your bad behavior ‘righteous indignation’—this is the height of psychological luxury, the most delicious of moral treats.” -Aldous Huxley

These are the things you and I hate, but again they will always remain part of the human condition – that we can become corrupt, even while telling ourselves we are fighting for moral truth. It happens. Of course, it doesn’t mean we stop fighting for moral truth. It merely means we stay on guard to not fall to some of this corruption and we try our hardest to continue to fight the good fight. Because, well, there is nothing else worth fighting for.

I am against power trips and crusades. No more bloody crusades. You should understand that people can genuinely disagree with you, and then, to cow guy, you look like the power tripper. Try to see it from his perspective. He doesn't think he's doing anything wrong. I want an equal society where everyone gets their say - an equal one. A society where the first of only two rules in the Constitution (the other being right of escape) is that someone even suggests that your judgment is less than theirs and you should just kowtow to their way because it's more moral... and they get kicked out of the society.

It's true that moralists bullying people into it, abolished slavery. But every day, more and more things are discovered to have been wrong all along and must be avoided at all costs. At what point does it become slavery when the library of things I may do is so far reduced by moralists that they may as well be my legal masters?