Where do moral laws come from?

[ding]

Were do ANY laws come from? Were do human rights come from? When I see little old white ladies stomped into the dirt by black kids , people pandering to illegal aliens creating artificial sanctuary cities for profit above culture, I have to wonder, JUST HOW CYNICAL can you get?

I think you can be very cynical. You are no where close to reaching the limits of your cynicism. I on the other hand prefer to think rather than feel. Sure there is a time and place for feeling but problem solving isn't that place. Where do you human rights come from? Our Founding Fathers had a pretty good idea that they came from God for no other reason than we are His creatures and that for this reason they were inalienable.

What you seem to be having trouble with is the concept that people breaking universal laws must mean there are no universal laws. I don't even know where to begin to address this kind of crazy but we can start with the fact that we have secular laws and people still break them so just because laws exist and people still violate them that does not negate the law. In fact, it validates the law because we would not need laws if people did not do stupid ass shit. Do you follow me, sister?

Some idiots will throw the baby out with the dirty bathwater. Intelligent people just drain the dirty bathwater and keep the baby.

You asserted that these universal laws exist and can only back that up with an argument by authority while ignoring questions you can't answer. You have now shifted to hiding behind the coat tails of the founders for an emotional plea.

That's not exactly intelligent, it would turn off anyone with a healthy mind.

I'm pretty happy with how this conversation has gone. You are free to see it anyway you want.

Wow, you've blessed me with permission to use my own mind? That's very generous of you. I'll just note you avoided the points and took the smug route, as usual.

Its pretty obvious that you are butt hurt. Get over it.

 

[Iceweasel]

Were do ANY laws come from? Were do human rights come from? When I see little old white ladies stomped into the dirt by black kids , people pandering to illegal aliens creating artificial sanctuary cities for profit above culture, I have to wonder, JUST HOW CYNICAL can you get?

I think you can be very cynical. You are no where close to reaching the limits of your cynicism. I on the other hand prefer to think rather than feel. Sure there is a time and place for feeling but problem solving isn't that place. Where do you human rights come from? Our Founding Fathers had a pretty good idea that they came from God for no other reason than we are His creatures and that for this reason they were inalienable.

What you seem to be having trouble with is the concept that people breaking universal laws must mean there are no universal laws. I don't even know where to begin to address this kind of crazy but we can start with the fact that we have secular laws and people still break them so just because laws exist and people still violate them that does not negate the law. In fact, it validates the law because we would not need laws if people did not do stupid ass shit. Do you follow me, sister?

Some idiots will throw the baby out with the dirty bathwater. Intelligent people just drain the dirty bathwater and keep the baby.

You asserted that these universal laws exist and can only back that up with an argument by authority while ignoring questions you can't answer. You have now shifted to hiding behind the coat tails of the founders for an emotional plea.

That's not exactly intelligent, it would turn off anyone with a healthy mind.

I'm pretty happy with how this conversation has gone. You are free to see it anyway you want.

Wow, you've blessed me with permission to use my own mind? That's very generous of you. I'll just note you avoided the points and took the smug route, as usual.

Its pretty obvious that you are butt hurt. Get over it.

You can't back up your claims with anything but lies and smears. Morality is beyond your reach.

 

[ding]

I think you can be very cynical. You are no where close to reaching the limits of your cynicism. I on the other hand prefer to think rather than feel. Sure there is a time and place for feeling but problem solving isn't that place. Where do you human rights come from? Our Founding Fathers had a pretty good idea that they came from God for no other reason than we are His creatures and that for this reason they were inalienable.

What you seem to be having trouble with is the concept that people breaking universal laws must mean there are no universal laws. I don't even know where to begin to address this kind of crazy but we can start with the fact that we have secular laws and people still break them so just because laws exist and people still violate them that does not negate the law. In fact, it validates the law because we would not need laws if people did not do stupid ass shit. Do you follow me, sister?

Some idiots will throw the baby out with the dirty bathwater. Intelligent people just drain the dirty bathwater and keep the baby.

You asserted that these universal laws exist and can only back that up with an argument by authority while ignoring questions you can't answer. You have now shifted to hiding behind the coat tails of the founders for an emotional plea.

That's not exactly intelligent, it would turn off anyone with a healthy mind.

I'm pretty happy with how this conversation has gone. You are free to see it anyway you want.

Wow, you've blessed me with permission to use my own mind? That's very generous of you. I'll just note you avoided the points and took the smug route, as usual.

Its pretty obvious that you are butt hurt. Get over it.

You can't back up your claims with anything but lies and smears. Morality is beyond your reach.

Keep telling yourself that all the way to your predictable surprises.

 

[Iceweasel]

The highest standard for the age of consent is that there is not one age but a right age for each young adult. This would apply for two young adults of the approximate same age. If that is not good enough for you, then use 18. There will never be a right age of consent for a full grown adult to take advantage of a young adult. But if that is not good enough for you then use 21.

Why not 25?

Why does age have to be approximately the same?

What is a "full grown" adult? (humans grow until they die)

All you have done here is list out your edicts based on your moral views. There is no evidence submitted to support any claim you've made here. These are simply arbitrary limits you've set up based on your own opinion and viewpoint. How are we to believe that you are the one person out of billions on the planet who somehow knows the true moral age of consent? What made your opinion on this so special?

Why not 30? That is the problem with trying to codify morals. There is nothing special about my opinion, boss. Are you seriously telling me that you don't know when you are doing wrong? Are you telling me that you need for society to tell you how to behave. If you are 35 and you are taking advantage of a 16 year old, which society says is ok, do you really believe that is ok?

Open your eyes to what I am trying to say and stop being so argumentative just for arguments sake. You aren't helping anyone by arguing against what is good and just.

You still didn't answer. When asked to support your wild claims you try to make the argument about any detractors. That's rather transparent.

The point is if there is this standard you claim exists then why can't you give us the specifics? The answer is obvious.

 

[Iceweasel]

You asserted that these universal laws exist and can only back that up with an argument by authority while ignoring questions you can't answer. You have now shifted to hiding behind the coat tails of the founders for an emotional plea.

That's not exactly intelligent, it would turn off anyone with a healthy mind.

I'm pretty happy with how this conversation has gone. You are free to see it anyway you want.

Wow, you've blessed me with permission to use my own mind? That's very generous of you. I'll just note you avoided the points and took the smug route, as usual.

Its pretty obvious that you are butt hurt. Get over it.

You can't back up your claims with anything but lies and smears. Morality is beyond your reach.

Keep telling yourself that all the way to your predictable surprises.

Is that a parable? You have nothing but tangential insults?

 

[ding]

I'm pretty happy with how this conversation has gone. You are free to see it anyway you want.

Wow, you've blessed me with permission to use my own mind? That's very generous of you. I'll just note you avoided the points and took the smug route, as usual.

Its pretty obvious that you are butt hurt. Get over it.

You can't back up your claims with anything but lies and smears. Morality is beyond your reach.

Keep telling yourself that all the way to your predictable surprises.

Is that a parable? You have nothing but tangential insults?

Tangential insults? No. It is based on the sound principle of normalization of deviance.

 

[ding]

Science tells us that the physical laws of nature existed before space and time existed.

Pfft! Science tells us no such thing!

You're not even listening to what you're saying here. How can the "laws" of something exist before the thing the laws apply to exists? It's illogical.

Now, you can certainly have an illogical opinion. But please don't try to claim that Science supports your illogical opinion. That's offensive to those who respect the integrity of Science.

The best explanation for how the universe began is the inflation model. In a closed universe the gravitational energy which is always negative exactly compensates the positive energy of matter. So the energy of a closed universe is always zero. So nothing prevents this universe from being spontaneously created. Because the net energy is always zero. The positive energy of matter is balanced by the negative energy of the gravity of that matter which is the space time curvature of that matter. There is no conservation law that prevents the formation of such a universe. In quantum mechanics if something is not forbidden by conservation laws, then it necessarily happens with some non-zero probability. So a closed universe can spontaneously appear - through the laws of quantum mechanics - out of nothing. And in fact there is an elegant mathematical description which describes this process and shows that a tiny closed universe having very high energy can spontaneously pop into existence and immediately start to expand and cool. In this description, the same laws that describe the evolution of the universe also describe the appearance of the universe which means that the laws were in place before the universe itself.

 

[ding]

The highest standard for the age of consent is that there is not one age but a right age for each young adult. This would apply for two young adults of the approximate same age. If that is not good enough for you, then use 18. There will never be a right age of consent for a full grown adult to take advantage of a young adult. But if that is not good enough for you then use 21.

Why not 25?

Why does age have to be approximately the same?

What is a "full grown" adult? (humans grow until they die)

All you have done here is list out your edicts based on your moral views. There is no evidence submitted to support any claim you've made here. These are simply arbitrary limits you've set up based on your own opinion and viewpoint. How are we to believe that you are the one person out of billions on the planet who somehow knows the true moral age of consent? What made your opinion on this so special?

Why not 30? That is the problem with trying to codify morals. There is nothing special about my opinion, boss. Are you seriously telling me that you don't know when you are doing wrong? Are you telling me that you need for society to tell you how to behave. If you are 35 and you are taking advantage of a 16 year old, which society says is ok, do you really believe that is ok?

Open your eyes to what I am trying to say and stop being so argumentative just for arguments sake. You aren't helping anyone by arguing against what is good and just.

You still didn't answer. When asked to support your wild claims you try to make the argument about any detractors. That's rather transparent.

The point is if there is this standard you claim exists then why can't you give us the specifics? The answer is obvious.

What didn't I answer?

Now it is your turn to answer. Do you believe that humility, thankfulness and forgiveness will lead to better outcomes than arrogance, thanklessness and vindictiveness?

 

[Boss]

The highest standard for the age of consent is that there is not one age but a right age for each young adult. This would apply for two young adults of the approximate same age. If that is not good enough for you, then use 18. There will never be a right age of consent for a full grown adult to take advantage of a young adult. But if that is not good enough for you then use 21.

Why not 25?

Why does age have to be approximately the same?

What is a "full grown" adult? (humans grow until they die)

All you have done here is list out your edicts based on your moral views. There is no evidence submitted to support any claim you've made here. These are simply arbitrary limits you've set up based on your own opinion and viewpoint. How are we to believe that you are the one person out of billions on the planet who somehow knows the true moral age of consent? What made your opinion on this so special?

Why not 30? That is the problem with trying to codify morals. There is nothing special about my opinion, boss. Are you seriously telling me that you don't know when you are doing wrong? Are you telling me that you need for society to tell you how to behave. If you are 35 and you are taking advantage of a 16 year old, which society says is ok, do you really believe that is ok?

Open your eyes to what I am trying to say and stop being so argumentative just for arguments sake. You aren't helping anyone by arguing against what is good and just.

I'm being argumentative because what you are trying to say is incorrect. There is no "universal moral truth" that existed before space and time. Morality is a construct of fallible man. It can be rooted in false myths, prejudices, religious teachings, societal status... all kinds of things.

Age of consent is a real good issue in which to explore your argument. If there was some "universal truth" we would know that naturally and that's how we would codify it. Fact of the matter is, people develop and mature differently depending on life experiences. Cultures change with time and societal norms and acceptances change. We go from periods where it's perfectly fine for children 12 years old to marry or even have sexual relations with adults to periods where that is taboo and prohibited. In some cultures, marriages are arranged at birth. There has never been any "universal truth" with regard to this, it's all over the board through the ages.

I get that YOU live in this certain day and age, in this specific slice of time, where you've adopted a viewpoint of what is right and wrong. But you can't be so arrogant as to believe your understanding is some kind of "universal natural law" that can't be questioned. You sound like an authoritarian moralist. I'm not comfortable with you deciding my morals. I'm much more comfortable with everyone coming together and collectively determining (having a voice in) the moral boundaries for the society we have to live in.

 

[ding]

The highest standard for the age of consent is that there is not one age but a right age for each young adult. This would apply for two young adults of the approximate same age. If that is not good enough for you, then use 18. There will never be a right age of consent for a full grown adult to take advantage of a young adult. But if that is not good enough for you then use 21.

Why not 25?

Why does age have to be approximately the same?

What is a "full grown" adult? (humans grow until they die)

All you have done here is list out your edicts based on your moral views. There is no evidence submitted to support any claim you've made here. These are simply arbitrary limits you've set up based on your own opinion and viewpoint. How are we to believe that you are the one person out of billions on the planet who somehow knows the true moral age of consent? What made your opinion on this so special?

Why not 30? That is the problem with trying to codify morals. There is nothing special about my opinion, boss. Are you seriously telling me that you don't know when you are doing wrong? Are you telling me that you need for society to tell you how to behave. If you are 35 and you are taking advantage of a 16 year old, which society says is ok, do you really believe that is ok?

Open your eyes to what I am trying to say and stop being so argumentative just for arguments sake. You aren't helping anyone by arguing against what is good and just.

I'm being argumentative because what you are trying to say is incorrect. There is no "universal moral truth" that existed before space and time. Morality is a construct of fallible man. It can be rooted in false myths, prejudices, religious teachings, societal status... all kinds of things.

Age of consent is a real good issue in which to explore your argument. If there was some "universal truth" we would know that naturally and that's how we would codify it. Fact of the matter is, people develop and mature differently depending on life experiences. Cultures change with time and societal norms and acceptances change. We go from periods where it's perfectly fine for children 12 years old to marry or even have sexual relations with adults to periods where that is taboo and prohibited. In some cultures, marriages are arranged at birth. There has never been any "universal truth" with regard to this, it's all over the board through the ages.

I get that YOU live in this certain day and age, in this specific slice of time, where you've adopted a viewpoint of what is right and wrong. But you can't be so arrogant as to believe your understanding is some kind of "universal natural law" that can't be questioned. You sound like an authoritarian moralist. I'm not comfortable with you deciding my morals. I'm much more comfortable with everyone coming together and collectively determining (having a voice in) the moral boundaries for the society we have to live in.

Do you believe that humility, thankfulness and forgiveness will lead to better outcomes than arrogance, thanklessness and vindictiveness?

 

[Iceweasel]

The highest standard for the age of consent is that there is not one age but a right age for each young adult. This would apply for two young adults of the approximate same age. If that is not good enough for you, then use 18. There will never be a right age of consent for a full grown adult to take advantage of a young adult. But if that is not good enough for you then use 21.

Why not 25?

Why does age have to be approximately the same?

What is a "full grown" adult? (humans grow until they die)

All you have done here is list out your edicts based on your moral views. There is no evidence submitted to support any claim you've made here. These are simply arbitrary limits you've set up based on your own opinion and viewpoint. How are we to believe that you are the one person out of billions on the planet who somehow knows the true moral age of consent? What made your opinion on this so special?

Why not 30? That is the problem with trying to codify morals. There is nothing special about my opinion, boss. Are you seriously telling me that you don't know when you are doing wrong? Are you telling me that you need for society to tell you how to behave. If you are 35 and you are taking advantage of a 16 year old, which society says is ok, do you really believe that is ok?

Open your eyes to what I am trying to say and stop being so argumentative just for arguments sake. You aren't helping anyone by arguing against what is good and just.

You still didn't answer. When asked to support your wild claims you try to make the argument about any detractors. That's rather transparent.

The point is if there is this standard you claim exists then why can't you give us the specifics? The answer is obvious.

What didn't I answer?

Now it is your turn to answer. Do you believe that humility, thankfulness and forgiveness will lead to better outcomes than arrogance, thanklessness and vindictiveness?

You answered with a deflection and think I'm stupid enough to let you jerk me around. You can't state how you came up with the age of consent at 18, after being asked numerous times. What is the moral standard and how did you tap into its' existence? Those are glaring omissions and would have cleared everything up in your first post.

 

[ding]

The highest standard for the age of consent is that there is not one age but a right age for each young adult. This would apply for two young adults of the approximate same age. If that is not good enough for you, then use 18. There will never be a right age of consent for a full grown adult to take advantage of a young adult. But if that is not good enough for you then use 21.

Why not 25?

Why does age have to be approximately the same?

What is a "full grown" adult? (humans grow until they die)

All you have done here is list out your edicts based on your moral views. There is no evidence submitted to support any claim you've made here. These are simply arbitrary limits you've set up based on your own opinion and viewpoint. How are we to believe that you are the one person out of billions on the planet who somehow knows the true moral age of consent? What made your opinion on this so special?

Why not 30? That is the problem with trying to codify morals. There is nothing special about my opinion, boss. Are you seriously telling me that you don't know when you are doing wrong? Are you telling me that you need for society to tell you how to behave. If you are 35 and you are taking advantage of a 16 year old, which society says is ok, do you really believe that is ok?

Open your eyes to what I am trying to say and stop being so argumentative just for arguments sake. You aren't helping anyone by arguing against what is good and just.

You still didn't answer. When asked to support your wild claims you try to make the argument about any detractors. That's rather transparent.

The point is if there is this standard you claim exists then why can't you give us the specifics? The answer is obvious.

What didn't I answer?

Now it is your turn to answer. Do you believe that humility, thankfulness and forgiveness will lead to better outcomes than arrogance, thanklessness and vindictiveness?

You answered with a deflection and think I'm stupid enough to let you jerk me around. You can't state how you came up with the age of consent at 18, after being asked numerous times. What is the moral standard and how did you tap into its' existence? Those are glaring omissions and would have cleared everything up in your first post.

I answered that already. Now it is your turn. Do you believe that humility, thankfulness and forgiveness will lead to better outcomes than arrogance, thanklessness and vindictiveness?

 

[Boss]

The best explanation for how the universe began....

Let me stop you here. You stated that "Science tells us..." and now you are saying "the best explanation is..." Do you see the difference?

Science doesn't KNOW. There are various theories. I personally think all of them are problematic without consideration of spiritual energy because things can't create themselves. Physical nature cannot have created physical nature.

 

[ding]

The best explanation for how the universe began....

Let me stop you here. You stated that "Science tells us..." and now you are saying "the best explanation is..." Do you see the difference?

Science doesn't KNOW. There are various theories. I personally think all of them are problematic without consideration of spiritual energy because things can't create themselves. Physical nature cannot have created physical nature.

Why would moral laws be any different than physical laws. They both govern the evolution of matter. The latter govern the evolution of consciousness the former govern the evolution of physical matter.

If you will answer my simple question of "Do you believe that humility, thankfulness and forgiveness will lead to better outcomes than arrogance, thanklessness and vindictiveness?" then I hopefully will be able to explain this even better.

 

[Iceweasel]

Why not 25?

Why does age have to be approximately the same?

What is a "full grown" adult? (humans grow until they die)

All you have done here is list out your edicts based on your moral views. There is no evidence submitted to support any claim you've made here. These are simply arbitrary limits you've set up based on your own opinion and viewpoint. How are we to believe that you are the one person out of billions on the planet who somehow knows the true moral age of consent? What made your opinion on this so special?

Why not 30? That is the problem with trying to codify morals. There is nothing special about my opinion, boss. Are you seriously telling me that you don't know when you are doing wrong? Are you telling me that you need for society to tell you how to behave. If you are 35 and you are taking advantage of a 16 year old, which society says is ok, do you really believe that is ok?

Open your eyes to what I am trying to say and stop being so argumentative just for arguments sake. You aren't helping anyone by arguing against what is good and just.

You still didn't answer. When asked to support your wild claims you try to make the argument about any detractors. That's rather transparent.

The point is if there is this standard you claim exists then why can't you give us the specifics? The answer is obvious.

What didn't I answer?

Now it is your turn to answer. Do you believe that humility, thankfulness and forgiveness will lead to better outcomes than arrogance, thanklessness and vindictiveness?

You answered with a deflection and think I'm stupid enough to let you jerk me around. You can't state how you came up with the age of consent at 18, after being asked numerous times. What is the moral standard and how did you tap into its' existence? Those are glaring omissions and would have cleared everything up in your first post.

I answered that already. Now it is your turn. Do you believe that humility, thankfulness and forgiveness will lead to better outcomes than arrogance, thanklessness and vindictiveness?

You can't state how you came up with the age of consent at 18, after being asked numerous times. What is the moral standard and how did you tap into its' existence? Those are glaring omissions and would have cleared everything up in your first post.

 

[Iceweasel]

The best explanation for how the universe began....

Let me stop you here. You stated that "Science tells us..." and now you are saying "the best explanation is..." Do you see the difference?

Science doesn't KNOW. There are various theories. I personally think all of them are problematic without consideration of spiritual energy because things can't create themselves. Physical nature cannot have created physical nature.

Why would moral laws be any different than physical laws. They both govern the evolution of matter. The latter govern the evolution of consciousness the former govern the evolution of physical matter.

If you will answer my simple question of "Do you believe that humility, thankfulness and forgiveness will lead to better outcomes than arrogance, thanklessness and vindictiveness?" then I hopefully will be able to explain this even better.

LOL

 

[ding]

Why not 30? That is the problem with trying to codify morals. There is nothing special about my opinion, boss. Are you seriously telling me that you don't know when you are doing wrong? Are you telling me that you need for society to tell you how to behave. If you are 35 and you are taking advantage of a 16 year old, which society says is ok, do you really believe that is ok?

Open your eyes to what I am trying to say and stop being so argumentative just for arguments sake. You aren't helping anyone by arguing against what is good and just.

You still didn't answer. When asked to support your wild claims you try to make the argument about any detractors. That's rather transparent.

The point is if there is this standard you claim exists then why can't you give us the specifics? The answer is obvious.

What didn't I answer?

Now it is your turn to answer. Do you believe that humility, thankfulness and forgiveness will lead to better outcomes than arrogance, thanklessness and vindictiveness?

You answered with a deflection and think I'm stupid enough to let you jerk me around. You can't state how you came up with the age of consent at 18, after being asked numerous times. What is the moral standard and how did you tap into its' existence? Those are glaring omissions and would have cleared everything up in your first post.

I answered that already. Now it is your turn. Do you believe that humility, thankfulness and forgiveness will lead to better outcomes than arrogance, thanklessness and vindictiveness?

You can't state how you came up with the age of consent at 18, after being asked numerous times. What is the moral standard and how did you tap into its' existence? Those are glaring omissions and would have cleared everything up in your first post.

I explained it very well. 18 was a concession to your legal positivism worldview. My standard was higher.

I see you are dodging my question. We both know why you are doing it too. You know it proves my point that there are universal moral standards.

Do you believe that humility, thankfulness and forgiveness will lead to better outcomes than arrogance, thanklessness and vindictiveness?

 

[ding]

The best explanation for how the universe began....

Let me stop you here. You stated that "Science tells us..." and now you are saying "the best explanation is..." Do you see the difference?

Science doesn't KNOW. There are various theories. I personally think all of them are problematic without consideration of spiritual energy because things can't create themselves. Physical nature cannot have created physical nature.

Why would moral laws be any different than physical laws. They both govern the evolution of matter. The latter govern the evolution of consciousness the former govern the evolution of physical matter.

If you will answer my simple question of "Do you believe that humility, thankfulness and forgiveness will lead to better outcomes than arrogance, thanklessness and vindictiveness?" then I hopefully will be able to explain this even better.

LOL

Do you believe that humility, thankfulness and forgiveness will lead to better outcomes than arrogance, thanklessness and vindictiveness?

 

[Iceweasel]

You still didn't answer. When asked to support your wild claims you try to make the argument about any detractors. That's rather transparent.

The point is if there is this standard you claim exists then why can't you give us the specifics? The answer is obvious.

What didn't I answer?

Now it is your turn to answer. Do you believe that humility, thankfulness and forgiveness will lead to better outcomes than arrogance, thanklessness and vindictiveness?

You answered with a deflection and think I'm stupid enough to let you jerk me around. You can't state how you came up with the age of consent at 18, after being asked numerous times. What is the moral standard and how did you tap into its' existence? Those are glaring omissions and would have cleared everything up in your first post.

I answered that already. Now it is your turn. Do you believe that humility, thankfulness and forgiveness will lead to better outcomes than arrogance, thanklessness and vindictiveness?

You can't state how you came up with the age of consent at 18, after being asked numerous times. What is the moral standard and how did you tap into its' existence? Those are glaring omissions and would have cleared everything up in your first post.

I explained it very well. 18 was a concession to your legal positivism worldview. My standard was higher.

I see you are dodging my question. We both know why you are doing it too. You know it proves my point that there are universal moral standards.

Do you believe that humility, thankfulness and forgiveness will lead to better outcomes than arrogance, thanklessness and vindictiveness?

You never said where your standard came from. And as I have repeatedly pointed out that a glaring omission when you claim to have the standard.

I also explained that I am not letting you jerk me around. You threw a theory out that you can't back up, that isn't my problem.

 

[ding]

What didn't I answer?

Now it is your turn to answer. Do you believe that humility, thankfulness and forgiveness will lead to better outcomes than arrogance, thanklessness and vindictiveness?

You answered with a deflection and think I'm stupid enough to let you jerk me around. You can't state how you came up with the age of consent at 18, after being asked numerous times. What is the moral standard and how did you tap into its' existence? Those are glaring omissions and would have cleared everything up in your first post.

I answered that already. Now it is your turn. Do you believe that humility, thankfulness and forgiveness will lead to better outcomes than arrogance, thanklessness and vindictiveness?

You can't state how you came up with the age of consent at 18, after being asked numerous times. What is the moral standard and how did you tap into its' existence? Those are glaring omissions and would have cleared everything up in your first post.

I explained it very well. 18 was a concession to your legal positivism worldview. My standard was higher.

I see you are dodging my question. We both know why you are doing it too. You know it proves my point that there are universal moral standards.

Do you believe that humility, thankfulness and forgiveness will lead to better outcomes than arrogance, thanklessness and vindictiveness?

You never said where your standard came from. And as I have repeatedly pointed out that a glaring omission when you claim to have the standard.

I also explained that I am not letting you jerk me around. You threw a theory out that you can't back up, that isn't my problem.

Do you believe that humility, thankfulness and forgiveness will lead to better outcomes than arrogance, thanklessness and vindictiveness?