Alabama Proposes New Law That Makes Abortion Punishable By Up To 99 Years In Prison

did not know the fate of a thing rested upon me!



I thought your supporting evidence rested upon me!? relieved that it does not. so a thing is disputed, therefore it can not be definitive or objective. and yet a thing can be objective despite it being disputed about. do you agree that is a thing is subjective and therefore different for each person/society/etc. that such a thing would have to be defined prior to cross-cultural communication?


they may disagree, but the fact they disagree does not make a thing subjective or incorrect. please provide supporting evidence or links?


so everyone has a different perspective in life, therefore anything generated by human is subjective - yes or no?

It's really very elegantly simple: anything that is not only generated by a subject but relies solely on the subject is subjective. Morality is generated by humans and relies solely on human interaction. You continuously claim that there is an objectivity to it yet have not even attempted to demonstrate in any way let alone prove this claim. Instead, in classic religious apologist fashion, you shirk this responsibility and ask others to disprove it.

Similarly, language is also subjective.

1. what is "a subject?"

2 how is one to know that a thing relies solely on "a subject?"

3 how may we come to conclusion that morality is generated by humans?

4 why does morality rely only or soley on human interaction? is this between 2 or more humans only?

5. I continuously claim there is an objectivity to "it"
refresh my memory please, what is "it?"
if there is miscommunication, I am sorry. my attempts in my earlier posts have only been to identify that a thing is not subjective because we look at it differently. my example for language was everyday conversations and debates. we do not go to each person to find out how they define each word they speak. instead there is (silent) agreement that words used have a specific definition for everyone to use, remember, and understand. if you point to a dog and say, "that person" to an adult human (for clarification), then that adult human is tilting their head sideways just ever so politely in confusion.

this is why I say, "such a thing (words you use) would have to be defined prior to cross-cultural communication?" a question to you to see what your opinion would be. but no response.

6. I have sharked away. I'm not even an apologist - nor are we speaking about the ocean! I am asking you to provide more information about your opinion. that's called being inquisitive. if you want something from me, ask.

A person is a subject. "It" here is morality. It relies solely on the interaction between subjects. In terms of human morals, there is absolutely no reason or evidence to suggest that it is generated anywhere else. If you are claiming otherwise then, again, at least provide an explanation (don't worry, I won't ask you for evidence if this contributing to your reluctance).