[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
So where exactly did I refute
my beliefs?
[/ QUOTE ]
You didn't, which is why people will still be stepping on FIDO's tail for pleasure.
[/ QUOTE ]
Uh, what... Misread?
[/ QUOTE ]
No misread. His liberal principles won't allow him to forcibly stop people from stepping on dog's tails, even though he personally believes it to be wrong. It's consistent.
[/ QUOTE ]
[/ QUOTE ]
So you will impose your morals on others?
[/ QUOTE ]
Do you even know what my morals are or do you care? Hypothetically, if my moral beliefs are to prevent my neighbor from raping a 6 year-old boy, then it is entirely consistent to intervene. You are trying to play "gotcha" without knowing what the hell you are even arguing against.
[/ QUOTE ]
I'm arguing against the fact that you say my moral values are subjective and others can disagree eg.<font color="blue">"But just because you do hold this belief does not imply that everyone else must also, or that somehow these values of yours are objectively "right" and others are "wrong""</font> Yet YOUR morals are not subjective since you will forcibly impose them on others when you deem it necessary, as shown above. Why are your values objective, since you will force others to conform to them, and mine merely subjective?
[/ QUOTE ]
Your logic here is completely wrong and your error has been repeatedly addressed. You refuse to comprehend what you've been told in your little game of gotcha -- which you are losing miserably.
[/ QUOTE ]
That doesn't address anything. What is the logical error? Either you are imposing your subjective morals, which cannot be any more right or wrong than someone else's subjective morals, or you think there are objective morals. And if there are objective morals, what is the moral foundation of not causing an animal pain? Necessity was mentioned, but necessity by nature is subjective, so it must be something else.