Sir Silentium
To give up is to be free
★★★★★
- Joined
- Jan 8, 2025
- Posts
- 12,584
- Online time
- 9d 20h
Yes, there is - God's word is objective - so the laws he made in the Bible would also be objective.There is no objective moral law
Yes, there is - God's word is objective - so the laws he made in the Bible would also be objective.There is no objective moral law
Yes, there is - God's word is objective - so the laws he made in the Bible would also be objective.
A very late response because I've been absent from here for about a week but I feel this is a relevant quote:I've noticed that women especially greatly overestimate what they do for other people and then expect 10 times as much as they "gave" you.
One time I met this woman who I admitted I had social phobia to. She comforted me a bit saying that she used to be the same and had to work past it. Later on I see a passive aggressive post on social media saying how she was tired of doing x, y and z for other people all the time. Could have been in reference to someone else IDK but the timing was close together. The minute you admit weakness to any woman and they fake "comfort" you they become bitter towards you forever.
At least some of them are honest. They are all just selfish parasitesA very late response because I've been absent from here for about a week but I feel this is a relevant quote:
"Women crave for being loved, not for loving. They scream out at you for sympathy all day long, they are incapable of giving any in return, for they cannot remember your affairs long enough to do so... They cannot state a fact accurately to another, nor can that other attend to it accurately enough for it to become information. Now is not all this the result of want of sympathy?... I am sick with indignation at what wives and mothers will do of the most egregious selfishness. And people call it all maternal or conjugal affection, and think it pretty to say so. No, no, let each person tell the truth from their own experience."
From Florance Nightingale, herself a foid in the 1800s.
isnt richard dawkins a moral relativist? kinda redundant to sight him for a moral basis also he really isnt a philosopher all things consideredRichard Dawkins
I agree with you.isnt richard dawkins a moral relativist? kinda redundant to sight him for a moral basis also he really isnt a philosopher all things considered
Is that objective?The ethics of reproduction are far more firmly rooted than religious ethics.
No, because modern humans are not robots.Is that objective?





