Thanks for defending me without me having to type any vagabond!
Essentially, we are saying you can't win the argument on a linguistical loophole, appolose. If you think that is a sound basis for saying that imposing one objective morality (which does not allow outsiders to influence that morality) is better than another objective morality (which allows everyone to influence what that morality is), then I am a little worried about you. Imposing something on people has everything to do with whether or not they can have a voice in what is being imposed on them is. That is what a system of government is, government by the people for the people.
Frankly, you aren't convincing anyone but yourself with your argument anymore. That's not an effective argument. Sure you can say that it is logically correct, but arguing to support a moral ethos is an inherently illogical practice to begin with, because morality is not logical. Trying to win an argument that has from the outset stepped outside the bounds of logic per se by imposing logical rules is a self-defeating practice, and will just as equally defeat your argument. You can't say, "Both are arguments are defeated, so I win."
I am suggesting a social system which allows everyone to influence the dominant objective morality and to change it as they see fit. What you are advocating is social system in which a large percentage of the population cannot influence that objective morality because they are outsiders. This has nothing to do with morality, it has to do with this country's social ethos. The decision is based on an ideology which this country has adhered to since it was founded, democracy.
We had two bags of grass, seventy-five pellets of mescaline, five sheets of high-powered blotter acid, a salt shaker half full of cocaine, a whole galaxy of multi-colored uppers, downers, screamers, laughers…Also a quart of tequila, a quart of rum, a case of beer, a pint of raw ether and two dozen amyls. The only thing that really worried me was the ether. There is nothing in the world more helpless and irresponsible and depraved than a man in the depths of an ether binge. –Raoul Duke
It is hard to shed anything but crocodile tears over White House speechwriter Patrick Buchanan's tragic analysis of the Nixon debacle. "It's like Sisyphus," he said. "We rolled the rock all the way up the mountain...and it rolled right back down on us...." Neither Sisyphus nor the commander of the Light Brigade nor Pat Buchanan had the time or any real inclination to question what they were doing...a martyr, to the bitter end, to a "flawed" cause and a narrow, atavistic concept of conservative politics that has done more damage to itself and the country in less than six years than its liberal enemies could have done in two or three decades. -Hunter S. Thompson
