Jack Thompson Submits Gay Porn to District Court Judge, Judge is Outraged.

[PlagueOfLocust]

You missed the point quite effectively. Substitute "what we can see" with "what we can physically sense" (hear, taste, smell, touch, and see, including what any instrumentation allows any of these senses to decipher) and the argument stands the same. Don't nit-pick the sub-points; it's a poor substitution for delivering a strong argument regarding the core issue.

Empathy: 1. Direct identification with, understanding of, and vicarious experience of another person's situation, feelings, and motives. 2. The projection of one's own feelings or emotional state onto an object or animal.
I've addressed the first. As for the second, we're talking about a very different definition. We're *projecting OUR feelings* onto the object or animal. We don't exactly know how they feel, because we aren't one of them, so we assume they feel like us and go from there. And since we're assuming in that sense that they're one of us, the empathy we feel is derived purely from that which we feel for fellow humans. Not that this really effects my argument...

Acquired beliefs can over-write innate senses on an individual basis; why are you not allowing for this? I'm obviously not arguing that everyone feels the same way about everything; obviously someone can come to believe that something is right that is in fact wrong; I'm saying that there must exist an external moral code for right or wrong to exist in any real form. We can be taught or otherwise decide that it's right to kill; that doesn't make it right to kill. But your philosophy suggests that nothing is wrong, because morals, for you, are only significant on an individual level, and hence if a person believes that murder is right, well then it is for that person. Then what is justice? What you have there is actually a philosophy of no morals at all; you need an over-arching moral code to make sense of any issue concerning morals. We certainly each have our own personal code which may vary from that high-code, but that's only practical for dictating our own actions and not for judging them.

"If a religion can thrive where death is celebrated and human sacrifice is the ultimate gift, then empathy for other humans and a concern for their well-being is NOT an innate quality." You see the logical error here? First off, all religions don't hold the same beliefs. Religion A cannot be substituted for Religion B. Religion B can conceivably be right about something where Religion A is wrong, just as with people. Second, as I've already suggested, how does the existence of people that have abandoned/over-written their inherent sense of right and wrong prove that it was not inherent? The problem here is not necessarily that you're wrong about empathy not being inherent (though I'm suggesting you are), but rather that the argument doesn't reasonably show how you're right. And either way, I'm only suggesting that empathy points to an inherent sense of right and wrong; but my argument doesn't *hinge* on it (the argument that there must be an external moral code).

"Applying the same logic to our original argument, if homosexuality were innately "wrong" then every single culture, religion, and government would agree on it's detrimental quality and would universally condemn it." This carries that same logical error I addressed at least twice above. I quoted it to make sure it was clear to you that the application of that point works here as well.

"That mindset is what DROVE the inquisition. 'There is good and bad, and they are always distinguishable, and anyone bad is TOTALLY bad and needs to be put to death for the betterment of out Christian society! Because everything but Christianity is wrong and bad!'" Now this made me smile, I gotta say. I'm with you at first and then "anyone bad is TOTALLY bad" (Bible teaches forgiveness) "and needs to be put to death" (how is this directly derived from the argument that good and bad are always distinguishable, exactly?) "for the betterment of our Christian society" (yes, because the Bible teaches us to kill sinners, not to tell them about their access to salvation, right...) Perhaps that horrific logic you gave IS what drove the inquisition, but that logical progression is miles from what the Bible teaches. Don't believe what other people have told you about Christianity. Read the Bible (New Testament particularly) if you're actually interested in forming a legitimate opinion of Christianity. You owe it to yourself.