padib said:
pearljammer said:
No. Not absolutely speaking. Judgments made on my part are not absolute. They're my thoughts. I shouldn't have to state "I think" in front of everything I say. It should be implied.
I say it's the best we have as it's been developed through rationality and reason- developed by communities of people, tried, tested, failed, redone, refined and so on. One that doesn't actively persecute anyone by any affiliation. Of course, it's never perfect in practice - but its ideals are to never persecute anyone based on race, sexual orientation, religious affiliation, etc. It changes as we as a species evolve in thought, understanding and as a society.
I couldn't care less about the side-stepping or rhetoric part of the discussion. Or even the semantics for that matter (as that is side-stepping). I'd much prefer simple discourse on the merits of either side.
|
Hahaha. Oh you guys are funny.
|
You are being deliberately obtuse now. If you could name one commonly held secular tenant that actively persecutes, by all means share it and we can discuss. But to cherrypick one sentence like a cheap political slander commercial - you're not here for discourse at all. It's sad , because I've always thought of you otherwise.
I'll reiterate something I mentioned earlier:
"Absolutism, however, states that we know what is best and anything to state otherwise is wrong out of hand"
You're illustrating this now. Laughing and mocking as opposed to discourse.
