charlie sc
Well-Known Member
Show me where you provided a reference except from the link to the DSM. I use the term citation and reference interchangeably in a colloquial setting, because I'm not writing a report nor am I reading one. However, they both refer to some source material.
There is no such term. Cite it somewhere. Your assertions are pathetic, as you are.
Just linking a document tells me nothing. Tell me where in the document it's parallel with what you're saying, since you're the one that brought it up, or did you forget?
Jesus Christ. Show me that definition. Cite it. Assertions are a waste of time.
Moral relativism isn't on a whim nor does it make anything an automatic moral code. Study the topic. This is the last time I'll say it.
If you've read my reply to We Never Know then you'd know I am not claiming moral relativism is "the only valid form of developing moral codes". It seems you're projecting whatever it is onto me. I try not to ridicule you but you make it too easy. You have no idea what you're talking about.
I don't speak gobbledegook, sorry.
I never said it did. This is why I'm willing to discuss various definitions for morality. There may be criteria for something to be moral even in the relativistic sense. However, if you reject even the thought of relativistic morality then I will not go down this route. I will not pander to the arrogant ignorant.
At least here you said something sensible. This is all that needs to be said. I however will not reject any other form of morality absolutely. I am not that arrogant.
As much fun as this is, it's run it's course. From now on I'll only reply to you if you can actually source what you're saying and actually say something about it, rather than give a link with no context. As much fun as opinionated arguments go, they have their limits in excess. This type of toddler-Facebook discussion is not my thing. However, you may continue in this mindless act.
Last edited:
