Atheism And Moral Progress

[carpedm9587]

Sheesh Carp, I just gave you a link where the author from the Royal Institute of Philosophy disagrees with you and me, and you can find the full paper on line.

I read most of the article, Seer, and I was not all that impressed. And are you seriously going to argue that the basic laws of logic are not absolute and universal? You know where that leaves you, right...?

Where is your evidence that the laws of logic are universal and absolute?

The evidence is all around us in our experience each day. What we cannot do is logically prove it, for what should be obvious reasons. Any attempt to do so will entail a circular argument - necessitating the use of the principles to prove the principles. We've had this discussion before.

And the fact that you can not imagine them being otherwise is not evidence.

Actually, it is "evidence." What it is not is "proof."

I didn't say they weren't absolute (depending on their definition). I said they were subjective to god.

I'm pretty sure it was me that said that...

And again Carp, when you are backed into a corner you revert to two things: one, well you can't prove God, so... and two, you go into why you are not a christian rant.

Backed into a corner?

Seer, you have not backed me into a corner in a single one of our discussions. You barely ever have an actual argument. The "you cannot prove god exists" is simply anecdotal: you are making claims about a hypothetical being you cannot show exists - rendering the entire discussion hypothetical and unlinked to reality. I have noted I am not a christian anymore (but once was) several times (just as you have noted you were once non-Christian and now are), and those comments on my part have never been intended to be part of any argument I have made. Again - they are anecdotal observations - nothing more.

The point remains, the moral law of God is just as binding on you as are His logical laws.

Claimed - and not shown.

There is no distinction.

The distinction has been outlined multiple times. That you ignore it doesn't make it go away.

And you are correct God can not do the logically impossible because by nature He is rational, being the source of logic He can not violate His nature.

Again - this idea that god is the source of the laws of "reason" and "mathematics" is an assertion on your part - not one that you have shown to be true.

You can ignore His moral law and there will be consequences, you can ignore his logical laws and similarly face consequences.

Of course if this god exists, and I ignore his moral laws, there will be consequences. But then again, if I ignore the moral laws of the society in which I live, there are consequences as well. Any time we have a moral framework that is at odds with that of a more powerful being/group/individual, the possibility of consequences emerges. As noted, many times, if we disagree on moral precepts, we ignore, isolate/separate, and/or contend. If we get to the latter - the contention will be won by the more powerful (economically, physical strength, politically, etc.) individual/group. Those consequences do not alter my moral stance. The stronger group can toss me into jail because I believe LGBTQ relaionships are morally neutral - and it will not change my moral stance. It just means they are strong enough to enforce/punish according to theirs. The same would be true of a god.

The ability to impose consequences do not make a moral position "binding" or make the moralizer "the authority." It simply means they have more power.

As for the laws of logic/mathematics - my ignoring them does not change the fact that they describe how reality works (as opposed to what some being thinks is the right/wrong way to act). I am not capable of altering how reality works. Neither (apparently) is your god. You want that to be because laws of logic/mathematics source themselves to god, but that is an assertion without a basis - and one not widely held by your Christian peers. I frankly do not take it that seriously. You can continue to repeat it over and over again - but that doesn't make it true. It just makes it what you think.

[carpedm9587]

Carp how may times have you chided me for trivializing your moral opinion by comparing it to a food or or color preference?

Several times - when you try to make that an "argument" instead of a rather silly debate tactic.

Yet here you are trivializing what Jim thinks is morally best for society by comparing it to a "best song."

The difference is simple, Seer. When you do this, your argument is "your moral stance is no more/less important than choosing a pizza," because both of these are "preferences." I have many times acknowledged that morality is about preference. But just as a kiss can be "trivial" (the peck on the cheek you give your aunt) or "significant" (the passionate kiss of two lovers reunited after a long absence), preferences can also range from the "trivial" (picking out a pizza topping) to "significant." You argument is to ignore the difference.

My argument to Jim is not that his moral framework reduces to "no more important than picking a song." My argument is that he is using the word "best" and ignoring that it necessitates a subjectively selected metric to make the assessment. When you say "best song," you have to provide that metric. How is "best" being measured? Most tuneful? Loudest? If you say "best melody" then you now need to say how you go about assessing "best" in the context of "melody."

Jim is trying to claim there is an objective measurement for "best," and I am trying to show him there is no context in which such a measurement exists.

So I going forward we can take your moral beliefs as meaningless.

You can take my moral positions any way you wish, Seer. That's basically how it works. If I cannot convince you that a moral claim I am making has merit, then we will end up ignoring the differences, isolating/separating, or contending. The same will be true if you cannot convince me that your moral claim has merit and is worth considering. So it has always been...

[seer]

I read most of the article, Seer, and I was not all that impressed. And are you seriously going to argue that the basic laws of logic are not absolute and universal? You know where that leaves you, right...?

No Carp, we agree that they are absolute and universal.

The evidence is all around us in our experience each day. What we cannot do is logically prove it, for what should be obvious reasons. Any attempt to do so will entail a circular argument - necessitating the use of the principles to prove the principles. We've had this discussion before.


Actually, it is "evidence." What it is not is "proof."

You can not use limited experience to make universal claims, that is not evidence. That is inductive reasoning and a fallacy. It is a belief on your part.

Backed into a corner?

Seer, you have not backed me into a corner in a single one of our discussions. You barely ever have an actual argument. The "you cannot prove god exists" is simply anecdotal: you are making claims about a hypothetical being you cannot show exists - rendering the entire discussion hypothetical and unlinked to reality. I have noted I am not a christian anymore (but once was) several times (just as you have noted you were once non-Christian and now are), and those comments on my part have never been intended to be part of any argument I have made. Again - they are anecdotal observations - nothing more.

See you did it again, you can not prove God so... And of course this is hypothetical, we are on a philosophy board, not the science board.

The distinction has been outlined multiple times. That you ignore it doesn't make it go away.

The distinction only exists in your mind.

Of course if this god exists, and I ignore his moral laws, there will be consequences. But then again, if I ignore the moral laws of the society in which I live, there are consequences as well. Any time we have a moral framework that is at odds with that of a more powerful being/group/individual, the possibility of consequences emerges. As noted, many times, if we disagree on moral precepts, we ignore, isolate/separate, and/or contend. If we get to the latter - the contention will be won by the more powerful (economically, physical strength, politically, etc.) individual/group. Those consequences do not alter my moral stance. The stronger group can toss me into jail because I believe LGBTQ relaionships are morally neutral - and it will not change my moral stance. It just means they are strong enough to enforce/punish according to theirs. The same would be true of a god.

The ability to impose consequences do not make a moral position "binding" or make the moralizer "the authority." It simply means they have more power.

As for the laws of logic/mathematics - my ignoring them does not change the fact that they describe how reality works (as opposed to what some being thinks is the right/wrong way to act). I am not capable of altering how reality works. Neither (apparently) is your god. You want that to be because laws of logic/mathematics source themselves to god, but that is an assertion without a basis - and one not widely held by your Christian peers. I frankly do not take it that seriously. You can continue to repeat it over and over again - but that doesn't make it true. It just makes it what you think.

BUT YOU DON'T KNOW that that is how all of reality, you know that in your personal experience they seem to hold but that is not evidence that they are actually absolute or universal. You can continue to repeat it over and over again - but that doesn't make it true. It just makes it what you think!

Look:

1. The laws of logic apply to all men, whether the man believes in them or not, or believes they are absolute or not.

2. The law of God applies to all men whether whether the man believes in them or not, or believes they are absolute or not.

In other words the man's personal beliefs does not depend on the application.

[carpedm9587]

No Carp, we agree that they are absolute and universal.

Well - THAT's a relief...

You can not use limited experience to make universal claims, that is not evidence. That is inductive reasoning and a fallacy. It is a belief on your part.

Seer, I repeat. It is not "proof." It IS evidence. I trust you understand the distinction?

See you did it again, you can not prove God so... And of course this is hypothetical, we are on a philosophy board, not the science board.

Even science is a form of philosophy.

What can I say, Seer? You are making claims about a being to which you can attribute essentially any attribute you wish, because you are apparently under no compulsion to show it even exists. It makes discussion a tad odd, and a little hard to take seriously. I can sit here making arguments all day about the nature of the unicorn, it's pure innocence, the power of its horn, etc. It doesn't mean unicorns exist. I am engaging in pure mythology. What you do not seem to understand is that, to many of us, your discussions about the Christian god are the same thing: exercises in pure mythology.

The distinction only exists in your mind.

As you wish. Unfortunately (for you), ignoring it doesn't make it go away.

BUT YOU DON'T KNOW that that is how all of reality, you know that in your personal experience they seem to hold but that is not evidence that they are actually absolute or universal. You can continue to repeat it over and over again - but that doesn't make it true. It just makes it what you think!

See above.

Look:

1. The laws of logic apply to all men, whether the man believes in them or not, or believes they are absolute or not.

Correct.

2. The law of God applies to all men whether whether the man believes in them or not, or believes they are absolute or not.

Assuming you mean the "moral law of god," incorrect. If god exists, the moral law of god is god's moral framework - not mine. Your hypothetical god can punish me (or reward me) for disagreeing with and not following (or agreeing with and following) this god's moral code, but the code has no binding authority on me. Once I became sentient, I gained the ability to determine my own moral framework. That's a natural consequence of sentience: the ability to sort actions (and other things). ANY individual/group with more power than another can impose sanctions/rewards. That does not make their moral framework "binding."

If American society says "LGBTQ people engaged in sexual acts are acting immorally/illegally and will be punished," I will disagree. I will do everything in my power to shelter, protect, support such people, even if it means American society might imprison me or otherwise "punish me." American society's ability to punish me does not grant them authority over my moral reasoning.

If god says "LGBTQ people engaged in sexual acts are acting immorally/illegally and will be punished," I will disagree. I will do everything in my power to shelter, protect, support such people, even if it means god might imprison me or otherwise "punish me." God's ability to punish me does not grant it authority over my moral reasoning.

See the parallel? If you agree with the first, I don't see your grounds for disagreeing with the second. If you disagree with the second, then you have to disagree with the first to maintain consistency - and you are arguing that "might makes right."

Might doesn't make right - it only makes enforcement.

In other words the man's personal beliefs does not depend on the application.

If you were comparing two like things, I would agree with you. You're not. Logic/mathematics are absolute, objective principles. Morality could be argued to be absolute in the sole instance of this god (which you cannot show exists - so you cannot show there is ANY absolute moral framework. What you cannot do is show it to be objective. Morality is subjective to the moralizer. There are no "objective" moral norms outside of the fact that your moral framework is objective to me and vice versa.

[Tassman]

This is an argument for how humanity developed the ability to moralize:

More to the point it is an argument for why we moralize.

it is simply an outgrowth of sentience. If it has survival value, it will help survival. If it doesn't, it won't. The ability is far too "young" (in evolutionary terms) for us to know whether or not the ability to moralize has survival value. Indeed, we don't even known if sentience has long-term survival value. It may be that sentient beings become to narrowly focused on short-term gain and ultimately end up destroying themselves.

Correct, albeit a banal truism. What other reason can you give for establishing rules of behavior if not the survival of the species?

So I cannot see how you can argue "moralizing has survival value."

You also have not made the leap from "the ability to moralize" to "holding moral position X."

depends on conforming to the cultural expectations and social mores of the day. These change over the millennia; they are not set in stone.

[seer]

Seer, I repeat. It is not "proof." It IS evidence. I trust you understand the distinction?

No Carp, the logical problem here is using your personal experience to make a universal, absolute statement. That is the fallacy of induction. Or arguing from the particular to the universal.

Assuming you mean the "moral law of god," incorrect. If god exists, the moral law of god is god's moral framework - not mine. Your hypothetical god can punish me (or reward me) for disagreeing with and not following (or agreeing with and following) this god's moral code, but the code has no binding authority on me. Once I became sentient, I gained the ability to determine my own moral framework. That's a natural consequence of sentience: the ability to sort actions (and other things). ANY individual/group with more power than another can impose sanctions/rewards. That does not make their moral framework "binding."

If American society says "LGBTQ people engaged in sexual acts are acting immorally/illegally and will be punished," I will disagree. I will do everything in my power to shelter, protect, support such people, even if it means American society might imprison me or otherwise "punish me." American society's ability to punish me does not grant them authority over my moral reasoning.

If god says "LGBTQ people engaged in sexual acts are acting immorally/illegally and will be punished," I will disagree. I will do everything in my power to shelter, protect, support such people, even if it means god might imprison me or otherwise "punish me." God's ability to punish me does not grant it authority over my moral reasoning.

See the parallel? If you agree with the first, I don't see your grounds for disagreeing with the second. If you disagree with the second, then you have to disagree with the first to maintain consistency - and you are arguing that "might makes right."

Might doesn't make right - it only makes enforcement.

This is interesting - what does make right then? Which too is interesting since in your world there is no objective good so might making right is just as legitimate as anything else. And you are virtue signaling again.

If you were comparing two like things, I would agree with you. You're not. Logic/mathematics are absolute, objective principles. Morality could be argued to be absolute in the sole instance of this god (which you cannot show exists - so you cannot show there is ANY absolute moral framework. What you cannot do is show it to be objective. Morality is subjective to the moralizer. There are no "objective" moral norms outside of the fact that your moral framework is objective to me and vice versa.

And Carp you can not show that logical absolutes exist or are universal. You are just begging the question. So we are back to my point, the laws of logic apply to you whether you believe in them or not, the moral law of God applies to you whether you believe in them or not. Your reasoning about the laws of logic or God's moral law makes no difference, they both will be applied to you apart from your consent or will.

[carpedm9587]

More to the point it is an argument for why we moralize.

I think "why" we moralize can be answered more easily: moralizing is a form of categorization, which is naturally what a sentient mind does. It is an inevitable outgrowth of sentience.

Correct, albeit a banal truism. What other reason can you give for establishing rules of behavior if not the survival of the species?

See above: I think moralizing is a natural aspect of sentience. Once a mind becomes "self aware" it also becomes aware of the actions and will begin to categorize "actions I ought do" and "actions I ought not do." Moralizing is simply part of that dynamic.

To classify and differentiate actions from one another. Some may have to do with survival. Some will not.

depends on conforming to the cultural expectations and social mores of the day. These change over the millennia; they are not set in stone.

I did not say they did. I said your argument suggests that the ability to moralize is an evolutionary development. I agree, but see it as a side-effect of sentience. What your argument DOESN'T do is explain how holding any particular moral position is driven by evolution. So you have explained "why I am able to moralize" not "why I hold this particular moral position." And I reject that it is about conforming to social conventions of the day. Why the social norms of a society can strongly influence an individual's moral framework, the individual trumps the society. If I find a "social norm" immoral, I will continue to find it immoral even if it continues to be the social norm. Indeed, I have often suggested that the "social norm" is nothing more or less than the collective individual norms. If a strong enough individual voice (or group of voices) arises, they can potentially convince enough others to create a new "social norm."

[carpedm9587]

No Carp, the logical problem here is using your personal experience to make a universal, absolute statement. That is the fallacy of induction. Or arguing from the particular to the universal.

It can only be a fallacy if I make the claim that my personal experience "proves" the universal/absolute statement. It cannot be a fallacy if I simply note that it is "evidence in support of," which is what I said.

This is interesting - what does make right then?

Morally? What my moral framework tells me is right - for me. There is no "absolute" right or wrong morally. There is no objectively right or wrong morally. No one has been able to show a basis for any of those claims. There are only more or less widely held moral positions. (cue the gassed Jewish children... )

Which too is interesting since in your world there is no objective good so might making right is just as legitimate as anything else.

It is entirely possible that someone will adopt the position "might makes right" as their moral framework. Indeed, that is essentially the Christian moral framework, is it not? God imposes consequences? (cue the "morality can't be subjective because then it wouldn't be objective" response...)

And you are virtue signaling again.

Of course I am. We all should be signaling our virtues and living them daily. What else would a morally driven person do?

And Carp you can not show that logical absolutes exist or are universal.

You keep saying that...yet you keep using them every day though you cannot prove them to be absolute or to exist either. It's a pretty lame objection. As noted, I will accept logical and mathematical principles as universal, objective, absolutes until someone can show me they are not. Your article didn't do it.

You are just begging the question.

When it comes to proving logical absolutes, we ALL beg the question. There is no alternative. The same is not true about moral clams.

So we are back to my point, the laws of logic apply to you whether you believe in them or not, the moral law of God applies to you whether you believe in them or not. Your reasoning about the laws of logic or God's moral law makes no difference, they both will be applied to you apart from your consent or will.

And we are back to my response - ignoring the difference does not make it go away.
That a hypothetical god might hold a hypothetical moral position has no binding on my moral framework. All we know is that this god thinks this way - and holds this moral position. Likewise, your moral position is not binding on me. All it tells me is that you think that way, and hold that moral position. You have yet to show any way in which one being's moral position is "authoritative" over another's - which is the primary distinction between logical/mathematical principles and moral principles. And you conveniently delete the arguments I make that you (apparently) have no response to - coming back over and over again to things I have already responded to. If that continues, I'll probably disconnect. Repeating myself gets old.

[seer]

And we are back to my response - ignoring the difference does not make it go away.
That a hypothetical god might hold a hypothetical moral position has no binding on my moral framework. All we know is that this god thinks this way - and holds this moral position. Likewise, your moral position is not binding on me. All it tells me is that you think that way, and hold that moral position. You have yet to show any way in which one being's moral position is "authoritative" over another's - which is the primary distinction between logical/mathematical principles and moral principles. And you conveniently delete the arguments I make that you (apparently) have no response to - coming back over and over again to things I have already responded to. If that continues, I'll probably disconnect. Repeating myself gets old.

No Carp, I only cut through the verbiage, you tend to rattle on. Let me ask, if the Christian God exists will His law be applied to you whether you consent or not or whether it lines up with your moral framework or not?

It is entirely possible that someone will adopt the position "might makes right" as their moral framework. Indeed, that is essentially the Christian moral framework, is it not? God imposes consequences? (cue the "morality can't be subjective because then it wouldn't be objective" response...)

The point is "might makes right" is just as legitimate as anything other position in a morally relative world. The only possible objection on your part would be that you personally find it distasteful. But so what?

[carpedm9587]

No Carp, I only cut through the verbiage, you tend to rattle on. Let me ask, if the Christian God exists will His law be applied to you whether you consent or not or whether it lines up with your moral framework or not?

See my previous responses.

The point is "might makes right" is just as legitimate as anything other position in a morally relative world.

There is no objective framework from which to assess legitimacy, so this is your "it can't be subjective because then it won't be objective" argument in disguise.

The only possible objection on your part would be that you personally find it distasteful. But so what?

And this is absolutely (pun intended) "it can't be subjective because then it won't be objective." I've already responded to this multiple times and have no desire to spend any further effort against a vacuous argument you cannot even see is vacuous.

[Tassman]

I think "why" we moralize can be answered more easily: moralizing is a form of categorization, which is naturally what a sentient mind does. It is an inevitable outgrowth of sentience.

Yes, and such morality is seen in all the sentient social animals such as chimpanzees which exhibit the precursors of human morality. Sapiens have the intelligence to codify our moral "do's and don'ts" whereas other social species enforce acceptable behavior in other ways, e.g. via the alpha male thumping a miscreant.

See above: I think moralizing is a natural aspect of sentience. Once a mind becomes "self aware" it also becomes aware of the actions and will begin to categorize "actions I ought do" and "actions I ought not do." Moralizing is simply part of that dynamic.

Certain behaviors are considered acceptable and others not and this dynamic has been shaped by natural selection over millions of years of evolution. They are programmed by genes and environmental and social pressures.

To classify and differentiate actions from one another. Some may have to do with survival. Some will not.

Ultimately all are concerned with survival. Survival is the prime imperative of all living organisms.

I did not say they did. I said your argument suggests that the ability to moralize is an evolutionary development. I agree, but see it as a side-effect of sentience. What your argument DOESN'T do is explain how holding any particular moral position is driven by evolution.

both grounded in evolutionary development. It is the product of the evolution of necessary social behavior to survive as a cooperative intelligent social animal.

So you have explained "why I am able to moralize" not "why I hold this particular moral position." And I reject that it is about conforming to social conventions of the day. Why the social norms of a society can strongly influence an individual's moral framework, the individual trumps the society. If I find a "social norm" immoral, I will continue to find it immoral even if it continues to be the social norm.

You are greatly underestimating how much your genetic make-up, community acculturation and social development has influenced what "social norms" you consider immoral.

Indeed, I have often suggested that the "social norm" is nothing more or less than the collective individual norms. If a strong enough individual voice (or group of voices) arises, they can potentially convince enough others to create a new "social norm."

[seer]

See my previous responses.

It is a yes or no answer Carp. The point is you know the answer is yes, God's moral law will be applied to you whether it lines up with your moral framework or not, just as the laws of logic will be applied to you whether you believe in them or not. All you digressions about sentience and such make no difference to that end.

There is no objective framework from which to assess legitimacy, so this is your "it can't be subjective because then it won't be objective" argument in disguise.

No it isn't Carp, you have no logical ground to object to the idea of might making right. I mean you are the one who brought it up, like "might makes right" is some kind horrible, evil ideal. When it just happens to counter your personal preferences. There is no weight to your objection - get over yourself Carp...

[carpedm9587]

Yes, and such morality is seen in all the sentient social animals such as chimpanzees which exhibit the precursors of human morality. Sapiens have the intelligence to codify our moral "do's and don'ts" whereas other social species enforce acceptable behavior in other ways, e.g. via the alpha male thumping a miscreant.

Agreed.

Certain behaviors are considered acceptable and others not and this dynamic has been shaped by natural selection over millions of years of evolution. They are programmed by genes and environmental and social pressures.

I think you'd have a hard time supporting the claim "moral position X is genetically determined," which is part of what you are saying here. Social pressures - yes. We are definitely influenced by social pressures. I won't say "shaped" because that makes it sound as if social pressures are the only thing "shaping" us. There are other factors at work as well.

Ultimately all are concerned with survival. Survival is the prime imperative of all living organisms.

Again - this is a hard slog for you to defend, especially in the face of historically changing moral norms, and the existence of moral norms that would seem to fly in the face of "survival."

both grounded in evolutionary development. It is the product of the evolution of necessary social behavior to survive as a cooperative intelligent social animal.

You have said this repeatedly, Tass. I know it is your opinion - I just don't think you can defend it as stated.

You are greatly underestimating how much your genetic make-up, community acculturation and social development has influenced what "social norms" you consider immoral.

No - I'm not. I know it has significant influence. I know it is highly likely that my moral views will significantly align with my society. Other influences include religion, family, friends, and now the entire phenomenon of social media has widened all of that to almost worldwide. But society does not dictate my moral positions. The individual still has primacy and CAN escape that influence for any number of reasons. Many do not. But if society determined my moral views, there would be no change in social moral norms. It is the fact that individuals have primacy that makes changing social norms possible.

Your argument (though I don't really see an argument - I see mostly an assertion) supports the claim that the ability to moralize has developed through evolutionary pressure. It does not support the claim that "moral position X" is evolutionarily driven. The link between genetics and human traits is clear, including the structure of the mind which gives rise to sentience. The link between genetics and specific thoughts...? That case is not made.

[carpedm9587]

It is a yes or no answer Carp. The point is you know the answer is yes, God's moral law will be applied to you whether it lines up with your moral framework or not, just as the laws of logic will be applied to you whether you believe in them or not. All you digressions about sentience and such make no difference to that end.

I've answered this already, multiple times, Seer. Your "tenacity" and repeating the same question over and over again while ignoring the response is rather pointless. It's not argumentation and discussion - it's trolling. Answering this again will only get yet another round of my answer being ignored/deleted and you asking the question again. So...see my previous responses.

No it isn't Carp, you have no logical ground to object to the idea of might making right. I mean you are the one who brought it up, like "might makes right" is some kind horrible, evil ideal. When it just happens to counter your personal preferences. There is no weight to your objection - get over yourself Carp...

Again, see my previous responses. "Morality cannot be subjective because then it wouldn't be objective" is a vacuous argument, not worthy of further response.

ETA: BTW, you can feel free to declare a "win" if you wish. I'm pretty much done with the style of discussion that ignores responses and simply repeatedly hammers the same questions over and over and over again.

[seer]

I've answered this already, multiple times, Seer. Your "tenacity" and repeating the same question over and over again while ignoring the response is rather pointless. It's not argumentation and discussion - it's trolling. Answering this again will only get yet another round of my answer being ignored/deleted and you asking the question again. So...see my previous responses.

Because Carp you go off on tangents and avoid the core of the question. My question is a yes or no. And you well know that the answer is yes. Your moral framework has no bearing on whether the law of God is applied to you or not, neither does your sentience. Just as ones disbelief in logical absolutes or the laws of logic in general does not prevent you from running headlong in their reality. It is really a simple point.

Again, see my previous responses. "Morality cannot be subjective because then it wouldn't be objective" is a vacuous argument, not worthy of further response.

ETA: BTW, you can feel free to declare a "win" if you wish. I'm pretty much done with the style of discussion that ignores responses and simply repeatedly hammers the same questions over and over and over again.

Then why play the "might makes right" card in the first place? As if that was some kind of horrible moral wrong?