<<So don't project your shortcomings onto me...>>
<<...don't fling your petty sarcasm at me...>>
<<I have no patience for that kind of immature behavior.>>
<<If you believe that, then you are a truly sick person>>
<<I have no time to debate irrational people>>
Russ, you need to take it easy. I have not called you names, or used personal
characterizations in any way (at least I hope not. If any have slipped out, I
apologize). I have called your ARGUMENTS circular and illogical, but that is
what a debate is about. If you are going to engage in them, you must be
prepared to answer with substance, not name calling. When you fall into
vituperation, you lose credibility. You won't be taken seriously.
That's too bad, because I think there is a core of beliefs it is fruitful to
discuss here.
This seems to be the crux of the matter:
<< I am telling you what I know and feel in my
heart. I simply don't feel the need to look for any reason beyond the simple
fact that others have feelings, emotions, consciousness, and awareness like
myself. In fact, your inability to understand this simple concept makes you
look like a more than slightly amoral person. And your behavior in this debate
is reinforcing that notion.>>
I'll answer the last part first. I have not misunderstood your "concept." I
have answered it (and will do so again in a moment). As further evidence, Bill
Hamilton makes exactly the same point in his post to you. This does not make
us amoral. It makes us debaters wishing to engage you on a certain point.
Calling us names is not an answer.
Now, to the matter at hand. You claim a moral system because of "what I know
and feel in my heart." In another post, you say, "Because it does." Can't you
admit that both of those are subjective expressions?
There is a simple question: Are those subjective or objective expressions?
Just answer that. If we proceed slowly, maybe we'll get somewhere after all.
Jim