Excellent review. It's nice to have a reviewer who speaks personally and fairly about complicated subjects rather than ideologically…..Please review Season 3 of the Leftovers.

I've read that too. I'm not saying people who live in homogenous places are not racists. I'm saying racism isn't a problem, per se, because it is ethnically homogenous. This is why it is difficult for those people to understand concepts like privilege because they don't have any, for lack of a better term, baseline to…

Paul, It's simple. I was making a joke. Why on Earth would you re-request an apology when I told you directly that I wasn't going to do so?

Paul, what "scope"? You mean the scope of my original post that you decided to ignore so that you could troll me? Funny, that you agree with it all now.

Paul, I'm not "jerking you around for fun". I'm waiting for you to explain who either #1. Gets to decide what is "sound, well formed, free of contradictions." or, #2 developed the frameworks to decide what is "sound, well formed, free of contradictions."? I have been pretty clear on why I believe that concept is…

Thank you for the apology, Paul.

Paul, I'm not being dishonest. You simply didn't understand the situation because you didn't clearly read my OP because you were, obviously, trolling me.

Paul, drives me nuts, seriously? You are the one ranting on and on. You've opted for personal attacks and rejected civility in your second post. Your personal attacks have just gotten more and more aggressive and irrational. You even admitted trolling me since you knew who I was, responded, and then responded with…

Oh, and Paul. I decided to go back to my OP before you could whine more. Here you go. Enjoy.

Paul. Of course it's the point. I said it in my OP. Remember, way back then? I stated that people were angry that morals they disagreed with were being legislated to them and they would vote and/or use market principles to make their feelings shown?

Oh, Paul. Maybe I am totally stupid. Maybe that's why you're trolling me.

Thought you were going to block me. lol.

Haha. I didn't call you racist. I said your position is ethnocentric. You do love to be hyperbolic though, eh?

You are correct. I did say, "I". I should have checked my quote. I was misremembering since the larger point in the OP was, in spirit, about how everyone has a different moral compass. You are correct to point out my mistake, but it is also a distortion of the larger issue I was addressing. It also brings me back to a…

Sorry, I have no idea who you are…..

Straw men or not, you really aren't giving me much to work with here except confusing analogies. The insinuation of your proposition of an inherent order is that there are ways to gauge whether someone's morals are better or worse than another's. You haven't proved at all how this is true. As I said, you may have the…

Dude, if everything is contextual and people can interpret contexts from different vantage points then how can you say that some vantage points are more valid than another without making an arbitrary moral judgement? That's the point. There aren't moral absolutes so the BEST you can say is that in any given context…

The only difference I see is that you've given an example where there is a perceived threat. You've inserted context. Your context for the genocide comparison isn't equatable. Just as you can create a situation where most (not all) would say you are ethical doesn't change the fact that it maybe ethical or not…

BTW, I mean equally valid in principle. Not to say that one person wouldn't believe their morals are superior to another. Lots of people would say that. I just want an example of a moral debate which you can empirically say is completely invalid.

I'm not confused about my point that morals are, in essence, equal. I'm confused as to why you think eating gravel (objectively bad for the human body) instead of eating fruit/substance (objectively good and needed for the human body) is equivalent to a moral choice.