Premise: Objective morals do not exist

Originally posted by @avalanchethecat
Weak.

Your answer is weak. 😵

Originally posted by @dj2becker
Is it your subjective opinion that the Bible is ambivalent on the topic of rape or is it an objective fact?

Print on a page is immutable and not subject to whoever is reading it.

Originally posted by @wolfgang59
Print on a page is immutable and not subject to whoever is reading it.

Tell that to FMF.

Originally posted by @dj2becker
Your answer is weak. 😵

Your blind refusal to even consider addressing the corner you have painted yourself into is more revealing than any answer you could have concocted.

Originally posted by @wolfgang59
Print on a page is immutable and not subject to whoever is reading it.

It is your subjective opinion that the print on a page is ambivalent.

Originally posted by @dj2becker
It is your subjective opinion that the print on a page is ambivalent.

Explain to me how print can be ambivalent?
Then explain how that changes depending upon the reader.
Then lie down for a good while.

Originally posted by @wolfgang59
Explain to me how print can be ambivalent?
Then explain how that changes depending upon the reader.
Then lie down for a good while.

Your 'interpretation' of the print is that it is ambivalent on the morality of rape. I reject your interpretation.

Originally posted by @dj2becker
Your 'interpretation' of the print is that it is ambivalent on the morality of rape. I reject your interpretation.

Answer the question.

Explain to me how print can be ambivalent?

Originally posted by @dj2becker
Tell that to FMF.

No emoticon attached to your silly little blurt to wolfgang59 means you are actually serious. You are like a child who does not comprehend (or even recall) what the grown-ups around him have been talking about.

Originally posted by @wolfgang59
Answer the question.

Explain to me how print can be ambivalent?

I'm saying your interpretation of the print is that it is ambivalent on the morality of rape. If you disagree, explain to me how print can be ambivalent without your interpretation that it is.

Originally posted by @dj2becker
I'm saying your interpretation of the print is that it is ambivalent on the morality of rape. If you disagree, explain to me how print can be ambivalent without your interpretation that it is.

You seem to think you are good (you're not) at knowing other people's thoughts,
meanings and interpretations yet never tell us what yours are.

You brought up the concept of print being ambivalent.

And I would like to know what you mean by that absurdity.

Originally posted by @wolfgang59
You seem to think you are good (you're not) at knowing other people's thoughts,
meanings and interpretations yet never tell us what yours are.

You brought up the concept of print being ambivalent.

And I would like to know what you mean by that absurdity.

Avalancethecat is the one claiming that the Bible (print) is 'ambivalent' on the morality of rape so take it up with him.

"And yet your scripture is notably ambivalent on this issue."

Originally posted by @dj2becker
Avalancethecat is the one claiming that the Bible (print) is 'ambivalent' on the morality of rape so take it up with him.

"And yet your scripture is notably ambivalent on this issue."

He didn't say the print was ambivalent did he?
You suggested that.
Do you realise how stupid you were?

Originally posted by @wolfgang59
He didn't say the print was ambivalent did he?
You suggested that.
Do you realise how stupid you were?

When he said "And yet your 'scripture' is notably ambivalent on this issue", he was not referring to the print? 🙄

Originally posted by @dj2becker
When he said "And yet your 'scripture' is notably ambivalent on this issue", he was not referring to the print? 🙄

No he wasn't.
If you think "scripture" and "print" are synonyms you are seriously fckd up.