Muslims and terrorism, do they just accept it?

[WTFH]

Dictionary definition of faith:

1. Complete trust or confidence in something or someone.

(I trust you'll accept the Oxford English Dictionary as a reliable source - most people have faith in it's accuracy)

And every time I quote you, you claim I haven't. You claimed earlier that you believed that morality was objective, yet you have chosen in your last post to make it subjective - your personal opinion of me is not an objective one, but you try to avoid it being a statement by putting a question mark at the end.
You ask if I am dishonest - yes, sometimes. Most humans are.
You ask if I drop context - well, not as much as you do. You take quotes out of context if it suits your argument, where in context they prove the falseness of your argument.
You ask if I am a moral coward - I think this thread shows that I am prepared to stand up for and defend my morality, which has been based on various books, teachers, family members and my life experiences. Does having morals make me a coward, or does it just make me different to you?

[Martin Scroatman]

(I trust you'll accept the Oxford English Dictionary as a reliable source - most people have faith in it's accuracy)

I prefer the Collins version personally

[SpontaneousOrder]

Dictionary definition of faith:

1. Complete trust or confidence in something or someone.

(I trust you'll accept the Oxford English Dictionary as a reliable source - most people have faith in it's accuracy)

Sure. Now post the entire entry (and consider this:

And finally, given the religious context of the thread & this "discussion", can you look at ANY dictionary

.

And every time I quote you, you claim I haven't.

The easy resolution to that is to use the quote functionality on the board. Then it's clear what you are quoting and whether it's fabricated or not.

You claimed earlier that you believed that morality was objective, yet you have chosen in your last post to make it subjective - your personal opinion of me is not an objective one, but you try to avoid it being a statement by putting a question mark at the end.

Ok... you seem to have a poor understanding of the difference between objectivity and subjectivity.
If I say I think you are a tool, that's an objective statement. If I say ice cream is tasty, that's a subjective judgement.

That aside, in reality the question mark means I'm asking a question. Albeit possibly rhetorical.
By way of explanation, a rhetorical question is one which isn't meant to solicit a reply, but rather to make a point.

Now, if I accuse you of being immoral, in my subjective judgement, that in no way makes morality subjective in nature It only means that given the limited context that I have in this situation, my judgement that you are in fact acting immorally is subjective in nature - albeit only because I lack solid knowledge of the cause of your behaviour. Whether what I think you are doing is actually immoral or not is entirely objective.
I just don't know with absolute certainty that you are in fact doing what I think you are.

This poor grasp of objectivity vs subjectivity doesn't help the argument between us, and if anything suggests you may not be being as deliberately obtuse as I suspect.

You take quotes out of context if it suits your argument, where in context they prove the falseness of your argument.

Hit up that quote button then. I'm all for being collared for slipping up.

You ask if I am a moral coward - I think this thread shows that I am prepared to stand up for and defend my morality, which has been based on various books, teachers, family members and my life experiences.

It's shown me that you'll do whatever it takes to evade the point at hand.

Now if you don't have a good understanding of what morality actually is, then that's ok - not many people do because it's something we have a certain intuitive sense for which causes people take it for granted without ever actually considering it's nature.

But at no point have you asked me why I think morality is objective in nature. You've done everything to evade that question. This is why I call you a moral coward. You'd rather stand up and defend something you claim to be subjective in nature, which is something of a performative contradiction, while refusing to consider something that I claim to be provably true. Like an ostrich with it's head in the sand.

I don't know if you really are like that, but you are acting like that.

Does having morals make me a coward, or does it just make me different to you?

What makes you different to me, although not so dissimilar from me of 10 or so years ago, is that you don't seem to value the prospect of an objectively valid moral code, over a subjectively valid one.

You'll argue over what's right and wrong, while simultaneously claiming that there is no objectively valid concept of right and wrong.

What I call cowardice is the preference to avoid even exploring the idea of objectively valid morality, in preference for a less world-view challenging subjective (i.e. arbitrary) one, and using deceit to hide that fact.