Quote:

The thing is, I'm not saying hitler was right. I'm not saying mussolini was right. I'm certainly not saying Bush is right. I'm saying that nothing is inherently wrong OR right. It's people who decide what is right and what is wrong. We all agree hitler was wrong. Therefore he was wrong in our frame of reference. That's all that really matters.




Ok! So you admit that technically Hitler wasn't wrong. I'm glad I finally got someone to pick a side. We can move on from here, then. But only after I respond to the other posts. I haven't read what they say yet.

Quote:

Are you claiming that "relativists", based on your definition of the word, which I can't seem to find entries for in some dictionaries, can't even answer your question without either admitting to being sanity-impaired or otherwise regurgitating their last meal eaten?



No, I think they would be sane if they said the Hitler was for sure wrong. But I shouldn't belittle a side while at the same time trying to get people to pick sides. Pretend I didn't do that.

Quote:

Are you repeatedly surprised that they find this difficult to do? Are you repeating the same actions and expecting different results?



This whole debate, up until the post before yours has basically involved both of us doing the same thing over and over again. But it worked, I finally got someone to not only admit to being a relativist, but to admit to the consequences of the belief. So I guess it was kind of worth it.

Quote:

Do you bother to question your definition of "relativism"?



Its not my definition. I got it from dictionary.com. Did you find one that contradicts mine?

Quote:

Some attacks on the bible to try and validate my opinions by attacking yours



Yeah, I've already responded to this numerous times.

Quote:

Okey, let's try to make clear what I'm saying by this:
Wether you state, that it is relatively wrong or absolute wrong, doesn't make a difference, if you don't have the power to prevent yourself and others against it. But, if you have the power to prevent yourself and others against it, at least when you collaborate with others against it then you have a chance to get an agreement on the base of a moral relativism, while you don't have a chance to get an agreement on the base of an absolutistic moral, if the collaborators are of a different culture and believe.

If I say, it is _relatively_ wrong, you make your conclusions that in your opinion are unavoidable, while I see in your threads that you are not even getting an idea about what is moral relativism in its consequences. (Maybe, it is because you have no idea, what moral absolutism means in its consequences.)

By the way, dictionaries and definitions are 'no laws of meaning', they are only written by people, as any other books, too. So, don't build your knowledge on dictionaries and definitions only.




Still not answering it. The definition of relativism is pretty self evident. You keep saying not to believe the definition I have, but why not? Give me a reason.

I build my knowledge on the obvious. I only used the dictionary definition to get the specifics ironed out. But relativism is pretty self-evident.



Anyway, now that we have the admission from a relativist that indeed, Hitler technically wasn't wrong, we can move on from there.

I'm not going to go the obvious route and question your belief that Hitler, while opposed to your illusion of the truth, is still not wrong.

But. I want to get to the first point, and I'm going to wrap this up quick because I want to do something besides this tonight.

Relativism holds that all truths are relative to the people holding them. But in order to accept that belief, you have to believe the absolute truth that all things are relative. Don't you think this is contradictory.

And we'll go from there.

"The task force finds that...the unborn child is a whole human being from the moment of fertilization, that all abortions terminate the life of a human being, and that the unborn child is a separate human patient under the care of modern medicine."