> Given that there is no such thing as an objective morality, that would
>be the case.
We're talking at cross purposes. (At least you are.) I'm talking stratagy,
you're talking morality (or ethics maybe?). I've made no claims about moral
codes one way or another. But I will say this: Thinking you're "right" and
deserve to win a game, doesn't do you any good if you don't first
understand how to *play* and *win* that game.
Righteousness is never a substitute for knowledge or finesse.
>I claim that morality is objective. Whatever your
>opponents feelings, drives or beliefs are irrelevant if they are acting
>in a way which is not objectively moral.
Is that a quote from Pat Robertson, perhaps?
-Prof. Tim
(BTW, Sodom, I disagree with you--self-righteous atheists seem just as ugly
as their religous counterparts!)