Search Results: morals

I think if someone is deceitful and slimy enough to cheat on their partner, then they’re gonna lie and be deceitful to you too.

I was friends with this guy who wasn’t cheating on anyone himself but he was fucking with someone who was in a relationship. And he found it funny that they were cheating with him

I didn’t respect what he was doing but I minded my business and continued to be his friend.
Then I found out he fucked my partner too and went around bragging about it 🤠🤠

So now I stay away from those who cheat/home wreck, because they have no morals. They’re gonna fuck over their friends too.

i am debating moral codes with a roommate, and he is a subjective truther/subjective morals believer. He keeps doing the "what's right for one might not be right for another." thing.

The First Law of Logic is that The Truth cannot contradict The Truth.

He is trying to claim morals aren't required to be logical, which is preposterous and regarding correcting other peoples lack of morals he's claiming you should just leave them alone and let eeryone do their own thing, quoting Jesus "do unto other as you would have them do unto you' out of context... Jesus and the Bible authors obviosly did not just let people do their own thing. Most of Jesus recorded words is him RANTING against corrupt priests and hypocrissy and other SINS. most of the Old Testament is the authors RANTING against corrupt priests, hypocrissy, SINS, and especially human sacrifice, idolatry, and adultery.

So the Bible authors did not compromise with people's morals, and the First Law of Logic requires that all True Moral Codes are Required to never contradict one another.

I laughed at him, because Jesus said, "Till heaven and Earth pass, not one jot or tittle shall in anywise pass away from the Law until all things are fulfilled."

The Law of Moses that he was talking about is not SUBJECT but rather OBJECTIVE and it does not compromise with anyone.

Caitlin Johnstone, the Australian author and leftist blogger, argues that he should be, as not doing so undermines the moral authority of the US (as if it has any) to criticize the human right records of other countries, and states:

"Even if Assange is released, the US empire will still have spent years imprisoning a journalist for the crime of good journalism,* will still be the world's worst warmonger, and will still be the world's most egregious violator of human rights. Its moral standing is dead and buried, and the world should stop following its lead in creating a just and ethical world. It simply does not have the qualifications to do so. In fact, no power structure on earth is less qualified."

*(Assange published evidence of US war crimes in Iraq and Afghanistan and Libya).

I think she is right. What do you think?