A question for people who believe in Moral Absolutes

It would surprise the hell out of me if any of those things were to happen...but (this may surprise you) I cannot tell what will happen in the future.



No it does not. From that perspective, I stand corrected. Thanks for pointing it out.

It did.

there is a difference between absolute truth and relative truth

absolute truth is never about u, always objective superiority revealin infinite existence freedom

relative true is relative to freedom rights since infinite is free

so it is about objective constant realisations end individually provin the quality of superiority and freedom being absolutely true to that relative existence

what is due to individual superiority or freedom can of course change subjectively

this is how who mean truth as rigid thing reveal being the opportunists of infinite existence so the evil that are never anyone by dealin with themselves as nothing real

the logic is to say

when infinite superiority is free then any is relative superiority

but when relative superiority is free too then objective existence is truly free

so the opposite to opportunism u cant take advantage from absolute truth knowledge to exist

and that logic is shown at the end now

the division of genders mean the abuse of superiority and the abuse of freedom knowledge in truth

but if u mean to take advantage from objective superiority knowledge what kind are u gonna b constant about ur present existing stand is gonna lean on what ??
u cant lean on freedom if u mean objective superiority bc then u gonna b out of objective logics while when u mean to b from objective logics u must b the living there for any possible copy or profit

so the only alternative left is the opposite to superiority, when superiority is objective existence then the opposite do not exist then u can use it as urself so u can keep catchin superiority for existence robbery

that is why we have such insolence in being devils or satan as if it is glorious thing meanin the intelligence to abuse objective superiorty by stayin else

same for freedom existence

relative existence right showed being free then else freedom can b abused to exist instead
this is surely why killin is living

but how to stay constant as free stand got, wat to keep pretendin being when u r none really??? u cant keep killin others when the mean is to gain free stand from else not possessin their spaces business existence u want urs only
u cant either mean being superior reality as a way to invent its own free will
bc superiority is objective and when u mean to abuse else freedom it says how u cant b objective ever, the least of objectivity is truly free

so wat to do, end reveal how for nature there is nothing else but to let others do, so u can have free perspectives since always else while u can kill too and do stuff relativism in gainin a stand free from all by abusin freedom
so again the opposite way to exist when u mean abusin truth knowledge
so when u mean freedom abuse then u have to b totally from else beings

so that prove how existence is always true

even when u were before truth knowledge even when u can keep stayin out and know how to abuse knowledge, repeatin smthg u did force u to show clearly

that is also how truth is superior in concept, everyone say youpi that truth exist dreamin about what they could get to live or experience doing
but in truth existence force everyone to worse bc it is about infinite superiority that exist and is free too so there is no place for anything nor anyone, while it is first then last so always especially that it is true beginning and ends hundrepercent same

Assuming that the term can be applied at all where do you prove Infinite is "free" uh ? Can the infinite set of rational numbers become the set of natural numbers ? It can't even contain it...If there are infinity's bigger then other infinity's like Cantor the great mathematician pointed out, then there is not any sort of remote value on which the term "freedom" can apply to it you ignorant pretentious bastard !
Absolute even as a Whole is not free not because it has a cause which indeed it wasn't, but because being timeless and true, it can't free itself from its own Nature...and that is why it is true !!! Whatever is absolutely true cannot be free !
Of course the third and more obvious point is that freedom apply s to unconditioned (magical) volition in human beings, as incomplete beings, which brings enough problems on its own regarding what possible valid meaning the terming "Free" may have...

"Superior objective reality" as you call it, or what truth refers to, CANNOT be free of anything once IT IS ALL !!! There is simply no thingness, no space or time left to be something else ! As freedom requires choice and Absolute has no choice but to keep objectively being what it always was and cannot stop being it where is there any degree, any grain, of the smallest freedom eh ?
So drop the damn pretense that you know or understand what you are talking about and go instead improve your English or try and make a small effort in that direction like I do, and by the way, try to listen for a change, instead of babbling all alone, you might get somewhere someday !

bastard urself piece of dirty evil rat living

wat do u know about freedom being itself, r u piece of dirt being urself since u pretend knowin so much over what is way above u

and wat nature piece of ****

as if sayin the word nature makes u scientific in the sense of closin all what exist
nature is u wat do not exist and never will

infinite is free by definition since it is absolute superiority always

so startin from above always bc there is nothing and so many relative things

the real space is freedom that is why existence of evil even lead to bc any existence is only the free stand
unfortunately for u truth is existence and not one, bc there are two confirmin the same thing, superiority is free

and piece of rat meanin to steal from my words anything u put ur insolence in ur ass and eat it all u have no business with any truth i say piece of **** as if u can ever do anything
u r going to eat ur english alive piece of **** there where u r headin u r gonna b what u say about else u mean to abuse, eatin urself for being till the **** u become definitely, as if u r any reference for english writin or worse as if u can write and say smthg, piece of evil will that use big words like nature and truth only to take advantage from the system based on evil superiority

Fil I have long suspected that imans may be an algorithm... not really even joking. I have attempted before to engage with him on a friendly basis... alas I have yet to be successful in my engagement.
If imans has a native tongue I have yet to learn it.

I do see that which you addressed in your sentence 3. I'm suitably impressed by some of the points Matt makes. I chide Matt for his dishonesty, not to mention the way big irony of him discussing moral anything when he is so intellectually dishonest in other areas.

Good dog, Matt! You're not the one who got an email saying that MattDavis is now following you.

You must have an awfully big ego to think that I ended up here because of you. I often read Max's posts. He's capable of making some very interesting points and he sometimes is big enough to actually address tough issues instead of just cutting and running. Like you do.

Is this your dishonesty showing, Matt? Are you trying to make people think that I am the one PMing you?

No JTT.
You are not the one PMing me.
I am sorry if anyone took that to be the case.

I've PM'd Matt recently...although I doubt he considers me to be championing Buddhism.

PM's are popular in A2K...nothing really to hide...just a way to keep extraneous discussions out of the threads.

Anyone I PM is free to discuss publicly what I have mentioned in my PM's.

Matt, just a couple of posts ago: I can't speak for JTT, I have had him on ignore since he started stalking my posts.

Maybe someone PM's him since people know he has you on ignore.

JTT I did place you on ignore.
I was under the impression when we left the Prescriptive/Descriptive discussion we were on good terms.
I said I hope we can remain civil outside that discussion.
I thought you agreed.
You have since proceeded to call me either a liar or a hypocrite ever since.
I have you on ignore largely for that reason.

That cinches the liar part, Matt.

It really is so much easier to avoid the contradictions found within the childish safety of IGNORE.

For one thing, one doesn't as easily trap himself.




Not call you, point out clearly where and how you are a hypocrite. It may not sound nice but if the shoe fits, Matt, ... .

Is there something you need addressing JTT?
Or shall I henceforth assume a ghost whispers in my ear?

I am really surprised that you do not see JTT as I do. I see JTT to be very emotional about acts of aggression done to others. I think that JTT is so concerned about such immoral acts that it blurs his vision about how other people mean to be or should I say how they are.

He seems to get so emotional about things that he goes off the deep end not that he thinks that being mean to others is correct but he seems to be blinded by empathic distress.

When I say this about you JTT I am only sharing my observations which are often incorrect so please do not take it in a negative way.

Is that another childish threat to run back to IGNORE, Matt?



Being honest enough to address the issues that you thought important enough to raise, that you thought important enough to "follow" me, would be a good start. That would definitely go some distance towards honesty.

"we", Matt? Is that not dishonesty?

And in this, I'm different from the average American how, RL? Or from anybody for that matter?