Democrat Mayor Resigns because of Child Molestation Accusations.

Text-only Version: Click HERE to see this thread with all of the graphics, features, and links.



Flyattractor
Should this be the start of a Leftist Sex Crimes thread?


Seattle Mayor to resing after 5th Accusations.. Blames Right Wing Conspiricy

Oh and Guess how far ito this MSN thread you gotta read to find out his Political Affiliations!?


laughing

Patient_Leech
Fly, the way you comport yourself around here I'm surprised you find anything unsavory about child molestation.

Emperordmb
Yeah why is his political party relevant? I'd be asking the same thing if this were a republican tbh. The actions of an individual unrelated to ideology are not enough to impugn the right or left, republican or democratic party as a whole. The MSM draws the distinction and pushes this kinda shit because they're a bunch of hacks.

I don't know why you see the media pulling this baiting bullshit and go "Oooweeee, I'd like to get in on that game!"

Bashar Teg
Originally posted by Flyattractor
Should this be the start of a Leftist Sex Crimes thread?



Oh and Guess how far ito this MSN thread you gotta read to find out his Political Affiliations!?


laughing

#FullRetard

Patient_Leech
Originally posted by Emperordmb
Yeah why is his political party relevant? I'd be asking the same thing if this were a republican tbh. The actions of an individual unrelated to ideology are not enough to impugn the right or left, republican or democratic party as a whole.

You obviously need to get with the program of identity politics. It's the "in" thing right now.

Flyattractor
Originally posted by Patient_Leech
Fly, the way you comport yourself around here I'm surprised you find anything unsavory about child molestation.

I am a man of contradiction!!!!!


Originally posted by Emperordmb
Yeah why is his political party relevant? I'd be asking the same thing if this were a republican tbh. The actions of an individual unrelated to ideology are not enough to impugn the right or left, republican or democratic party as a whole. The MSM draws the distinction and pushes this kinda shit because they're a bunch of hacks.

I don't know why you see the media pulling this baiting bullshit and go "Oooweeee, I'd like to get in on that game!"

I dunno...did you bring that up in Adam's Thread about Conservative Family Values? And did you read the article or just make your assumption with out it?

Originally posted by Bashar Teg
#FullRetard

Yes you are, but that is just the way god made you.

Emperordmb
Originally posted by Flyattractor
I dunno...did you bring that up in Adam's Thread about Conservative Family Values? And did you read the article or just make your assumption with out it?
I'm not disputing the article, I'm disputing the notion that you can use this to impugn the left.

And nah I didn't post that on AdamPOE's thread since I've generally avoided it. I would extend my statement to that shit as well in this case.

Patient_Leech
Originally posted by Flyattractor
Yes you are, but that is just the way god made you.

You didn't capitalize "God"!! Blasphemer!!!

Flyattractor
Originally posted by Emperordmb
I'm not disputing the article, I'm disputing the notion that you can use this to impugn the left.

And nah I didn't post that on AdamPOE's thread since I've generally avoided it. I would extend my statement to that shit as well in this case.

I just found it funny in the article how His party affiliation isn't even MENTIONED, but it does bring up his accusations being part of a "Right Wing Conspiriciy".. So yeah. This thread is kind of more of an example of The Media's Bias or Protection of the Party they Prefer.

Originally posted by Patient_Leech
You didn't capitalize "God"!! Blasphemer!!!

Its the "god" that created Bashy......So yeah....

Patient_Leech
Originally posted by Emperordmb
Yeah why is his political party relevant? I'd be asking the same thing if this were a republican tbh. The actions of an individual unrelated to ideology are not enough to impugn the right or left, republican or democratic party as a whole. The MSM draws the distinction and pushes this kinda shit because they're a bunch of hacks.

I don't know why you see the media pulling this baiting bullshit and go "Oooweeee, I'd like to get in on that game!"

This kind of thing happening with the religious Right has a bit more relevance, though, because molesting kids when you're supposed to be striving to be a sinless holy-roller seems to go against the pious Right's core values. The Right likes to pretend to have the moral high-ground because they flaunt their religiosity. So it has a bit more relevance because it's so blatantly hypocritical.

Emperordmb
Originally posted by Flyattractor
I just found it funny in the article how His party affiliation isn't even MENTIONED, but it does bring up his accusations being part of a "Right Wing Conspiriciy".. So yeah. This thread is kind of more of an example of The Media's Bias or Protection of the Party they Prefer.
Fair enough

Flyattractor
Originally posted by Patient_Leech
This kind of thing happening with the religious Right has a bit more relevance, though, because molesting kids when you're supposed to be striving to be a sinless holy-roller seems to go against the pious Right's core values. The Right likes to pretend to have the moral high-ground because they flaunt their religiosity. So it has a bit more relevance because it's so blatantly hypocritical.


And some would call that a "DOUBLE STANDARD"


You dirty hippy you.


smokin'

Emperordmb
Originally posted by Patient_Leech
This kind of thing happening with the religious Right has a bit more relevance, though, because molesting kids when you're supposed to be striving to be a sinless holy-roller seems to go against the pious Right's core values. The Right likes to pretend to have the moral high-ground because they flaunt their religiosity. So it has a bit more relevance because it's so blatantly hypocritical.
That doesn't really impugn the moral character of the religious right or of religion or the concept of family values in general, because most people on the right, the religious right, part of a religion, or who believe in family values would be disgusted by this sort of behavior. Sure the individual can be impugned as a hypocrite along with the other disgusting shit, but to impugn an entire group based on this fringe behavior is just sketchy no matter how you slice it.

And for the record I think family values are important, and they're clearly something America could use more of given the decreasing prevalence of the institution of marriage, and the increasing prevalence of single motherhood and the crime and poverty associated with it. Granted I think family values get a bad rap due to many on the social right being against gay marriage, which I completely disagreement. Given the value of the institution of marriage for the transformation of the individuals involved and for building a family unit, I think the institution absolutely should be extended to gays due to its importance as an institution.

Beniboybling
Originally posted by Emperordmb
And for the record I think family values are important, and they're clearly something America could use more of given the decreasing prevalence of the institution of marriage, and the increasing prevalence of single motherhood and the crime and poverty associated with it. Granted I think family values get a bad rap due to many on the social right being against gay marriage, which I completely disagreement. Given the value of the institution of marriage for the transformation of the individuals involved and for building a family unit, I think the institution absolutely should be extended to gays due to its importance as an institution. No one asked DMB. sad

Bentley
Originally posted by Patient_Leech
This kind of thing happening with the religious Right has a bit more relevance, though, because molesting kids when you're supposed to be striving to be a sinless holy-roller seems to go against the pious Right's core values. The Right likes to pretend to have the moral high-ground because they flaunt their religiosity. So it has a bit more relevance because it's so blatantly hypocritical.

So the democrats don't pretend to hold a higher moral ground over republicans in any way or form?

Patient_Leech
Originally posted by Bentley
So the democrats don't pretend to hold a higher moral ground over republicans in any way or form?

I'm sure they do in other ways, but not typically in a pious, religious sense.

Silent Master
Originally posted by Patient_Leech
This kind of thing happening with the religious Right has a bit more relevance, though, because molesting kids when you're supposed to be striving to be a sinless holy-roller seems to go against the pious Right's core values. The Right likes to pretend to have the moral high-ground because they flaunt their religiosity. So it has a bit more relevance because it's so blatantly hypocritical.

So, molesting kids doesn't go against the democrats core values?

Surtur
Originally posted by Patient_Leech
This kind of thing happening with the religious Right has a bit more relevance, though, because molesting kids when you're supposed to be striving to be a sinless holy-roller seems to go against the pious Right's core values. The Right likes to pretend to have the moral high-ground because they flaunt their religiosity. So it has a bit more relevance because it's so blatantly hypocritical.

So in other words, party is more relevant when a republican molests some folk as opposed to a democrat? That can't be what you're actually implying. Especially since while they do not claim it is due to religion, the dems sure as hell act like they have the moral high ground all the time lol.

Patient_Leech
I'm speaking more of the religious Right. Not just the right in general.

And yes, of course generalizations are wrong, but that's what our political system thrives on, so get with the program I guess. roll eyes (sarcastic)

Surtur
Originally posted by Patient_Leech
I'm speaking more of the religious Right. Not just the right in general.

And yes, of course generalizations are wrong, but that's what our political system thrives on, so get with the program I guess. roll eyes (sarcastic)

Yeah but it's not like "don't molest little kids" is some religious tenet(insert joke here), though even if it was the 11th commandment IMO it doesn't matter here. Since stuff like theft and killing are commandments, but those are also things most people are against.

Even just ignoring the commandments, I'd agree more with some like abortion. Like a religious conservative who decided to get one.

Robtard
Fly being a complete retard as many of you have noted aside, this Ed Murray guy totes looks like a child molester. Send his ass to prison.

Patient_Leech
Originally posted by Surtur
Yeah but it's not like "don't molest little kids" is some religious tenet(insert joke here), though even if it was the 11th commandment IMO it doesn't matter here. Since stuff like theft and killing are commandments, but those are also things most people are against.

Even just ignoring the commandments, I'd agree more with some like abortion. Like a religious conservative who decided to get one.

So because the Holy Book doesn't explicitly say "Don't f#ck kids" you give them a pass on this? They can't be faulted because their primary source of morality didn't explicitly forbid it. laughing out loud

Emperordmb
Why do you draw a distinction between impugning a political ideology as a whole based on the actions of some of its adherents, and impugning a religious ideology as a whole based on the actions of some of its adherents?

Surtur
Originally posted by Patient_Leech
So because the Holy Book doesn't explicitly say "Don't f#ck kids" you give them a pass on this? They can't be faulted because their primary source of morality didn't explicitly forbid it. laughing out loud

I'm not giving them a pass, what I'm saying is there are some things that go beyond religion. Not killing people is usually universal no matter what you believe. Theft, rape, and molestation should be too. There are things specific to religions, this is not one of them.

So I don't think party matters for Republican child molesters anymore than it matters for a Democrat.

dadudemon
Originally posted by Bashar Teg
#FullRetard

Wait, what? Where did you read that this Democrat molested fully retarded children?

But that makes sense. Many Democrats like to harm the innocent while pretending they are righteous. You love those dead minority babies, don't you?

Patient_Leech
Originally posted by Surtur
So I don't think party matters for Republican child molesters anymore than it matters for a Democrat.

I can get behind that.

But what I'm saying is that it's extra slimy for the religious Right to hide behind their supposed moral high ground and be molesting children behind closed doors. Like if we found out tomorrow, for example, that Pat Robertson had been molesting children for years when he had the gall to be condemning people in the name of God so blatantly.

Surtur
Originally posted by Patient_Leech
I can get behind that.

But what I'm saying is that it's extra slimy for the religious Right to hide behind their supposed moral high ground and be molesting children behind closed doors. Like if we found out tomorrow, for example, that Pat Robertson had been molesting children for years when he had the gall to be condemning people in the name of God so blatantly.

I think it's slimy for both, because the left pretends like they have the moral high ground too, they just don't try to use religion for it.

I don't think either side has more slime going on, is my point. It's just slime in different ways.

dadudemon
Originally posted by Surtur
I don't think either side has more slime going on, is my point. It's just slime in different ways.


thumb up

Patient_Leech
The Left by definition more secular and because of the stronghold that religion still has on the country, the Right still probably likes to think that it has the moral high ground.

Yes, I know to us atheists it sounds ridiculous, but that's our politics. The religious Right has the "moral absolutes," not like us heathen "moral relativists" on the Left. So in that sense the Right has the moral high ground.

Bentley
Originally posted by Patient_Leech
The Left by definition more secular and because of the stronghold that religion still has on the country, the Right still probably likes to think that it has the moral high ground.

Yes, I know to us atheists it sounds ridiculous, but that's our politics. The religious Right has the "moral absolutes," not like us heathen "moral relativists" on the Left. So in that sense the Right has the moral high ground.

A religious person would inherit values while a non-religious one owns and builds their own making them objectively more responsible of their actions. A religious person can be forgiven by a higher benevolent power in a proportion non dependant on the atrocities they may commit too (which are widely dependant on the religious values we are talking about).

I've stumbled into atheists that argue that religious morality is obsolete, thus claiming by extension that they are aware of a superior morality. I don't believe the Left in the US is meant to embody this principle, but you can see similar mentalities in historical parties like the Comunists.

dadudemon
Originally posted by Bentley
A religious person would inherit values while a non-religious one owns and builds their own making them objectively more responsible of their actions. A religious person can be forgiven by a higher benevolent power in a proportion non dependant on the atrocities they may commit too (which are widely dependant on the religious values we are talking about).

I've stumbled into atheists that argue that religious morality is obsolete, thus claiming by extension that they are aware of a superior morality. I don't believe the Left in the US is meant to embody this principle, but you can see similar mentalities in historical parties like the Comunists.

Change "objectively" to "in my opinion" or "subjectively." In fact, it would appear a person who sets their own morals would be more subjective than a large religion that has been changing those morals over long periods of time (averaging moral opinion that, in general, works for the preservation and prosperity of humans as a collective which is really what religion (most of them) is about).


This is a nice segue into this topic because you seem to be leading the topic in this direction:

https://i.imgur.com/9dLVMjp.png



I do not agree with this chart.....for the most part.

Patient_Leech
Oh, SHIT! Somebody bustin' out a CHART!

https://media.giphy.com/media/davck1i7gz1Ru/giphy.gif

Flyattractor
Originally posted by Patient_Leech
Oh, SHIT! Somebody bustin' out a CHART!

https://media.giphy.com/media/davck1i7gz1Ru/giphy.gif

You got raped by a Priest when you were a kid Patent?

Cause Damn. You gotta hard on for Religious Hate on or what?

And if you want to Bible Bash. Go do it in the Religious Forum. We here to make fun of Hypocrite Leftist Fascists in this thread.

rolling on floor laughing

Bashar Teg
Originally posted by Flyattractor


And if you want to Bible Bash. Go do it in the Religious Forum. We here to make fun of Hypocrite Leftist Fascists in this thread.



#YouViolatedMyHugbox
#StayOuttaMySafeSpace
#BroflakesUnite

Surtur
Originally posted by Patient_Leech
The Left by definition more secular and because of the stronghold that religion still has on the country, the Right still probably likes to think that it has the moral high ground.

Yes, I know to us atheists it sounds ridiculous, but that's our politics. The religious Right has the "moral absolutes," not like us heathen "moral relativists" on the Left. So in that sense the Right has the moral high ground.

But thinking you have the moral high ground due to religion isn't any worse than thinking you have it just because your own beliefs are superior lol.

There is no "the right is worse" here. There is "both are shit and slime, in different ways".

Silent Master
Originally posted by Surtur
But thinking you have the moral high ground due to religion isn't any worse than thinking you have it just because your own beliefs are superior lol.

There is no "the right is worse" here. There is "both are shit and slime, in different ways".

If you think about it, by him saying that it's worse when the right does it. he is essentially saying that the right are better people and thus should be held to a higher standard.

Flyattractor
Originally posted by Bashar Teg
#PleaseViolateMyNotHugeBox
#IRapeMixedRaceChildrenInMySafePlace
#IsuckBroDickBecauseYum

Good for You Bashy. Good for yOU.

Surtur
Originally posted by Silent Master
If you think about it, by him saying that it's worse when the right does it. he is essentially saying that the right are better people and thus should be held to a higher standard.

Lol true.

Emperordmb
Originally posted by Surtur
But thinking you have the moral high ground due to religion isn't any worse than thinking you have it just because your own beliefs are superior lol.

There is no "the right is worse" here. There is "both are shit and slime, in different ways".
I don't think he's drawing the distinction off of a bias against the right, but rather a bias against religion.

Surtur
Originally posted by Emperordmb
I don't think he's drawing the distinction off of a bias against the right, but rather a bias against religion.

But what is religion though? Some on the left show a cult/religious like zeal for their beliefs. Why is that lesser because they don't believe in a sky god?

Flyattractor
And just to spread the Democrat Filth of Sexing the Kids up..

Multiple Dems with Sex Crimes Charges...Cause Kids are so Sexy..

Surtur
Originally posted by Flyattractor
And just to spread the Democrat Filth of Sexing the Kids up..

Multiple Dems with Sex Crimes Charges...Cause Kids are so Sexy..

Now I get why places like Salon were all "well pedophiles ain't so bad maybe".

Flyattractor
Originally posted by Surtur
Now I get why places like Salon were all "well pedophiles ain't so bad maybe".

Remember when People started predicting that the next Sex Thing the Left would start to go easy on was the Pedos!?

Saying stuff like. "That will neve Happen!"

Boy did they get that wrong or WHAT!?


eek!

Surtur
Originally posted by Flyattractor
Remember when People started predicting that the next Sex Thing the Left would start to go easy on was the Pedos!?

Saying stuff like. "That will neve Happen!"

Boy did they get that wrong or WHAT!?


eek!

I just love that they deleted the article...only after the Milo thing, and why? So they could talk shit about Milo lol.

How sad is that? That they abandoned an article they supported just to run their mouths. Weird.

Emperordmb
Originally posted by Surtur
But what is religion though? Some on the left show a cult/religious like zeal for their beliefs. Why is that lesser because they don't believe in a sky god?
This is actually one of my main issues with some in the New Atheist movement, that they prioritize religion above all other ideology as a problematic threat, when there are far more damaging and threatening ideologies than religion in the west. The US has been a majority Christian nation since its inception, and its done pretty damn well. There is absolutely dogma connected to Christianity that has had a negative impact on societal progress such as gay marriage, and I won't deny that, but it's clear that it would be asinine to suggest that prevalence Christianity is likely to lead to widespread human rights abuses or economic/societal collapse in a western nation, whereas if as many people as were Christians in the US were marxists, or neonazis, or fascists, or some brand of racial collectivist, our country would seriously degrade.

I myself am not an atheist, so I obviously disagree with the notion that religion needs to be purged from society, and I'm willing to defend the positive aspects of my religion and admit the negative aspects of certain Christian perspectives and texts. I'm not saying religion can't be criticized, in fact I criticize plenty of things about other religions and about mainstream Christian perspectives. However even if I were an atheist who concluded the world would be better with less religious influence, if somebody were to suggest that all religion constitutes the greatest ideological threat worthy of prioritization over obviously worse political ideologies, and worthy of devoting the majority of one's intellectual talents to trying to combat, I would laugh in their face.

(That longwinded rant is not meant to castigate Patientleach in any way, since I don't know enough about his ideological criticism of political ideologies to truly draw anything resembling a fair comparison).

Surtur
Originally posted by Emperordmb
This is actually one of my main issues with some in the New Atheist movement, that they prioritize religion above all other ideology as a problematic threat, when there are far more damaging and threatening ideologies than religion in the west. The US has been a majority Christian nation since its inception, and its done pretty damn well. There is absolutely dogma connected to Christianity that has had a negative impact on societal progress such as gay marriage, and I won't deny that, but it's clear that it would be asinine to suggest that prevalence Christianity is likely to lead to widespread human rights abuses or economic/societal collapse in a western nation, whereas if as many people as were Christians in the US were marxists, or neonazis, or fascists, or some brand of racial collectivist, our country would seriously degrade.

I myself am not an atheist, so I obviously disagree with the notion that religion needs to be purged from society, and I'm willing to defend the positive aspects of my religion and admit the negative aspects of certain Christian perspectives and texts. I'm not saying religion can't be criticized, in fact I criticize plenty of things about other religions and about mainstream Christian perspectives. However even if I were an atheist who concluded the world would be better with less religious influence, if somebody were to suggest that all religion constitutes the greatest ideological threat worthy of prioritization over obviously worse political ideologies, and worthy of devoting the majority of one's intellectual talents to trying to combat, I would laugh in their face.

(That longwinded rant is not meant to castigate Patientleach in any way, since I don't know enough about his ideological criticism of political ideologies to truly draw anything resembling a fair comparison).

As an atheist I do recognize this country was essentially founded on Christian values. But for me in some ways religion is just a word. I look at Hitler and Stalin and the religious like zeal folk had for them. Some revered them. There was no religion persay, but you either worshiped these folk or your life was shitty, and they were quite set in their ways.

For some on the left it's like a cult. We are seeing examples of this by some with the "you agree with abortion or f*ck off" mentality.

Bentley
Originally posted by dadudemon
Change "objectively" to "in my opinion" or "subjectively." In fact, it would appear a person who sets their own morals would be more subjective than a large religion that has been changing those morals over long periods of time (averaging moral opinion that, in general, works for the preservation and prosperity of humans as a collective which is really what religion (most of them) is about).

What I said is that assuming your own morals makes you more responsible -as owning actions tends to be the definition of responsability-. If this is subjective or there are hard exceptions I can welcome that notion, but I'd like to know your argumentation.

Patient_Leech
Originally posted by Flyattractor
You got raped by a Priest when you were a kid Patent?

Cause Damn. You gotta hard on for Religious Hate on or what?
rolling on floor laughing

I wasn't raised Catholic, broseph.

cdtm
Originally posted by Emperordmb
Yeah why is his political party relevant? I'd be asking the same thing if this were a republican tbh. The actions of an individual unrelated to ideology are not enough to impugn the right or left, republican or democratic party as a whole. The MSM draws the distinction and pushes this kinda shit because they're a bunch of hacks.

I don't know why you see the media pulling this baiting bullshit and go "Oooweeee, I'd like to get in on that game!"

One of the sides keeps running "I'm a pedofile, I'm not a monster" stories...

Imagine Fox or Drudge did that, and this happened. People would talk.

Surtur

Sable
I dont like posting in these threads, I will say there is much more acceptance of pedofilia on the left, certainly more writing about it, more apathy towards those who are. But I dont know why, because I know liberals really dont think its ok, by why do they go about it with a soft touch and some try to make excuses or rationalize with it.

Surtur
Originally posted by Sable
I dont like posting in these threads, I will say there is much more acceptance of pedofilia on the left, certainly more writing about it, more apathy towards those who are. But I dont know why, because I know liberals really dont think its ok, by why do they go about it with a soft touch and some try to make excuses or rationalize with it.

Why don't you like posting in them? It's not like anyone is advocating for pedophilia.

Sable
It's a gross topic

Surtur
Originally posted by Sable
It's a gross topic

Indeed, and I can't imagine how the kids this creep molested feel right now.

Afro Cheese
Originally posted by Patient_Leech
This kind of thing happening with the religious Right has a bit more relevance, though, because molesting kids when you're supposed to be striving to be a sinless holy-roller seems to go against the pious Right's core values. The Right likes to pretend to have the moral high-ground because they flaunt their religiosity. So it has a bit more relevance because it's so blatantly hypocritical. Wait... does molesting children not go against the Left's core values?

Afro Cheese
ljaP2etvDc4

Surtur
I always just picture all the leftist celebrities giving Roman Polanski a standing ovation.

Flyattractor
Originally posted by Patient_Leech
I wasn't raised Catholic, broseph.

So you just got snagged off a street corner then?

cdtm
Originally posted by Sable
I dont like posting in these threads, I will say there is much more acceptance of pedofilia on the left, certainly more writing about it, more apathy towards those who are. But I dont know why, because I know liberals really dont think its ok, by why do they go about it with a soft touch and some try to make excuses or rationalize with it.

Lgbtq arguments makes it difficult to address.

Such as, if an argument for homosexuality is that sexuality is set in stone in infancy, it follows the same is true of pedos. Which leaves only two choices:

Condemn a pedo who hasn't harmed anyone, thereby hurting their argument for queer acceptance.

Defend a pedo, thereby risking public backlash that percieves it as normalizing pedofiloa (Not to mention giving the Right ammo..)

Surtur
If someone is a pedo get help. That is how I truly feel. Just get help. Don't give us articles about how you aren't a monster and then talk about how a 5 yr. old you were babysitting was "precocious" among other things, and don't say you had to go jerk off in the bathroom over your attraction to that child.

Flyattractor
Funny that is exactly what Anthony Wiener is trying to do..


The Weenie Made Weiner a Sick Sick Boy.....

Surtur
Originally posted by Afro Cheese
Wait... does molesting children not go against the Left's core values?

Yeah, the more I think about it..the more off it seems.

cdtm
Originally posted by Afro Cheese
Wait... does molesting children not go against the Left's core values?

thumb up

And frankly, his overall line of reasoning is an example of flawed liberal idealogy, in that it has less respect for one with moral values who fail to keep those values, then for one who has no values at all to keep.

I'll take the person who at leaat tries living up to a set of ethical standards.

dadudemon
Originally posted by Bentley
What I said is that assuming your own morals makes you more responsible -as owning actions tends to be the definition of responsability-. If this is subjective or there are hard exceptions I can welcome that notion, but I'd like to know your argumentation.

The "argument" is in your own words. It's extremely subjective for an individual to set their own morals.


"existing in the mind; belonging to the thinking subject rather than to the object of thought"

"pertaining to or characteristic of an individual; personal; individual:"

"placing excessive emphasis on one's own moods, attitudes, opinions, etc.;"

http://www.dictionary.com/browse/subjective?s=t

https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/subjective



An individual coming up with their own morals would be much more subjective than normalized behaviors that were normalized over thousands of years. This is not to say that one set is objectively better than the other.

Text-only Version: Click HERE to see this thread with all of the graphics, features, and links.