Separate names with a comma.
I got into a debate with a college kid about morals. For some reason they thought these were objective, I educated them that they were indeed subjective. Good and bad are human constructs and not an inherent property of reality. Plus they wanted to debate the stupid feminism garbage.
I also couldn't get past the dumbfounding homeopathy claims they were making. They even told me they got genital herpes and had successfully treated it with some janky herbs, crystals, and junk. I stopped listening after crystals.
Oh, I thought it was something more subtantial than "I debated a feminist on the internet".
Sorry to disappoint Walpknut, I guess my experiences are not entertaining enough for you.
Don't worry, all is forgiven.
@Einhanderc7 I may be wrong but you seem to have got in to a mindset that because they disagree with you they are somehow ignorant. I mean lots of people make the case for objective morality on different grounds, and while I agree morality is subjective that doesn't mean others are ignorant for disagreeing.
I disagree with the first point and agree with the 2nd point. It's difficult to convey an entire conversation accurately with a character limit. I'm open minded and willing to be proven wrong as I have here in the past.
Although I do admit that I sometimes kick some dirt to get a conversation going :)
I guess it depends from what angle you're looking at it. There is moral absolutism and moral relativism. However, from where does moral come from? Is it something that only gets value from us, so making it subjective, or is there really some some kind of 'code' that will always lead us to some kind of moral.
That right there is the issue, either way someone tries to define it there is still a subjective layer.
Adolescence is the time where a teen will try out new ideas and stuff, most of them of course are just misconsceptions on life and stuff. If those college kids ever grow up then they might throw away the idea of forcing others to follow their idea of "morals".