Comment: >>>You wrote, "Koener's view

(See in situ)

In reply to comment: Exactly wrong (see in situ)

>>>You wrote, "Koener's view

>>>You wrote, "Koener's view is that all viewpoints are morally equivalent and he disparages principle."

False. That is not my view and I specifically say so in this speech.<<<<

You say you believe in absolute truth then later in your speech you state "If you think I am morally less because I disagree about a specific"...this is an attempt to claim that there is no morally correct position. There is absolute morality/truth. You certainly seem to be claiming people who disagree with your definition of "human" have no right to claim a moral high ground. Are you saying that absolute truth exists but is unknowable?

>>>>You wrote, "He attempts to negate the idea that there are morally superior viewpoints"
Also false.<<<<

See above.

>>>>>I also state that I believe political arguments - including on the particular topic at hand - should be made from principle. I also specifically say I am not a relativist.<<<<<

Then how can you condemn people who disagree with your idea of principles? They are arguing from principle.

>>>>I don't mind disagreement, and (as per this talk) can respect your views if they differ from mine but I object to false statements of my views.<<<<<

You contradict yourself. You say that you believe political arguments should be made from principle but in your speech you claim that humans are incapable of logical rational thought based on a neurological experiment. How can arguments be made from principle if you don't believe people are capable of being logical and rational. You certainly seem to hold that position with your perseveration on love, FEELING, rather than rational argument (only fit for computer programmers!).Claiming that love is more important than a true position lowers us. We should strive to THINK, not FEEL.I am not trying to disrespect you as a human.I think you are wrong to get so offended by people who challenge your ideas.

>>>>>There is obviously a difference between A) believing there is no morally superior view (which I do not agree with), and B) believing that there is a morally superior view, but humility is still a good policy because we are imperfect vessels for morality.<<<<

I don't disagree that we are imperfect and that humility is a good policy. And I am sorry that the pro-lifers were rude to you. Why do you think that it would be more principled, from the pro-life view, to save the test tube of 10 embryos rather than the born infant?

Actually, I believe that you would have been more consistently libertarian to argue against any abortion law. It's doubtful that there would be much of an increase in abortions. People need to have liberty to make their own decisions, sins and mistakes and it is our job to persuade, not bully through politics. THAT would be the truly loving position.