phonypapercut

Is English your first language?

I'd go further, and say it's grossly narcissistic and hypocritical. The framing of nerds vs. non-nerds is itself an example of the described mode of communication.

No. I assert that it would be (mildly) evil of you to give me white wine, given knowledge of my preference for red and equal availability.

Not wrongness as a property of the wine no. But given knowledge of my preference and all else being equal, would it not be wrong to give me white over red?

It's relevant because it determines whether the question matters.

Then it seems clear to me that the question shouldn't matter to you. Objectivists may be interventionists at a higher rate than relativists, but that bears no relation to which position is true.

No, not wrong. But having a different set of consequences.

That set of consequences being unpreferred, presumably. What is that if not an expression of (relative) wrongness?

No. Temperature is not heat.

I don't disagree in any regard. I still fail to see how this is relevant to the admitted point of contention;

whether calling moral ideas "true" or "false" is a category error.

As an aside, I infer that you think imposing one's morals on another would be wrong. Is that not a moral absolute itself?

Agreed. Hence "if any". So why start talking about imposing morals?

The issue is whether you should attempt to impose your morality, by force if necessary, on another human who doesn't agree with it.

The implication being moral absolutists think morality should be imposed by force? That seems far from being universally true, not least in rationalist circles.

Anyway, the point of contention isn't which moral ideas win or lose, but which, if any, are true.

Now, I'm not addressing those that say morality is subjective and those that live solely for themselves.

I'd wager those not addressed are more numerous than you think, especially among lurkers.

I'm not confident that this better accounts for the disparity between your expectations and the survey numbers than confused altruists, but the thought occurs.

Wouldn't negative income tax be a fairly strong incentive to stay/become unemployed for those near the cut-off?

That post wouldn't exist if the karma penalty hadn't been implemented.

It seems likely to me that assault isn't involved in this at all, it's just illegal to buy or administer anesthetics without a medical license.

Using surgical tools like a scalpel is a grey area for piercers. Operating with these instruments, or any kind of anestheia, could be classified as practicing medicine. Without a medical license, a piercer who does this is technically committing assault on the person getting the implant.

Anybody had success in dealing with acne?

Many forms of contraceptives are already free from non-profits. And they're pretty cheap otherwise. I don't think mandating that insurance cover contraceptives would affect their use very much.

Why is a government more likely to cover preventative care? If the argument is it's cheaper, a private insurer or individual paying out of pocket has just as much, if not more, incentive to pay for it.

I'd suggest not giving her a book overtly about atheism. Something more broadly about skepticism would be a better choice I think. The Demon-Haunted World gets a lot of recommendations, though I haven't actually read it myself.

I think it might be better to have both options be vote up. Seems the first voter was confused. If I vote now it will look as if nobody has voted.

There's also the problem of the vote down option being hidden.

Wouldn't killing be better described in this context as coercion? Which feels distinct from persuasion, to me.