I lack the personality traits and financial backing to take over Italy and become King. I'm no Caesar or Napoleon or Alexander. The only thing I can conquer is a bottle of Mountain Dew and enemy lands in Mount & Blade. :( I'm also good at PWNing people in Counterstrike.

I ask you another question: Who decides what is right or wrong then? Isn't it the society? Ethics and the morals change in the course of time (as much as society and culture changes as well). And if the people back then weren't advanced enough to realize what is wrong and right, what makes you so absolutely sure that you can?

If I answered all your questions, what is the point? It's not like you will believe me. And even if you believe me, you still have to win the debate no matter what so then much time is wasted. I'll say this though. Ethics and morals do change over time. But what is right and what is wrong, never changes and hasn't changed since the beginning of humanity. And you will notice, since the beginning of humanity, all the different civilizations that have risen and fallen have some morals in common... Like, for example, killing someone for no reason whatsoever is wrong. If you build a time machine, step inside of it, set it to only go back in time and then close your eyes and hit a bunch of buttons. There will be a 100% chance, where you end up will be inhabited by people who look down on killing someone for no reason whatsoever. So why is this? You probably already know the answer. But why is it considered immoral in the first place? Because obviously, in the past, people were killed for no reason whatsoever. Why? Maybe you can figure out the rest, yourself.

Yes, of course. Are you stupid? Are you pro-child-rape?

Cultural standards are things like "what counts as modest clothing for women" and "how to address a government official". "Mr. Smith" isn't objectively better than "John", and "long dress and slippers" isn't immediately preferrable to "t-shirt, pants, and sensible shoes".

Kids are mentally incapable of consenting to sex. Raping children is bad. Maybe you also need a refresher on this. Rape and murder hurts people no matter if your people favor funny hats or funny hairdos, and a ban on media the production of which involves committing deliberate rape and murder isn't culture, it's science. That's a separate area of knowledge from the one that handles wearing crocs to a job interview.

She can be extremely offensive, that I know. Also I don't think wishing someone dead is equal to a death threat - distinction which evades many nowadays... amazing that. Still I can't imagine any reasons why you should wish her harm, since I assume there's no way in hell she can actually harm you...

Carry on though... that was just an example why someone may down vote you, and it doesn't even apply to this thread :)
Oh dear... what concentration of strawmen you knocked down...

Let's put it this way, and I'll ignore most you posted. Sorry in advance, just you usually do the same anyway.

You agree that pedophiles actually, like, exist yes? If they didn't laws against child pornography would not have occurred to anyone, and would not really be needed. I assume you agree.

Ok, given that they exist, and we both see their actions as morally wrong, the question we have before us is: where does evil come from?

Given that you just answered my question, affirming that norms against pedophilia are not cultural, rather biological, I assume you believe the reasons for pedophilia are biological. Correct?

What should killing for no reason mean? In the past people killed to please their gods,they killed for food, they killed for entertainment, they killed because their victim had a different race, religion or gender. And all these reasons were widely accepted (personally I think there is no valid reason for killing except maybe self-defense).

But killing without any reason? Is it even possible? I mean even hate, sexual desire, anger or desire to kill are reasons (and even some of them were regarded as valid in the past).

I mean, people killing their own kind for fun has never been accepted. It has always been looked down upon. Best to just end this conversation though. No point.

Might be true then. But was it because of some universal ethics or just because people knew (or felt) that it would weaken their own groups/tribes/society? After all they never had problems to kill people from outside the "inner circle".

There is connection between the two in that bold sentence of yours. Because not only does people killing their own kind for fun, weaken a group, it also results in a lot of suffering and more suffering down the road. And possibly, the death of the group. So such behavior is wrong because it brings suffering, chaos and death upon a group. During most of history, groups didn't exist long if in a fragile state. Therefore people killing their own kind for fun is wrong and in the long run, not good for humanity. Think about it. If our ancestors, didn't put a stop to such behavior by making it WRONG then would we even be here today? See, what I consider RIGHT is all the things that have helped bring humanity this far and all the things that will take humanity to a brighter future. Anything that does the opposite is WRONG. There is only one set of morals that is good for humanity. Anything else just results in negative consequences for us like poverty, slavery, genocide, mass murder etc A lot of people don't realize how important morals are and that everything little thing we do affects us all.

But there isn't just black and white. Beside many other things it was also the ability to kill weaker beings that brought humanity this far. And they also killed within there groups, most time just not within the same social rank. For example they killed weak members of the group (for example handicapped and ill people) and they sometimes even did it for fun. I wouldn't consider it right, but it certainly helped mankind to get here.

Did I say killing the weak is wrong? You underestimate my intelligence. I said people killing their own kind for fun is wrong. And what is right and what is wrong also depends on the situation. The bible's morals are black and white and that is why I don't take the bible seriously. But it's best if we end this conversation now.

Sure, if you don't want to continue it, we can stop. I think it was interesting though. After all topics like moral, ethics, right and wrong are rather philosophical ones. Don't think there's ultimate truth about such themes or one can win such a debate, but I'm always interested what people have to say about it.

Are you my long lost twin or what? Where have you been these past 6 months?

I've already pissed off more people here than Richard Dawkins could giving a speech at a Baptist Church in Texas. So I think I should take a break from this thread.

I was always here. Well hidden in a cuddly blue cookie monster costume. ;)