[ SECRET POST #3265 ]

[case]

⌈ Secret Post #3265 ⌋

Warning: Some secrets are NOT worksafe and may contain SPOILERS.

01.


__________________________________________________



02.


__________________________________________________



03.


__________________________________________________



04.


__________________________________________________



05.


__________________________________________________



06.


__________________________________________________



07.


__________________________________________________



08.


__________________________________________________



09.


__________________________________________________



10. [nf]


__________________________________________________


11.


__________________________________________________


12.















Notes:

Secrets Left to Post: 03 pages, 075 secrets from Secret Submission Post #467.
Secrets Not Posted: [ 0 - broken links ], [ 1 2- not!secrets ], [ 0 - not!fandom ], [ 0 - too big ], [ 0 - repeat ].
Current Secret Submissions Post: here.
Suggestions, comments, and concerns should go here.

Comments

[blitzwing]

You would end up with a lot of logical fallacies, and also even the most relativistic person has limits (child rape, murder, things like that) and tends to get offended when things are done to them even if they call them relative when done to others.

You can accept that something is morally relative and still be angered by having it done to you. That's not a contradictory event; believing that morality is relative means that people will do things to you that perceive as immoral, but you know that the person who did them sees them as morally justifiable.

Moral relativism means you can accept the simultaneous validity of contradicting personal moral philosophies.

[(Anonymous)]

You really have no idea what you're talking about...