I'm sorry, but "civil society" organizations have for years identified as hate speech any speech which disagrees with their view of what a "civil society" ought to be, identifying as "hate speech" statements made to the effect that "hate speech" laws and rules are an attempt to silence people you disagree with (even when those statements make no negative statement about any group--except possibly identifying groups which have used such tactics).

If they are part of Western culture, even those royals have family names just as the English royals do. Just because you do not know it, and the media don't use it, does not mean that it does not exist. I just went down the list of current sovereign monarchs of the world. The only ones which do not have family names associated with them are the monarchs of Andorra because that role is filled by the current President of France and the current Bishop of Urgell as co-Princes.
So, you are mistaken. It is harder to track down everyone with a noble title, but the same holds true there. Every noble family has a family name (that family name may derive from the territory they rule/used to rule, but it is a family name nonetheless).

Absent a belief in a God who has designated humans as a special creation, there are really only two arguments for not eating other humans. Neither of those arguments apply to any other creature that we have so far encountered. The first, which others have alluded to, is social contract, "I agree not to kill and eat other humans so that other humans will agree to not kill and eat me." The second you refer to in a manner, but seem to overlook its significance. There are proven health problems from eating other humans. As a matter of fact there are several diseases which seem to enter a society as a result of cannibalism, but which do not seem to be limited to the cannibals (there has not been a whole lot of in depth research on the health impact of cannibalism, largely because there are so few cannibals).

No, I am saying that if there is not some authority outside ourselves who defines what is right and wrong, than those words have no meaning. What authority you choose to accept for defining those terms is a matter for a different discussion.

I'm sorry, but I saw some of what she wrote. It was worded so as to maximize outrage and make it difficult to have a rational debate about her points. She did not want to open a discussion and change things. She wanted to get people worked up and angry. So, no, it was not "debunked" that she acted in a manner that was calculated to stir up outrage.

I know that the submitter lifted this line from the article, "campaign to discredit prominent female games journalists", but I read the earlier articles on this subject. The attempt was not to "discredit prominent female games journalists." The attempt was to discredit specific female games journalists, at least one of whom acted in a manner which was calculated to stir up outrage and was possibly unethical (for those of you who want to argue about whether or not her behavior was unethical, I am not interested in spending the time looking at what she did in order to reach a conclusion).

In other words, might makes right.

Yet, you said that people should just do whatever it is that they think is right. Many of the people in the 20th Century thought it was right to kill millions of other people. You say that we should analyze the various ways of deciding what is right and choose the one that works for us. You are unable to give a standard by which to measure whether something is right or wrong, yet I am supposed to accept that you will do what is right (at least most of the time).

My argument is that just because you (or anyone else) thinks that something is right, does not mean that it is right. If there is not some absolute standard by which to measure what is right, there is no such thing as right.

So, since the people who committed the atrocities of the 20th Century thought they were doing right, they were actually doing right?

Because if the government had not mandated EMR, the various EMR systems would have had to convince health care providers that what they were offering made their jobs easier or improved the care they gave their patients in order to get adopted. As problems like this cropped up, those health care providers would have pressured the vendors they dealt with to resolve it. There would have been one of two outcomes: everybody would have ended up using the same company, or everyone would have ended up using those companies who made it easiest to build a system that could talk to other EMR setups. If the Feds did their job enforcing Anti-trust laws, it would have been the latter.

So, basically you linked me to a wikipedia article which says that there are lots of different ways to determine what is right and what is wrong, so feel free to do whatever it is you think is right. Are you aware that many of those who carried out the atrocities of the 20th Century thought they were doing right?

What makes that more right than maximizing my own happiness? More importantly, I can justify a lot of evil in the name of "maximizing human happiness".

Perhaps you missed a key word in that passage, even though it is repeated twice. That word is "earth". When interpreted in light of other similar passages, it clearly is stating that man has been given dominion over life on this planet. Until such a time as man has the ability to get to other planets with life of their own, there is no basis for claiming that God gave man dominion over that life.

Please define "doing right" in a universe that does not have a god.