Meta-ethical relativists believe not only that people disagree about moral issues, but that terms such as "good", "bad", "right", and "wrong" do not stand subject to universal truth conditions at all, rather only to societal convention and personal preference.

"Good" and "bad" are at least partially innate, so that position is obviously wrong.

I don't think there's a universal moral standard everyone ought to follow.

It's no more a matter of choice than whether physics is universal. Morality derives from our biology and the laws of the universe. Universality explains differences in moral judgments not as choices but as mistakes. By analogy, there appear to be universal physical laws even if most people don't understand them at all, and even though even physicists don't fully understand them yet. The problem with Catholic morality is that it is like medieval physics: it seems intuitive, but it is logically inconsistent and contradicts the real world.

But if a theist is violation a rule of his God, he's doing something he finds morally wrong.

Yes, God's will, not the Vatican's; many protestants have historically the Pope to be the antichrist or devil, meaning they expected him to tempt them with big promises to do the wrong thing. You know, like, "you'll go to paradise and experience eternal bliss if you do as I tell you".

(Also, being a theist doesn't necessarily mean following God; some theists consider God evil, indifferent, or incompetent.)

And what magical democracy has figured out how to do this better? Italy? Germany? France? Greece? Portugal? The UK? I don't think so.

When you come up with a system that actually works better in practice and doesn't self-destruct like clockwork, let us know.

Modding down is meant as a last resort to weed out posts that harm reasoned discourse. It is not supposed to be used merely to express disagreement

Yeah, but that's exactly what's happening. Of course, in many cases, it's just that people are so narrow minded and uninformed that they simply cannot believe that a statement that rund contrary to their beliefs is actually reasonable and accurate.

This isn't the US doing it, it's many governments. They find it convenient to use secret international treaty negotiations to achieve things that people wouldn't vote for voluntarily. They just come back from their negotiations and say "the Americans/Germans/French/Chinese/... forced us to". European governments portray the US as some kind of evil imperialist power that they can't resist, American politicians portray Europeans as pinko commie liberals that rob the US blind, and politicians in China, India, and Africa portray Europe and the US as murderous ex-colonialists. It's the politics of hate and fear by which politicians manage to retain power.

A lot of the copyright insanity originates in Europe. The US at least has fair use, first sale, and reproductions don't create a new copyright; in Europe, you get none of that. Europe has more than 500 million people and an economy that's bigger than that of the US. If it didn't want ACTA, ACTA wouldn't happen.

You can dislike Windows all you like, but Windows 7 is actually pretty good.

Yeah, it's kind of like OS X, which isn't saying all that much.

OS X is a thin BSD compatibility layer on top a heavily hacked Mach microkernel. It's about as much "UNIX" as Microsoft Windows is UNIX, "UNIX 03" brand name shenanigans notwithstanding.

The PC is fine. What's coming to an end is Apple's desktop era, because Apple really isn't in anything for the long run. They take quick opportunities to make a lot of money with the currently hot thing, go with it for a few years, and then drop it to move on to the next thing.

I'm a moral relativist. That doesn't mean I don't believe in principles, I just don't think "I'm right, and you are wrong". My principles are as valid as anyone else's.

That doesn't automatically make you a moral relativist. The death penalty is valid, but I consider it neither moral nor effective. Likewise, Catholicism is valid, but I consider it neither moral nor effective.

For example, I believe a Catholic has a right to refuse to assist in suicide, refuse to perform abortions, or refuse to provide contraceptives to people. Furthermore, he believes his actions to be justified and beneficial. Taken together, that makes his actions "valid". But the fact that he has a right to do so doesn't make it moral: his actions still cause other people to suffer unnecessarily and to deprive them of their free will, and that makes his actions morally wrong.

Do the atheists you know believe in a transcendental "world", even if they don't believe in God?

There are about 2 billion atheists in the world, many of them deeply religious and with a deep faith in the transcendent.

If they don't, where do they believe the moral standard they follow comes from?

Logic, reason, and innate insights ("revelation"). In fact, Christianity actually also acknolwedges those as sources of morality. The failure of Catholicism is that hierarchy and authority trump logic, reason, and revelation in its practice.

Only non-theists can be truly unselfish, as they are able to perform good deeds and deny themselves any kind of reward.

I've made the same argument, and even Catholic intellectuals recognized this centuries ago.

Actually, theists can be truly unselfish: if they violate the rules of their church and risk punishment in the afterlife. If theism is true, the true purpose of an organization like the Vatican may be that it gives human beings an opportunity to defy it.

For states that are not on the border, immigration may not seem like it's a bad problem

It's pretty sad when even people who oppose illegal migration fall into this trap.

Immigration is not a problem; immigrants pay, are productive members of society, and get deported if they break any laws.

The problem is illegal migration. Illegal migration is not immigration. Stop confusing the two.

I'm sorry you're falling through the cracks right now. USCIS is breaking the law by not issuing you identification (they are required to). Make copies of your paperwork and keep them in your vehicle and that will likely be sufficient for Arizona police.

The problems you are having with USCIS are exactly the reason why Arizona is passing this law: federal immigration and immigration enforcement is a mess. It's slow, expensive, and bureaucratic. It makes illegal behavior more effective and cheaper than legal behavior.

Nevertheless, keep in mind that you are a guest and that immigration is a privilege, not a right. You always do have the option of not immigrating if it becomes too much of a hassle. That would probably be a loss for the US, but that's for American voters to worry about.

That's not specific to immigration; there are many law enforcement situations where police need to hold you until they can figure out who you actually are. That's why we need a national identity card system. Such a system exists to make it easy for people to prove their identity when it is in their best interest. Being able to prove your identity and having your identity be difficult to forge are good things. It's the lack of such an identity system that causes us to choose between a police state or no law enforcement at all.

And, yes, if you don't carry any identity documents, the police can't find you in databases, and nobody on the outside can help you, you are fucked; do you want lack of documentation to be a get-out-of-jail-free card?

Get a friend who can help you. Or if you're friendless, get a depository like a notary or bank who can act on your behalf.

Few other nations have as much illegal migration as the US. The problem is solvable, and asking people to prove that they are in the country legally when stopped by police (as well as when conducting business) is part of the solution. It's what most other democracies do, and it's high time the US do it as well.

That's not a big deal; most driver's licenses and state-issued identity cards already work for that purpose, you need those for many other purposes anyway, and every legal resident can get one of those.

The fact that you aren't required to carry a legal ID under US law doesn't mean you aren't required to identify yourself in many situations; it simply means that you don't get penalized if you don't carry an identity card. If you don't carry an identity card, police can already detain you until they figure out who you are.

The malware installs modified firmware that opens up a backdoor on the iPad itself.

And the reason this backdoor exists is because iPad doesn't do OTA firmware updates. This can't happen on many Android or Symbian devices because those do OTA updates from a known server and don't require any desktop software at all.

Moral relativism is the philosophical tenet that there is no universal, absolute standard by which all humans and their actions can be judged. Period.

We agree on that. But where are these great numbers of "moral relativists" that the Pope keeps railing against and raising fear about? I don't know any moral relativists.

Most atheists, liberals, or moderate Christians I know are not moral relativists, they are merely tolerant. In different words, we think that the Catholic church and the Pope are morally wrong in an absolute, universal sense; we just don't speak up until the Catholic church starts insulting us and trying to impose its immoral theology on us, as it has with increasing frequency in recent years.

Your post should be modded down to flamebait

Ah, the typical Catholic response: just silence anybody who disagrees with the church. I'm just glad they can't just guillotine us non-Catholics anymore, as they did with my ancestors.