I don't get why this seems noteworthy or odd to you. THe open source community is our friends, but businesses are the enemy. Of course we want to steal from the enemy, but we would prefer that the enemy not steal from us. This is just basic logic and human nature.

Do you know what the word sociopath means? By definition, a sociopath is someone who doesn't care about other people.
If you aren't upset at the thought of your whole species dying off, then it sure sounds like you don't care about if other people live or die, and thus you are a sociopath.

Why do you believe this?
You yourself have stated that people who believe in absolute morals typically believe that god dictated those morals. Do you believe that god said that lying is not wrong? I don't think you do, because I'm pretty sure you've stated that you don't believe in god.

Personally, it appears that you don't believe that lying is right. I think you are just playing devil's advocate.

I'll restate the question, because I really am curious about your honest answer.

What possible argument is there that lying is not wrong? Saying it is not wrong "just because" is not an argument, I want to know your reasoning.
Alternatively, you could find me one person who honestly believes that lying is not wrong.

Under what possible moral system would it be considered good to kick someone when they are down, just for a laugh? Just because you don't care about hurting other people doesn't mean we are wrong to deride you for it.

I think you win an argument by convincing your opponent that you are right and they are wrong. Hopefully this correlates with truth and facts, but if you are arguing opinions, then it might not.

What exactly is an "absolute fact of the universe", and how does it differ from a plain-old ordinary everyday fact?

Perhaps there are ways to desensitize yourself, but I would argue that you ought to be very careful with this. Certainly it is good to have a somewhat thick skin so that you aren't driven to a tearful, trembling mess if someone gently teases you. But if you shutoff your emotions completely, and are therefore unable to feel anything, neither good feelings nor bad feelings, then what is the point of being alive? To coldly calculate logic, in a machine-like manner, rather than be the warm, feeling creatures we generally naturally are?

I'm afraid I dont follow your logic. The liar was someone who you had good reason to trust, and maybe you even investigated to determine whether or not he was telling the truth, but for whatever reason your investigation yielded the wrong answer. All logic pointed to the notion that he was telling the truth. How are you at fault for believing him, rather than him being at fault for deceiving you?

> Yes. I don't believe in absolute morals (nor do I believe that many people believing something makes the belief
  > true). I suppose absolute morals could exist, but I have thus far seen no convincing evidence to prove it.

I won't try to change your mind, but I will try to state my opinions on these matters.
I believe that absolute morals exist, although I do not believe in them myself, but what I mean by that is that some people believe in absolute morals, so those morals are real and true and absolute as far as they are concerned, even though other people might disagree. This is moral relativism, so I'd figure you might agree with this.

Regarding convincing evidence to prove absolute morals, I think looking for such evidence is missing the point. Science does not have a concept of absolute truth, just experiments and theories and observations. Some things, such as religion and morals, are based on faith, not on experiments or science. When someone has faith in something, they don't need proof. Their beliefs are still real to them, and might make them happy and make them lead healthier more productive lives.

Of course, this is just my opinion, and I'm an agnostic, so take this for what you will.

Finally, regarding the issue of whether most people believing something makes it true, I disagree with you. Most people agreeing on something is what makes it true, by definition. If most people say that apples are red, then apples are red. But what about the colorblind person who sees apples as green? Does that mean that we are all wrong, and he is right, and apples are green after all? No, it means that his vision is broken.

Even in science, when a scientist submits a paper to be published, there is no magic "is this true" test. Rather, a panel of expert reviews vote, and the majority opinion decides what is considered true.

In other words, there is no such thing as absolute truth, there is just observations and opinions. But the way the english language works, when enough people agree that something is true, we say that it is in fact true. This is imprecise and probably repugnant to your ultra-logical mindset, but it is the way the world works.

So some people have priorities that say that they should have innocent people killed. Fair enough, I'm sure there is at least one person out there who feels that way.

But I don't understand where you are coming from when you classify such priorities as "merely different" rather than "absolutely evil according to almost everybody on earth."

Would you care to enlighten me by explaining your way of thinking?