[shadowfyr]

True, as far as it goes. But the problem isn't that many groups have mutually contradictory views on what it is. The problem is that its a linguistic construct, layered on top of a system (the brain), which is 500 times more universal a machine than any computer. And trying to claim that there is a single objective moral code is a bit like insisting that there is one true operating system, of which all existing systems are just weak copies. Worse, with the brain, the hardware changes "as" the OS is built, so the only claim you can logically make about moral codes, and how objective they are, end up being 100% based on the "current" state of the brain, at the time you examined the moral code inside it. Otherwise, its quite meaningless with respect to any other living person.

At best, one could say that there is a **statistically** objective moral code of some sort, which maximizes freedom of action, while allowing for acceptable risks. The problem of course being that some people don't see some things as risks, including the imho damage caused by forcing strict patterns of thought on them, others consider some risks irrationally higher than they truly are, and more time gets spent either justifying those positions (by making up fake research based on the "current" state of things, which doesn't say anything about if that state is valid to start with), or argue against other positions. One of the fundamental ironies of having morals and ethics is that most everyone agree that creating experiments to **actually** test if changing a particular moral stance has a negative or positive impact is unacceptable, so in the rare cases someone does come up with a vague test, like for the effects of violence on kids, you get the equivalent of, "If someone eats, do they stop being hungry?", to which the only answer you can arrive at logically is, "Yes, until they get hungry again." Yet, when discussing something like violent behavior, the fact that only a fraction of people in real life *act* in such a manner, despite similar levels of exposure in their lives, is ignored, in favor of, "Do kids get violent after watching violent stuff?", to which they *project* the delusional answer, "Yes, and it isn't just temporary." Huh??? How do you know, without breaking your own code of ethics, by running long term tests? You can't.

And, just to be clear, its worse with nudity, porn, etc. Its considered, by the vast majority, unacceptable to even *try* to run a simplistic experiment on those subjects, so **all** of the so called studies are little more than made up rubbish where some clown asks leading questions of adults, then extrapolates what they "think" it did to them, while, again, ignoring the **huge** number of people exposed to either the same thing, or more (nudists/naturists anyone...) with no negative outcome at all. But then, this is what can be expected. The sort of people pushing the idea that nudity is worse than violence have shown not the slightest abhorrence to the idea of lying outright, misquoting real science, or just making up a mix of unprovable (never mind simply verifiable) anecdotal stories and statistics based on nothing but numbers they "imagine" are true, based on their personal level of fear about the subject.

Oh, and just wondering, why is it that both the web sites and emails from these sorts of people almost always in Comic Sans and/or using nearly random font sizes and clashing colors? If that isn't a sign of insanity in and of itself, I can't imagine what is. And they manage to show their insanity through this sort of stuff *even* when they manage to write coherently (which in the case of email from them is rare indead). lol I am serious, they really do this, though I can't find one of the examples at the moment. Its just nuts.