They only stink if you have a nose--i.e. the ability to judge each one. When you do away with the external standard of judgment, it's just an argument that you like your sphincter best. IOW, it becomes a contest in arrogance and loses any argumentative power.
That's why I keep asking
@luthervol what the basis of his moral standard is, as well as the basis of his trust in his ability to properly interpret reality around himself.
His argument is that morality is defined by society, yet social morality is often wrong and needs to evolve to become "better". When push comes to shove, that "better" is no more than his opinion.
Morality is a meaningless concept that just means that we should conform to his preferences.
View attachment 778477
When asked about his trust in his ability to interpret reality around himself, I have been given no indication that he actually realizes the gravity of his predicament.
View attachment 778479
He claims that humanity is nothing more than bald primates who are merely the result of random mutations and time--survival of the fittest, with "fittest" defined as the ones that are most adept at leaving behind their genetic material. "Fittest" cannot be defined as "rational and capable of properly interpreting reality", since random mutation and time cannot have that end in mind. And since one must use their mind, senses and rationality to judge how well their mind, senses and rationality correspond to reality, they are locked into a nihilistic question of whether or not they can actually trust that they are rational beings who correctly perceive reality around themselves.
So, Luther is painted into the corner of arguing that he is morally "right" and others are morally "wrong", based on societal definitions that he also claims can be immoral, thus we have the "moral" mandate to change.
View attachment 778488
He claims that his opinions are the best opinions, with no reason whatsoever to believe that his opinions actually even correspond to objective reality.
It's this incredibly odd place where he is a progressive (whatever that means in this relativistic universe he's created in his mind), trying to hold us to a standard that he invented in his mind--which he contradicts at every step. He argues mere opinion as better/worse without any capability to support any standard that would make one opinion better than any other opinion, considering that, as far as he's concerned, we may or may not be mere primates. Although we could also not even exist, as he may be just some form of primordial goo that evolved to believe he's one of many apes. As far as he's concerned, the entire universe may just be a figment of his imagination.
Until he can grapple with that, he's literally just a yawn-factory selling self-contradictions. He realizes this, as evidenced by his defensive non-replies. But he won't admit it, except via the inevitable distraction replies, the most recent being "yawning" them away and retreating for a bit.
