Sticking to the original claim is "bad faith argument" now? Note the argument isn't that every action has a universal good/bad categorization, just that "universal truths" exist. Your comment is a bad faith argument.
i recommend taking some deep breaths. Language is a construct.
Mugging: 1939 as "a violent physical robbery;"
Stealing: Old Frisian stela "to steal, rob one of,"
tracing it back to proto-Indo-European still has "rob" in the etymology for "steal". I am using EO because i don't want to go to my bookshelf right now.
you can "steal" an apple from a store and that's not a "robbery" but if you mug someone and rob them it's still "theft", they were still "stolen from".
In a thread about universal truths (or not) this is amusing.
> Sticking to the original claim is "bad faith argument" now?
Arguing against a weak interpretation of someone’s argument is arguing in bad faith when a stronger interpretation is plausible. It is in the guidelines:
> Please respond to the strongest plausible interpretation of what someone says, not a weaker one that's easier to criticize. Assume good faith.
1. If you really want to get into rules lawyering, the guideline was arguably broken when "mugging" was substituted for "theft" a few comments up. That most certainly is not "strongest plausible interpretation of what someone says". In fact it's the opposite. Therefore calling out "mugging" =/= stealing isn't "bad faith argument".
2. The original claim is "There are universal truths". Substituting that for "There are universal truths in every circumstance" isn't "strongest plausible interpretation", it's changing the argument entirely and attacking a strawman. It's like claiming "a^2 + b^2 = c^2 holds for right angle triangles", someone else objecting "yeah but it doesn't hold for all triangles", and then invoking "strongest plausible interpretation of what someone says" when he's called out for changing the claim.
