Loving your enemies is a very perverse thing in itself.

I would argue that real service dogs are hurt by virtue of being subject to slavery, but whatever.

Also, Einstein didn't create the bomb. He wrote a letter of recommendation. He was asked about one problem with gaseous diffusion of fissionable materials. That was all. Your lacking of the most rudimentary research shows how full of shyte you are, which is why I'm going to stop wasting time on this conversation and get back to making money.

The contradiction is that you are trying to apply moral worth to inanimate objects while attempting to confuse me with science (of which you probably understand less than you let on), whose realm is entirely separate from what constitutes moral behavior. Nonetheless, you try to conflate them. We are made of matter, no different than the rock. Our bodies are subject to the same laws, which means we are of the same moral worth of the rock according to your logic, EXCEPT that we have abilities that it lacks. That means that, in accordance with your own logic, you would have to either concede that free will does not exist and we are thus- at the very least- morally equal (not inferior) to the rock, or that we are capable of moral choice, which is a potentially positive quality the rock lacks. The sum of your assertions is essentially nihilistic. You're arguing that- because it is inanimate- a rock has greater moral worth. That is tantamount to saying death makes a person morally superior to when they are alive, which can be extrapolated to mean that the goal of a moral life is to cause as much death as possible. And if you believe that, then please, by all means you can join ISIS, and I will join the US Army on the same effing day. We'll see who wins out with that one.

Your wording is convoluted. Are you suggesting there are happy, positive **pes that benefit humanity by insinuating there are exceptions to absolutes? Because the objectivism I endorse has the primary principle- OBJECTIVE, if you will- that utilitarian well-being of living beings is the goal, and there are things that can predict that. You are attacking your own straw man. Pure moral relativism asserts that people's morality is their own private domain and is therefore not condemnable. And if you believe that, go to Afghanistan for a year and get back to me about what you think of cultural and moral relativism. You can attack objectivism by saying the means cannot be fixed, but it is the goal of aggregate well being that is what's fixed. People like you like to use examples along the lines of, "Would it not be better if a doctor were in a position to do so that he should harvest the organs of a savable person if it meant using them to save 20 other people?" But, you ignore the notion of how sucky a world it would be if everyone would rather chance death by not going to hospitals because they were afraid of being harvested for organs. Obviously a myopic exercise. Postulating that objectivity can be flawed because other factors impact it would be like me saying, "Gravity exists; it's the pull between two objects," and then you come along and say, "If that's so, then what about anti-gravity?" as if that changes the assertion that gravity is real and concrete in the provable sense.