People that can understand the difference between right and wrong can’t really explain this to people who only understand the idea of what is legally permissible.

It’s not about whether the explanation is rational. It’s just that if you really think the law is the last word on ethics and morality then you must be so self interested or ignorant or evil that you’re already not in a position to understand any explanation that’s offered.

As a simple example, should we teach children to not lie, or explain that the real error is to get caught telling a lie that didn’t even maximize their profit potential? Do you want corporations or individuals that shape society to be better moral actors than children, or worse?

If you don’t understand this kind of thing already, it must be willful.. retreating to the letter of the law in simple situations like this to plead moral and ethical agnosticism is such a transparent and weak position, rhetorically. Everyone knows that you just plan to profit from your willingness to engage in some kind of bad behavior.

>so religious zealotry? man-in-the-sky said "no do that!" ?

What are you on about?

I refuse to compromise my morals just because something is legal. That's it.

My morals did not come from some god, and they did not come from laws. No idea where you are getting religious zealotry from.

>"This is uh.. Yeah." - can you clarify this remark please?

Sure. I stopped myself from saying something rude to you.