>>5
The person's ability to calculate complex logical problems within a period of time. Through a person's life they are given the facts needed to come to the conclusion that certain traditions are necessary, some understand why and some do not. Some make a conscious effort not to think about it, but eventually as they get older they decide to think and cease being liberals.
>>7
Wrong, I never divided anything into 2 over simplified abstract categories. I merely stated that liberals are people who do not have the intelligence to understand certain things.
>>10
Some morals are objectively formed from self-evident philosophical principles. They are logical.
>>11 has given an example that contradicts what you have said. If you are of low intelligence (or experience, but this is unlikely if you are over 18 which you should be to browse 4chan) you will question the morals which encourage you not to intentionally murder babies. The law of nature is no law whatsoever, you do whatever feels right at the time. However apon achieving sentience and a certain level of intelligence one questions the possibility of the existence of sentience in others. This recognition of sentience in others contradicts actions which may harm others giving some impetus not to commit them. This is the golden rule found in even the most isolated of cultures, of course it isn't always followed but it is a factor. A moral formed objectively and logically which has an effect on people's decisions beyond animal instincts.