Well Stephanie, my questions about the relativity of morals was mostly rhetorical because they were supposed to be assumed as absurd. Moral relativity, as seemed to be your main focus in your last post is pretty flawed when you think about it. Morality is more than just an individual idea and we are not just individuals living in the moment seperately from one another our whole lives through. Morals have to do with the interactions of yourself, other people, and your surroundings. If morals were just what went on in your own mind then what of the person you just effected through your moral ideals. Are genocides relative? Not for the millions of people slain.
Now what Im getting at, and you can apply this to your other post as well, is Moral Universalism. Morals that apply to humanity throughout time and space.
Now as your idea on labels, which I don't think I really addressed too much in my post, but the coming of absence of labels is a nice example of progressive perception. If people can perceive the world around them as not being about typing or fitting into a type, as seeing everyone as an indivdual with needs, thoughts, and emotions, then their might be a lot less predjudice. Wouldn't you say everyone being a bit more equal is progress?
and your "everything is progress, but nothing is progress," doesnt make any sense. Do you even know what that means??