What makes them qualified to tell me what's right/wrong?
Nobody has made this claim, but if you want an answer to this question, it's probably best to ask them, no?
Not just me!
It seems intuitively obvious to me that it's not, and I can cite my definition of "wrong" in support.
Sure, but that makes you highly unusual, indeed aberrant. Your definition of 'wrong' isn't
support for anything.
Appealing to the majority, is a fallacy.
It is indeed, but nobody has done that here, to my knowledge.
The burden of proof is on any and all claimants, be they majority or minority.
I'm not quite sure that's true: given you're adopting such a radical perspective on the moral status of an action that seems uncontroversial to others, if there is such a burden, it probably falls on you.
Amoral, like all thoughts - they neither help nor harm others.
Thanks for clarifying. I don't accept that if something doesn't help or harm others it's therefore amoral, though.
Sure, but you asked me "And how do you know that people hold these positions
until they act on them?". If one tells another about his intention to kill somebody else, he's not
acting on that intention: to
act on that intention is to actually attempt to kill his target.
Countering your "they can tell us" objection.
I've no idea how you think it does this.
At the moment it's a struggle to follow your train of thought: you seem to be suggesting that thoughts and other mental states
per se cannot be morally evaluated because mind reading is impossible. Presumably you wouldn't endorse a position that's so silly, so help me understand!