Subject:
|
Re: Question for the Conservatives out there
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Thu, 10 Jun 2004 18:34:40 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
2142 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Dave Schuler wrote:
| |
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, John Neal wrote:
| |
| |
| |
We are all for sex, but within the context of marriage.
|
You’re “all for” sex with only one partner, of only one certain sex, in
only certain ways, under only certain circumstances. Right?
|
Yes, but neither are you “all for” sex either, unless you are willing to
advocate beastiality, incest, etc. You draw your lines, I draw mine. There
is no difference except in degree.
|
This, too, is moral relativism, which you have alternatively embraced and
reviled in earlier posts.
|
I realize this and I believe in an absolute morality, but he doesn’t. I am
trying to appeal to his sensibilities, not mine (which I know he flatly
rejects). I am arguing on his turf, as it were.
| |
As far as incest goes, you have
previously acknowledged
that incestuous relationships are wrong because they conflict with cultural
values. In so doing, you acknowledge that incest in only wrong within the
context of society as it now exists.
|
I assume you are talking about when I answered “cultural values”. To clarify, I
was speaking about our cultural values, which are Judeo-Christian in origin.
To clarify further, I believe that incest is wrong in any culture.
| |
Chris has already observed that the issue is one of informed consent, and I
would add personal preference as a factor. As he pointed out, if a person
wants to copulate with an animal, how exactly does that affect me? One can
even posit scenarios in which the animal’s consent can be verified, so it
need not be a question of force.
|
It affects you and me because of the culture that will be formed based on such
values. I don’t want to live in such a sick culture and I don’t want my
culture contaminated with such values.
| |
Regarding my own sexuality, I draw the line at my personal preference, just
like you do. The difference is that you seek to impose your preference upon
others,
|
No, Dave! You have it all backwards. The beliefs of our culture are not
artificial. They reflect the sentiments of our society. We don’t condone
incest in our society because the overwhelming majority of our society find it
repugnant. It is a shared sentiment. It is no more “imposed” than outlawing
murder is an imposition on a psychopath.
| |
and you cloak your preference in the claim that you’re trying to
protect society/culture/family from “erosion.”
|
It is not my preference alone; it is virtually everyone’s!
| |
| |
It wouldn’t be the same society we have now. I like it the way it is, and I
don’t want to change it. Neither do the vast majority of Americans. You
are going to have to live with it or leave, because nobody wants to change
to accommodate your vision of society.
|
So you are expressly stating that the rights of the minority are subject to
the whim of the majority?
|
So you are expressly stating that the rights of the majority are subject to the
whim of the minority?
| |
If a majority of people decided that Christianity
were primitive, regressive, and societally destructive idolatry, would you be
content to abandon or conceal your worship simply because it conflicts with
the way the majority likes things?
|
The will of the people must be honored. This is why activist judges are so
offensive.
My faith has little to do with what anybody else thinks about it.
| |
Over the years you’ve made numerous statements (like that one) equating
majority opinion with underlying correctness, and that is also moral
relativism.
|
At some point in a democracy, the will of the people must be honored, even in a
representative democracy. Morality has nothing to do with it, except that the
laws we have enacted are based on Judeo-Christian values.
| |
| |
| |
| |
If you really believed we are animals, you would
notice that this survival strategy is pervasive in nature.
|
Pardon?
|
Many species mate for life. There are good reasons for it other than
bigotted religious ones;-)
|
Many species engage in longterm, committed homosexual relationships, and not
for reasons of simple dominance (as homophobes sometimes suggest).
|
For the purpose of sexual gratification? If so, I’d need to see some cites.
| |
If you’re
advocating the greater animal kingdom as justification for our own social
constructs, then you must accept human homosexual unions as a natural part of
our species, as well.
|
Again, I don’t advocate that; I was trying to argue on Chris’s turf.
| |
| |
| |
Why is it human, and not e.g. canine, to
suppress our “animal instincts”?
|
Animals can’t suppress instinct. We are able.
Honestly, I find this equivocation of humans and animals disturbing.
|
Let’s throw out the word “equivocation,” because that implies that some sort
of deception or misleading is going on.
|
I think it is apt. I find people who equate humans with other animals patently
false and dangerous. Merely because we happen to be mammalian means absolutely
nothing.
| |
Let’s refer instead to the
recognition that humans are part of the animal kingdom, and that arbitrary
distinctions between humans and animals are exactly that.
|
There is nothing arbitrary in the distinction between humans and animals. Yeah,
we are animals. So is an ameoba. So what?
| |
Honestly, I find the assertion that humans are somehow fundamentally “above”
animals rather disturbing and elitist.
|
Well, you certainly have the right to your opinion. I think it’s more
disturbing to equate a hedgehog and a human.
| |
| |
Say the last tiger alive on earth was attacking me and would indeed kill me
if you didn’t kill it first. Would you?
|
If there were no other means to prevent the tiger from killing me, then
certainly I would kill it. In much the same way, I would kill the last other
human on the planet if that human were trying to kill me. Wouldn’t you?
What’s the point of your question?
|
I meant if the tiger were trying to kill me (not you), would you kill it (to
save me). I was trying to see if Chris valued a rare animal life above a random
human life. I wouldn’t care if I didn’t know the human from Adam and the tiger
was the last one on earth-- I blow the kitty’s head clean off.
JOHN
|
|
Message has 2 Replies:
 | | Re: Question for the Conservatives out there
|
| (...) But you're wrote "You draw your lines, I draw mine." That is an explicit statement of self-imposed limitations. Is that your intent? Or do you really mean "You draw your lines, I adhere to absolute lines drawn out for me by millennia-old (...) (20 years ago, 10-Jun-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
| | | Re: Question for the Conservatives out there
|
| (...) I think you just said that it's sick because it's sick. Is that really what you meant? (...) I have, over and over -- across the years, claimed that the rights of the majority and the minority must both be set up so that they do not conflict (...) (20 years ago, 10-Jun-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
Message is in Reply To:
| | Re: Question for the Conservatives out there
|
| (...) This, too, is moral relativism, which you have alternatively embraced and reviled in earlier posts. As far as incest goes, you have (URL) previously acknowledged> that incestuous relationships are wrong because they conflict with cultural (...) (20 years ago, 10-Jun-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
218 Messages in This Thread:
(Inline display suppressed due to large size. Click Dots below to view.)
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
This Message and its Replies on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
