Subject:
|
Re: Question for the Conservatives out there
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Thu, 10 Jun 2004 20:11:20 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
2391 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, John Neal wrote:
| |
| |
| |
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.
|
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 teachings.” Please note that in this construction, I’m not
summarily dismissing ancient teachings as invalid, but I’m trying to assess the
actual difference between your “line” and Chris’ “line” in this context.
| |
| |
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.
|
Okay, but you are in essence saying that incest is wrong in all cultures because
it conflicts with the values of a single (or several) culture. That’s a
statement of absolutism based upon a limited perspective, which isn’t really a
tenable position to take. Further, your own absolute morality is only absolute
for those who believe it; objectively, it has no more inherent authority to
judge another culture than any other culture has!
| |
| |
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.
|
Okay, but take a step back and look at it objectively. On what basis, other
then your own cultural values, do you judge that other behaviors are “sick
contaminants?” Anyway, our culture already includes these elements that you
consider contaminants, so it’s too late to ask “what if.”
While we’re at it, it’s kind of like the bogus pro-war rationale that we need to
“take the fight to them” before “we’re fighting them here.” They are already
“here.”
| |
| |
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!
|
Well, it’s yours, too, isn’t it? I’m not debating everyone, so I’ll address the
point to you.
Beyond which, is your conception of culture/society so fragile that the actions
of a tiny minority can unravel it? After all, if virtually everyone agrees,
then virtually no one disagrees, right?
| |
| |
| |
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?
|
Of course not. Please compare your explicit assertion that “nobody wants to
change to accommodate your vision of society” to my question. Asking a
question is in no way equivalent to making an explicit statement.
For the record, I would state expressly that rights are social constructs and
should take into account the opinions and values of as many subsets of society
as possible, while granting absolute authority to none.
| |
| |
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.
|
Careful--activist, federalist judges appointed our current president, but I’ve
never ever heard you condemn them for their intrusive, activist re-reading of
Florida law.
The will of the people is subordinate to the law of the land; the people can
change that law by several means, but until the law is changed, it trumps the
public will.
Lynch mobs were organized according to the will of the people. Do you assert
that their will must therefore be honored?
| |
| |
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.
|
Okay, at long last I need to call you on this. Can you spell out precisely how
are laws are based on Judeo-Christian values? And please don’t resort to claims
that a majority of our founding fathers were of some particular faith. Instead,
I need you to draw for me a clear lineage between existing secular law and
traditionalist Judeo-Christian values. As you do so, please bear in mind the
following:
Values predating Judeo-Christianity must not be included (ie, “do unto
others...”)
Values not manifest in secular law (ie, no shellfish) must not be included
Values present in Judeo-Christianity (ie, slavery, which is repeatedly endorsed
in scripture) but antithetical to our secular law must not be included
After you’ve prepared this list, we can assess its relevance to modern law. If
you are unable to prepare this list, then I must ask you to abandon the claim
that our laws are based in Judeo-Christian values.
| |
| |
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.
|
Read about the bonobos chimps, for starters.
| |
| |
| |
| |
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.
|
The fact that you deny evolution means that your arguments on this subject are
of no value to me. However, “equivocation” means deliberately obscurist or
deceptive language, rather than mere false statements. I am not equivocating,
and neither is Chris. To claim that we are being deceitful is therefore a
charge that you must support with evidence; otherwise, you’re making a baseless
charge.
| |
There is nothing arbitrary in the distinction between humans and animals.
Yeah, we are animals. So is an ameoba. So what?
|
So you just contradicted yourself. Are we animals or not?
| |
| |
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.
|
That’s a straw man. I’m not equating humans and hedgehogs, which implies
equivalency. I’m saying that humans are not fundamentally entitled to any
special treatment that is not also afforded to the other members of the animal
kingdom. Humans will generally protect themselves (and other humans) from harm
by other animals, but that can be explained by a primal survival instinct,
rather than some privileged status.
Dave!
|
|
Message has 1 Reply:
 | | Re: Question for the Conservatives out there
|
| (...) Thank you for that clarification. I meant that I choose lines that I believe are absolutely drawn out. My point was that I am not the only one who adheres to drawn lines. We all do. (...) Eh, when the perspective is from the Creator of the (...) (20 years ago, 11-Jun-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
Message is in Reply To:
| | Re: Question for the Conservatives out there
|
| (...) 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. (...) I assume you are talking about when I (...) (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
|
|
|
|
