Subject:
|
Re: Question for the Conservatives out there
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Fri, 11 Jun 2004 05:32:02 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
2526 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Dave Schuler wrote:
| |
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.
|
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.
| |
| |
| |
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.
|
Eh, when the perspective is from the Creator of the universe, I’ll stand by
that.
| |
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!
|
So then, are you implying that all cultures are equally moral?
| |
| |
| |
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?”
|
From my moral code which I believe to be absolute. Our culture has adopted
those beliefs and thus our society in general finds such behavior repulsive and
wrong.
| |
Anyway, our culture already includes these elements that you
consider contaminants, so it’s too late to ask “what if.”
|
I never said our culture was perfect. We must always try and strive for
perfection; to attain the ideal, rather than explore perversion and deviancy.
| |
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?
|
Do not underestimate the damage that can and is being done by influences such as
MTV, Brittany Spears, and much of Hollywood. You know, we are all adults and
can make our own critical choices (for the most part). What I find offensive
and intolerable is the assault of depravity perpetrated on our youth. It is
primarily about protecting them that animates me.
| |
| |
| |
| |
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.
|
Why should a society that holds a set of beliefs change those beliefs to
assimilae the beliefs of a comparative few, especially when those beliefs are
repulsive?
| |
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
|
No No No. Not to our FF. Rights are given by God, or Nature’s God, or however
you want to characterize our Creator. This is key, because if rights are
granted by anything else, they are easily taken away.
| |
and
should take into account the opinions and values of as many subsets of
society as possible, while granting absolute authority to none.
|
This sounds good, but how to implement? Seems to me to be a recipe of stalemate
and division.
| |
| |
| |
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.
|
Federist judges, or state judges;-)
| |
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.
|
It matters little when judges ignore the intent of law and create their own
interpretation. Tyranny of the judiciary.
| |
Lynch mobs were organized according to the will of the people. Do you assert
that their will must therefore be honored?
|
I don’t condone cold-blooded murder, no matter how many call for it.
| |
| |
| |
Over the years you’ve made numerous statements (like that one) equating
majority opinion with underlying correctness, and that is also moral
relativism.
|
|
|
Actually, morality is secondary to my argument. The point is that a code of
beliefs is in place. Most adhere to that code, because most believe that is the
sensible thing to do. From where the code originates is another matter.
| |
| |
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?
|
Okay, let me give this some thought and get back to you.
| |
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.
|
It seems to me that bonobo chimps use sexual contact for lots of reasons, the
least of which might be sexual gratification.
| |
| |
| |
| |
| |
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.
|
I don’t deny it so much, but to question is relevancy. Even if we did evolve
from pond scum, it means nothing.
| |
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.
|
To say that humans are animals implies that we are no different from them and
are equal to them. There are many quacks out there (hello, PETA members!) who
believe just this.
| |
| |
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?
|
We are animals, but we may as well not be, because it means nothing to
assert this fact. Just because we are animals does not mean that the difference
between animals and humans is like night and day.
| |
| |
| |
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.
|
You just contradicted yourself. If humans are not fundamentally entitled to
special treatment, then they are entitled to equal treatment, which I reject.
Is this not “equivalency”?
You have more worth to me than a slug. I’m sorry if you find that offensive,
Dave! ;-)
JOHN
|
|
Message has 2 Replies:
 | | Re: Question for the Conservatives out there
|
| In lugnet.off-topic.debate, John Neal wrote: <snip> (...) "We are the Borg. Lower your shields and prepare to be assimilated. Resistance is futile." One person's 'perversion'(1) is another person's societal norm. What makes something a perversion? A (...) (20 years ago, 11-Jun-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
| | | Re: Question for the Conservatives out there
|
| (...) Um, these rights are already very easy to take away. George W. Bush has, for example, taken them away from a whole bunch of people, both as Governor and as President, both here and abroad. Is Dubya so powerful that he can supplant the Will of (...) (20 years ago, 17-Jun-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
Message is in Reply To:
| | 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)
|
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
|
|
|
|
