Subject:
|
Re: Is lgbt dead in the water?
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Thu, 14 Oct 2004 14:44:36 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
1303 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Lee Meyer wrote:
| |
| |
| |
As far as being misinformed, I would love to hear just what I am
misinformed about. Give me a little more than a one sentence hack at me.
|
Misinformed? I don’t know--I’ll reread your posts and get back to you on
that. However, I would mention that you have a seriously flawed and
self-serving notion of tolerance, and I suppose that this notion may result
from your being misinformed.
|
|
| |
Hi Dave, well I certainly can tell by your views you are a moral relativist
from your distorted definition of tolerance.
|
First of all, let me say thank you to Lenny for his
input. He is quite correct
that it is falacious to caricature the position of one’s opponent and then
attack that position as if it were the real one. That’s the classic
Straw Man falacy.
However, in my experience, relativism is more consistent with reality than
any other system of morality that I have encountered.
| |
There are absolutes in the world. Moral (absolutes)
|
Please demonstrate these moral absolutes. And please do so without relying upon
God or the bible or any other metaphysical benchmarks.
Logical absolutes are separate from moral absolutes.
| |
There are universal truths that apply to
everyone, across all times and places and circumstances.
|
Please define murder. Please define wrong. Please indicate how you can be
certain that you know what true, absolute “right” and “wrong” are, rather than
simply your own strongly held preferences.
And please do so without calling upon some inner voice, or your heart-of-hearts,
or your gut, or your conscience, etc.
| |
Two plus two is always four.
|
Mathematical logic is not applicable to morality except via metaphor (which is
therefore non-absolute). You’re falling into the same trap that befuddled C.S.
Lewis, by the way. Read “Mere Christianity” for a great example of someone who
didn’t understand the difference between physical law and moral law.
| |
You cannot simultaneously be both for
and against the same side of an issue and be right on both sides.
|
This is a statement of logical truth value and is likewise not directly
applicable to morality.
| |
Just tell me if you are positive, without any doubt whatsoever, that there
are no moral absolutes, a easy yes or no answer.
|
I reject the framing of that question. However, here’s my answer (which by
necessity is not yes/no):
Based on all evidence available to me, I see no reason to conclude that moral
absolutes truly exist or, if they do exist, that we have any means of accessing
them with certainty.
| |
The fact that you hold such a strong moral view on what you believe tolerance
is shows that you too are susceptible to believing in absolutes.
|
For the record, I have stated previously that I accept as overwhelmingly likely
the existence of mathematical and logical absolutes. These do not often have
corresponding real-world phenomena.
| |
You
certainly seem to think you are much more correct than I am. I would simply
throw your own argument back at you and say, How can you be sure you’re
correct?
|
In previous posts (which I can cite for you, if you’d like) I have declared that
I have no reason to conclude that any absolute standard of “rights,” “morality,”
or “values” truly exists. Consistent with this view, I have asserted that the
best we can offer is our own preference, and I therefore also accept that other
people have preferences that may differ from mine. To this end, I am sure that
I am correct insofar as I am confident that I am acting in a manner consistent
with my views and my morality. But do not mistake this for a statement of a
moral absolute--I’m making no such claim.
| |
Why should I trust your view over mine when you preface your
statements that you think is right for you, could be wrong for me?
|
In my opinion, you should only trust my view, or any view, after having
subjected it to thoughtful analysis and comparison to as much of the real world
as you are able. If, after such analysis, you conclude that my value system is
consistent with yours, then you’re welcome to adopt all or part of mine. If you
conclude, however, that your own values are superior to mine (which I suspect
that you have already done), then you may accept or reject my value system as
you choose.
| |
Maybe you shouldn’t be criticizing my view because it could very well be
right for me.
|
Obviously your value system is, in your opinion, right for you. You would be
insane to adhere to a value system that is wrong for you! Understandably, since
you view your own as superior, you are trying to convince me of its merits.
That’s why we’re debating, isn’t it?
| |
And maybe you should stop thinking I shouldn’t share it with others because
others may see it and say it is right for them, too.
|
Please indicate where I have indicated that you should not share your view with
others. In my reply to you I addressed your flawed definition of tolerance, but
I certainly didn’t suggest that you should be silent.
| |
If all viewpoints are relative, I have as much right to state mine and
convince others my view is one they should have, too. Just like you do.
|
For many years, in this forum and elsewhere, I have in favor of the right of
free speech, inasmuch as rights are socially constructed and are not truly
absolute. Therefore your perception that I would restrict your right in this
regard is inconsistent with reality.
Dave!
|
|
Message has 1 Reply:
 | | Re: Is lgbt dead in the water?
|
| (...) SNIPPED in order to meet post req's (...) SNIP for post req (...) Dave, this discussion is a total joke. You rip me for assuming you're a moral relativist because you don't come out and say you are, and then proceed to use every type of moral (...) (20 years ago, 15-Oct-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
Message is in Reply To:
| | Re: Is lgbt dead in the water?
|
| (...) Hi Dave, well I certainly can tell by your views you are a moral relativist from your distorted definition of tolerance. There are absolutes in the world. Moral, logical absolutes. There are universal truths that apply to everyone, across all (...) (20 years ago, 13-Oct-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
70 Messages in This Thread:
 
 
 
- 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
|
|
|
|
