Subject:
|
Re: Is lgbt dead in the water?
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Fri, 15 Oct 2004 06:37:38 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
1282 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Dave Schuler wrote:
| |
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Lee Meyer wrote:
|
SNIPPED in order to meet post req’s
| |
| |
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.
|
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 relativist arguments against moral absolutes. I called you
for what you were, and in your above reply you confirmed it. Did you even read
your own reply?
You state above I’m free to accept or reject your view if I think it’s wrong,
but it’s interesting that since I have you have a problem with my views because
my morals are based in absolutes (and you already show you have a problem with
anyone saying that because YOU don’t think its possible to know them, much less
know if they exist.) Your own tolerance falls a little short. YOu have a
problem with me because I not only reject your flawed world view, but I also
have the gall to say it’s wrong too. I don’t look at morals in a pick and
choose, cafeteria-style, what-fits-me-best-is-right way that you most clearly
do. You have a subjective view where the person is the ultimate judge of right
and wrong. Every man a law unto themselves. That’s actually a principle of
Satanists, if you weren’t aware: do what thou wilt. And no, I don’t think
you’re a satanist.
I think you’re just out here debating for the sake of argument itself. From the
sarcastic and condescending tones in your latest message I see no real reason to
engage you anymore. It’s just not that important to me.
Lee
|
|
Message has 1 Reply:
 | | Re: Is lgbt dead in the water?
|
| (...) I did not rip you. I cautioned you against the use of a Straw Man falacy in misapplying the definition of tolerance, but that's a discussion of rhetoric. If you perceived my addressing of your rhetorical shortcomings as a "rip" on you (...) (20 years ago, 15-Oct-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
Message is in Reply To:
| | Re: Is lgbt dead in the water?
|
| (...) First of all, let me say thank you to Lenny for his (URL) 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 (URL) Straw (...) (20 years ago, 14-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
|
|
|
|
