Subject:
|
Re: Is lgbt dead in the water?
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Fri, 15 Oct 2004 14:14:33 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
1263 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Lee Meyer wrote:
| |
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 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
personally, then you have interpreted my intent incorrectly.
| |
I called you for what you were, and in your above reply you confirmed it.
Did you even read your own reply?
|
Indeed I did read it, but I have the sense that the intent of my reply did not
get through to you. If that’s because my phrasing was unclear, let me try
again:
I wrote:
However, in my experience, relativism is more consistent with reality
than any other system of morality that I have encountered.
That sounds, to me, like a ringing endorsement of moral relativism. What
further declaration do you require from me?
| |
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 are indeed free to reject my view. Tolerance does not require me to adopt
or incorporate your views (re: absolutes) into my own; it is sufficient that I
accept the idea that, for you, your views are justified and correct.
If you wish to contest my assertion, then I implore you to detail for me those
absolutes that you believe you can know for certain, and I’d be delighted to
learn how you’ve determined this. We’re getting into epistemology here, but
I’ll make the question simple:
Since you are not absolute, how can you know for certain that you have reached
the correct conclusion about the absolute or non-absolute nature of a
non-physical principle?
Additionally, the rejection of intolerance is not, in itself, intolerant.
| |
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 beg your pardon, but you appear to have misread my post. I do not have a
problem with you; I don’t even know you. Also, I have welcomed you to reject my
worldview, and it seems that you have done so--bravo! However, I took issue
with your skewed definition of “tolerance” in a way that you seem to have
interpreted as an attack on your conception of morality.
| |
I don’t look at morals in a pick and choose, cafeteria-style, what-fits-me-
best-is-right way
|
In fact, I think that you do. You have chosen Christian morality, have you not?
Why did you choose it, rather than Zoroastrianism or Animism? You might assert
that you didn’t “choose” Christianity at all, since it is, in your view, the
true, absolute morality. But I wonder how you, as a non-absolute being, have
determined this so absolutely.
| |
You have a subjective view
where the person is the ultimate judge of right and wrong.
|
This is a slightly imprecise phrasing of my view. I see no reason to conclude
that there is any objective, absolute standard of right and wrong, so there is
no “ultimate” judge. I would restate your claim this way:
Based on my experience of the world, I have concluded that each person decides
for himself or herself whether a given action is right or wrong.
By the way, this is not a statement of faith, since it is a conclusion drawn
from my observations, and I may adjust that conclusion as other evidence
presents itself.
| |
I think you’re just out here debating for the sake of argument itself.
|
I debate in order to sharpen my ability to express my arguments clearly and to
gain greater understanding of other people’s views on subjects that are
important to me. I am gratified if a reader finds my arguments persuasive, of
course.
| |
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.
|
If the tone of my recent post bothers you, then it’s clear that you haven’t read
any of my previous posts on this subject, since my tone has been pretty
consistent throughout and has actually become more diplomatic in the last year
or so. I don’t expect you to do any research into my posting history--why would
anyone want to?! In any case, sarcasm and condescention were not my intent in
my reply to you.
As a person who does not adhere to any religion, worship any entity, nor accept
any available evidence as proof of supernatural phenomena, I have learned that
it is necessary to speak in very precise terms when debating with those who do
believe. Too often an imprecisely-disclaimed statement is bludgeoned out of
context, or an unintended ambiguity is taken as a explicit forfeiture of the
argument. Therefore I have worked to develop a (hopefully) very structured
means of communicating on this subject. If you find that this results in a
sarcastic or condescending tone, then that’s an unfortunate artifact of nature
of this kind of discourse.
You are, of course, welcome to exit the discussion.
Dave!
|
|
Message has 2 Replies:
Message is in Reply To:
 | | 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)
|
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
|
|
|
|
