Subject:
|
Re: Elian Gonzales
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Thu, 27 Apr 2000 19:37:25 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
896 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Dave Schuler writes:
> In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Larry Pieniazek writes:
>
> > While true, that's not circular. For example, if you believe in strict
> > creationism, your view on particular steps of the evolutionary process being
> > true or not has no bearing, inasmuch as you've not accepted a fundamental
> > premise (that there is a process and that it has rules about how it works
> > which we can reason about, as opposed to those rules being overridden by the
> > whim of a creator) and therefore have no standing to comment on those steps.
> > You certainly can believe in creationism if you like, but to do so is
> > delusional.
>
> Well, that's a colorful, if tangential, example, and I expect it might seed
> debates of its own.
>
> > Similarly, if you deny facts about communist states, you're either an
> > apologist or delusional. (1) It is not my *opinion* that hard line communist
> > states routinely deny civil rights, it's a *fact*.
>
> I do not assert that communist states do not routinely deny civil rights,
*Now* you say that but originally you said "Undoubtedly! But that's still an
assumption based on preconceptions" and that is what is leading me to believe
that you weren't accepting that in fact most people under communist regimes
live in daily danger should they slip up and say what they actually think.
> nor do I accept the basis of such an either/or determination.
OK, what are the other possibilities?
Two that you mention are:
- "unaware" which I've just knocked out for you, you're aware now. It's also a
form of delusional, you're deluded (by nonawareness) into thinking that it
isn't a problem... so it's covered that way
- "uncaring" which is just another form of evil.
Still down to a nice either or.
> > If you don't see systematically denying civil rights as evil,
> > then your moral code is flawed and I have no interest in your assertions.
>
> That's a dangerously seductive way to avoid having to examine others' views.
> I'm intrigued that you would presume to judge my moral code, especially
> through the refractive lens of your own. Does your moral code demand that any
> differing or disagreeing code is flawed? Does your code allow no individual
> variance? That's a pretty lonely code, I think.
Been discussed before, don't want to discuss it again. Moral codes can be
judged and some can be found wanting. ANY code that denies rights is flawed.
> Communism=evil? Far *too* simple to have relevance in anything other than a
> Dr. Strangelove-type world.
Now who's grandstanding <grin>.
Indeed, Communism=evil. Deriding it as simple may be fun for the viewing
audience but does not detract from the truth of the proposition. Again, old
ground, but my world view is rather crisp, any morality that purports to take
away rights, for whatever reason, is flawed.
Take it or leave it. Remember, I don't really CARE what anyone else thinks. I
don't get validation from other people saying they approve.
++Lar
|
|
Message has 2 Replies:
 | | Re: Elian Gonzales
|
| (...) D'oh! Well, shoot. Good call. That was an unintentional inconsistency, and I think I stumbled between Elian's issue and the world-at-large. My error. (...) I wouldn't have characterized delusion in that way, but I see your point. "Delusion" to (...) (24 years ago, 27-Apr-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
| | | Re: Elian Gonzales
|
| (...) What if I take the stance that to a certain degree people must want to free themselves enough to make it happen, or trying to provide them with freedom will do no good? How does that fit into this binary classification? (...) You might perhaps (...) (24 years ago, 28-Apr-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
Message is in Reply To:
| | Re: Elian Gonzales
|
| (...) Well, that's a colorful, if tangential, example, and I expect it might seed debates of its own. (...) I do not assert that communist states do not routinely deny civil rights, nor do I accept the basis of such an either/or determination. As (...) (24 years ago, 27-Apr-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
44 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
|
|
|
|
