| Author | Thread |
|
|
04/15/2009 01:39:30 PM · #2176 |
LOL. That was good Paul. It gave me a nice chuckle. |
|
|
|
04/15/2009 01:42:05 PM · #2177 |
Originally posted by mpeters:
Originally posted by NikonJeb:
Bear, I'm stunned. |
I think Bear was referencing one of the justifications for slavery in the 17/1800's, certainly not his own opinion. |
Of COURSE I was, sheesh. Back off, Jeb! Really, dude....
R.
|
|
|
|
04/15/2009 01:43:20 PM · #2178 |
Originally posted by GeneralE:
Originally posted by NikonJeb:
Bear, I'm stunned. |
You fail to grasp the mind-set of the colonial powers ... it's even written into the US Constitution that African slaves counted as "3/5 of a human" for the purpose of determining population. (Article I, Section 2, Clause 2)
Clearly this had a political purpose, but also clearly indicates the belief in an inherent inequality, despite the "self-evident" truths spoken to in another document ... |
Right, and more specifically it shows us that the "Negro" was not considered a "man" as far as the Declaration of Independence goes...
R.
|
|
|
|
04/15/2009 01:57:42 PM · #2179 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
If slavery was a valid position 200 years ago, but isn't now, then what is to say "Gay Marriage is wrong" isn't a valid position at this very moment (although at another time it may not be)? Why ought our society abandon that position? What compels us to do so? |
The majority opinion today probably IS that gay marriage is "wrong" (or at least unappealing), however it's a personal lifestyle choice that's really nobody's business but those involved. Our constitution and laws are based upon the idea of personal liberty, first and foremost, and generally only impose restrictions to ensure public safety, security and fair treatment. Imagine if 52% of the country were vegans and voted to outlaw the consumption of animal products because they found the practice abhorrent! Regardless of their rationalizations or convictions, why should they be allowed to override your personal preferences just because they find it distasteful? The issue of gay marriage is exactly like that. As I said, I believe we're in the transition period and, just as people used to be appalled by the ideas of blacks as equals or women holding power over men, this medieval form of prejudice and oppression will also fall.
ETA- actually vegans would be in a much stronger position to impose their will on you due to matters of animal cruelty, extra resource consumption, and potential health effects. Opponents of gay marriage don't even have those. A pair of gay neighbors who decided to commit to each other wouldn't affect my own marriage in any way.
Message edited by author 2009-04-15 14:06:33. |
|
|
|
04/15/2009 02:05:43 PM · #2180 |
Originally posted by scalvert:
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
If slavery was a valid position 200 years ago, but isn't now, then what is to say "Gay Marriage is wrong" isn't a valid position at this very moment (although at another time it may not be)? Why ought our society abandon that position? What compels us to do so? |
The majority opinion today probably IS that gay marriage is "wrong" (or at least unappealing), however it's a personal lifestyle choice that's really nobody's business but those involved. Our constitution and laws are based upon the idea of personal liberty, first and foremost, and generally only impose restrictions to ensure public safety, security and fair treatment. Imagine if 52% of the country were vegans and voted to outlaw the consumption of animal products because they found the practice abhorrent! Regardless of their rationalizations or convictions, why should they be allowed to override your personal preferences just because they find it distasteful? The issue of gay marriage is exactly like that. As I said, I believe we're in the transition period and, just as people used to be appalled by the ideas of blacks as equals or women holding power over men, this medieval form of prejudice and oppression will also fall. |
OK, that sounds reasonable. If it doesn't happen, is it a case of c'est la vie? If the transition period loses steam or there's a larger than anticipated backlash and we go back to business as usual, is this a valid position to remain in?
Another difficulty I see with the Relative position is that we all belong to many societies. I belong to the society of living things, humans, Americans, Canadians, Christians, doctors, heterosexuals, fathers, men, and am a card carrying member of the Order of Cool Dudes. It seems obvious to me at least that there are bound to be contradictions in the values held by these different groups. How do I proceed? What rules are used to trump one society's values over another in my own personal life? |
|
|
|
04/15/2009 02:16:43 PM · #2181 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
I belong to the society of living things, humans, Americans, Canadians, Christians, doctors, heterosexuals, fathers, men, and am a card carrying member of the Order of Cool Dudes. It seems obvious to me at least that there are bound to be contradictions in the values held by these different groups. How do I proceed? What rules are used to trump one society's values over another in my own personal life? |
How can you remain a member of any of those societies whose rules/values conflict with your Universal Truth? |
|
|
|
04/15/2009 02:21:47 PM · #2182 |
Originally posted by GeneralE:
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
I belong to the society of living things, humans, Americans, Canadians, Christians, doctors, heterosexuals, fathers, men, and am a card carrying member of the Order of Cool Dudes. It seems obvious to me at least that there are bound to be contradictions in the values held by these different groups. How do I proceed? What rules are used to trump one society's values over another in my own personal life? |
How can you remain a member of any of those societies whose rules/values conflict with your Universal Truth? |
My Universalism is apparently lying in shambles around my feet. I want to discuss how Relativism works and test it out.
EDIT: I will add for you Paul that this is where Universalism would shine. The Universalist would be able to form a hierarchy of the societies. He could say, "This society is most important and when conflicts in values arise with a lower ranked society, the precepts of this society are deemed correct." The whole list could be then ranked and it would make internal and logical sense. I don't get what tools the Relativist has access to to solve this problem.
Message edited by author 2009-04-15 14:28:08. |
|
|
|
04/15/2009 02:27:44 PM · #2183 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
If the transition period loses steam or there's a larger than anticipated backlash and we go back to business as usual, is this a valid position to remain in? |
Discrimination is not a comfortable position for those being oppressed, so the struggle would simply carry on as it did for women and and blacks until the Archie Bunkers of the world are outnumbered.
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
It seems obvious to me at least that there are bound to be contradictions in the values held by these different groups. How do I proceed? What rules are used to trump one society's values over another in my own personal life? |
That's something you'll have to reconcile for yourself. Is it OK to kill someone attacking your family with a chainsaw? Does the risk of an AIDs pandemic outweigh a religious stance against contraception? This is only a problem if you're trying to determine some "universally moral" response since a relative approach makes exceptions and adapts to the context. ;-)
RE: your edit... the Pope, as an example, would have no universal standard to outrank religion in his hierarchy, so the ban on contraception must be "correct" even if 4 billion people die from AIDs. Given the strong evidence that condoms reduce the spread of AIDs, a relative approach would opt for the perceived greater good of saving those lives and reducing misery.
Message edited by author 2009-04-15 14:37:18. |
|
|
|
04/15/2009 02:30:44 PM · #2184 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Originally posted by GeneralE:
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
I belong to the society of living things, humans, Americans, Canadians, Christians, doctors, heterosexuals, fathers, men, and am a card carrying member of the Order of Cool Dudes. It seems obvious to me at least that there are bound to be contradictions in the values held by these different groups. How do I proceed? What rules are used to trump one society's values over another in my own personal life? |
How can you remain a member of any of those societies whose rules/values conflict with your Universal Truth? |
My Universalism is apparently lying in shambles around my feet. I want to discuss how Relativism works and test it out.
|
Check the date on your Order of Cool Dudes card. I was at the last meeting and you were ceremoniously excommunicated. |
|
|
|
04/15/2009 02:36:56 PM · #2185 |
Random observations and questions (most of which have probably been asked, but I'm a senile blonde and can't remember all the posts);
>Prop 8 passed with 52.24%. When the laws were changed to allow interracial marriage polls of the time showed 77% against it.
>Re preserving the "sanctity" of marriage; Atheists can marry. Animists can marry. Satanists can marry. What significant difference will it make to allow gays to marry? Maybe I'm obtuse but I fail to see what catastrophic effect gay marriages will have on what the vows you made mean to you, your spouse and your god that the marriages of others outside your faith haven't.
>The blind person's lawsuit failed because there was an available alternative to achieve the required result. What, then, is the gay's alternative?
|
|
|
|
04/15/2009 02:40:40 PM · #2186 |
Originally posted by BeeCee:
Random observations and questions (most of which have probably been asked... |
Ad nauseum. |
|
|
|
04/15/2009 02:41:52 PM · #2187 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Originally posted by GeneralE:
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
I belong to the society of living things, humans, Americans, Canadians, Christians, doctors, heterosexuals, fathers, men, and am a card carrying member of the Order of Cool Dudes. It seems obvious to me at least that there are bound to be contradictions in the values held by these different groups. How do I proceed? What rules are used to trump one society's values over another in my own personal life? |
How can you remain a member of any of those societies whose rules/values conflict with your Universal Truth? |
My Universalism is apparently lying in shambles around my feet. I want to discuss how Relativism works and test it out.
EDIT: I will add for you Paul that this is where Universalism would shine. The Universalist would be able to form a hierarchy of the societies. He could say, "This society is most important and when conflicts in values arise with a lower ranked society, the precepts of this society are deemed correct." The whole list could be then ranked and it would make internal and logical sense. I don't get what tools the Relativist has access to to solve this problem. |
How is "forming a hierarchy" or "ranking" different than assigning relative value to each item in the list? |
|
|
|
04/15/2009 02:44:36 PM · #2188 |
Originally posted by scalvert:
Originally posted by BeeCee:
Random observations and questions (most of which have probably been asked... |
Ad nauseum. |
Sorry, I'll shut up again. |
|
|
|
04/15/2009 02:45:00 PM · #2189 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Another difficulty I see with the Relative position is that we all belong to many societies. I belong to the society of living things, humans, Americans, Canadians, Christians, doctors, heterosexuals, fathers, men, and am a card carrying member of the Order of Cool Dudes. It seems obvious to me at least that there are bound to be contradictions in the values held by these different groups. How do I proceed? What rules are used to trump one society's values over another in my own personal life? |
If you think the answer to that is "ask the Bible" and not "ask yourself" then you're completely abdicating your humanity. Are you not the very creature best suited to make that evaluation?
A difficulty I have with the universalist position is that it doesn't exist in practice.
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
I'd say we are all Universalists because everybody can play a great Relative game until the chips are down and our toes get stepped on. At that point we all become Universalists and are keenly aware that we have been Wronged! Forget what the other guy thinks, we are due JUSTICE! |
Even this assertion of yours seems horribly flawed to me... you're looking at it completely backwards. What you're saying here is that when YOU are wronged it is suddenly MORE important than someone else getting wronged. That is completely relativist. How can you not see that?
As time passes it becomes harder and harder to understand how many of your assertions are just quickly tossed out in a heap like some intellectual dike to stem the erosion of your beliefs. Please explain to me how a univeralist is defined by changing their opinions under duress. This makes no sense, unless you're just trying to cling to your belief that you're NOT a relativist. |
|
|
|
04/15/2009 02:46:24 PM · #2190 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
My Universalism is apparently lying in shambles around my feet. |
I pretty much agree with this statement! |
|
|
|
04/15/2009 02:48:27 PM · #2191 |
Originally posted by scalvert:
Discrimination is not a comfortable position for those being oppressed, so the struggle would simply carry on as it did for women and and blacks until the Archie Bunkers of the world are outnumbered. |
That doesn't seem to speak to the validity. And doesn't it mean that eventually those who view gay marriage as wrong will eventually be the ones discriminated against and won't they then simply carry on the struggle until the Richard Simmons (sorry, no good anti-Archie name comes to mind) of the world are outnumbered? It seems like a never ending oscillation.
Originally posted by scalvert:
That's something you'll have to reconcile for yourself. Is it OK to kill someone attacking your family with a chainsaw? Does the risk of an AIDs pandemic outweigh a religious stance against contraception? This is only a problem if you're trying to determine some "universally moral" response since a relative approach makes exceptions and adapts to the context. ;-) |
And here's where I feel the flaw lies. Sure I can reconcile it for myself, but where from there? At this point I have reconciled that the precepts of Christianity outweigh the precepts of Americanism and in my reconciliation that goes against homosexuality. It seems that's the end of the story in the conversation. |
|
|
|
04/15/2009 02:53:02 PM · #2192 |
Originally posted by Mousie:
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Another difficulty I see with the Relative position is that we all belong to many societies. I belong to the society of living things, humans, Americans, Canadians, Christians, doctors, heterosexuals, fathers, men, and am a card carrying member of the Order of Cool Dudes. It seems obvious to me at least that there are bound to be contradictions in the values held by these different groups. How do I proceed? What rules are used to trump one society's values over another in my own personal life? |
If you think the answer to that is "ask the Bible" and not "ask yourself" then you're completely abdicating your humanity. Are you not the very creature best suited to make that evaluation?
A difficulty I have with the universalist position is that it doesn't exist in practice. |
Didn't you just contradict yourself? Did you not just appeal to my "humanity" as the ultimate arbiter of morality and pointed out that I was incorrect to ignore it? That sounds Universal to me. |
|
|
|
04/15/2009 02:56:48 PM · #2193 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
And here's where I feel the flaw lies. Sure I can reconcile it for myself, but where from there? At this point I have reconciled that the precepts of Christianity outweigh the precepts of Americanism and in my reconciliation that goes against homosexuality. It seems that's the end of the story in the conversation. |
Ah, but you and your kind take it one step farther. Believe anything you like. But you are not content with that. You must control how I live, for you carry with you a zero-sum game of a worldview.
You have to heap shame, disgrace, pain, and misery on me and my kind. All I want to do is share in everyone else's rights equally. And not being the default target of roving packs of drunken jocks would be nice, too.
|
|
|
|
04/15/2009 03:00:38 PM · #2194 |
Originally posted by Mousie:
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
And here's where I feel the flaw lies. Sure I can reconcile it for myself, but where from there? At this point I have reconciled that the precepts of Christianity outweigh the precepts of Americanism and in my reconciliation that goes against homosexuality. It seems that's the end of the story in the conversation. |
Ah, but you and your kind take it one step farther. Believe anything you like. But you are not content with that. You must control how I live, for you carry with you a zero-sum game of a worldview.
You have to heap shame, disgrace, pain, and misery on me and my kind. All I want to do is share in everyone else's rights equally. And not being the default target of roving packs of drunken jocks would be nice, too. |
"My kind"? Wow. If there were a Christian epithet, would you have used it there? |
|
|
|
04/15/2009 03:01:43 PM · #2195 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
And here's where I feel the flaw lies. Sure I can reconcile it for myself, but where from there? At this point I have reconciled that the precepts of Christianity outweigh the precepts of Americanism and in my reconciliation that goes against homosexuality. It seems that's the end of the story in the conversation. |
So Christianity is unAmerican?
Things have moved on from McCarthy's day |
|
|
|
04/15/2009 03:02:41 PM · #2196 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Originally posted by Mousie:
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Another difficulty I see with the Relative position is that we all belong to many societies. I belong to the society of living things, humans, Americans, Canadians, Christians, doctors, heterosexuals, fathers, men, and am a card carrying member of the Order of Cool Dudes. It seems obvious to me at least that there are bound to be contradictions in the values held by these different groups. How do I proceed? What rules are used to trump one society's values over another in my own personal life? |
If you think the answer to that is "ask the Bible" and not "ask yourself" then you're completely abdicating your humanity. Are you not the very creature best suited to make that evaluation?
A difficulty I have with the universalist position is that it doesn't exist in practice. |
Didn't you just contradict yourself? Did you not just appeal to my "humanity" as the ultimate arbiter of morality and pointed out that I was incorrect to ignore it? That sounds Universal to me. |
How is appealing to your own humanity universal? You are not the universe. Your sense of "humanity" is not going to be the same as someone elses somewhere else in the world. I am understanding your universalist position less and less the more you try to support it. |
|
|
|
04/15/2009 03:09:45 PM · #2197 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Originally posted by scalvert:
Discrimination is not a comfortable position for those being oppressed, so the struggle would simply carry on as it did for women and and blacks until the Archie Bunkers of the world are outnumbered. |
That doesn't seem to speak to the validity. And doesn't it mean that eventually those who view gay marriage as wrong will eventually be the ones discriminated against and won't they then simply carry on the struggle until the Richard Simmons (sorry, no good anti-Archie name comes to mind) of the world are outnumbered? It seems like a never ending oscillation.
|
This is the same type of off-base argument I encounter a lot in my feminist debates. This fear that if (insert minority here) keeps fighting for equal rights, somehow the pendulum will swing and *oh no!* Now I will be the one discriminated against!* Did this happen when interracial marriage was allowed? Did this happen when women got the vote? Are white marriages suddenly "discriminated against"? Did men suddently get discriminated against at the polls? No. Of course not.
Sorry doc. As long as you stay where you are and your skin, sex and/or sexual orientation stay constant, you are not going to be oppressed in your lifetime. Sooooorry. Thems the breaks. Will your view that gay marriage is wrong one day become the minority? I hope so. But it won't keep you from getting married or getting a job.
Message edited by author 2009-04-15 15:10:12. |
|
|
|
04/15/2009 03:10:28 PM · #2198 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Originally posted by Mousie:
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Another difficulty I see with the Relative position is that we all belong to many societies. I belong to the society of living things, humans, Americans, Canadians, Christians, doctors, heterosexuals, fathers, men, and am a card carrying member of the Order of Cool Dudes. It seems obvious to me at least that there are bound to be contradictions in the values held by these different groups. How do I proceed? What rules are used to trump one society's values over another in my own personal life? |
If you think the answer to that is "ask the Bible" and not "ask yourself" then you're completely abdicating your humanity. Are you not the very creature best suited to make that evaluation?
A difficulty I have with the universalist position is that it doesn't exist in practice. |
Didn't you just contradict yourself? Did you not just appeal to my "humanity" as the ultimate arbiter of morality and pointed out that I was incorrect to ignore it? That sounds Universal to me. |
You know, rather than being willfully obtuse and ignoring my direct request, why not just explain how someone who's morality changes under duress is actually a universalist, like you have proposed? too inconvenient?
If you weren't just trying to throw up another intellectual dike, you would readily understand that if each person is making their own judgements based on their own experiences (as is the case, I'd posit) this is the essence of relativism. You can't GET any more relative. Personal situation is the center-most ring of social, cultural, and historical relativism. Why you've felt the need to abuse semantics so thoroughly to make the feeblest of non-responses is beyond me.
Perhaps you would rather try to trap people, however unfairly, than move forward?
I have lost my patience, it seems. |
|
|
|
04/15/2009 03:10:46 PM · #2199 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
doesn't it mean that eventually those who view gay marriage as wrong will eventually be the ones discriminated against and won't they then simply carry on the struggle... |
No, they wouldn't be discriminated against, they just wouldn't be allowed to discriminate. Allowing women to vote doesn't prevent YOU from voting.
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
At this point I have reconciled that the precepts of Christianity outweigh the precepts of Americanism and in my reconciliation that goes against homosexuality. It seems that's the end of the story in the conversation. |
Then you should also be fighting to restore slavery and keep women away from schools. That's the same approach practiced by the Taliban. |
|
|
|
04/15/2009 03:12:15 PM · #2200 |
Originally posted by Gordon:
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
And here's where I feel the flaw lies. Sure I can reconcile it for myself, but where from there? At this point I have reconciled that the precepts of Christianity outweigh the precepts of Americanism and in my reconciliation that goes against homosexuality. It seems that's the end of the story in the conversation. |
So Christianity is unAmerican?
Things have moved on from McCarthy's day |
Well, in McCarthy's day Christian values were more or less in synchronization with American values: that is to say, the concept "American" was broadly seen as incorporating the values of Christianity. And of course the "Christian Right" has long been bemoaning that we are drifting, even careening, away from that concept, and they lay the blame for the "breakdown in American society/values" on this drift away from Christian precepts.
So it kind of matters how you define "American", doesn't it? If, at any given time, one has to choose between allegiance to one's God and allegiance to one's country, well, that's a difficult position to be in, isn't it? A position, incidentally, that conscientious objectors have always been in during times of war, to name just one example.
So, while your question "So Christianity is unAmerican?" makes a good snappy rejoinder, it doesn't really say anything IMO...
R.
|
|
