The_vagabond7 said:
It's a new day, I am re-invigorated! :)
Oh, joy! :)
Apalose, your arguments hold no real world value. Should Akuma simply allow gays to be treated as second class citizens at the behest of a religion because doing anything else would be some sort of paradox? Should he say "forget the rights of the individual, if I tried to fight for them it would be a weird sort of contradiction?"
He (or the holders of such positions) should be consistent; he could oppose the issue by trying to show how the Bible doesn't teach this, by trying to disprove Christianity, or by just opposing it because he wants to. If I took his position in the opposite way, "Ban homosexuality, but don't impose morality, so let murderers off the hook", it would be exactly the same, except the subjects are reversed.
And what about yourself? If a vocal group of muslims somehow got a degree of political power and were trying to force laws such as "No alcohol" or "Women must conceal their face in public." or "no pre-marital sex", would you oppose such regulation? What if it was a christian group doing the same thing? Would you consider yourself a hypocrite for trying to prevent somebody else from imposing their beliefs on you even if they are hardlined christian beliefs? Keeping in mind Akuma is a christian that argues in a many theological or debates around the existence of god.
Off topic: Well, actually, I wouldn't mind a ban on alcohol, and would support pre-marital sex banning (if it's constitutionally allowable) :) Back on topic: I'd do one of the above methods.
Wittgenstein thought the cardinal problem with philosophy was that you could create word problems, ideas expressed linguistically that had no value outside of language. This is one of those problems. Whether or not it's paradoxical to tell somebody not impose their beliefs on others while simultaneously saying it's wrong to murder may make for an interesting word and logic problem, but it has no intrinsic value outside of that. There is no application of that idea other than "Stand aside while I impose my morality, because I think it's fine for me to do so", especially when that person also has an objective morality that disagrees with yours, and you'd do the same if somebody with objective morality tried to force it on you. You can't tell somebody that's anti-prejudice to let people persecute blacks because anti-prejudice is an oxymoron. It may have some sort of linguistic logical truth to it, but outside of language it's nonsense.
Is this an excuse to be illogical? If so, doesn't that kind of defeat the whole point of arguing in the first place? "Well, you may have proved me wrong, but that's intrinsicly useless. 2+2 DOES equal 5". This cannot work. Either forcing morality is wrong, or forcing a ban on murder is wrong. You can't have it both ways.
I have no problem with resisting a forced morality. I just think that this argument for resisting it is wrong.
|
