| appolose said: Perhaps there's been a miscommunication. My original goal was to demonstrate that banning homosexuality and banning murder are equally imposing morality. Thus, the assertion that one shouldn't impose morality would contradict the assertion of the immorality of murder. Therefore, if one wanted to go ahead and be inconsistent, it must be realized he's just as guilty of breaking the "no imposing" morality as is the anti-gay. This was my intent, to either get the imposing-morality argument dropped, or to accept one is just as guilty of imposing. I have no contention with the group that claims both murder and all other religions are wrong (at the moment), for I was attacking an inconsistency, which is not present in this latter situation. Finally (and off-topic), I might try this argument against all other religions: If I can prove Christianity is right, then all other religions are wrong, according to Christianity (which I just proved right (in this hypothetical situation)). But that's a different matter. |
My goal was in essence to show that (a) that logical contradiction can sometimes lead to illogical real life results, and thusly in some instances should be ignored. and (b) within the objectively moral construct of "liberty and and protection of the harmless for all" there is no inherent contradiction.
Then it is that it is. But it was a fine and enjoyable conversation. Gave me something to ponder and discuss for a couple evenings.
As for your off topic part, I'm pretty sure that's the goal of most every organized religion, so I think you're going to have some competition. Good luck with that. :)

You can find me on facebook as Markus Van Rijn, if you friend me just mention you're from VGchartz and who you are here.









