fresco said:
Epictetus, i am not sure you understood what/how Fade is talking about...
Fade, quite impressive! They did crusify lord Sarcs, did they? or was it just a "basic stubber"?
Epictetus understood me... just carrying on an old conversation...
Sorry to expose my ignorance or unfamiliarity with your slang...but it is your post that I don't understand.
.. who is lord Sarc? and what is a stubber?...should I be looking at latin roots or something here?
or is it a spelling problem, are you refering to Socrates here?...in which case, yes, they did eliminate him because he had a nasty habit of trying to get people to think about why they believe what they believe.
So, to demonstrate a rare moment of clarity...this is what I was really saying.
Many people are against homosexuality (myself for example), and many are for the people's freedom to practice homosexuality if they prefer. What saddens me, is that most people have a knee-jerk opinion on matters like this without thinking about it.
To dislike homosexuality because you just don't like something that is different is wrong. To dislike it because it makes you feel insecure in your own sexuality is wrong. To dislike it because you are just closed minded and judgemental of others who are different is wrong. You must have a defensible reason for your beliefs that appeals to some supposed universal truth. Otherwise, you have no right to try to push your views over the views of another person.....this is just plain ignorance. These are the kind of people that act hostile towards homosexuals, call them cruel names or worse.
Yet... Often, WE are guilty of the same thing that we are 'angry' at homosexuals (or some other group) for.... we pursue a life of pleasure simply for pleasure's sake. How can a person who (for example) sleeping with multiple women look down on homosexuals. How can those that enjoy 'sexualy stimulating' movies be judgmental as well..... whether in the mind or in the body, the acts are similiar....they just have different expressions.
Right and wrong must exist outside of ourselves, if they exist anywhere.
And looking to what the majority believes, while at times useful is not sufficient to identify right and wrong, as history proves.
Now... I could flip the tables, and make similiar arguments about those that support homosexual rights.
The point is: If you don't like this practice (even though I agree with you).... our reasons must be based upon something more than our own experience or practice. But most of us won't go to that 'source' as it may also expose ways in which we are not 'right' in our life....this is implied in 'judge not, lest ye be judged'
Yes, I am against moral relativism. But homosexuality is not the only example of it. Being against homosexuality for personal subjective reasons is also a glaring example of moral relativism. The two, as long as they look within for thier own justification are equally wrong.
I see so much of this in our world.... people arguing back and forth, making and breaking laws, killing each-other, never seeking for the foundational sources for our beliefs. It is a situation that Nietzche predicted....once "god" died.
Socrates believed in an ultimate Good (he actually saw this almost as a 'god' higher than all the gods of Greece)....it was elements of 'vision' without revelation like this that so endeered many of the greek philosophers to the early church. In Plato, it was his idealistic monism (the belief that they physical world was a shadow of a deeper spiritual world that was ultimately based upon a single original being). And Aristotle's and Heraclitus' "First Mover" from whence all things began.
To head east, we have the Dao (the way), expressed by Lao Tzu and the Yi (righteousness) of Confuscious.
What these ancients, and most thinking people throughout history believed, is that there was a right and a wrong to be discovered....though they may have often disagreed about how to define them. It is only in modern times that we have abandoned the search for right and wrong....we have lost hope that they can be found, or perhaps we have grown weary of people killing each-other to establish their 'right' over the others 'wrong'.
But are we right in our modern abandonment of right and wrong?...I think not. There is a reason we refer to modern knowlege, and ancient wisdom....have you ever heard the phrase 'modern wisdom'? Perhaps we intuitively understand that our modern society is not based upon wisdom, but mostly upon immediate preference.
Some of us just are not comfortable with the way things are...so we can't resist the opportunity to encourage people to think about why they believe what they believe....it this takes BatGirl going Butch, then so be it.
To do this, we must risk being shaken at our own foundations, losing our 'structure'...and risk being exposed as inconsistent beings. That is what scares us so much. But the man lost in the rapids must let of of the rock he is clinging to, in order to grab the rope that is thrown to him....it is a frightening and jarring moment, and some never reach for the rope for fear of missing it and being swept away.
[br]Click to enlarge[/br]
[br]Click to enlarge[/br]
