Go back to previous topic
Forum nameOkay Activist Archives
Topic subjecthelp me out
Topic URLhttp://board.okayplayer.com/okp.php?az=show_topic&forum=22&topic_id=29666&mesg_id=29830
29830, help me out
Posted by inVerse, Fri Apr-01-05 12:29 PM

>Have you heard of the rule of law?

Have you considered the very obvious fact that the "rule of law" is not your final arbiter for what is right and wrong? If not, consider it. Then tell me, when you object to some law, on what higher law is your objection based? If it's merely based on personal preference/whim (even IF it's a conviction you hold), then you are simply demanding that your views be imposed on others, something which, if turned against you, you'd fight.

It sounds like your suggesting that there is no higher law than the "law of the land"... and I wanna believe I'm mistaken, cause I can't believe you'd suggest that.

>Any activist that claims to fight 'objectively' fails to see
>that the subjectivity/objectivity distinction is a misnomer.
>It is also likey that he is uttlerly self-conceited. How can
>each individual's conception of right and wrong be subjective
>except his.

You have not meditated on this long enough to realize that any activist who's not appealing to "objective law" in order to "right" a situation, isn't "righting" a situation at all, but MERELY imposing their personal preference on it, at the expense of others, and is thus the very type of hypocrite/tyrant he/she claims to fight.

If someone takes your wallet, and you find them and confront them and you say "You shouldn't have done that". You're not merely saying "in my personal belief you shouldn't have done that". Because why would your personal belief about this issue have ANY bearings on the other person? Maybe in HIS personal belief he SHOULD have taken your wallet. When you say to somone "that should not be done", you're appealing to a real, objective moral law that you implicitly expect the other person to identify with, otherwise ALL moral language (should, should not, good, bad, better, worse) would be utterly meaningless.

>I achieved this by establishing
>that your hypothesis contradicts the SCIENTIFIC LAW of
>causality. The only presupposition I needed was that I
>believed yours was incorrect.

1st) "young earth" is not my hypothosis

2nd) so you believe in the Scientific Law of causality? Do you then beleive in an "infinite regress" of causes? Do you believe in God? If NOT, do you disbelieve on the basis of your belief in "scientific causality"?

ps - I can't retract my statement because it wasn't a statement of belief, I merely found it interesting that an area of the world where HORRID abuses of human rights are going on just suffered an awful atrocity.
I'm not sure what about that there is to retract.