Go back to previous topic
Forum nameOkay Activist Archives
Topic subjectYou are incorrigible!
Topic URLhttp://board.okayplayer.com/okp.php?az=show_topic&forum=22&topic_id=29666&mesg_id=29832
29832, You are incorrigible!
Posted by moot_point, Sun Apr-03-05 02:35 PM
*Sigh* Here we go again!

>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.

'The very obvious fact'? Sic!

The rule of law is not the final arbiter because it often changes in accordance with the ruling power/populist opinion (another debate!) of what is right and wrong. (Just like the Church does - homosexuality anybody?!) Similarly, the criminal law and civil law are not the bodies of law by which all choose to live.

Objections to this present state of the law do not need to be based on the existence of a ‘higher law’; one simply needs a sufficiently strong (subjective) conviction to voice an objection. This conviction is likely to originate in our internalisation of the other codes (including those of the Church) which determine our views of right and wrong.

>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.

Again, there are several discursive codes that form our views of right and wrong; not just the ‘law of the land’. The rule of law was applicable to what you wrote earlier.

>>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
>>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.

Are you serious?! You patronise me and qualify this by repeating the point I made! I absolutely believe that activists, who fight for change, are attempting to impose a new order. On a certain level this makes a hypocrite of the activist. But as Ginsberg (one of the greatest modern activists) explained to Lofton: ‘I am large, I contain contradictions’. According to your logic, only the Christian activist is absolved from such hypocrisy because he is the only one who appeals to God’s objective law. Such folly!

>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

Yawn! Then perhaps he should explain his personal belief in a court of law.

>1st) "young earth" is not my hypothosis

I did not suggest that it was. I thought that ‘end of earth/earthquakes as precursor’ was your hypothesis.

>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"?

Lol. For every proponent of your cosmological argument there are several opponents. I’m not getting into this debate. However, I will state that I was careful earlier to muse that religion developed – IN PART – to explain man’s personal struggle with right and wrong. It has also developed as an attempt to make sense (in the same mythical way) of what we are unable to explain in the Universe.

I am tired now. I know that neither of us will change our position and you have consistently failed to address my main points. Feel free to respond but this will be my final post on the matter.