> -----Original Message----- > From: Matthew Small [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Sent: Wednesday, September 21, 2005 3:35 PM > To: CF-Community > Subject: RE: Science, for dummies > > I feel that the biggest flaw in your reasoning is that you think that when > a > person feels what you are doing is wrong, they should ignore it because > you > think it is ok. A person with strong moral character will take measures > to > stop that which is wrong. In other words, allowing a person to do that > which > is considered wrong is condoning the act.
Not at all - not ignore, respect. That's it. Respect. That's the point of compromise: you can not agree, you can seek to change opinion, but you do NOT seek to enforce your will and opinions on others. > This is a zero-sum game - there cannot be two winners. Exactly - so instead rational people seek compromise. They seek to convince, to reduce to marginalized the offensive behavior via better options. Again it's compromise. You don't have to compromise with your own life, but you do with others. It's part of living in an open, accepting society like ours. > Yes, morals are subjective, but that should not prevent us from trying to > prevent the immoral acts simply because the other person does not share > the > opinion. > > "However society can readily agree that sex with children is wrong - > and so laws to prevent it are enacted." > > This brings me to the question: should we allow NAMBLA to conduct what it > would like to do simply because they espouse other moral opinions? No - as I said, this is a situation in where society as a whole can readily agree. There's a clear cultural mandate to prevent this and so government steps in. However, if over 50% of society felt that sex with children was Okay then we may be having a different discussion. > You say no, but why? Because it's a "societal norm"? How is this > different Because it is... simply because the culturally acceptable norm is VASTLY in one camp. It is NOT that way for abortion. > than abortion? I'm not sure of the percentage either way, but given the > fact that the "anti-abortion" crowd considers the fetus to be a "baby", > and > about everyone would consider "killing a baby" to be wrong, isn't it a > societal norm? Again, this is a matter of degrees. NO - not a matter of degree, a matter of definition. Again a group, even a slight majority (which pro-lifers are not) cannot "staple" moral values onto existing values and claim victory. They can't just say "a fetus is a baby and so should be treated like one" and have everybody respect that. It's not the same, it's not a difference of degree but a difference in kind. > Another question: Should we allow slavery simply because the South > considers it to be a societal norm? It does? Are you sure about that? If you're saying that it DID, fine - it's a perfect example. It caused a war. The reason it caused a war (at least in part in my opinion) is that the issue was both socially charged AND geographically split. > Anti-slavery people caused the South enough trouble that they wanted to > leave the Union. Now the societal norm has changed. And the societal norm may change again. IN EITHER DIRECTION. IT may be in a hundred that there are "abortion booths" on every corner with Friday night "two for one" sales. I hope it doesn't reach that point, but that's beside the point. I'm talking about the current state of things. And currently there is no clear, overwhelmingly majority. Smart people are left to make their own decisions and that's as it should be. > Yes, this is all subjective, and the anti-abortion groups are no different > than any other group with a cause. To you, it's about the right to do > something. To them, it's not about rights, it's about right and wrong. True... but that doesn't change my argument. Whatever dogma, decision or conviction is used to defend it it's still a minority attempting to force their views on everybody. I'll fight such a thing from whichever side. I would fight just as stridently against a group demanding abortions (there actually are groups which advocate forced abortions for mothers that can't afford children). It's a matter of respect for another's belief even when it challenges your own. Jim Davis ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~| Find out how CFTicket can increase your company's customer support efficiency by 100% http://www.houseoffusion.com/banners/view.cfm?bannerid=49 Message: http://www.houseoffusion.com/lists.cfm/link=i:5:174583 Archives: http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/threads.cfm/5 Subscription: http://www.houseoffusion.com/lists.cfm/link=s:5 Unsubscribe: http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/unsubscribe.cfm?user=11502.10531.5 Donations & Support: http://www.houseoffusion.com/tiny.cfm/54
