While We Wait: Writer's Block & Other Lame Excuses

[das]

This isn't a mere reactionary attitude, this is linguistic necromancy.

 

[Lord of Elves]

@Jehoshua, you are very articulate and good at expressing your beliefs so I have a hard time objecting you out of hand, but your political and social beliefs (especially in regards to transgenderism, homosexuality, gender roles and feminism) are barbaric and disgusting. I hope you will not take it as some kind of personal attack when I say you are holding back mankind, because I say it very factually. You are a product of a different time period, apparently, and more power to you for that, but I desperately hope the belief system you endorse will eventually die out.

 

[Jehoshua]

@Das: Linguistic necromancy would be if I resurrected the word swither in casual conversation. The words I utilise exist within the English lexicon, and as Terrance's use of ergo shows, they are not un-utilised in the contemporary period.

-

@Lord of Elves: I'm not too agitated over your position since I see it as fundamentally reverting to sentimentality (thus the use of "barbaric and disgusting, which of course you may feel, but that feeling does not make my points wrong, and the urge to dismiss me out of hand instead of arguing to points, and listening to the other side so to speak), and as being in part self-evidently absurd (with regards to your linear teleological views regarding social and political progress and history). My position (vis a vis differing opinions) is that they must refer to the touchstone of reason, and objective reality, not to simple visceral distaste (I find many positions of liberalism disgusting and barbaric, that by itself does not make them wrong though). Your response does not appear, at least on the surface, to do either.

Now I would be happy to correspond with you via PM and allow for a reasoned discussion of differing views, after all despite what you may think, I am not some bigoted ignoramus just waiting in his dingy 19th century Victorian manor, rubbing his hands in a dusty and archaic drawing room for the day when society will once again burn heretics and sodomites at the stake. I am perfectly happy to argue with people I disagree with on rational grounds, and at least in the case of the archetypical sodomite perfectly happy to talk on numerous topics with them and associate with them on friendly terms, even as I point out to them that sodomy is a sin and they shouldn't do it, love the sinner hate the sin and such. [such correspondence has being fairly regular with regards to certain CFC people btw].

EDIT: Oh, and how do you know (apart from the Catholicism ofc) what the belief system I endorse is? You've only received my position (again, apart from the Catholic aspect) on a few subjects (namely feminism, and my position that "gender" cannot be divorced from ones biological sex)

 

[Crezth]

Speaking of "objective reality," lets first objectively prove the existence of God. Just so we have a common framework for objective and reality.

 

[Lord of Elves]

@Jehoshua, I am perfectly capable of articulating my views without resorting to as you put it "emotional" disgust. I'm loathe to do so however on the basis that your beliefs are so wholly retrograde, and so steeped in some kind of political/cultural language of the 18th century, that doing so feels completely fruitless. It is entirely convenient for you, a cisgendered member of the majority, to dispense with the complaints of the homosexual, the bisexual, the minority of people sexually attracted to table legs, etc, after all, you don't have their problems.

"I'm not transgendered, therefore no one can be transgendered!" well, thanks Jehoshua, that cleared things up for everyone.

 

[das]

*cough*

Re-cough. Generally speaking, when one of the main participants expresses the willingness to end the conversation or move it elsewhere, it is, IMHO, bad form to try and egg him on to continue.

 

[Birdjaguar]

Thank you das and thank you Ninja.

And now back to our regularly scheduled program.

 

[das]

I'd like to take this opportunity to re-endorse LOGH, in case anyone missed it. It's like Victoria in space; or rather, if Paradox were to make a space game, that is how I imagine it might be. Complete with horrendously costly battles.

 

[Crezth]

So anyway I've been reading the works of this German dude, Hitler. I think he's really interesting, what do you guys know about him?

 

[qoou]

I like you Jehoshua. You are one interesting Catholic Australian.

Oh, actually, nevermind about that last part now that I look at Wikipedia. I thought the numbers in Australia were closer to ~8-10% Catholic than the ~25% it is.

 

[das]

All those Irishmen that were sent there might have had something to do with that, at a guess. I run into a lot of Catholic Australians out in the electronic wilds.

Crezth, I'm not fond of his syphilis obsession. (Though for the sake of fairness, a lot of people like to be crass to seem more authentic and close to "the People".)

 

[Jehoshua]

I like you Jehoshua. You are one interesting Catholic Australian.

Oh, actually, nevermind about that last part now that I look at Wikipedia. I thought the numbers in Australia were closer to ~8-10% Catholic than the ~25% it is.

That Catholics are 25% rather than 8-10% of the population does not negate that I am an "interesting Catholic Australian", if of course you find me interesting in the intellectual sense.

 

[Thlayli]

@Jehoshua, you are very articulate and good at expressing your beliefs so I have a hard time objecting you out of hand, but your political and social beliefs (especially in regards to transgenderism, homosexuality, gender roles and feminism) are barbaric and disgusting. I hope you will not take it as some kind of personal attack when I say you are holding back mankind, because I say it very factually. You are a product of a different time period, apparently, and more power to you for that, but I desperately hope the belief system you endorse will eventually die out.

Words like "barbaric" and "disgusting" are rather subjectively based in your own cultural biases, and at least if we're arguing from an impartial viewpoint, his ideals (that there are substantive differences between the genders that should largely be reflected in their "roles" in society) are not exactly uncommon on the global scene, n'est-ce pas?

It seems to be particularly persistent in the Middle East, Africa, and East/South Asia, and while a disgusted attitude towards perceptions that are still widely held globally is certainly a common Western response, it doesn't free you from the counter-claim of being extremely ethnocentric in your own views regarding "women's liberation". Especially since many women from conservative cultures are very vocal about their own desires to not be "liberated," whether they're propagandized by the patriarchy or not.

To follow along with Crezth's ironically-delivered point about subjectivity, in a world of subjective values, what makes one attitude "better" than another? You need to keep in mind as you deliver your points that you speak for a very small minority of world opinion, "enlightened" or not.

This doesn't at all reveal how I feel about the matter; I'm simply trying to inform you about how you sound. It's not an effective way to argue, and it simply makes you look like an uninformed shill, no better than a hypothetical poorly-educated Muslim man who argues that women should be submissive because that is part of the cultural milieu to which he has been exposed from an early age. Jehoshua has his own Pharisaical problems, but yours are particularly galling, since he already catches a lot of flak.

tldr; check your privilege, white urban first worlder.

 

[Lord of Elves]

Moral relativism is an odd kind of refuge in audacity for the resident forum Catholics. Moral relativism is not a good way to increase the "net good" of the human experience, nor is it a particularly compelling intellectual standpoint; if we hold that morals are based entirely on your geographical location relevant to the prevailing cultural moral consensus then Jehoshua might as well move to Saudi Arabia where his moral position is endorsed. There is a universal set of morals for all humans which will ensure the maximum quality of life for the majority; it can be achieved. The alternative, of allowing people throughout the world to live in suffering and oppression, is unacceptable. We are not evolutionarily divergent in such a way that makes moral reconciliation impossible. If you abandon the idea that there ought to be a universal moral code, and make all morals arbitrary social constructs, you might as well abandon morals altogether. We are either united by a common moral whole or there is no moral whole whatsoever.

There is no empirical evidence to suggest that homosexuals are incapable of interacting safely within society, and to society's benefit. The same is true of transgendered people, or indeed any LGBT or associated groups. There is nothing antisocial or dangerous to other persons about homosexual or transgendered behavior, whatever that is. It is entirely hostile and repressive to discriminate against or harm the welfare of LGBT persons for religious or dogmatic reasons that have no basis in reality or out of physical necessity; nothing a homosexual/transgendered/bisexual/pansexual/table-sexual person does harms you or anyone you know. You are just forcing an iron age religious creed on other people, and damning them to life of frustration and abuse if they refuse to abide by it.

Personally, I entirely reject your premise and the dogmatic system of belief it is based upon. If you were to start some kind of social movement to force your beliefs on other people I would rise up against it and do everything in my power to oppose it. Jehoshua is proposing a return to medieval (by which I mean strictly medieval, as in of the medieval period) attitude on politics, economics, gender roles and the role of the church in daily life (or I can only presume, based on his pretension to reject all liberalism) and I would consider that a horrible, apocalyptic nightmare which all mankind should fight to avoid. I am not exaggerating my position or dealing in emotional nonsense, I would consider such a return to stated attitudes a failure on the part of the human race. We have, in the past several centuries (at least in Europe and elsewhere in the world), moved beyond such superstitions.

In regards to the argument that this discussion should be held in OT... I disagree entirely. OT is subject to its own odd cliques and personalities that will turn this into some kind of state vs. individual discussion, or divide it into camps alongside people who support Popular Liberal Poster #1 or Popular Conservative Poster #5. If we are going to have an earnest and fruitful discussion about ethics and morals we are only ever going to do it here.

 

[Terrance888]

Ergo, it can be said we won't be able to get this kind of discussion off topic.

EDIT: ARGHHHhhh!

 

[Jehoshua]

In regards to the argument that this discussion should be held in OT... I disagree entirely. OT is subject to its own odd cliques and personalities that will turn this into some kind of state vs. individual discussion, or divide it into camps alongside people who support Popular Liberal Poster #1 or Popular Conservative Poster #5. If we are going to have an earnest and fruitful discussion about ethics and morals we are only ever going to do it here

I agree with this point. Although in homage to our glorious overlord Birdjaguar I am going to refrain from responding to the greater whole of Lord of Elves points, or to the shrill hysterical moralism of Lord of Elves in an immediate sense (its disappointing that he's applying assumptions to what I believe and effectively putting things into my mouth that I have never said), and will wait and see if he will give the collective leave to discuss this topic here (I did send a PM to you LoE, so the option of a private discussion is there. I also just sent one to Crezth in reply to his question).

I will however make an exception to make a note on moral relativism, which is that I reject it on principle (thlayli is the one appealing to it, not me ) and agree with you that there is a universal moral order, although I obviously disagree with you on its principles. Although (and here the musing begins) logically if you really do accept that ontological and fundamental premise, you yourself must necessarily accept that there is a first principle (IE: God as He is understood philosophically), since otherwise the universe simply exists as a "brute fact' (which has its own philosophical problems as I discussed in more detail in my PM to Crezth) and one cannot reasonably say that an objective and universal moral order can be deduced within it since it simply "is', without meaning or purpose. If the universe "simply is" every philosophical opinion becomes subjective including the idea of "the greatest good for the greatest number". All I would have to do is ask "why is this so?" and you could not logically answer without implicitly acting on the assumption in your reply that there is a first principle and a universal order to which this moral principle is oriented and from which it derives meaning. I also could in addition to this simply say that what you think the "greatest good for the greatest number" actually entails (since your moral position on particulars is not self-evidently correct) is wrong and that something else is better at achieving this end, which would lead to us reverting to the mire of moral relativism, presuming of course we do not refer to a first principle and a universal order proceeding from it as I noted, as the necessary determining principle by which right and wrong can be discerned through reason. (Ergo, your entire utilitarian position if we assume it is universally applicable, still is subjective in terms of what it actually entails "on the ground" in social policy terms, since what achieves the "greatest good" is debatable, and your philosophical position does not define what "good" is to begin with).

Jehoshua has his own Pharisaical problems, but yours are particularly galling, since he already catches a lot of flak]

EDIT: To be pharisaical means to be hypocritically self-righteous and condemnatory. Ergo if I say sodomy is wrong, and then practice sodomy on the side I am being pharisaical. Same if I preach charity and mercy and then proceed to bash up a homosexual and throw him into a sewer simply because he commits the sin of sodomy. If I simply say however that sodomy is wrong and do neither of those things or things of that nature, I am not being pharisaic no matter how much someone else may dislike me saying it. Our discussion here is a question of right and wrong, not of the attitude of the person saying it. Our discussion is to the point, not to the person.

Likewise Lord of Elves is not being pharisaic if he really believes and practices (follows the letter of the law and its spirit so to speak) what he believes (allowing for moments of human imperfection). He would be pharisaic if he said he believed in tolerance and then proceeded to censor my point of view in the name of that same tolerance because I am being "intolerant" in his estimation (since tolerance inherently means tolerating the intolerant no ). Not by simply disagreeing with my positions (even if he does so virulently and with a shrill puritanical moralism).

 

[Grandkhan]

Ergo, it can be said we won't be able to get this kind of discussion off topic.

EDIT: ARGHHHhhh!

Ergo is a perfectly valid world. Ergo, as a wholehearted proponent of its use, I urge you to keep going on this track and to insert it wherever its use is grammatically and contextually correct.

 

[Lord of Elves]

Constrained as I am by my agreement with Jehoshua that we ought to wait for Birdjaguar to give his blessing before resuming this discussion (or whatever) in earnest, I should qualify that I have a hard time taking seriously the proposition that advocating for the equality of all men and the fair treatment of people of all beliefs, races and sexual orientations is "shrill". You may want to reexamine your beliefs if you find the idea of reliving the 13th century as enticing.

 

[Jehoshua]

Shrillness is in the demeanour, not necessarily the content , and why would I re-examine my beliefs if you're not willing to re-examine yours? The principle goes both ways no? Indeed what imperative for me to do so (not that I havn't already, you forget who's the apostate from the state religion of liberalism here) when you haven't actually made any compelling argument for your position, and when your responses thus far to my points (taking reasonable account our constraints in awaiting for the blessings of our moderator ofc) haven't dealt with what I have said or the points made, but have devolved into the crass absurdity of making un-validated and mostly erroneous assumptions about my beliefs and calling me names (retrograde, and "17th century" come to mind, although it seems you go backward in time every response . ).

With few exceptions (your statements on the existence of a moral order, your summation of a utilitarian moral code, and general exegesis of liberal assumptions) all you seem to have done thus far is descend into the backalley art of moralistic, dare I say it, evangelical sermonising, making emotive appeals to your audiences own assumptions in a bid to acquire support. If anything the way you are arguing shows you to be far more dogmatic, ideologically zealous and if we refer to that old liberal leitmotif (which I do not necessarily endorse), intolerant, than I. Since I don't presume to judge my own conduct, I leave it to the rest of the thread to judge who is arguing to reason and logic here, and who is making recourse to the empty rhetoric that is characteristic of the activist style rant. My opinion on that matter aside, it is the former and not the latter that is preferable from both parties (and which I have no doubt that you, as an articulate and intelligent individual are capable of) if this discussion (should it be permitted) is to be serious and of any merit whatsoever.

 

[christos200]

LoE, what makes you think that Western morals are better than, for example, Islamic morals? I cannot understand why Westerners always want to export their morals in other countries, like the Islamic World. If the Muslims tried to impose on your country that women are not equal to men, how would you feel? In the same way, Muslims do not like Western Morals, because they are foreign and are imposed by Westerners who think that everything that does not meet their morality is wrong and barbaric. This is like trying to impose democracy, a political system completely foreign to non-Western cultures, to countries like China or the Arab countries, just because the Westerners think it is the best system in the world. What you and many Westerners fail to understand is that other cultures have their own morals and political tradition, that may seem barbaric to you, but they see it as something natural, like you see as natural the equality of men and women and democracy.