PubliusInfinitum
Rookie
- Aug 18, 2008
- 6,805
- 729
- 0
- Banned
- #41
Contrary to your conclusion, I provided the rational basis for my conclusion where I pointed to the sacred promise inherent in marriage... Promises which my opponent wanted to dismiss in a relativist rationalization... Promises which are designed to avoid the cultural calamity of which their dismissal will surely result... and given that evil's purpose is human calamity, does it not serve reason that the origins of such reasoning would necessarily be evil?
Now one reason one may be persuaded by my position is THAT THEY WANT TO AVOID COMPLYING WITH EVIL and thus avoid personal catastrophe, calamity and chaos...
You say it is "sacred". Someone else says it is not. In fact, they may say that there is no god, so nothing is sacred in that sense.
Can you somehow prove it is sacred? You would be a fool to even try.
You say it is inherent. Someone else says it is not. They may say that they entered into marriage with a meeting of the minds where the conditions were understood to the participants. Monogamy may not have been one of those conditions.
You keep falling back to words like "sacred" and "evil" and then insist your argument is somehow based in rationality. Your argument is only rationale once someone accepts all of your premises, none of which are rationale or can be proved.
Silly and Boring.
So your response to my contest of relativism is to cite relativism... LOL... OK... suit yourself...
Someone could say that you don't exist and ask you to prove it... ever tried it? It gets pretty hairy, so be careful... small intellects can get awefully screwed up awefully quick. The fact is however that ya do exist and another's denial of that hardly effects it. That you deny that one's existance is a function of God's gift, likewise, in no way effects that... thus one's pledge is always sacred...
What you're argument seeks to do is to reduce the concept of a pledge to something closer to meaningless... a temporal arrangement subject to change without notice; a notion which is as popular as it is dangerous, rife with peril; and it's a notion which has ended many a marriage in disaster and wrought the culture precisely the calamity to which I spoke.
Words mean things Sport... think of them as drawings which impart what would otherwise remain ethereal concepts without those drawings; they're really important where humans need to communicate. Thus sacred and evil are concepts which impart bedrock concepts; concepts which are as immutable in their existance as you are in yours.
I may 'feel' that your money is my money and the only thing which separates me from my money is that it's in your house, bank or wallet... Thus if MY FEELINGS are as valid, viable and true as your feelings, then the only thing separating my truth from yours is my means to overpower you... and make my feelings on that issue 'real'...
Now that's in essence is the foundation of your argument... it's pure relativism... meaning that truth lies within the relative circumstances of the observer; where standards of morlaity are readily changable, easily redefined to suit the given observer.
Now do you agree that what's yours and mine are truly predicated upon your or my ability to induce sufficient power to change the respective status of said belongings? Or do you believe that you're entitled to the product of your labor and the unfettered use of that product to the extent that you do not use that which is rightfully yours to the detriment of another's right to use that which is rightfully theirs?