|
variation30 -> RE: On addiction and D/s (7/2/2009 9:24:05 PM)
|
quote:
econd off, I did not flounce out of here in a huff so much as realize that I was not going to convince anyone who didn't already agree with me of anything. I also wasn't going to get convinced of the other side. It really just seemed to be a pissing contest and I didn't like how it was making anyone look. A good friend of mine pointed this out to me in somewhat harsh word quote:
ORIGINAL: Sarahsubmits
I don't think it is like that really.
I took a look at this thread again and I figured that some air should be cleared.
First off, some of the things that Sarah said I said, were taken a little out of context - though I did use the line about Euclid and Triangles pretty much verbatim.
Second off, I did not flounce out of here in a huff so much as realize that I was not going to convince anyone who didn't already agree with me of anything. I also wasn't going to get convinced of the other side. It really just seemed to be a pissing contest and I didn't like how it was making anyone look. A good friend of mine pointed this out to me in somewhat harsh words.
Third off, you should be wary about what you have learned about the legal system here. If you really want to look into what was being argued, look at the actual opinion. Just read that. The supreme court had the power interpret the constitution and they really did interpret judicial review for themselves. That is exactly what happened. Since this happened at the close of the Adams administration, and it has remained an unchallenged cornerstone of our system ever since, it is kind of silly to argue about it. It is the way it is.
Fourth off, the real "debate" can not be resolved because the two sides are starting from different axioms. One side fervently believes that part of personal responsibility is a responsibility to not harm or take advantage of others. There can be endless debate about what constitutes harm. There can be endless debate about what constitutes taking advantage. Those are the specifics. The general idea still holds, provided that at least one thing is harm and at least one thing is taking advantage. The last statement is actually set theory.
The other side feels that since all responsibility starts and ends with one person, such notions are meaningless.
Logical proofs will not obtain for either side if the two sides do not use the same axioms.
Attempts at utilitarian arguments were similarly useless because the things that were considered "useful" were different.
Fifth off, for those who reject the social responsibility arguments... for those of us who were raised with them as a cornerstone of our basic morality, it is incredibly disconcerting to hear these things rejected. It is like someone suggesting babies are the "other white meat." It's obvious we piss you off just as much. However, this is not some silly statement of "what feels right." It is a coherent belief system shared by most of Western Civilization - despite all of the possible variations.
Sixth off, of course I think that the moral argument is the correct one. If you believe in morality, then you also must believe that some things are immoral. These words too can be endlessly debated. As a point of set theory though. At least one thing must be immoral if you believe that morality can exist
wait a second, who wrote this?
|
|
|
|
