Post a response to this discussion thread
...First of all, Yes, the resolution is a waste of time and is an insult to Christians and non-Christians alike.
For example, I'm a Christian and I think that fasting is an archaic practice that has no place in modern religion and furthermore, those who still partake in abstaining from food should be pointed at and made fun of for their misguided and clumsy approach to spirituality.
But my main annoyance would be with Ken. Normally I ignore his blatherings as he never really brings any new insight to any conversation and his typical post isn't even interesting enough to serve as mildly entertaining non sequitur.
However, this last post really raised the bar for all philosophical wannabes.
First of all, I know no one likes a grammar nazi. However, Using the incorrect 'there' instead of the correct 'their' in the first sentence,
>>"The problem with both sides is that they make there arguments in moral dialectics."<<,
that's forgivable.
Placing a superfluous 'l' in vilification just makes one look like an uber-poseur. (There's just something about misspelling a longer, more uncommon word, especially when trying to sound so academic, that makes me think it less of a mere oversite and more of a microcosm of the writer's true intellectual capacity.)
Secondly, Back to the very first sentence,
>>"The problem with both sides is that they make there arguments in moral dialectics."<<
Dialectic, would be where both aspects of an argument are studied from a more logical approach. (It also deals with contradictions and all that, but essentially, a dialectic style would be a more lucid approach.)
Therefore, in the context of this discussion, about pro-war/anti-war, religion, etc. I think it's safe to say that dialectics don't enter into it, if they did, we wouldn't be having this discussion.
Not to mention, I would consider 'moral dialectics' an oxymoron. Because the main problem here is that we have opposing sides with their own ideas about morality and both sides tend to exhibit a noted lack of 'dialectic'.
Next we have stupid sentence number two, which just so happens to be the second sentence of Ken's post.
>>Moral arguments always lead to mutual villification, which itself leads to polarization and the break down of compromise.<<
O.K. First things first.
Wouldn't 'mutual vilification' just be another way of saying two sides are 'polarized'?
Secondly, that's an overly simplistic assertion that Ken backed into trying to prove his last statement that,
>>"...anyone who makes a moral argument is absolute scum and doesn't deserve to be listened to."<<,
But then again, that's what pseudo-intellectuals do, they make bastardized assertions, they use backward logic and they misuse and/or misspell words in the vain attempt to be something that they aren't: Relevent.
...and for the record, making yourself vomit on stage is not art, it's just a cry for attention.
Post a response to this discussion thread