Originally posted by King Kandy
there's no logical reason why that argument should apply to some things but not to others.
Originally posted by Zeal Ex Nihilo
How about the vast difference between refusing to do business with someone and, you know, murdering him? Good Lord. This is what happens when you let people get a taste of logic. They think they know everything and spout off pretentious bullsh*t and read Nietzsche.
let's say I believe:
We should teach schoolchildren about American expansionism from the perspective of native Americans.
That sounds pretty decent. It is, after all, important to know about people who uniquely affected the history of the US and how they were harmed by its policies. So this could be considered a pretty sensible idea. But then I argue my case as such:
Because it is important that all perspectives be given equal treatment.
Well, that's just a load of nonsense. If that argument were accepted as true, we'd have to talk about the US from any perspective imaginable, even the perspective of people who are nearly irrelevant to the issue. We'd be spending a minute each on "Norwegian perspectives" and "Aboriginal perspectives". This sort of logic even goes into science. Why not teach our students all about homeopathy, and give that equal time to modern medicine? Or give Ptolemaic and Copernican systems equal time in class? To put it simple, that logical justification is not at all sound.
So pretty much, whether something comes from a reasonable premise is irrelevant towards whether it is a reasonable argument.
Originally posted by King Kandy
No i'm arguing that if you feel privately owned businesses should be able to discriminate, you need a better argument than what you've brought up so far.
Originally posted by Zeal Ex Nihilo
Because they own the place, that's why. If I say, "You can't come into my house," you can't come into my house. Period. Likewise, if I say, "You can't come into my business," then no, you can't come into my business.
Still not a solid argument. It can support all sorts of things. Something more specific is needed, a la "they own the place and they aren't hurting the person".
Originally posted by Zeal Ex Nihilo
Because they own the place, that's why. If I say, "You can't come into my house," you can't come into my house. Period. Likewise, if I say, "You can't come into my business," then no, you can't come into my business.
Oh, boy, here we go. Nihilistfaggotry all up in this house. I hate it when teenagers think they can debate. You want to argue moral theory according to logic and reason? Fine.
There are no morals. Everything we know regarding right and wrong are just cultural ideals we have been raised into and lead to believe. Tear away the veil of tradition and reveal to the light of cold, hard rationality, and what you're left with is a fabric weaved of lies. There is nothing inherently wrong with killing someone. Nothing wrong with torture and rape. Life is unquantifiable. It is abstract. When someone dies, his cells have merely stopped respiring. And in the end, it didn't matter anyway. He was just atoms. Just little bits and pieces of the universe stuck together in such a way that a cognizant being emerged from chaos. So who cares if the Hitlers and Stalins of the world kill millions? Who cares about the Jews and gypsies and queers that were tortured and slaughtered and turned to ash? Who cares about the women and children raped and murdered? They were going to die anyway.
And I could go on and on about this, but my response is much better summed up as follows: f*ck off.
Originally posted by Zeal Ex Nihilo
Oh, boy, here we go. Nihilistfaggotry all up in this house. I hate it when teenagers think they can debate. You want to argue moral theory according to logic and reason? Fine.There are no morals. Everything we know regarding right and wrong are just cultural ideals we have been raised into and lead to believe. Tear away the veil of tradition and reveal to the light of cold, hard rationality, and what you're left with is a fabric weaved of lies. There is nothing inherently wrong with killing someone. Nothing wrong with torture and rape. Life is unquantifiable. It is abstract. When someone dies, his cells have merely stopped respiring. And in the end, it didn't matter anyway. He was just atoms. Just little bits and pieces of the universe stuck together in such a way that a cognizant being emerged from chaos. So who cares if the Hitlers and Stalins of the world kill millions? Who cares about the Jews and gypsies and queers that were tortured and slaughtered and turned to ash? Who cares about the women and children raped and murdered? They were going to die anyway.
And I could go on and on about this, but my response is much better summed up as follows: f*ck off.
Actually, that doesn't seem like an argument that proves or disproves anything. In fact in a closer analysis you seem to have simply demonstrated for the ideology of nihilism for reasons that totally escape me.