A late followup to the silly "universal conscience" argument:


A: I cannot believe this. How is homosexuality immoral?

You see the problem with your argument, really, is that it sucks. What the hell is a lawful society ordered upon society's combined morals?? Now that's a super theory. You should publish it, you could really get a PhD for that breakthrough.

What the hell, really, is your idea of a 'conscience'? Because after having not read the posts for about two weeks and coming back after so long, it really seems as if your use of the word 'conscience' is interchangeable with 'my narrow world view based on a non-superficial and totalitarian interpretation of the Bible'. And sista, that just don't cut it. What the hell is a conscience? Mightn't it be an artificial construct, a human conception? And haven't the world's shittiest deeds happened on the best of consciences? Oh, let's say, the crusades. Which good God-fearing
Christians with a strait understanding of the Bible, incited in the name of God. Of course I'm caricaturing, but that's still a salient point.

On a tangential note, it has occurred to me that your style of argument and the line of argument are exactly the same. Both are highfalutin, holier-than-thou, moral-highground (of course, you being so 'moral'). Much like evangelical Christianity, you cannot tell when your simplistic arguments and your disgustingly
pharisaical tone of voice drives people absolutely insane.


The point is, there is a difference between morality and law, a distinction which I think ELgin has failed to make. A legal thing may not be moral, just as a moral thing may not be legal. The main difference between my (liberal) view and B's view is that B thinks that laws must conform to HIS idea of conscience and morality, while in my view you're really free to do whatever you want to do as long as you aren't harming anyone else. Whereas you can't do anything which offends B's conscience (by which I take to mean his squeamishness) in his perfect world.

Thank God most of the developed world thinks more like me than like B.


you see, when people disagree with you (or deviate from what you view as normal), they don't necessarily have to be a) wrong (in the more fundamental sense of the word, as in right vs wrong) or b) immoral.

you see, you can disagree with me. i will not call you immoral. i will call you extremely stupid.