Moira Dirge
-
Posts
0 -
Joined
-
Last visited
1 Follower
-
Absolutely true. I was trying to be antiseptic in my approach because, 1) I'm a new poster, 2) I've found that arguing morality often makes people very upset personally or believe they are being attacked. So I tried a different approach... and failed. :(
BTW. I was using a very very old argument a law professor of mine used against an anthropology professor of mine during a bar room discussion. I was floored by the way they debated, they were perfection. Both of their arguments appealed to logic and interpretation and each, literally, swayed my opinion after each rebuttal. Then they both turned to me at the end and asked me what I thought. I felt like two bears just asked a mosquito how best to bring down an elk. :P
-
Less angry more . . vehement? I went back and read the fall out: reminded me of a few of my sociology and anthropology courses, honestly. I think, at the core, the problem was that you moved the issue out of a moral context into a functional one - i.e. this is what society does and why, irrespective of whether it is good or bad, or if thinking makes it so. A tricky business, and well handled but not what many want to talk about in a thread like. Plus it turns into a question of what is society for, and well, you get as many answers to that as there are people . . .
-
Thanks so much for your comment. :D I basically wrapped up my argument... I think I was making people angry. :( Not my intent.
-
I saw your post here and wanted to commend you for it: probably the most balanced and even-handed approach I've seen in the thread thus far. I would haved picked your brain on the subject in-thread but things look to be getting rather heated, not sure how long it will remain open anyways . . .