You mean, of course, that you're a racist.
10/4/2005 12:26:15 AM
No, no, no! You've got it all wrong! He's only a racist towards races OTHER than his own!
10/4/2005 7:26:24 AM
\"objective moral order\"?
I've never heard this phrase before and it made me shudder down to the ends of my toes.
10/4/2005 1:32:38 PM
So the ones with blonde hair and blue eyes can step over here and it's 'to the showers' for the rest of you.
10/4/2005 2:11:55 PM
Well, he's right about multiculturalism. But we all know what kind of \"order\" he's talking about - a Christian one.
10/5/2005 8:23:03 PM
Funny, sounds a lot like \"New World Order\" to me. The kind I hear frantic believers try to convince me that Lestat's line of thinking isn't chumming up to the idea.
10/5/2005 9:20:27 PM
The idea that there is an objective moral order seems not only plausible to me, but indeed rather likely. Consider a society as a set of persons with access to limited resources. It could easily turn out to be the case that certain behaviours indeed optimize the likelihood that universally held desireable outcomes are attained for the average member of that society - peace, prosperity, comfort, happiness, etc.
In a system operating under constraints, it seems that something is probably \"objectively the case\" reqarding what behaviours make that society run well.
All cultures might indeed not be equal - some, for whatever reason, may have discovered that set of behaviours which are optimal in respect to producing a happy stable society.
Too bad you guys argue your point with one-liners and not actual content.
10/7/2005 2:35:43 PM
So you're advocating this guy's idea of prohibiting any other cultures or beliefs than his own?
10/7/2005 2:57:43 PM
Hello Darth Wang: I wrote a reply to your question but I must have pressed the wrong button and it was lost.
Anyhoo...My general position is to let cultural values \"compete\" with one another to see which ones produce a stable, prosperous, peaceful society. So I am against the prohibition that I think you are speaking of.
On the other hand, I do not think it is helpful to foster cultural values (whether American, French, or Middle Eastern) that can be shown to be harmful to the attainment of a stable society. So I do think some cultural values should be \"discarded\". However, this should be a \"societal\" decision.
10/7/2005 5:15:47 PM
And what's your definition of a harmonious, stable society?
10/7/2005 6:44:23 PM
I think that all human beings essentially want the same things - peace, freedom, pleasure, happiness, physical health, love, security, meaning, etc. A society where these outcomes would be achieved to the largest extent possible would be an \"ideal society\". The key point to make is that I believe that there is one form of society that maximizes the desirable end states that I have listed. I do not claim to know what the cultural values of such a society might be. Just as different engineering practices will produce aircraft of varying qualities, so will different cultural values produce societies of differing quality (in relation to the universally held attributes I have listed).
10/7/2005 7:21:16 PM
However the problem with that is that people will end up using those justifications just as an excuse to persecute people they don't like.
10/7/2005 7:41:39 PM
Hey, what's wrong with reacting to posts with one-liners? Bob Hope would be so proud!
10/7/2005 8:27:54 PM
Hello Darth Wang:
Bad eggs will always exist. We should nevertheless try to discover those cultural principles which produce a \"happy\" society.
10/7/2005 9:43:10 PM
Which are up for interpretation by many and can be distorted many ways for selfish reasons. It's entirely too subjective.
10/8/2005 1:43:41 AM
My whole point, and I have yet to hear a counterargument, is that there does indeed exist a set of optimal cultural values - values that will yield the most \"ideal\" society possible. Such values are not subjective - they are objective in the same way that there exists an objectively best set of design principles for engineering an aircraft.
10/8/2005 2:58:46 PM
But what are these values? If you just say things like peace, freedom, pleasure, happiness, physical health, love, security, meaning, etc. then that is still very vague, and can be interpreted (or distorted) in many different ways by many different people.
10/8/2005 5:05:47 PM
Let me clarify. The set of optimal cultural values lead to the achievement of the desirable attributes of an ideal society. So things like love, peace, and security are the result of applying other cultural values - I am talking about cultural values on the one hand and the attributes that the application of such values will yield on the other. So a cultural value might be \"children care for their parents in old age\". The application of this value may or may not be part of the optimal set that leads to a society that is peaceful, secure, etc.
Having said this, I think I disagree with your claim that the attributes of an ideal society that I am talking about (not the cultural values that might produce such a society) are \"vague\". I think that \"love is love\" and \"security\" means pretty much the same thing to everyone. I can say more later in defense of this claim.
10/8/2005 6:13:35 PM
Really? Because to the fundies, love means sending people to Hell for not believing in you.
10/8/2005 11:29:32 PM
Hello Yahweh: I see nothing in the quote from Lestat that is racist. I think that you have to admit such an inference is not warranted based on the exact written words. And when you say my observations are aimed at no one, I must point out comment 2605, which my material could not address more directly (how have I misread that comment 2605?).
Let me be clear: On the one hand, I believe in the idea of fostering and nurturing different cultural customs. \"Morals\" are another story - the application of morals have real consequences in the real world on real people. Moral values are not all equal - some are more conducive to building the kind of society you and I would want to share, others, by contrast, can be downright destructive.
For all I know, the rest of Lestat's post, or some other comments he makes, may suport the notion that he is a racist. I think the case is strong that there is indeed an objective moral order and there is really nothing objectionable about the exact thing he says. I really think a lot of the other posters are making unwarranted inferences - until Lestat actually says he wants to impose a \"Christian\" order (comment 2708) or actuall says that he has white supremacist leanings (comment 2608), such inferences are simply unjustified.
10/9/2005 1:33:55 AM
Hello Yahweh: My intent was not to object to the point of having the post removed. Maybe I misunderstand the whole reason for this site. I kind of assumed that this might be a place for serious discussion of these \"fundie\" quotes. Of course, I agree that most of them are self-evidently silly and need no discussion. However, if the raison d'etre for this site is to allow people to \"vent\" against such stuff and was never intended to be a \"debate\" forum, then I do not wish to interfere with that goal. Please let me know or point me to your \"terms and conditions\".
10/9/2005 5:32:54 AM
There really -are- no terms and conditions, except for what Yahweh wants, which is (generally) that we be somewhat polite to each other.
You can debate all you want ... but don't feel bad if nobody takes you seriously. We sort of pride ourselves on our one-liners, here ...
10/9/2005 5:48:19 AM
Holocaust Apologist of the Month.
1/5/2008 1:25:13 AM
...Of being a asswipe.
1/11/2008 10:31:41 AM
objective moral order? how cute, someone's been reading ayn rand
8/1/2010 6:35:55 PM