Mischief Maker wrote:Oh that's what this is all about, moral absolutism!
Hardly. Moral absolutism is just as fallacious as the moral relativism the left likes to espouse, just in the opposite direction. There is only one Absolute, compared to witch everything else is conditional and ultimately even ephemeral.
In a way, both left and right are at fault for being unable to perceive there is such a thing as a transcendent dimension which is actually the only real "reality" and out of which the physical world is abstracted from. In simple words, the "objectivist" right is at fault for thinking there is something "absolute" about relative reality, where as the relativist left is at fault for thinking nothing exists besides this relativity, and that everything in this world which recalls this transcendent reality in some form or another is no more "real" than those things which contradict or go against said transcend realm.
If we take Plato's cave as our guide, we can say that both the left-wing and the right-wing cannot see past the shadows projected on the wall, with one side arguing that the shapes they see are the whole of the reality and are in themselves "absolute", as opposed to being mere relative reflections of an original ideal or form (and imperfect and approximate they may be they are still valuable for representing something of the original, hence the argument in favor of "normality"), with the other side arguing that those shapes are unreal and that there's nothing at all to them or to anything whatsoever.
Mischief Maker wrote:That said, do you realize that what you're demanding is a standard that has eluded the greatest philosophical and legal minds of humanity for millennia?
You mean it has eluded the efforts of western rationalists. This is what happens when you declare there is only one way to obtain knowledge while dismissing all other sources of wisdom as mere "superstition". Most westerners basically are now under the delusion that, because their chosen method is incapable of obtaining to any true understanding of any "objective" reality, such reality must not exist, basically projecting the limitations of their means to human intelligence as such, and without being aware of the blatant contradiction inherent in a type of thinking which claims to have "proven" that nothing can actually be proven.
Mind you, part of the confusion stems from the fact discursive thought is incapable
a priori to exhaust the entirety of a transcendent idea (the Tao that can be named, is not the real Tao and so on and so forth), so there is no such thing as a single formulation which exhausts all aspects of transcendent reality. But this limitation applies only to rational and discursive thought, not intelligence as such. All ancient wisdom was predicated on the assumption its formulations, no matter how indirect or elliptical, could be understood by anyone with the "ears to hear", so to speak. Apparently, at some point those individuals went extinct or something, hence, the abomination that is modernity.
Ed Oscuro wrote:All you need to know about Opus13 is that he understands nothing except that the human model has, so far, chosen to set sex roles in a particular way.
You mean i understand nothing except [insert ideological statement here].
Human beings have not "chosen" anything. Sex and gender are not a "social construct". Your point of view is just that, a point of view. Nothing of what you are arguing was actually ever "proven" in any way or form, so stop pretending that it has.
Besides, all your arguments basically amounts to one single idea: that because the exception exist, there must not be a rule, which relates perfectly to what i said in my reply to Mischief Maker. You cannot perceive that "gender roles" have their model in an higher and transcendent reality, so you think the apparent relativity of those roles within our physical realm is "proof" gender is arbitrary and ultimately "made up". This is textbook nominalism right here.
People place undue importance on initial "gut reactions."
