[Warrior-Mentor]

Originally Posted by Sigaba

Again, I am afraid that I must respectfully decline the invitation to engage in a game of snark hunt with you. In regards to your numerous implied comparisons of our comprehension and critical thinking skills, people can draw their own conclusions.

I can appreciate that.

Originally Posted by Sigaba

Now, for the substance of your post.

First, if American society rejects "as a collective whole" violence against women and the sexual exploitation of children then why are feminist and child advocacy groups up in arms over the issue? What about ongoing complaints offered by many over America's sex industry? As an example, I would point to many of the comments offered in reference to United States vs. Paul Little. That these debates rage on suggest that the notion of "a collective whole" is not so clear cut.

There's no moral equivalency between America's sex industry and legalized rape, pedophilia and murder as codified, permitted and sometimes required by islamic jurisprudence.

Originally Posted by Sigaba

Second, in regards to your comment about sharia law codifying "repulsive" behaviors, I pose the following question. Does the fact that the Constitution protects many sectors of the sex industry allow for a similar conclusion about American laws and society?

No. Comparing the actions between consenting adults with rape, pedophilia and murder is like comparing apples with dump trucks.

Originally Posted by Sigaba

Third, your formulations of the law reflecting the collective will of American society and culture reflect a perspective that you bring to many of your posts. This perspective reflects your apparent conclusion that a set of laws accurately encapsulates the fundamental character of the entire society that subscribes to those laws and that this is character. (That is, they do not change.)

Some laws may change. Virtues do not.

"The idea of virtue goes back to antiquity, and it varied in the course of time. The ancient virtues were not the Christian virtues , and they were not the Victorian virtues. But what was common to all these virtues, to the very idea of virtue, was a fixed moral standard - a standard by which all people at all times and under all circumstances would be judged. Today we have abandoned that idea of virtue and have adopted instead what we now call "values." Value is a subjective, relativistic term; any individual, group or society may chose to value whatever they like. One cannot say of virtues what one can say of values, that anyone's virtues are as good as anyone else's, or that everyone has a right to his own virtues. This shift from virtues to values represents the true moral revolution of our time."*

Call me old fashioned, I still believe in virtues as something to strive for and judged against.

Originally Posted by Sigaba

In this formulation, history is no longer the study of change over time in celebration of the diversity of the human condition, but rather a series of examples in which societies demonstrate their character by complying with the law. Or, in the case of this thread, the demands of a news paper columnist for the New York Post.

I've had enough of diversity when it starts costing us lives. If diversity is a casualty of defending our way of life, so be it.

Originally Posted by Sigaba

To put it politely, I find your perspective...problematic...for many reasons. In the case of this thread, my reservation centers around the question: What gives one group of Americans the right to dictate how another group of Americans behave?

One's right to "life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness" ends when it impinges on anyone else's right to the same.


* Death of the Grown-Up by Diana West.