Print

Print


Gunnar Jauch wrote:
>
>
> It's just that I keep getting the creeps from people justifying capital
> punishment or condemning gay marriages by way of the Old Testament. Dubya,
> that pompous fart, said we must protect marriage, "the MOST FUNDAMENTAL
> institution of civilization."

No one seems interested in my point that, almost tautologically, you
cannot predict the actions or particular opinions of all (or even most)
members of any given group by deduction from the abstract principles
they uphold.

If fundamentalism (at least in its more destructive forms) is to be
defeated, it will be defeated _in part_ by those who themselves in some
since are fundamentalists. Going to the dictionary to find out about a
social movement is very nearly idiotic.

> No one dare claim to be in possession of the truth.

You are claiming to be in the possession of The Truth about the daily
actions and responses of 10s of millions of individuals -- and what is
your basis for this arrogant assumption: a defintion form Websters,
forsooth.

[clip]
> PS:
>
> There was an article in one our Weeklys on NY, the way Bloomberg is carrying
> Giuliani's ZeroTolerance policy to its extremes by prohibiting smoking and
> dancing

This is nonsense. Look up the dancing in some reputable source. As to
the smoking, whatever motives (stupid they may be) Bloomberg has are
irrelevant. It is a matter of working conditions. Thousands of people
work in restaurants, bars, etc. and need to be protected from the
established health threat of secondhand smoke. Allowing smoking in those
establishments is no better than allowing a chemical plant to ignore
safety regulations:

There is never a mine blown skyward now
But we're buried alive for you.
There's never a wreck drifts shoreward now
But we are its ghastly crew.
Go reckon our dead by the forge's red
And the factories where we spin.


I am an atheist by birthright virtually, I detest most forms of
moralism, Bush is indeed an asshole, et cetera et cetera et cetera. But
position is served by silly defenses of it; and a good deal of your
critique of fundamentalism is simply based on poor information.

Carrol