Quote:
Originally Posted by obanrocks
Why are you resorting to insults and over-simplification? It diminishes the validity of your argument. I cannot undo the past nor your angst about it.
The issues of this Country can be resolved by enforcing laws already on the books.
|
If there is an over simplification it's coming from you. I never asked you to "undo the past" my response was informing you what would happen if we re-litigated the past and that is what you were positing and my "angst" is not against the past but recognition that returning to it is not a path for moving this country forward. An over simplification is believing that issues confronting America "can be resolved simply by enforcing laws" and that is the absolutist view that I was referring to. Wiki explains the context well when I refer to the term "absolutist":
Moral absolutism is the ethical view that certain actions are absolutely right or wrong, regardless of other contexts such as their consequences or the intentions behind them. Thus stealing, for instance, might be considered to be always immoral, even if done to promote some other good (e.g., stealing food to feed a starving family), and even if it does in the end promote such a good. Moral absolutism stands in contrast to other categories of normative ethical theories such as consequentialism, which holds that the morality (in the wide sense) of an act depends on the consequences or the context of the act
)
