I said it was better to take one side rather than to be fair to both sides.Originally posted by ulquiorra87:In the first place, a Fair-minded person wouldnt be affected by how many people are on his side or whether or not he is accepted by the group he opposes or whether he is holding a popular opinion or not. Who cares whether people think you are a govt 'agent' or anti-pap. A fair minded person would take sides based on what he think is right and be swayed by nothing else.
You seem to be trying to say, 'hence to be accepted by everyone, i will take no stand' Because acceptance shouldn't be an issue when you are trying to take stands.
Originally posted by SingaporeTyrannosaur:
Exactly my point, if we are such strong believers in that everything is subjective and a matter of our digestion, then there is no compulsion to believe in anything but what we believe at all.
while subjectivity means we are all entitled to our own opinions, it doesn't mean we shouldn't probe into each other's underlying assumptions. you may be able to point out fallacies in my thinking and thus convince me of your beliefs. i on the other hand may shed new light and new perspectives towards the issue that have never occured to you and thus win you over. so while it's ok to agree to disagree, that should only happen after we've trashed things out. sometimes, though not often, one party convinces the other through the process. even if we do not come to an agreement at the end of the day, we at least know and understand why the other party feels the way he or she does which contributes to a better world.
If for some reason I want to torture you and your family, plunder your home, and burn it down with your entire family, and let's say I have found a way to do it without getting stop or caught and indeed this is what I really want to do. There is really nothing stopping me from carrying out my actions, and my actions are neither good nor evil, right or wrong.
if you indeed possess such powers over life and death then i clearly cannot stop you. but while your actions are good and right to you, it would be bad and wrong to me. subjective doesn't mean the absence of right or wrong, it simply means right to some and wrong to others.
At the end of the day, we must then admit that the only thing that is not subjective is power and the will to carry out our actions. Helping the weak or exploiting them are simply points of view.
yes, they are points of view for if they were objective truths or facts then we wouldn't find such contrasts in opinions about this issue would we?
the great majority of people view exploitation of the weak by those in power as wrong because the great majority of people are not in power. you put those same people who are not in power in power and you see if their perspectives do not suddenly change.
If we were to take such a point of view, then most of the argument in here is moot. The PAP is in power because it has the power and means to carry out its will while it's opponents do not. The rightness or wrongness of their personal opinions do not matter.
how much it matters really depends on you. does it matter enough for you to talk about it? does it matter enough for you to write about it? does it matter enough for you to do something about it? does it matter enough for you to give up your life for?
how much your personal opinions matter to others depends on how much you can convince them that they matter, which in turn depends on how committed you are to them and how much they matter to you.
You may not agree with him in the end, but perhaps you might like to read "The Abolition of Man"? The writer of the essay-book probably communicates his ideas (a lot of which I share) far better.
I will quote some of the important parts:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Abolition_of_Man
http://www.columbia.edu/cu/augustine/arch/lewis/abolition1.htm
interesting material, will read when i have time ...