Eske Esquire wrote:
I'm not about to be lectured on how logic and objectivity work by the only person who understands them less than Alma on this forum. I wouldn't wager that you understand the implications of your counterpoints.
Of course I do. As Kelvy points out (somewhat obliquely), there's a long line of philosophers disagreeing completely over whether there's any way to objectively determine good or bad, right or wrong, and any of a number of other broad concepts. Those are pretty much always subjective. Objective assessments almost always (or even just always, but I don't want to make absolute statements here), require an actual quantifiable, measurable, and enumerated object. So we could say that if you have 5 apples and I have 10 apples that I have more apples than you do. And that would be a purely objective assessment of the situation. If we attempt to argue that I'm better off than you are, we'd have to
subjectively agree that having more apples is better than having fewer apples. That's not a hard assumption for us to agree on, but obviously most cases are not that clear cut.
My point is purely about the logic being used, not about the subject itself (yeah, I know that's not how it'll be interpreted, but I'll say it anyway). If your response to a comparison between homosexuality and child/adult sex is to say that it's discrimination to oppose the actions of the former but justified (required even!) to oppose the actions of the latter and your justification is that the former is a subjective matter and the latter is objective you're resting on incredibly weak logical ground. Doubly so when I can point (easily) to just as wide a support for the "objective" problems inherent with homosexuality from a century (or less) ago.
As Kelvy correctly points out, your idea of what is "objective" is itself subjective. And quite clearly, that subjective view changes over time (from a societal point of view anyway).
