virus: General Univerals (was: Re: engagements)

Tim Rhodes (proftim@speakeasy.org)
Wed, 29 Apr 1998 14:27:04 -0700


Sodom writes:

>Real nice Tim, only its BS!!
>
>By using your definition of we can say that people who were anti nazi were
just
>the same as the nazi's. Its all just a misunderstanding, no-one in Germany
>actually knew they were supporting genocide. In fact, I suppose fighting
any
>real oppression by opposing the oppression is just prejiduce!

(Ahhhh... I knew the Nazi's were going to come into this at some point!)

Listen, the problem isn't with opposing _behaviors_, behaviors can be bad
and sometimes need to be opposed. The problem comes when you generalize
that _all people_ of a certain type /must/ behave in that way and therefore
you oppose a group of people or their ideas, rather that a set of actions.

Using your example, you oppose those who try to take away the rights of
sexual minorites (a good cause which I adimently support). Your logic
however goes astray when you generalize to say that Christians are in large
part the ones trying to taking away rights, therefore Christianity is evil.
The arguement looks a little like this:

1) Homophobia is bad.
2) Some Christians are homophobic
3) Therfore Christianity is bad.

The logical error is in generalizing from specifics to universals. And not
surprisingly the Christian agrument against homosexuals uses *EXACTLY* the
same form! As follows:

1) Sexual permisivenss is bad.
2) Some homosexuals are sexually permisive.
3) Therefore homosexuals are bad.

If you employ this type of logic you are no better than them.

Now you can oppose the behavoir of "discriminating against sexual
minorities" all you want (and I encourge everyone to do just that!) and
should fight to the death those who practice such behaviors. But once you
start scapegoating the beliefs of a diverse class of people based on the
behavoir of _some_ of the people in that group, you become the one
exercising PREJUDICE.

And that, my friend, is another behavoir I will also oppose to the death.

>If this country was one that was Christian by law, than I would have to
live
>with what exists; however, I hold the view that "freedom of religion" also
means
>"freedom from religion". That is what I work towards.

If you want to see something really scary do a seach for "Christian
Reconstructionalists" on the web. Its interesting to note that some of
these people are the same ones feeding the Y2K hysteria.

-Prof. Tim