Kids at the Danville Public School are doing two things that are of note at the moment. Firstly, and foremost, they are getting in the way of me being number one on a search for "buster tests". Somehow.

Secondly, and far more light-heartedly, they are off doing their nice little mock-mini-elections. As usual, it was GWB v. Kerry. Guess who won! Anyone? No? Well skim down the page (right at the bottom) and see for yourself. Is it a mystical insight into the results of the USA election? Well I sure hope so.

Posted by Fin at 10/19/2004 10:16:00 pm

10 Comments ~ Post a Comment

 Anonymous: And the winner... Pat Buchannan!
Um, seriously, I meant Ralph Nader.

 ad: Of course, us ninth-party candidates have a election to run for, too...but we don't mind mock-minis either. It's kind of hard when you started campaigning the day before yesterday.

Vote Tatertot '04. Equality for Donuts Party.

 Anonymous: eh, have to disagree with that conclusion there ^

 Fin: Lol - Fair enough Kevin.

I have to mention that I was looking through a website which has summaries and quotes from the bible, and I found something interesting. The bible does, it's true, condemn homosexuals. But it also condemns those who use slaves equally. Did people say 'Oh, we had better not allow slaves because it's say we shouldn't in the Bible' a hundred or so years ago at the height of the British Empire and American slave usage? Nah. So why, then, on an issue like this, are people starting to really stick to the Bible?

I mean, really. Would you actually CARE if a couple of gay people got married down the road from you? I hardly care when average couples get married - it's not special for me, but it is for them.

My conclusion? Chill out. :P

 Anonymous: Hey now, let's not be reasonable; that ruins all the fun.

My guess is that a majority of people would agree with John Stuart Mill's beliefs on utilitarianism, that is, that the right course of action is that which brings the greatest benefit ("happiness") to the greatest number of people. That's reasonable, I guess, and it certainly applies in this situation.
The problem is that that type of ethical viewpoint (for all practical purposes, a "relativist" one - there isn't really a fixed set of ethical standards) can't be reconciled with an absolutist view in which certain things are right and wrong (in my case, based on the Bible) all the time. I mean, if you presuppose a God (like I do), it completely changes your line of reasoning. Do you know what I mean?
So, anyway, I think we can agree to disagree on this one. I honestly think that homosexuals are sinners in the same way everyone (hey, surprise, including me) are sinnners and my main thing is that I don't think it should be actively promoted. That's my deal.

And about the slavery thing, ouch, indeed. Although, to be honest, from my US History book I'm reading that the majority of southerners really only attended church as a tradition rather than as an active faith and, despite a brief (but weak) attempt at antidisestablishmentarianism, the church basically died out in the southern US as a major institution for quite a long time during the post-revolutionary period up through the War Between the States (or the American Civil War, whichever suits your fancy). That might explain a small part of the slave issue that you raise.
Ironically enough, though, we both probably agree that slavery's wrong, now, don't we?

No matter what, I got to write "antidisestablishmentariansm" so I'm overall pleased with this comment.

 Anonymous: Oh, and by the way, thanks for expressing your views without being biting or rude - it's nice to know that there are a lot of civil people out there still.
It's crazy, but every time I read something you write it just has this odd sound of professionalism. That's good, just relatively unusual for people our age.

 Fin: Som every fair points there, Kevin. Quite an interesting read, really.

Oh and yes, I should hope that we do both think that slavery is wrong. :P

 Anonymous: That's fitting with John Rawl's A Theory of Justice: specifically his concept of a "veil of ignorance."
Here is an amazingly fitting definition of the veil of ignorance (from Wikipedia):
"The veil of ignorance is a concept introduced by John Rawls in A Theory of Justice. It is a method of determining the morality of a certain issue (e.g. slavery) based upon the following principle: imagine that societal roles were completely re-fashioned and redistributed, and that from behind your veil of ignorance you do not know what role you will be reassigned. Only then can you truly consider the morality of an issue. For example, whites in the pre-Civil War south did indeed condone slavery, but they most likely would not have done so had there been a re-fashioning of society because of which they would not know if they would be the ones enslaved. It is a philosophical idea related of method of two people dividing a cake: one cuts, the other chooses first (see pie method)."

But, you know, like I said: if you figure a God into the equation - and one that has absolute principles - you can't come to agree with that concept above, and your line of reasoning will be completely different. From a purely secular standpoint, what you're saying is completely logical, I give you that. It's just we have different postulates so we come to different conclusions. So we have to agree to disagree on this one, since we can't both be right and we obviously both think that our respective opinion is right.

 Anonymous: Makes sense to want to vote: even more so if you don't like the government, so you can vote for someone who can change it, IMHO.

 Fin: I think it's best if I don't try to answer all of the points made here as we'll probably end up with a 1000 word discursive essay on our hands (not pretty).

But it is all interesting.