" The thread is about three words from being locked; but I won't say which three, and my intrinsic faith in humankind keeps me from doing anything just yet."
I just flipped back through the part of the thread I got too pissed off to read (which is the part after I made the remark about gay marriage not being anyone's business but gay people's, and then couldn't deal with reading anymore), and I also read Steve's comment on the other post, and I have this to say:
A) I refuse to let assertions about abortion lie, I'm afraid. If someone's there with the kindling, I'm there with the match. As it is no longer up for discussion here, I'm quite happy not to take up the torch again, but I didn't throw down the initial dry sticks.
B) I did throw down the initial dry sticks about the bible. I didn't intend to; I was going for informal speech, rather than "incredibly upsetting speech." I was mostly trying to make a jokey post about why I don't like arguing with people about revealed truths, which I eventually did with the color/squeaky thing, but I should have started with that tone in the first place. I write in a lot of political forums, and most of them operate on the assumption that people will vigorously disagree, and I didn't code switch right when I came here. So while I stand by what I said, I apologize for the language I said it in, and I'd like to gather up the sticks at this time.
C) I see that it distresses Steve to have this kind of conflagration on his board. It doesn't particularly bother me; like I said, I post in plenty of political fora (and am even moderating one these days), so I have a relatively high tolerance for debate at this point (as long as I can cut out when I've had enough, as happened earlier in this thread). He's right, of course; we're not going to change each other's minds, although I hope that some of the edges of what I'm saying are clearer now than they were initially (color/squeak + objective reality as common ground between people of various belief systems).
D) I don't like distressing Steve. My original point was trying to clarify my opinions on the concept of subjective/objective moral systems, which is a distinction I find unuseful for various reasons. We've now gone pretty far afield from that. So, unless people are really into where we've ended up -- which I suppose is still related (is revealed truth a proper basis for law) -- I'd like to suggest that people veer back toward the subjective/objective thing, which I'll probably stay out of, on account of me finding the distinction to be, as I said, unuseful, and on account of me having had my fill of this kind of argument in philosophy class. At some point, someone pulled out an argument that sounded like Hume's
On Moral Philosophy and I kind of wanted to moan and crawl under my desk.
E) I'd like to apologize to those who are offended, including Steve, FNH, and Tweedy. Although I still stand by my statements and perspectives, and I think the argument we've had is probably based on real differences that can't and shouldn't be eased away with happy shinyness, I would currently like to offer you all some cute animal pictures in apology.
http://mfrost.typepad.com/photos/uncategorized/2007/05/08/i_need_a_juicebox.jpghttp://mfrost.typepad.com/photos/uncategorized/2007/05/08/thebrowntowelgang.jpghttp://mfrost.typepad.com/photos/uncategorized/2007/03/26/att08751.jpgCute animal pictures. The internet equivalent of a group hug.
