Colorado baker ordered to serve gay wedding or face fines

[Nebe]

It saddens me that some people can't think for themselves and need to follow their imaginary friends guide book.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[detbuch]

Originally Posted by Nebe

It saddens me that some people can't think for themselves and need to follow their imaginary friends guide book.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

There seems to be a ring of truth to what you say. At least that's, as the judge in the baker/gays case put it, at first blush. The problem with your being saddened is that it is not just SOME people who can't think for themselves, MOST can't. And, in the final analysis, NONE of us can--unless there are absolutes to guide us. In an uncertain, relative world there is nothing substantial to think about except in relation to something else. In such a world you cannot "think for yourself." You can only perceive through points of view. And those may be endless. And, in the end, they all amount to nothing more than imaginary thoughts. So, even in such a world, for our simple finite minds, we need a guidebook. The question, then, is how do we accommodate such a diversity of perceptions? Should the guidebook be dictated by a regime of thinkers we perceive to be experts on what and how we should think? Should we resolve the uncertainty by submitting to being cast into a one-size-fits-all mold? Or can we accommodate our massive spectrum of differences in such a way that we can all agree (whatever agree means in a relative world) to exist in some form of free harmony which allows our unique perspectives to flourish? Is there room in such a world for different religious perspectives, and atheistic perspectives, and agnostic perspectives, of mystical or artistic perspectives, of strictly rational scientific perspectives? Or must all but one be stamped out for the sake of creating a world which makes us secure against our ultimate ignorance?

Hey, the Founders had an idea. Just a thought. It was a friendly and imaginative guidebook.

[spence]

Originally Posted by detbuch

And, in the final analysis, NONE of us can--unless there are absolutes to guide us.

[detbuch]

Originally Posted by spence

How did I know you would respond to that line?
I was thinking of you when I threw in the bit about absolutes.

Actually, every rational or semi-rational, person "deals" in absolutes. Objectivist/relativist philosophers who "prove" there are no absolutes do so by definition. They define an absolute as something distinct and unaffected by anything else that exists unchanged for all time. And then they go through a catechism of questions where they make you define your terms and eventually trap you by stating nothing you answer can exist distinct and unchanged (or something like that) for eternity.

But, as Likwid might say, who gives a damn about eternity? Eternity can exist in a moment. Relatively speaking. Or otherwise. And who gives a crap about some philosopher's restrictive definition of "absolute." We have our own utilitarian definitions. Religious folks do. Scientists do. Mechanics do. Critics and rhetoricians do. Dreamers do. And Siths do. But Siths are not the only ones that do.

Absolute is a concept which provides limitations when limitations are needed or useful. Nebe absolutely cannot smoke weed when he blows glass. Absolute zero is some baseline from which to describe relative temperatures. In some instances 1 plus 1 absoslutely equals 2. We limited, imperfect beings need the guidebook which Nebe mocks. Then he prescribes a two commandment guidebook which he thinks is his own concoction. Like those "commandments" didn't exist in the realm of human thought and he just thought them up by himself without the input of all he had learned from others. Or so it seems if he is serious about the sad state of some people not being able to think for themselves.

And if we don't recognize some defined absolutes, at least for the moment, we may find it difficult, if not impossible to function in a world outside of our sleeping dreams. How would relativity be possible to describe without absolute points of view? If every point of view was relative to another point of view and that to another point of view, and that to another point of view ad infinitum it would be impossible to describe what was actually relative to what. It would all be an endless chain of indefinite possibility.

So for the necessity of the moment we deal in our trite mundane absolutes--just in order to "exist"--to get food and clothing and medical attention and money and sex and see a good movie about siths.

[scottw]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

God damn right it is. If you genuinely feel no one should be forced against his will to accept the beliefs of another, then how in God's name can you not be on the baker's side? Can you explain that?

Originally Posted by Nebe

It saddens me that some people can't think for themselves and need to follow their imaginary friends guide book.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

I apologize in advance but this just struck me as amusing

maybe rephrase the question Jim