Posted on 09/29/2006 9:14:41 AM PDT by restornu
We've just begun a serious discussion at our house about whether we will withdraw from shopping at Wal-Mart. They are close by; we spend thousands of dollars there a year; but they have succumbed to pressure and are actively promoting the homosexual agenda and homosexual marriage. Just look at what they are doing in Idaho, where Family Leader is working hard to pass a state marriage protection amendment.
Enough is Enough
Wal-Mart Sponsoring Diversity Week
The following is a report from our friends at the American Family Association. We work in coalition with them on several projects through our Washington D.C. affiliation.
Wal-Mart has given its full endorsement to the homosexual agenda and homosexual marriage. Boise State University in Boise, Idaho, will observe LGBT Diversity Week October 9-13. One of the sponsors for the Diversity Week is Wal-Mart.
Wal-Mart is joining the Pleasure Boutique (an adult bookstore which bills itself as "Idaho's largest selection of adult movies and DVDs and largest adult toy selection in Idaho") and other groups in sponsoring the week. Diversity Week is a week of celebrating homosexuality and promoting the homosexual agenda and homosexual marriage.
Among the events being sponsored by Wal-Mart is Idaho Votes No Campaign Update and Information Workshop. Voters in Idaho will be voting on a constitutional amendment banning same sex marriage in November. This Wal-Mart sponsored event will inform voters how to oppose the amendment and how to get others to do so. Wal-Mart is putting their money behind the effort to legalize homosexual marriage.
Other events being sponsored by Wal-Mart: Gay History of Idaho, Diversity in the Workplace, Women's/Lesbian Issues, Hate Based Crimes, Heterosexism, Homosexuality and Disabilities, LGBT Youth in Trouble, MCC-Faith and LGBT, and a youth dance for those age 24 and under.
Wal-Mart is throwing their clout and cash behind the homosexual marriage effort.
"Amazing what liberals can find in the Constitution, queer rights, the right to kill the unborn but they can't see anything about the right to keep and bear arms."
Absolutely! Also the christophics' bogus claim that they have a right to "freedom from religion," since any Christian ideal is "offensive."
No matter how you construct a logic argument - the nature of reality can only be ONE WAY - you may believe different things about it, but there CANNOT be opposing foundations for the nature of reality.
What do you mean by "the nature of reality"? Is it, for example, a "reality" that you can travel from Houston to Dallas?
Who/what created the universe (it either occured spontaneously or was created by something outside of the universe - we do not know which, but only one origin is correct).
There are obviously concrete laws of physics that govern things (what is the origin of those?), might there also be concrete laws of morality that govern humans (it appears there may be, or may not be - but only one is correct)?
These aren't necessarily the only two alternatives. Furthermore, knowledge of the genesis of the universe is not a prerequisite to determining the global applicability within the universe of dicta such as "there is only one truth" or "the law of non-contradiction has no exceptions."
There are obviously concrete laws of physics that govern things
But those "concrete laws of physics" themselves present an evident exception to non-contradiction (or the rule that simultaneous, contradictory states cannot coexist), in that accurate knowledge of complementarity subatomic pairs is impossible. For example, you can measure the location of an electron, but not its momentum (energy) at the same time.
might there also be concrete laws of morality that govern humans (it appears there may be, or may not be - but only one is correct)?
Why would concrete laws of morality governing "X" human behavior necessarily be incompatible with indefinite laws of morality governing "Y" human behavior? In other words, why must there be only one or the other (concrete laws of morality for all situations /or/ no concrete laws of morality for any situation)?
Indeed, our western system of justice is premised on the notion of "case by case" analysis, explicitly recognizing both the concept of generalized "rules" applicable to all situations, and the concept that extenuating and/or mitigating circumstances accompany each situation.
The everyday intangibles of civilized human interaction have uncertainty frequently and inescapably built in (uncertainties that, for example, imbue physical objects with necessarily contradictory incorporeal states, both of which are equally "true" until the uncertainty is resolved by measurable means).
Sure, but no matter how many alternatives there are, only ONE can be correct.
"Furthermore, knowledge of the genesis of the universe is not a prerequisite to determining the global applicability within the universe of dicta such as "there is only one truth" or "the law of non-contradiction has no exceptions."
But nevertheless, there can only be one genesis of the universe - it cannot have two different but equal origins.
"But those "concrete laws of physics" themselves present an evident exception to non-contradiction (or the rule that simultaneous, contradictory states cannot coexist), in that accurate knowledge of complementarity subatomic pairs is impossible. For example, you can measure the location of an electron, but not its momentum (energy) at the same time."
I understand that we cannot measure both location and momentum of particles - that does not mean that they do not have both at the same time (we know that they do, or must). Only one location and only one momentum can be correct (true).
"Why would concrete laws of morality governing "X" human behavior necessarily be incompatible with indefinite laws of morality governing "Y" human behavior? In other words, why must there be only one or the other (concrete laws of morality for all situations /or/ no concrete laws of morality for any situation)?"
OK - there either are, or there are not - but they cannot be and not be - either there are NO rules, or there are a set of rules. Which fits better? (Why would it be wrong for us to slaughter each other wontonly, why is it wrong to abuse children, etc.?)
"Indeed, our western system of justice is premised on the notion of "case by case" analysis, explicitly recognizing both the concept of generalized "rules" applicable to all situations, and the concept that extenuating and/or mitigating circumstances accompany each situation."
Ditto above - some things are just wrong - there are some black-and-white sitiations - not everything is shades of grey.
"The everyday intangibles of civilized human interaction...."
Well Sir - in the words of Alex Karras: "Mongo just pawn in game of life."
Why not? You assert this definitively, but there is nothing other than your assertion to support it. And again, of what bearing is this on the supposed, global applicability within the universe of the "law of non-contradiction" and the statement that "there is only one truth?"
Only one location and only one momentum can be correct (true).
But only upon measurement. Until measurement, the particle exists in a state of uncertainty (possessing two mutually exclusive properties at the same time).
OK - there either are, or there are not - but they cannot be and not be - either there are NO rules, or there are a set of rules.
I'm not sure how, but you apparently missed my point. Your statement certainly appears to reiterate your original fallacy -- either there are rules for every situation, or there are no rules for any situation.
This either/or, black/white precept of yours is defied on a regular basis in our everyday lives. Sure, we live with an accepted set of generalized moral, behavioral, legal, and "engineering and navigation of life" rules (applicable to our subset of civilization and consistent with the current state of our knowledge of the physical world).
But we also live with the knowledge that there are unanticipated situations for which the general rules are inapplicable or only partly applicable (hence our need to consider the specifics of a situation before committing to a resolution). Simply put, we recognize (with little need for contemplation) that are in fact multiple "truths".
some things are just wrong - there are some black-and-white sitiations - not everything is shades of grey.
Correct. Not everything is "shades of grey." But a great deal is. Hence, the "only one truth" statement is a fallacy.
Well Sir - in the words of Alex Karras: "Mongo just pawn in game of life."
While humorous, I'm not sure I understand your point. The fact of the matter is, we accept and deal with inescapable contradictory states and uncertainties all of the time -- indeed, they are an inevitability in our social and economic construct. We give them little thought because they have become inextricably woven into the patterns of our behavior. But if you parse them out, you soon realize that the "law of non-contradiction" and the statement that "there is only one truth" have rather limited applicability.
My point is that I am (obviously) not schooled in the art of logic and debate (as you so ably are), and am in way over my head - the "Blazing Saddles" reference was an attempt to extricate myself from this discussion with a little bit of pride.
I'm not even college educated - my job is to figure out ways to perform a wide variety of modifications to combat aircraft in the field - I'm pretty-much self-taught, or as Alex Karras would say..........
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.