Quote:
|
Originally Posted by zendawn
|
No, a tautology is a sentence in which you repeat yourself, as in:
"this is adequate enough" (the example from your link). The words 'adequate' and 'enough' are by themselves sufficient to make the point. you do not need to use them both in a sentence; if you do, you repeat yourself - a tautology.
A circular argument, on the other hand, is one in which you conclude that something is true simply because you state, or assume, that it is so.
Quote:
As far as Im aware there is no objective moral standard by which we can say if one thing is moral or not. So in the end we have to take a subjective standard.
I can't use any other justification for using discrimination other than the definition applies to the case in hand.
'DISCRIMINATION'
http://www.hyperdictionary.com/searc...discrimination
'unfair treatment of a person or group on the basis of prejudice'
Its an 'unfair' (a subjective value) treatment of a group (men and homosexuals) based on a prejudice (that men who wear earrings are less worthy than women who wear earrings).
Where I suspect we differ is on the subjective word 'unfair' as you've already shown, you think its 'immature' (another subjective value) to quote:-
|
Now, you are discriminating.
You link to a dictionary definition of the word, but you only quote in the thread the definition that suits your purpose. Let's clarify things by quoting the full definition, shall we?
From hyperdictionary.com:
Discrimination:
unfair treatment of a person or group on the basis of prejudice
the cognitive process whereby two or more stimuli are distinguished
So, discrimination
can be 'unfair', or it
can be the mere process of deciding between one thing an another, with no necessary moral loading, positive or negative (basically the same definition that I quoted from dictionary.com earlier today, although you will note that when I quoted from the dictionary, I quoted the complete definition, not just the bits that suited my argument)
As for moral standards, I understand your point about there not being an absolute standard. Personally, I disagree with it from a faith point of view, but that is off topic. I didn't expect that you would share my view on that, which is why I asked you how you arrived at your own moral code. This is an important question, as you appeal to morality to back up your assertion that all discrimination is always wrong.
It appears to me, from what you have posted here, that you derive your moral standpoint by choosing, from several dictionary definitions of a word, the one that suits your point of view. Which leaves me no closer to understanding how you chose from among those definitions.
I am still forced to the conclusion that you are caught in a circular argument - you hold that something must be true, simply because you say it is.