Its only natural that some people form opinions on ethical questions, such as on the permissibility of abortion or gay marriage, but too often I see some people who say things that are just bizarre, as if they weren't actually reading the words they were typing.
Here's one example of just such a "do you even know what you're saying" catchphrase that comes up all the time:
Here's another:
Some people go so far as to say that homosexuality will cause civilization to turn to decay and turn to rubble. Arrrrrruuuuugggggg!!! Oh, sorry, that was my brain again. Anyway, how exactly does homosexuality turn societies to rubble? Does homosexuality give off vibes that causes cement to turn to ash, or does it cause some kind of radiation that causes houses to lose their structual integrity and collapse in on themselves?
No one has ever explained what it means for homosexuality to cause civilization to crumble, that phrase has the most absurb literal interpretation, and it has no metaphorical interpretation whatsoever. Moreover, do you have any idea how wildly, fantastically, laughably unbelievable the idea of a worldwide anti-Christian conspiracy of homosexuals is?
Here's another one:
By defending marriage, does it mean making sure the definition of marriage never gets changed? Well, some people actually use that reason, but then my thought is "do you have ANY idea what you're saying?". How on earth is it a moral imperative to protect something as abstract as a definition? What if people went around defending definitions all the time, by standing outside of the Merriam-Webster publishing company and demanding that no new edition of the collegiate unabridged dictionary be produced, because revising abstract definitions incurs some kind of moral wrong? Hopefully you can see where the absurdity is coming from.
But maybe its not the definition, maybe its what the definition symbolizes? Of course, this is yet another perfectly nonsensical statement, because no one has ever explained on what basis abstract symbols need to be protected (or what they're being protected from). But lets say that, ignoring the fact that "destroying a the symbol" is a phrase with no meaningful connection to the real world, homosexual marriage does destroy that symbol somehow someway... whatever symbol is destroyed, a superior symbol is created in its place. Now the definition of marriage refers to a superior symbol (whatever that means), and shouldn't we all be aiming for that?
Of course, let's take the phrase at its literal value. The literal meaning of "destroying the institution of marriage" occurs when no one ever gets married -- but wait, the problem with gay marriage is that it increases the number of marriage. Drat! It doesn't destroy marriage at all. Curses!
The phrase "defening marriage" doesn't have any meaning at all, or at best whatever meaning we can derive from it is absurd. You have to ask, do the people who use this line actually have an idea what it means?
I've singled out those three statements above because they're so common, but practically any political platitude, catchphrase, slogan, or anything has absolutely no meaning in the real world. Especially when those platitudes try to speak on behalf of the opponents, then it all goes downhill.
People get so caught up in towing the party line that they have no idea what they're saying, sometimes with humorous results.
Here's one example of just such a "do you even know what you're saying" catchphrase that comes up all the time:
I don't believe in abortion, not even in cases of rape, because why should the baby be punished for the sins of the father.
Think about that one for just one second: where did the whole idea that abortions are a kind of punishment come from? I don't think in the entire history of the world, there has ever been a rape victim who has said, "you know, getting raped the was worst thing that has ever happened to me, and someone needs to pay for that crime... I guess I'll punish the baby, that makes perfect sense!" -- its never happened once. The catchphrase itself is just an emotionally loaded buzzword that describes precisely zero people on the planet, and it is amazing that anyone could take it seriously.Here's another:
Gay marriage is not about civil rights, gay marriage is about destroying Christian civilization as we know it!
Arrrrruuuuuugggg!!! That was just my brain trying to leap out of my mouth and hide under the covers from that one, because its just absolutely absurd to all possible degrees. Who actually believes that gay people wake up and say to themselves "this civilization thing is such a pain, I think it needs to be destroyed... but how to do it? Should I use guns? Missles? A supervirus? Naaah, too ineffective, I think I'll kiss my boyfriend in the park, that'll really crumble civilization".Some people go so far as to say that homosexuality will cause civilization to turn to decay and turn to rubble. Arrrrrruuuuugggggg!!! Oh, sorry, that was my brain again. Anyway, how exactly does homosexuality turn societies to rubble? Does homosexuality give off vibes that causes cement to turn to ash, or does it cause some kind of radiation that causes houses to lose their structual integrity and collapse in on themselves?
No one has ever explained what it means for homosexuality to cause civilization to crumble, that phrase has the most absurb literal interpretation, and it has no metaphorical interpretation whatsoever. Moreover, do you have any idea how wildly, fantastically, laughably unbelievable the idea of a worldwide anti-Christian conspiracy of homosexuals is?
Here's another one:
I oppose gay marriage, because I am defending marriage!
This is another one of those bizarre phrases that people use all the time, but it has absolutely no meaning whatsoever. No one has ever explained what it means to defend marriage, its just a catchphrase without any definite meaning behind it.By defending marriage, does it mean making sure the definition of marriage never gets changed? Well, some people actually use that reason, but then my thought is "do you have ANY idea what you're saying?". How on earth is it a moral imperative to protect something as abstract as a definition? What if people went around defending definitions all the time, by standing outside of the Merriam-Webster publishing company and demanding that no new edition of the collegiate unabridged dictionary be produced, because revising abstract definitions incurs some kind of moral wrong? Hopefully you can see where the absurdity is coming from.
But maybe its not the definition, maybe its what the definition symbolizes? Of course, this is yet another perfectly nonsensical statement, because no one has ever explained on what basis abstract symbols need to be protected (or what they're being protected from). But lets say that, ignoring the fact that "destroying a the symbol" is a phrase with no meaningful connection to the real world, homosexual marriage does destroy that symbol somehow someway... whatever symbol is destroyed, a superior symbol is created in its place. Now the definition of marriage refers to a superior symbol (whatever that means), and shouldn't we all be aiming for that?
Of course, let's take the phrase at its literal value. The literal meaning of "destroying the institution of marriage" occurs when no one ever gets married -- but wait, the problem with gay marriage is that it increases the number of marriage. Drat! It doesn't destroy marriage at all. Curses!
The phrase "defening marriage" doesn't have any meaning at all, or at best whatever meaning we can derive from it is absurd. You have to ask, do the people who use this line actually have an idea what it means?
I've singled out those three statements above because they're so common, but practically any political platitude, catchphrase, slogan, or anything has absolutely no meaning in the real world. Especially when those platitudes try to speak on behalf of the opponents, then it all goes downhill.
People get so caught up in towing the party line that they have no idea what they're saying, sometimes with humorous results.
