Arguing With, and Refuting Lizz Winstead: Moral Relativism
June 10, 2011 3 Comments
A Simple Example of How to Refute Moral Relativism
I argued with Lez Winstead, I mean Lizz Winstead, today. She’s the co-creator of the Daily Show, so you think she’d be intelligent and funny. However, in a spar with her femenemy, man, she ended up flustered. Yes, logic and humor were not what she was expecting to meet on Twitter from an actual male not in her trendy New York drag queen circles. So let’s see how well ultra-liberal wit and reasoning stands up to masculinity. Let’s see how tolerant, level-headed and logical those of this ilk are.
Lizz tweeted how much she loved homosexual gayness, because, you know, it’s just inherently so beautiful and radical:
So let’s see that loving tolerance in action. What happens when you rationally challenge this claim on philosophical grounds? Liberals are into philosophy, right? Local universities, philosophy, liberals, etc., doesn’t that all sorta flow together into one large living Gaia? Yes, you’d think. So let’s analyze this. Note the reasoning – “happiness” is what is the justifying criteria for what constitutes moral affirmation. So, if you say that, it follows that:
This is entirely reasonable. The ”tweet” claims that moral lifestyles are justified on the basis of the purported pleasure of “happiness” they bring. Well, some people enjoy sex with animals, children and relatives. What’s the enlightened, tolerant liberal response? “Shut the Fuck Up.”
So, because I responded with a logical query, that moral relativism leads to the conclusion that bestiality, incest, rape and torture are all ago, I’m a “hater”! Why, who are we to stop someones else’s “happiness,” we fascists?! How dare you! But wait! Lizz is a super liberal, who thinks that no one should impose their views on others. But Lizz thinks Planned Parenthood is glorious and that feminism is totally awesome. So, Lizz thinks it’s wrong to oppose these things and adhere to moral absolutes. but Lizz imposes her worldview on others, even though you can’t impose your views on others, since that’s intolerant and not loving. But who said “shut the fuck up” first? She did. That’s not loving liberal and is intolerant. I was a “hater” for asking a logical question. So much for the beautiful “open mind” that the “liberals” are supposed to have. My next response was more abrupt:
Moral relativism is the key foundation stone of all who take this route. Moral relativism says that there are no absolutes in morals, period. Those who argue this never explain how that very claim itself is supposed to be absolute, though, since there are no absolutes. All moral claims are purely relative to the individual. No one, therefore, can claim that any thing is, strictly speaking, “wrong.” There are only preferential and non-preferential actions. Murdering babies isn’t wrong, per se (Lizz likes it, in fact), but is instead solely up to the determination of whatever the individual lists. Not in a good mood today? Baby-daddy ran away? Just kill it.
If Lizz is such a supposed liberal, why does she support Planned Parenthood, which was founded to weed out blacks, as the video below shows? That’s not very loving liberal or logical. In other words, Lizz had no response, not even a funny one (given that she is supposed to be a “comedian”). What’s her response? I, and anyone who believes in moral absolutes wants to have sex with dogs. You can’t make this up:
And you will see in a moment I am who she is responding to. So, because I pointed out that adopting moral relativism is contradictory, I actually want to have sex with dogs. There is no comparison between homosexuality and incest and other actions. But the point is not whether the actions are similar or of the same degree. The point is that the justification for actions is based on whatever makes one “happy.” No one can deny another person their hedonistic fleshfest (or furfest!). In fact, that Lizz thinks actions like incest and rape are of a different category deemed offensive shows she still wants to have moral absolutes and standards. But wait! Why are you imposing again on others’ “freedoms”? Why are you being a fascist again, seeking to tell the poor pedophiles and bestiality afficionados they are distasteful or aberrant? Why are you being so judgmental. And furthermore, why are you being so judgmental against me? I clicked “follow” on Twitter because I thought you might be funny. In response, I got hatred. It is not I who hate, but you.
Uh oh! She didn’t think I’d actually read books. And these mainline liberals are the worst, in terms of smugness, as if no one has read anything of substance, but them. Well, reading Marx, Alinksy and William Carlos Williams doesn’t constitute much of an education. And I’ve read all those “liberals,” as well as the “conservatives.” But back to the point-Peter Singer, one of their own, takes this to its logical conclusion. He does argue for bestiality. And why not? The standard feedback loop, of course, is that animals “don’t consent.” Well, how do you know? When I play catch, the dog consents. When I say “here!” the dog consents. On what grounds can you show that a dog does not consent? Further, on what grounds does anyone have to accept your law that a relationship requires “consent.” That’s called being arbitrary. Perhaps in my super liberal anarchic worldview, I prefer to call all meaningful relationships the ones wherein there is no consent. Rapists aren’t into consent, generally. But Lizz wants rape to be wrong, especially as a feminazi. Once again, moral relativism is a failure from the get-go. And I knew exactly where she would go:
After a few “joke” texts where she tried to explain how there is a difference between these actions (unsuccessfully), she’d had enough. It was time to bring the comedic pain. What did she have to put me in my place with her rapier-like wit? My animals talk to me. Lame +Weak times 3. So, you meet your match in debate, lose when it’s out of your league in terms of logic and coherency, and default to ad hominem argument, if it can even be called that.
My final response?:
Lizz thinks I might care that I’m “blocked” by her. I don’t care. I enjoyed it. Not only is Lizz confused and unable to reason out consistently what makes sense, she is everything she attacks – intolerant, hateful and unloving. But when there are no morals, why does it matter if you contradict? And whose fault is all this mess we are in in this country, in her mind? The CIA and “Republicans,” – not even Bush per se, but the good people who work in American intelligence.