We have recently been having a bit of a discussion on a couple of threads with a bloke calling himself Locke. Now this gentleman comes across as a moral relativist, he doesn’t seen willing to take a stance on anything other than sticking to “Well mustn’t criticise, it’s their kulcha, innit?”
To me, an unwillingness to take a stand is tantamount to condoning. Refusal to condemn a contemptible practice is to allow it to flourish.
An example of his line, and no, I’m not taking it out of context. It means what it says:
we can’t in all honesty claim that our ideas are inherently superior to any other means of organising society.
To which my response is: I most certainly can, and I do.
I found this today, a little news item from Saudi, and I see similar time and again. As must anyone who actually takes note of the world around them:
A 10-year-old bride was returned last Sunday to her 80-year-old husband by her father who discovered her at the home of her aunt with whom she has been hiding for around 10 days.
My marriage is not against Shariah. It included the elements of acceptance and response by the father of the bride,” he said.
Well, yes. I am well aware that elderly men fucking ten year old girls is not against shariah, which is one of the many many reasons shariah is repugnant. Jesus, it isn’t even that it is isn’t against it. If you live your life by the Sunnah it is almost a sacrament, emulating the murderous old kiddie fucker himself.
Ah the hell with it, this isn’t just repugnant, it’s evil, and I really don’t give a toss whether you, or Locke, or the sodding Archwhatsit of Canterbury agree or disagree. If you can’t find it in your heart to call this, and the culture which spawns it, repulsive, then the hell with you too.
Moral relativism really is an evil philosophy. The racism of low expectations.