Thursday, November 11, 2010

Dan does not seem to know what it means to "man up."

     I refer to his post here. A man who keeps true to his word, honors his promises, and strives to do the right thing does not need to worship some god that he thinks has an ever watchful eye. He does not need to snivel at the foot of some cosmic throne. Simply put anyone who feels the need to cower before some cosmic overlord is no man. Such a person would "will stab his friend in the back. Will certainly overpower the weak. That will go against what is the right thing," certain that his god is commanding and endorsing it all. No, a true man does the right thing because he sees it as the right thing. And if his father, his boss, his government, or his god issued a command that he knew was wrong, he would stand up and say "NO! I am no coward who will do evil for the sake of those who might harm me if I don't placate them. I will endure hardship if needed to do what is right. I refuse to cower before your might." Oh, the snivelers will say many things for their vanity. Look at Dan's post. It is an excellent example.

3 comments:

Dan +†+ said...

So, by your standards, a man does not admit when he is wrong, pridefully goes it alone, and never trusts?

You side with evil and you will defend it to the bitter end? Good luck with that.

>>No, a true man does the right thing because he sees it as the right thing.

I guess attempting to account for "the right thing" within your worldview is for another discussion. :)

Nice post revealing your false dichotomy though

Pvblivs said...

Dan:

     You seem to have difficulty reading what I wrote. I did not say "does not admit when he is wrong, pridefully goes it alone, and never trusts." I did say "does not need to snivel at the foot of some cosmic throne." I understand you have difficulty distinguishing the two. And I do not side with evil. Nor do I make the excuse that there must be a "morally sufficient reason."

Whateverman said...

Sadly, this is Dan's only trick: intentionally mischaracterizing the opposing argument in order to avoid sincere dialogue.

Not a good track record for someone with absolute objective universal standards of morality.