ControlsFreak
No bio...
User ID: 1422
ControlsFreak
5d ago
I mean, I read the connotation the other way? I think it's at least obvious that the statement shouldn't say that they "will" destroy it, because that would imply absurd results in some cases. So at the very least, since your first alternative word fails, I think you should propose a second alternative word that better captures the connotation you would prefer. Otherwise, I would conclude that the original captures even what you think it should be saying better than your proposed alternative.
I would also note that later in the quote, he says:
If he knows how it arose, and what purposes it was supposed to serve, he may really be able to say that they were bad purposes, that they have since become bad purposes, or that they are purposes which are no longer served.
Of course, if he knows how it arose, and what purposes it was supposed to serve, he may also discover that it still serves a good purpose. Thus, it "may" be the case that the conclusion is that it should be destroyed, and it "may" be the case that it should nonetheless be preserved. It boggles the mind to say that it "will" be the case that it should be destroyed (or that it should be preserved) without having any interrogation of the specifics.
ControlsFreak
6d ago
Suppose they come back and tell you that they see the use of it, and that use is actually pretty darn good. Still useful, in fact, moreso than the alternative. As a kicker, upon realizing the use of it, they might even agree with you that the use is good enough to justify not destroying it. Should the result still be that they "will" destroy it?
ControlsFreak
6d ago
I think in order for you to make the argument that none of the people in that list were ever influenced
I don't think that was the matter in question. The way you had originally put it was, "what base theology did Wokeism form from"? This is quite the shift of goalposts.
you'd have to put forth the idea that tabula rasa exists into adulthood. That your mind, your beliefs, your values are entirely your own. You tread un-walked ground and nothing of the culture that you developed, grew, learned in steeped into your core.
If this is the test for the original question, then don't we have to conclude that your own particular sect of atheism also formed from the base theology of Christianity? Or did you uniquely possess tabula rasa into adulthood in a world otherwise full of mere mortals? It's making the question meaningless. Certainly not about theological development.
I think this would likely imply that wokeism is Christian... and anti-wokeism is Christian. Communism is Christian and libertarianism is Christian, and I guess socialism and other points in between are all Christian. Fascism is Christian and anti-fascism is Christian. Monarchism is Christian and republicanism (classical) is Christian. And on and on. Is this right?
More options
Context Copy link