N) *nods* True. The post was motivated by particulars: you might even call it 'splitting hairs'. I could try to make a position based on positions imagined to be implied, but that tends to end in disaster, so: annoying excessively analytical (and probably flawed) time!
'You may not agree with it, but it's still a religious text and it has its rules.'
Break down into separate components:
'You may not agree with it, but': context. In this case, the context which the following is to be contracted with.
'it's still a religious text and it has its rules': justification for treating it in a certain way.
'it's still a religious text': the religiousness or irreligiousness of the text is irrelevant.
(At this note, a slight tangent: is it good societal behaviour to be respectful of objects that hold only positive significance for others, or either positive or negative significance for others? The latter would suggest that in a town where all the inhabitants hated a certain symbol and burned it wherever it was found, one should treat it with respect, something which the inhabitants would almost certainly disapprove of. The former leads to contridictions when one considers the case of a text which one group reveres as good another condemning as evil.)
Considering the multitude of objects in the world, and their varied (and often completely different, as noted in airport wall-advertisements for some reason) significances to different people, any following of one rule breaks another rule: thus, a policy of following only those rules which seem suitable to the situation, or which are backed up by rational reasons. Treating the significance some things hold to others as not entirely rational, one way or another, the path of the rational is the only clear path free of taint or bias.
'and it has its rules.': many things have rules, many mutually exclusive/impossible to simultaneously conform to. Again, the only clear path is to follow only those rules which there seem to be good reasons for following.
(...a book, whether labelled as 'religious' or 'non-religious' or 'fiction' or 'historical' or 'wibbledy-doo-bah': a storage medium containing information, encoded in a certain format. Whether that information makes accurate claims or inaccurate claims, all it is is information to be judged on its own merits, and treated appropriately. All the medium is is a medium, and to be treated appropriately... apply similar reason to a flag, banner or--my coherency is decreasing as it draws further into the night, isn't it? My apologies.)
This is probably offensive. Also, probably needlessly so. Oddly, I tend to... maybe I should have saved this until after I'd finished. Though when I finish, I should just go to sleep.
Conclusion: if the statement ''You may not agree with it, but it's still a religious text and it has its rules.' is taken apart and examined carefully, if it is assumed to mean exactly what it says and absolutely nothing else, then it means... exactly nothing. There's an acknowledgement of context, and something in the place of a justification which forms no justification at all.
And THUS! Dakara! Either the sentence MEANS NOTHING AT ALL, being founded on facts which are irrelevant or inapplicable, OR there is being assumed an obligation in the fact that the text is religious or that there are rules to follow those rules!
...in which case, splitting hairs, I engaged with the perceived assumed obligation, which you correctly tell not to exist.
Lets see if I've missed anything... ah. Ignoring the minute details, something being generally considered good societal behaviour either does or does not constitute an obligation to follow that behaviour. If it does not, then there is no obligation, and there is no pressure. If it does, then the previous reaction to that apply, and... I've forgotten what I said, and maybe what I'm going to say, and it's way past when I was supposed to go to sleep tonight.
Er... [B) *whacks on head and posts before further tangling occurs*]
no subject
'You may not agree with it, but it's still a religious text and it has its rules.'
Break down into separate components:
'You may not agree with it, but': context. In this case, the context which the following is to be contracted with.
'it's still a religious text and it has its rules': justification for treating it in a certain way.
'it's still a religious text': the religiousness or irreligiousness of the text is irrelevant.
(At this note, a slight tangent: is it good societal behaviour to be respectful of objects that hold only positive significance for others, or either positive or negative significance for others? The latter would suggest that in a town where all the inhabitants hated a certain symbol and burned it wherever it was found, one should treat it with respect, something which the inhabitants would almost certainly disapprove of. The former leads to contridictions when one considers the case of a text which one group reveres as good another condemning as evil.)
Considering the multitude of objects in the world, and their varied (and often completely different, as noted in airport wall-advertisements for some reason) significances to different people, any following of one rule breaks another rule: thus, a policy of following only those rules which seem suitable to the situation, or which are backed up by rational reasons. Treating the significance some things hold to others as not entirely rational, one way or another, the path of the rational is the only clear path free of taint or bias.
'and it has its rules.': many things have rules, many mutually exclusive/impossible to simultaneously conform to. Again, the only clear path is to follow only those rules which there seem to be good reasons for following.
(...a book, whether labelled as 'religious' or 'non-religious' or 'fiction' or 'historical' or 'wibbledy-doo-bah': a storage medium containing information, encoded in a certain format. Whether that information makes accurate claims or inaccurate claims, all it is is information to be judged on its own merits, and treated appropriately. All the medium is is a medium, and to be treated appropriately... apply similar reason to a flag, banner or--my coherency is decreasing as it draws further into the night, isn't it? My apologies.)
This is probably offensive. Also, probably needlessly so. Oddly, I tend to... maybe I should have saved this until after I'd finished. Though when I finish, I should just go to sleep.
Conclusion: if the statement ''You may not agree with it, but it's still a religious text and it has its rules.' is taken apart and examined carefully, if it is assumed to mean exactly what it says and absolutely nothing else, then it means... exactly nothing. There's an acknowledgement of context, and something in the place of a justification which forms no justification at all.
And THUS! Dakara! Either the sentence MEANS NOTHING AT ALL, being founded on facts which are irrelevant or inapplicable, OR there is being assumed an obligation in the fact that the text is religious or that there are rules to follow those rules!
...in which case, splitting hairs, I engaged with the perceived assumed obligation, which you correctly tell not to exist.
Lets see if I've missed anything... ah. Ignoring the minute details, something being generally considered good societal behaviour either does or does not constitute an obligation to follow that behaviour. If it does not, then there is no obligation, and there is no pressure. If it does, then the previous reaction to that apply, and... I've forgotten what I said, and maybe what I'm going to say, and it's way past when I was supposed to go to sleep tonight.
Er... [B) *whacks on head and posts before further tangling occurs*]