| |
|
Derrida says we're confined to a prison of linguistics and whatnot, yet being that we're stuck in this verbal prison/limited by the words we choose... I am wondering how any moral stance can be given serious value if it's argued by a stupid person with a poor vocabulary and a lack of an ability to prove their point.
If you take a completely ridiculous argument and try to prove i's correct with your verbal skills, chances are there will be people out there who are vulnerable enough to believe you.
Let's say, hypothetically, that a highly intelligent person is a child molester. Would they not be able to prove that it was to molest children with their verbal skills alone? Would they not twist and turn every fact possible and have the masses eat up their perspective? What stops average people with reasonable morals from believing that it's ok to molest children? The lack of intelligent child molesters?
It's easy to convince people of things if you have a convincing argument. I'm wondering if you can, technically, prove any point whatsoever.
If so... what is the point in having morals and/or opinions in the first place? Anyone can come around and change them unless you are dogmatic. |
|
|
