SINGAPOREAN netizens are getting riled up over a dangerous Internet trend: Pro-eating disorder websites and support groups painting eating disorders as a lifestyle choice.
What I don't get is why are these people so angry about it? I mean if they can claim that homosexuality is an alternate lifestyle choice, why shouldn't this be as well? Shouldn't they at least be consistent in there position that their are no moral absolutes and everything is relative and up to the individual to decide?
Just goes to show the irrationality of Man.
3 comments:
Honestly, that's not really a fair comparison. The fact is that an "alternative lifestyle" like that of anorexia has clear-cut and scientifically justified physical, emotional, mental repercussions.
An "alternative lifestyle" like homosexuality, on the other hand, has split the debate two-ways - those that claim that homosexuality is harmful both to the individual as well as to society in general, and those who contest this claim. Of course, there's always going to be this debate - both sides will find ways and means to justify their arguments, whether it be by statistics, reasoning etc. The mere existence of such an argument nonetheless shows that there is a "gray area" as to the effect of homosexuality on the individual and the society.
A "lifestyle" like anorexia, on the other hand, is almost universally accepted as damaging in many ways to the society.
Furthermore, the use of "they" in your argument is a clear sweeping statement - you're lumping all these people together, as if those claiming that homosexuality is a lifestyle and anorexia is a lifestyle are part and parcel of this same amoral and, according to you, "irrational" group.
An "alternative lifestyle" like homosexuality, on the other hand, has split the debate two-ways
A "lifestyle" like anorexia, on the other hand, is almost universally accepted as damaging in many ways to the society.
Now I do not wish to get into that "gray area" debate about the rights and wrongs of homosexuality, but what I do wish to emphasize is the double-standard displayed here.
As you yourself stated that "anorexia is universally accepted as damaging", likewise 50 or a 100 years ago a person could make a similar statement that "homosexuality is universally accepted as damaging".
What then has changed but a world-view that holds all things relativistically and essentially saying that right or wrong ultimately depends on what the culture determines to be right or wrong.
Now then, would it be too presumptuous to presume that in maybe 50 years time, anorexics may claim that anorexia is "natural" or "in-born" as homosexuals do today?
Therefore, the reaction of a group that generally holds this relativistic world-view today has shown it to be, in a sense, irrational in its condemnation of anorexia.
Now I concede that the "they" used in this post can be slippery since I did not really define it. There are those who are opposed to anorexia, including myself, who are also likewise opposed to homosexuality.
Therefore, the term "they" here can be defined more specifically as those who choose to support the cause of homosexuality, while similarly denouncing the cause of anorexia.
Post a Comment