X's choice of slavery is merely (and she does this frequently) using an example that most people find extreme or negative to demonstrate her point. She actually states that she personally does NOT like slavery, but you seem to have ignored that sentence.
It is a mistake to judge X as nihilistic as Greg has done, or as disturbed, as you have done, because you are doing so by interpreting her statements within the context of your own belief system. It's like judging Eastern music using our 12-tone scale as the definition of the correct musical system. It's a provincial and narrow approach- and therefore, it's conclusions are valid only within the confines of that tiny area. X has tried hard to explain her relativistic, very rational, and agnostic view of the world, that morality is a social contract, rather than an existing absolute. It's not a new approach. Isn't this similar to Hobbes' philosophy? Just because it doesn't fit Greg's Christian definitions does not make it nihilistic, and your statement that X is "disturbed" was based on a fallacious reading of her original opinion so, your conclusion is questionable anyway.
But really, it appears on the surface to be just a nasty thing to say, for whatever reason. |
