Debate on unicorns is debate on unicorns

[Purple Rabbit]

Let’s say that there is a book that says that unicorns are pink, have indestructible horns and cause universes into existence. And this book can be read as to contain compelling moral lessons on animal rights in general and the rights of unicorns in particular. Moreover through the ages the book has been interpreted multiple times and everybody believing in unicorns (unicornists) believes there is a multitude of layers in which these stories can be read ranging from simple literal to advanced metaphorical layers.

Much debate raged on for centuries in circles of so called unicornology as to how pink the unicorn exactly was, how indestructible the horn really is, how the unicorn as a non-contingent actuality caused existence. Several groups of slightly different opinion about the colour, indestructibleness and/or the causal powers of unicorns, split of from the early Fathers of Unicornology and soon some 3000 different brands of unicornism filled the globe. After much argument and even war they decided in some places to live and let live however. In other places they decided to keep on cracking skull over it. This was all very nice and interesting except for the fact that nobody had actually seen a pink unicorn, or any unicorn for that matter.

When science found that the universe began as a singularity all unicornists were pretty sure this proved the existence of unicorns. Since the universe had a begin, something ‘outside’ it must have caused it and so the existence of unicorns is conclusively established. One could argue about whether pink was dark pink or lighter pink, or about the length of the horn but that pink unicorns existed was finally proven. So they thought. It showed the unicornists were sensitive to reason after all.

Then a new species roamed the planet and it would define itself in various brands of nonbelief: absence of belief in unicorns, belief in absence of unicorns, denial of unicornism altogether. These non-unicornists or anti-unicornists debated with unicornists (all brands of them) on fora, in public or private. And the unicornists and non-unicornists would debate about unicorns that existed or that not existed, but always debate was on unicorns. So in fact unicornists and non-unicornists were united in the sense that both groups talked about unicorns. And since they were united on that, argument tended to be about the attributes of unicorns and not about what alternatives there are for bringing universes into existence. And they all lived long happy lives debating on unicorns.

[leo-rcc]

Are you trying to tell us something? You are so vague.

[HalcyonicTrust]

You're drawing an analogy... no? Prabbit?

EvF

[Purple Rabbit]

It's deliberately vague so you can beat up each other on deciphering metaphore, allegory and all that jazz...

[HalcyonicTrust]

Lol it's not THAT vague

EvF

[Rhizomorph13]

I am a Unicornological Noncognitivist so your whole diatribe is totally incomprehensible to me!

[Purple Rabbit]

I waited for you to pull that card from up your sleeves, Rhizo. But hey, you say you are a unicornological something, say you not? Welcome to the club my friend...

[Rhizomorph13]

I liked your post! It is wootastic! Oh, and what would theological mean then?

[Purple Rabbit]

illogical?

[Ashes1995]

is it a metaphor for christians(unicornists) and non christians(non unicornists)? it sounds alot like it.

i mean the unicornists are saying that the creation of the universe proves the existance of unicorns(god). and nobody knows what a unicorn looks or feels like. then there are the non unicornists who try to disprove this