Respecting beliefs ... intellectual integrity ... and stuff

[Tiassa]

Inasmuch as we are expected to show certain respect for one another's beliefs, what is the responsibility of the believer? If we expect such respect for our beliefs, do we owe the audience, as such, anything?

If acting in accord with a belief results in what we call injustice, what respect do we owe that belief? If the only foundation for rejecting the label of injustice is to agree with what cannot be demonstrated, or is demonstrated false, what do we really expect?

Are we hateful to reject ethnic supremacy theories? Is it really oppression if one cannot punish officially what one believes God says is wrong? How many question marks can I get into this post?

A few practical examples:

- Christian parent complains to school board about novel in high school library: Robert McKammon's Demon Walk, by its very presence and content, violates her children's First Amendment rights. (That a public library has a book containing a character named "Demon" violates a Christian's rights.)

- The Supreme Court, in ruling anti-miscegenation laws unconstitutional, violated White Supremacists. (To sanction marriages the supremacist doesn't like violates the supremacist's First Amendment rights and imposes a state-sanctioned belief upon him/her.)

- Liberal conspirators, in refusing Intelligent Design as non-scientific, are violating Christians' rights by installing a state-sanctioned religion and suppressing the merits of an untestable hypothesis. (By not recognizing a theological assertion as having the same scientific value as a scientific hypothesis, we are violating the Christian's First and Fourteenth Amendment rights.)​

Such seemingly bizarre assertions are where I base a certain mockery: "How dare you oppress us by making us be equal to everyone else!"

Look, I know there are certain things that make no sense to me that are very important for other people. Like the whole gay thing, for instance. It is apparently really important for some people to have someone left to hate for no logical reason. Okay, that's harsh, yes.

It's a difficult thing to explain sometimes: "It's not that you must do things my way, but if you do things my way, you're free, I'm free, everyone's free. If we do things as you're proposing, that's not true."

And that's essentially what gets me about a lot of moral, ethical, and judicial debates. After a while, it seems clear that what is missing is an sense of realism. How the hell, for instance, do we go from two consenting adults of the same gender having sex to raping dogs and horses and children and corpses? There always seems to be something about mob-culture morality that overlooks basic issues. And you know, fine, whatever, be frightened for the children. Isn't there something unethical, though, about empowering the Devil in order to have someone to fight? If instant gratification is so bad, why are even the righteous rushing to be fulfilled?

Like the NAMBLA one. Legalizing pedophilia. How, exactly, does that one work out? I always hammer on the word consent, but some folks blink and stare like I'm jabbering Ojibwa. But really, really. Seriously. How do we go from gay folks getting married to undoing the age of consent and the government's duty to protect the general welfare? Remember: it's the Puritans that were daubing their daughters. What, what, what?

I remember I once was reading through the footnotes of some report by a conservative policy group about how homosexuality is so bad for society. Man, I had no idea NAMBLA was so big, and that people took the cause so damned seriously. Other people, I mean. Apparently, NAMBLA is dangerously appealing in the mainstream. Or, at least, that's what you would think until you found out all of this was based on the word of a NAMBLA (North American Man-Boy Love Association) member living in South Africa.

But let's be real here. As a matter of fact ... hey, there's the poll question. And public answers .... You'll have to 'fess up, of course, but come on ....

Really. Seriously. Come on.

Who knows? I could learn something here.

But it seems to me that the panic rhetoric, while it certainly does address a serious issue (e.g. pedophilia), there's something dishonest about the leap. It presumes extremes, a "with us/against us" mentality that does not seem well-founded. I mean, I'm pretty damn sure--to the point of stating it as a fact--that there are people who enjoy sex with their own gender who don't prefer or wish to prefer sex with children, dogs, corpses, or our cousins.

Wouldn't it be strange to call the statistical norm the gray zone?

Or religion. Look, believe what you want about the creation of the world. The integrity of the evolutionary Universe theory is pretty damn solid. The Intelligent Design assertion rests entirely on its exploitative position: without a perfect record, there can be no perfect retelling. Evolution will always have gaps in it, but the hypothesis is not only valid but also reliable. The problem of Intelligent Design as a scientific counterpoint is not in its religious and political motivations but its lack of a testable hypothesis.

It's not about oppressing anyone. But seats of traditional advantage will lose ground in the equalizing.

And what of the racists? Look, I'll even ignore the bit about racial interbreeding being an act of genocide. Evolutionary theory, applied to the historical record, speaks against separatism. That a white man is equal to a black man should not be an insult to the white man, and only the white man can choose that it is a slight.

There are some things, when we look at other people, that we simply respond to by acknowledging, "That's your problem."

Do we really show such disrespect by not conforming to ... oh ... say ... hell, pick a platform. It's not that I actually want to hurt Christians, but no, the evangelical right-wing of the GOP does not get its way. It's not about oppression. I'm free, they're free ... how is it oppressive to not be allowed to oppress someone else? We're all free. Isn't that the goal? Am I really a tyrant if I demand a very good reason to change my intentions?

What kind of hatemonger am I?

 

[EndLightEnd]

Well...
I dont (prefer) children as partners,
Nor do I (No!) children as partners,
but I am certainly (afraid to take a position on this one)!

Because I really have no idea what your asking.

 

[Baron Max]

As usual, Tiassa, you've typed up a long, long, involved bunch of bullshit that, if anyone actual reads, there is only the slightest chance of understanding what the fuck you're talking about!!

Hey, Tiassa, the length of ones post does not mean that's an intelligent post. Please try to remember that. If you can't make a statement, or ask a question in a few chosen words, then something is fucked up in your brain!

Baron Max

 

[Tiassa]

If you can't make a statement, or ask a question in a few chosen words, then something is fucked up in your brain!

The if/then misfire of the year.

And Baron, not everything I say is intended to fit into your nutsack. I mean nutshell.

Er ... um ... yeah.

 

[glaucon]

The if/then misfire of the year.

And Baron, not everything I say is intended to fit into your nutsack. I mean nutshell.

Er ... um ... yeah.

Well, as much as it causes me pain to agree with BM, this thread is f'd up tiassa.

I can neither understand the poll, nor see the relevance of your rambling commentary to the title thread.

ergo, my response: no, I don't prefer to have sex with children, and I fail to see what relevance this has to either beliefs, or integrity, to say nothing of stuff, ethics, morality, or justice....

 

[Tiassa]

When do we get to call bullshit and stop being nice?

 

[Fraggle Rocker]

When do we get to call bullshit and stop being nice?

The libertarian position is as good a compromise as I've seen:

People have the right to do anything they want so long as they do no direct harm to others.

Punching someone in the nose, preventing him from living in a city where he can find work, refusing to sell him food, burning a cross on his lawn... that is direct harm.

If he says it makes him feel bad to know that somebody somewhere is performing a homosexual act, using heroin, praying to a graven image, riding a motorcycle without a helmet... that is not direct harm.

Age of consent is a messy issue and we just do our best to protect children until they're old enough to take care of themselves. It's a different age for different risks.

 

[timmbuktwo]

Wow. I just don't get this one, sorry.

 

[Tiassa]

People have the right to do anything they want so long as they do no direct harm to others.

Punching someone in the nose, preventing him from living in a city where he can find work, refusing to sell him food, burning a cross on his lawn... that is direct harm.

I don't think I could agree with you more on this point. But as a functional question, what does it equal?

And now, for something completely different (and futile):

__________​

To take a moment ... in order to address the confusion, I suppose it is fair to say that there are prerequisites to understanding the point. For instance, Baron Max doesn't get it. At least one of the examples, however, stands in disagreement with his outlook. I can understand why he is confused: it is harder to see the point I am addressing if you think the fallacy is somehow correct.

We might, then, presume that it is easier for someone to understand the larger point if they agree politically with my presumed outlook:

(1) The Christian who complains: Look, I'm sorry that some writer you never met who wouldn't know you from Adam wrote a book with words like "Demon" that offend your religious sensitivities. However, what I do not understand is the proposed solution. The Christian argues, "My rights are violated as long as his are respected." Now, nobody's going to say that outright, but that's the effect: "My rights are violated as long as this book is protected by the First Amendment. My right to free religion is violated by the existence of his right to free speech." The proposed solution put forth by the Christian objector is to remove the book from the library, effectively censoring it according to religious outlook. If our religious sensitivities are equally protected, if our First Amendment rights are equally distributed, how does censorship respect any religious or speech right except that of the Christian objector? Yes, I realize Christians feel agitated, but that's also part of the price for what they have built: as Christianity loses its protected sociopolitical advantage, Christians feel oppressed. When you're on top, equality does feel like oppression. But on cold mornings, the glacial water in the lake could feel warm. It doesn't mean the temperature has gone up radically. It's just a matter of perspective.

(2) Interethnic unions and breedings violating white supremacists: Look, nobody's forcing Ed Whiteman to marry a black woman. I have in recent times seen interethnic relationships accused of crimes against humanity: interethnic breeding is genocidal in that it reduces the "purity" of a genetically diverse "white" race. How are Ed Whiteman's rights violated if Jackie Brown marries Charlie Chan? What right is violated? Mr. Whiteman's right to approve of Ms. Brown's and Mr. Chan's existence and determination of action?

(3) Intelligent Design advocates: All other arguments aside for the moment, help me with this one, please. How does an idea that evades the scientific method be scientific? That is, if "Intelligent Design" is a science, what is the testable hypothesis it intends to undertake? Is someone going to prove the existence of God? Fine. Let me know when you do. Until then, biology is science, evolution is science, and Intelligent Design is theology and politics.​

In any of these arguments, people perceive and accuse violations where there aren't. At least, there aren't unless we're going to apply a whole new sensitivity about violation.

Three simple examples, though I admit there was no organization to the topic post. Frankly, I didn't see the need for any organization; this topic has progressed about the same as any other.

Nonetheless, as discussions of these and other topics carry on at Sciforums or in the world at large, it seems they hang on certain points that really are unnecessary.

And that's where the real question seems to arise: How can we make any progress, by any definition, if we must always wait for the people who choose to ride the short bus to either catch up or die off?

When I hear a discussion of sexism, I often hear the same points I've heard since I was a child. Even though I've encountered answers that satisfy me about these points, it often feels like I'm the only one, or in a severe minority. Every once in a while it comes to the point that I want to throttle the poor sap and shake him, shouting, "The question's been answered twenty times in as many years! What doesn't make sense? What doesn't satisfy you? What? What!"

Analogy: The Rulemakers gathered and spent a lifetime making rules. They didn't actually make many, just argued most of the time. The Rulemakers were divided into many different camps, the most powerful of whom were Bob Freeman and Tom Wright. Mr. Freeman wants to be able to regard his wife and daughters, as well as all other women, equally to anyone else. Mr. Wright believes men are supposed to be in control, and women serving men's needs. The Rulemakers never get this argument finished. Bob spends his life sincerely appealing to Tom, and as Mr. Wright watches his own daughter grow, he begins to understand what Mr. Freeman is saying. "Should my beautiful, wonderful daughter simply be a servant of one of these ugly, scamming, horrible young men I don't trust?" And one day she becomes just that. And finally, Messrs. Freeman and Wright are close to figuring it out so that the Rulemakers can finally put this war to rest. But Mr. Wright's daughter bore his grandson, who has grown some over the years of debate. And though Mr. Freeman has made a logical, functional appeal that has convinced Mr. Wright, this grandson resurrects Mr. Wright's old fighting slogan: Don't discriminate against men. Now, Messrs. Wright and Freeman, as well as many of the Rulemakers, know this slogan is bogus. It's never been about oppressing or discriminating against men. But there is a whole generation out there of Grandson Wright's age, and they apparently need the issue explained to them. Instead of explaining what the process has wrought, that equality is equality, that humans are human, and that bowdlerized selections from the Holy Book do not, by the Rules of Society, establish law. It's a simple process to describe: "We went through this process, asked these questions, answered them, and went forward as the conclusions indicated." But nobody says that to the young generation, and even though it is scientifically proven that men do not lack a rib (as Holy Book superstition suggests), the Rulemakers do not make any rule because in making human beings equal to men, they are afraid of oppressing the advantaged group by asking them to descend to equality. At what point, after Grandson Wright is grown and has never stopped asking the same question that has been answered so many times, and has never made a coherent explanation of why the answer is insufficient, when is it fair to say, "You know what? Fuck off. You're not oppressed, mate. You want equality? Well, have it and quit complaining!"​

How many times must we revisit the nihilistic question of freedom? "How is it that reducing your power to bully, extort, and control the actions of another human being violates your freedom?" Is one only free when all others are subordinate? In contemporary sociopolitical debates, we must apparently revisit the question perpetually: once for every person another says is oppressed by equality.

Nobody says you can't believe that women, gays, or non-Christians aren't evil, horrible people. But we live in a society, and there are plenty of people who find men, heterosexuals, or Christians to be evil and horrible.

In the end, are people really so stupid? Some of them, I suppose. It's an easier pill to swallow than presuming them corrupt and inherently evil. (Especially if, like me, you believe "evil" to be both relative and interdependent.)

But this is what I don't get: I think it's partially a ruse. Okay, that part I get. But what doesn't make sense about it is why people fall for it. The issue is one of intellectual or conceptual integrity. It is dishonest to continually attempt to resurrect the dead horse:

Gay "choice" and "gay gene": No wonder there is such distaste among the Christian voice for science; it goes against them every time. Look, keep saying that homosexuality is a simple choice. Say it all you want. And point out that there is no "gay gene". Shout it to the hills and stars. It's your right. I'm not going to stop you. But I think one lacks integrity--

1. adherence to moral and ethical principles; soundness of moral character; honesty. (Dictionary.com) ​

--in expecting society at large to continue to take them seriously. Am I disrespecting beliefs? Fair question. But if the argument itself lacks integrity--

2. the state of being whole, entire, or undiminished: to preserve the integrity of the empire.
3. a sound, unimpaired, or perfect condition: the integrity of a ship's hull.(Dictionary.com) ​

--what respect, specifically, does anyone owe it in considering a course of action? In the case of the "gay gene", we already know we're not going to find a single gene that determines sexuality. But we do know that both genetics and hormones in utero have great effects on human sexual expression. The case for "the choice to be gay" is virtually dust at this point, according to both biology and social science. Understanding that there is, however, a statistical tatter of hope left for homophobes to cling to, I won't deny that the choice argument still has an infinitesimally valid question about it, but could the homophobes and traditionalists please get off the patronizing "gay gene" bit? It's over. It's done. And people still cling to it. Fine. But if your feelings are hurt that nobody's listening to an argument with no real data to support it, you're oversensitive.​

When I was younger, conservatives accused liberals of "dumbing down" the culture in pursuit of political correctness. And yet, the dumbing down I see comes from a collection of arguments that are employed by the current conservative rhetoric. Don't get me wrong, I know non-conservatives have their own troubles, but those I understand better.

And, furthermore, beyond partisan politics, these roles exist in social and familial relations as well. The end result is that if you throw enough darts, you'll occasionally (statistically speaking) get a bullseye, and then you can finally feel really cool. (A billiards analogy? Well, pool. But yeah, we could make some crazy shots with fair consistency, but we called it "a land war in Asia"--after the line from The Princess Bride--because neither of us could shoot straight lines with the object ball over the length of the table. Still, we thought we were pretty cool.) I digress. We seem to spend an awful lot of time, when not discussing the weather or (insert sports franchise here) or whatever other minutiae, chittering about like hamsters expecting that someday, the wheel really will go somewhere.

Frankly, this sucks. We can look at it in terms of, say, getting along with my daughter's mother, or having a rational discussion here at Sciforums, or even changing the whole damn world for the better or some such hopeful notion. I just think we could accomplish so much more (e.g. anything) as a community (Sciforums, our families, our towns, the whole damn world, &c.) if we stopped treating certain perspectives and demands as the Most Important Retarded Kid In The World.

When you get to see the inner workings of human society, doesn't it just seem sort of selfish? Yes, political entities are composed of individuals. Since they seem quite able through phone trees, emails, or maybe just fence gossip (speak nothing of multiple dedicated mass communication networks with names like TBN, 3ABN, FOX News, &c.), it's curious that they're not up on the latest bits of reality:

Newsflash! Liberals, homosexuals, and equality advocates are well aware that there is no "gay gene"; they don't care. As one blog puts it, "There is no gay gene ... However, biology is vastly more complex than this would imply ...." (And, no, I don't know who Todd is.)

Newsflash! Liberals, scientists, and other evolutionists are well aware that "evolution is just a theory"; they're waiting for you to test your own damn hypotheses.

Newsflash! Equality has a definition: "1. the state or quality of being equal; correspondence in quantity, degree, value, rank, or ability." (Dictionary.com)​

And I suppose there's one that's a little more obscure:

Headline: This isn't about oppressing you. It is my hope, as well, it seems, as a general aspiration of the society that taught me, that your life, too, should get better. All of ours. Together.​

Sorry, no big hugs on that note.

Look. Equality and Justice are (by definition) not oppression. Objectivity is the death of neither passion nor mystery.

And it's not just Bible vs. Constitution, so to speak. If a Christian traditionalist homophobe wishes to discuss the use of government as an instrument of God's righteousness, I'll even ante up: Render unto Caesar. If an IDiot ... okay, okay, okay. I'm sorry. You know, that whole temptation thing. Couldn't resist. Er ... IDster? Ida, the Intelligent Design Advocate? At any rate, if any ID advocates wish to explain to me the testable hypothesis that makes ID a science, by all means, please do. If a white supremacist would like to explain the whole genocide thing to me ... okay, there, I admit, I will probably laugh. But the odds that I don't exactly match the odds that you'll come up with something I can take seriously. I'm open to it, but it seems to me the ID advocate has better odds of success. I'd ante up but I don't know where to begin. Who else have I picked on here? Oh, yeah. The whole library book thing. Anyway, the Christian knows what the question is. Door's open, so on, so forth.

In other words, I know exactly what these and other arguments I loathe miss about reality. But what exactly is the simple thing I'm missing about them that causes me to disagree with them? The general answer is that I think they're shite. More delicately, to call them "flimsy" would overstate their strength, validity ... their very integrity, both moral/ethical and structural.

I think people, in general, are smart enough to know the difference. And while I can account for religious or other doctrinal motivations in the arguments I loathe, what I can't figure out is why we're still, at various levels of community, going through it.

I'm not talking cross-burning and lynchings, and quite obviously, I'm not talking censorship. But when, to invoke at this late moment a consumer analogy, does the market finally get to say, "That's nice dear. We'll be over here discussing important, grown-up things"? Or, at least, "Go screw"?

It would be nice enough to say, "You know, we've been over this before. And the answer is (no/not until .../we're sorry, but ...)."

That never seems to work. So I'll try again:

You know, we've been over this before. And it's not that you can't believe what you want. But beliefs without factual basis, in any reasonable consideration of community, should have extremely limited influence. This is not because I or we or anyone chooses specifically to disrespect your beliefs, but acting to suit belief without factual basis, or especially in contradiction of available evidence, is simply unwise. I'm sorry. Really, I am. But we can do so much more together than dry-humping your ego. Please, have faith. Trust in your neighbors. How do I know they won't go too far? Because you and I have more in common than that which separates us. Everybody wants things to be "better". This isn't about hurting you. This is about making all of our lives better. I promise.​

 

[Baron Max]

Nobody says you can't believe that women, gays, or non-Christians aren't evil, horrible people. But we live in a society, and there are plenty of people who find men, heterosexuals, or Christians to be evil and horrible.

In the end, are people really so stupid?

Would you like for the people of the society to actually vote on those issues ....and settle it once and for all?

When you get to see the inner workings of human society, doesn't it just seem sort of selfish?

Which is exactly, precisely, what any good society should be for itself.

I think people, in general, are smart enough to know the difference.

Would you be willing to accept the outcome of a general vote of all eligible voters in the USA? We could settle the issue if you're brave enough to take that gamble!

But you sure type up a lot of words to say so little, don't you? Is that because you have so fuckin' much time on your hands and ain't smart enough to figure out anything else to do?

Baron Max

 

[Tiassa]

Would you like for the people of the society to actually vote on those issues ....and settle it once and for all?

When I see evidence of intellectual and conceptual integrity in the issues in question, sure. But, you see, the irrationality of people is exactly why majority rule is limited in the United States. If majorities actually ever learned anything instead of asking the same questions that have been answered countless times before, the issue would be mere abstraction.

Which is exactly, precisely, what any good society should be for itself.

That's why the British still rule the known Universe, right?

The problem is the rationality or irrationality of that selfishness. At the individual level, when people demand more than their fair share or else they feel they're being treated unequally, it's not the same kind of selfishness.

Would you be willing to accept the outcome of a general vote of all eligible voters in the USA? We could settle the issue if you're brave enough to take that gamble!

Given the number of laws passed by "the people" that violate the very foundations of the people's empowerment (e.g. the Constitution), I refer you to my prior answer.

But you sure type up a lot of words to say so little, don't you? Is that because you have so fuckin' much time on your hands and ain't smart enough to figure out anything else to do?

Actually, that perception would be the result of your own limitations. The Universe is filled with things that defy our imaginations. In your case, that's an easier accomplishment than I'm accustomed to.