UBB.classicTM 6.5.0
quote:Yes we must.
Originally posted by Boogie:
We must not tolerate the intolerant.
quote:Well Boogie, I'm with Popper on this one. Your view (which you've expressed before) seems to me to fail at the basic step that there is no contradiction of pressing for the equal rights of all people and allowing expression of opposition to that.
Originally posted by Boogie:
We must not tolerate the intolerant. We must stand up against the tyranny of intolerance. We must continue to push for the equal rights of all people and the right to free speech.
Karl Popper said:-
"If we are not prepared to defend a tolerant society against the onslaught of the intolerant, then the tolerant will be destroyed, and tolerance with them."
Should we tolerate any sort of bigotry? If we tolerate bigotry are we taking a step backwards from society's advancement?
quote:No I haven't! I'm not sure of my view - that's why I asked the question!
Originally posted by Gee D:
Well Boogie, I'm with Popper on this one. Your view (which you've expressed before)
quote:I think this is the crucial point.
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
...that doesn't mean we should let bigots harm those they are bigoted against, nor does it mean we shouldn't speak out against bigotry when it is encountered.
quote:Surely nobody believes that anything at all should be tolerated.
But how far can you go in defending a tolerant society?
quote:Well, erm, yeah?
Originally posted by Martin60:
I'm proud to live in a country where a law abiding Salafist Muslim can propound what should be done to gay men according to his sacred text's commentary and the tradition of those with the power to implement it as they faithfully do now in Raqqa.
If I was able to interact with him I'd like to express my appreciation for his restraint, for his honouring the law of the land. Should I say anything else?
quote:I don't know that the question can be answered at such a general level. 'Toleration' is a broad term: it can lump together anything from allowing people to live to letting anything people say pass without criticism.
Originally posted by Boogie:
But how far can you go in defending a tolerant society?
Should we tolerate any sort of bigotry? If we tolerate bigotry are we taking a step backwards from society's advancement?
quote:Some people can change such as the Phelps daughters.
Originally posted by Lamb Chopped:
There's not a hope in hell of changing anybody regardless of age.
quote:"Disenfranchised" by whose and what definition?
Originally posted by Pomona:
I am a member of several disenfranchised groups.
quote:How would that look?
I don't want tolerance, but liberation.
quote:There's a world of difference between allowing expression of a viewpoint (of which I am in favour) and actively propounding violence against others. If your friend says: "our texts say that this is the proper manner in which to treat gays, but of course that is out of date and no longer applies" there is no trouble. If the qualification is missing, then it's pretty close to a criminal offence, if not over the boundary.
Originally posted by Martin60:
I'm proud to live in a country where a law abiding Salafist Muslim can propound what should be done to gay men according to his sacred text's commentary and the tradition of those with the power to implement it as they faithfully do now in Raqqa.
If I was able to interact with him I'd like to express my appreciation for his restraint, for his honouring the law of the land. Should I say anything else?
quote:This, and maintain a relationship in which humour can infiltrate. An elderly lady I knew was racist to the core, I wasn't going to change that, but we had the kind of relationship where she could say 'I know you love everyone including them but....' and we would both laugh. I always responded by saying what 'their' side of it may be, and then we changed the subject. She did mellow a little, over time. She certainly shouldn't have been arrested, she was as entitled to her point of view as I was entitled to mine.
Originally posted by Lamb Chopped:
There's not a hope in hell of changing anybody regardless of age. The most you can do is be yourself respectfully and lovingly. Being the opposite won't encourage any change in anybody, and is likely to destroy whatever thoughts they might have had themselves of changing.
quote:That is akin to the disagreement/discrimination dichotomy which would appear to be the basis of the longest running thread in Hell at the moment.
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
That's the thing. Everyone is entitled to their point of view, but not necessarily to act on it if such action will cause harm to someone else.
quote:What is being asked for is far from a "safe space" - it's censorship. There's nothing at all wrong with the idea of a space that is "safe" - if I, as an adult, don't want to deal with someone's opinion right now, because I'm tired, or feeling emotionally fragile or whatever, I can stay home and not invite arseholes in to my living room. There's nothing wrong with some "home" spaces at a university being places of "safety".
Originally posted by Boogie:
Are 'safe spaces' a justification for shutting out ideas?
quote:It isn't typically an either/or thing.
Originally posted by Lamb Chopped:
Look at the grammar. Did they change, or did someone else change them?
quote:My point was that we do not live or act in isolation. Other people affect us. Newton's Laws of Motion can be applied to our behaviour in a way. The impetus to change state does not come from nowhere.
Originally posted by Lamb Chopped:
You must live among much more flexible people than I do. Missouri mules, all of them.
quote:Actually, I think it is. If I've understood correctly, what Lamb Chopped is saying, is that we can't change someone else. Only they can change themselves. We can try to persuade them. But if they aren't persuaded, or if they aren't listening, there's nothing we can do about it. The only person any of us can change is ourself.
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
quote:It isn't typically an either/or thing.
Originally posted by Lamb Chopped:
Look at the grammar. Did they change, or did someone else change them?
quote:It is difficult to tell looking at it through the lens of unsympathetic reporting and opinion pieces. A student union is within its rights to refuse to let people invite neo-Nazis speak in its building, even as part of a debate. An organisation has no obligation to give people a platform if all they're going to do with it is verbally abuse the organisation's members. Where that shades off into shutting down points of view merely because people don't want to hear different opinions is a judgement call.
Originally posted by Boogie:
It looks like universities have taken this idea a step further with their 'safe space' policies.
Are 'safe spaces' a justification for shutting out ideas?
quote:From a detailed article in The Atlantic
Originally posted by Leorning Cniht:
quote:What is being asked for is far from a "safe space" - it's censorship.
Originally posted by Boogie:
Are 'safe spaces' a justification for shutting out ideas?
quote:
: ...safe-baiting: using intimidation or initiating physical aggression to violate someone’s rights, then acting like your target is making you unsafe.
quote:I still believe the solution to bad speech is more speech, not censorship. Or violence.
When speech comes to be seen as a form of violence, vindictive protectiveness can justify a hostile, and perhaps even violent, response.
quote:Hi Boogie,
Originally posted by Boogie:
Do we keep pushing culture in the direction where the intolerant get pushed more and more to the outside?
What if they then cry that we are being intolerant of them?
quote:What's the definition of harm? Who decides if your view and its expression causes harm?
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
The line for tolerance really isn't that difficult to discern. Does your view and its expression cause others harm?
quote:This is something that seems counterintuitive to many people, but there's no such thing as "public university space" because all universities are private property. A university may be publically funded and accessible, but it is still legally private property, just like the premises of any other corporate entity.
Originally posted by Moo:
... the talk was held in a public university space. ... The University spokespeople said it had to be taken down because the protesters did not give permission to be taped. They don't seem to understand that if you do something in a public space, you have no right to expect privacy.
quote:Universities are different from e.g. workplaces in that tackling divisive issues is part of their job. However, they are supposed to tackle divisive issues in a rigorous, academic way. So this means that discussing the law around sexual assault in a classroom, and using the word "rape" in the discussion is appropriate What's not necessary, I would submit, is having to sit in the cafeteria listening to the frat boys at the next table bragging about how many bitches they're going to rape next Friday or how they totally raped that accounting exam. That's not an academic discussion, that's sexist trash talk. If universities are supposed to be preparing their students for the workplace, they should be stomping on stuff like this.
Originally posted by Boogie:
It looks like universities have taken this idea a step further with their 'safe space' policies.
Are 'safe spaces' a justification for shutting out ideas?
quote:I agree in theory. In practice, those are vague terms, and what counts as arbitrary violence, injustice, and unkindness varies quite a bit from person to person. If we were more prone to giving each other the benefit of the doubt and less prone to accusation; more prone to ripping the beam out of our own eye before pointing out the speck in our brother's, it would be one thing... but people are quick to see injustice or unkindness when they are the victim, and often deny to the very end that they could perpetrate it.
Originally posted by Martin60:
saysay. Promotion of arbitrary violence, injustice, unkindness is intolerable. As is responding to that with violence, injustice, unkindness.
quote:You say this as if it's an obvious fact when it is in fact the issue being discussed at many universities around the country; personally I blame the trend towards treating students as consumers (and pressuring everyone to do so) as much as helicopter parenting and victim culture for the absurdity we've arrived at. But the fact that law professors are being asked not to teach rape law or use the word 'violate' in the classroom lest it trigger someone is exactly what is being complained about.
Originally posted by Soror Magna:
However, they are supposed to tackle divisive issues in a rigorous, academic way. So this means that discussing the law around sexual assault in a classroom, and using the word "rape" in the discussion is appropriate
quote:
I do understand that the lines between classroom and community are porous, and not every decision is defensible, whatever side of the line it happened on, and of course, the media only tells us what makes a good story.
quote:But the debate isn't about whether or not students should be able to dress up as an "Indian" for Halloween without facing any consequences (although that strikes me as a massive oversimplification of the issue; most of the costume issues I've heard about have been far more complicated). The debate is about whether or not it's the university's business to meddle about in that decision (warning students to avoid certain costumes, disciplining students who wear them) or whether 18+-year-olds (who, let's remember, are fighting wars in multiple middle-eastern countries) can tolerate a little bit of offensiveness and call out that which they cannot tolerate. A professor suggesting that, as adults, they could in fact do such a thing led to students calling for both her and her husband to be fired at Yale.
I do think it is always reasonable to ask whether a particular behaviour is in line with the university's mission. So, to return to the costume issue: how does being able to dress up as an "Indian" for Hallowe'en improve the quality of the student's education, and is this improvement worth worsening another student's educational experience?
quote:From here, the "average American" has had between one and two years' college education.
Originally posted by saysay:
the average American (who is not college educated)
quote:Between one and two years' college education can mean someone who was in a technical or occupational program and whose experience doesn't really resemble a college education much at all. The more useful statistic is that 32% of people over 25 have a bachelor's degree. Which is not "most" by anybody's measure.
Originally posted by Leorning Cniht:
quote:From here, the "average American" has had between one and two years' college education.
Originally posted by saysay:
the average American (who is not college educated)
quote:So, say you think left-handed people are evil or bad luck and you treat them so. You are harming them. You are being intolerant. Someone pointing this out and calling you a bigot is not being intolerant. There are some things more complicated than this, but most can be broken down to a simple enough level to ascertain where the intolerance is.
I agree in theory. In practice, those are vague terms, and what counts as arbitrary violence, injustice, and unkindness varies quite a bit from person to person. If we were more prone to giving each other the benefit of the doubt and less prone to accusation; more prone to ripping the beam out of our own eye before pointing out the speck in our brother's, it would be one thing... but people are quick to see injustice or unkindness when they are the victim, and often deny to the very end that they could perpetrate it.
quote:This is fine until the people who are criticising or don't esteem others start to complain that their views should be "safe" from condemnation.
Originally posted by Russ:
Seems to me that a tolerant society can only be one where a plurality of views - traditional, radical, eccentric, wacky, whatever - can be held and expressed.
Which means no-one's actions are "safe" from being criticised or unesteemed by others.
quote:That's good to hear.
Gramps49: Black lives Matter has had an impact in many communities.
quote:I am referring to the Muslims I know, in situations where we are together, not to public situations or Muslims in general.
Originally posted by no prophet's flag is set so...:
Is it necessary for Moslems to not observe alcohol consumption or just not do it themselves? I'd tend to not accommodate abstaining from a glass of wine or beer.
quote:You are wandering off the general point rather, which is simply that in a pluralist society in which individual freedom is maximised, something can be legal, and the fact that some people don't like it is discounted as a reason to suppress it, but in certain situations (eg with friends, family) someone might choose to abstain from it.
Originally posted by no prophet's flag is set so...:
I would be more likely to refrain with strangers myself than with people I know. Like everyone else, some people follow religious customs and some don't; some Moslems drink. I think most people here would be most likely to refrain with someone who was alcoholic.
quote:Could you spell out a little more clearly what "treatment" you have in mind, so we can all see where the harm is and what is the nature of this harm ?
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
say you think left-handed people are evil or bad luck and you treat them so. You are harming them. You are being intolerant. Someone pointing this out and calling you a bigot is not being intolerant.
quote:Special pleading again? Not wasting more keystrokes than this addressing what many of us already have.
Originally posted by Russ:
quote:Could you spell out a little more clearly what "treatment" you have in mind, so we can all see where the harm is and what is the nature of this harm ?
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
say you think left-handed people are evil or bad luck and you treat them so. You are harming them. You are being intolerant. Someone pointing this out and calling you a bigot is not being intolerant.
If you're left-handed and someone calls you "southpaw" and you perceive that that word has both an accurate factual meaning and a negative emotional loading, are you harmed ?
If you call someone "bigot" and they perceive that word to have both a factual meaning and a negative emotional loading, does the accuracy of the fact prevent your action from being harmful ?
quote:That is not what 'intolerant' means. Just disagreeing with someone is not intolerant. As a Europhile I'd only consider you intolerant if you wish you could lock up people who disagree with you, or immigrants from the EU, or prevent opinions you disagree with from being expressed in public forums, or so on.
Originally posted by Cherubim:
I consider the EU intolerant of anyone who won't embrace a federal Europe because they are ultimately a corrupt and undemocratic institution. yet Europhiles would consider me intolerant for rejecting the wider EU vision.
In both cases there is the perception of intolerance, but that is what intolerance is for the most part. Merely a perception.
quote:I'm sure we have already discussed the notion that disagreement is OK while disrespect is not.
Originally posted by Dafyd:
quote:That is not what 'intolerant' means. Just disagreeing with someone is not intolerant. As a Europhile I'd only consider you intolerant if you wish you could lock up people who disagree with you, or immigrants from the EU, or prevent opinions you disagree with from being expressed in public forums, or so on.
Originally posted by Cherubim:
I consider the EU intolerant of anyone who won't embrace a federal Europe because they are ultimately a corrupt and undemocratic institution. yet Europhiles would consider me intolerant for rejecting the wider EU vision.
In both cases there is the perception of intolerance, but that is what intolerance is for the most part. Merely a perception.
Intolerance means that you want to sanction behaviour by means more serious than merely making your opinion known or arguing against it.
quote:It depends on the context. Calling the English treacherous sassenachs is a different matter when they're the larger partner in the Union, than it would be in some circumstance where they were a poorer minority subject to routine bullying and beatings.
Originally posted by Sioni Sais:
TBH I'm not too bothered about name-calling in itself.
quote:That sounds right - it's about wanting social or legal sanctions against behaviour (actions or expressed views) that we don't like.
Originally posted by Dafyd:
Intolerance means that you want to sanction behaviour by means more serious than merely making your opinion known or arguing against it.
quote:Thanks, Sioni Sais. That seems a really helpful categorisation.
Originally posted by Sioni Sais:
One form of disrespect is prejudice, which according to characteristics that you may have acquired through upbringing and religious belief, give you a jaundiced view of people in some categories. Another, sometimes related, is verbal abuse. Then there is exclusion which falls somewhere in between.
quote:That narrative should, imo, include not tolerating the exclusion - by word or deed - of people for who they are rather than what they do.
Originally posted by Russ:
So the argument goes that if we want that peaceful pluralist society we have to have some curbs or sanctions on the parts that want to dictate to the whole. Some intolerance of intolerance. Some shared meta-narrative of multiple religions and multiple political groupings respecting each other's existence while pursuing their own narratives. And arguing for their perspectives in the public forum within a well-defined framework that is not itself up for grabs.
quote:Are you saying that the Scots are entitled to insult the English but if the English insult them back, they can cry foul?
Originally posted by Dafyd:
It depends on the context. Calling the English treacherous sassenachs is a different matter when they're the larger partner in the Union, than it would be in some circumstance where they were a poorer minority subject to routine bullying and beatings.
quote:But remember too that the roles of victim/victimiser ("Who whom" in Lenin's famous dictum) can be very contested, and there are often "more victimised than thou" competitions.
Originally posted by Soror Magna:
Remember the expression "pick on somebody your own size"?
quote:No, no it is not. I noticed you picked a fairly safe example, try Aboriginal Australians. Some power differentials are very easy to discern.
Originally posted by Kaplan Corday:
Who is picking on whom is always going to be a matter of perception and ideology.
quote:But what constitutes treatment is based upon who has the advantage.
Originally posted by Raptor Eye:
It's surely not OK for anyone to treat anyone else badly, whether they are in the minority or in the majority.
quote:Yes, yes it is.
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
quote:No, no it is not. I noticed you picked a fairly safe example, try Aboriginal Australians.
Originally posted by Kaplan Corday:
Who is picking on whom is always going to be a matter of perception and ideology.
quote:Obviously.
Some power differentials are very easy to discern.
quote:Wrong on all counts.
And your example is flawed regardless. The 60% Christian reflects how people view themselves and therefore defines who is "us and who is "them". And Australian culture is still dominated by the culture established by Christians, for Christians. Participation in church might indicate a potential shift, but it does not represent a change in cultural biases.
quote:But not practically so.
Originally posted by Kaplan Corday:
that legally and politically indigenous Australians are now the equal of other Australians;
quote:If someone identifies as Christian, whether or not they fit your definition, that is how they identify. Which means others who use that label will be part of "us" in their estimation.
Originally posted by Kaplan Corday:
First, the 60% vote in fact represents a mere label with little or no content.
quote:You are using a variation of the No True Scotsman.
Originally posted by Kaplan Corday:
Australian culture is overwhelmingly post-Christian; for example, polls consistently show a substantial majority in favour of same-sex marriage, something that would have been anathema to the hegemonic Christianity of the past.
quote:It's not often I agree with lilBuddha but I emphatically do here.
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
quote:But not practically so.
Originally posted by Kaplan Corday:
that legally and politically indigenous Australians are now the equal of other Australians;
quote:Like it's something inherently embedded in them at the deepest level and impossible to change? If you say so.
Originally posted by Kaplan Corday:
People write down "CofE" or "RC" in the same way they write down their blood type.
quote:Plus they believe in legal equality (and even suffrage!) for women, and they think slavery is immoral. What kind of Christianity is that?
Originally posted by Kaplan Corday:
Thirdly, Australian culture is overwhelmingly post-Christian; for example, polls consistently show a substantial majority in favour of same-sex marriage, something that would have been anathema to the hegemonic Christianity of the past.
quote:Nope.
Originally posted by Crœsos:
Like it's something inherently embedded in them at the deepest level and impossible to change?
quote:But I didn't .
If you say so.
quote:Whatever else it might be, as a point of historical fact it is not characteristic of the Christian culture which prevailed in Western countries in the past.
What kind of Christianity is that?
quote:Non sequitur.
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
Which means others who use that label will be part of "us" in their estimation.
quote:You might well be right, but that is not the point.
Originally posted by Gee D:
You beat me to it. It's not that Aboriginal people go to gaol when whites would not though, nor that they are picked on excessively by the police. The dispossession from their lands and way of life has led to depression and from there to the usual way of trying to cope with it. Then when drunk, domestic or neighbourhood violence erupts, some get injured, some go to gaol. The whole miserable and self-perpetuating pattern goes on. Not helped too much by some very well intentioned policies in the early 70s, the main effect of which was rapidly to increase Aboriginal unemployment.
quote:I thought this tail piece was also helpful
Debates about international issues like Israel and Palestine, or issues of personal and social morals - abortion, gender and sexuality, end-of-life questions - are regularly shadowed by anxiety, even panic about what must not be said in public, and also by sometimes startlingly coercive insistence on the rational and canonical status of one perspective only.
quote:Silencing debate and controversy takes us into the territory of Fahrenheit 451. The distinction between controversy and hate speech is a valuable one.
How is unwelcome truth to be told in ways that don’t humiliate or disable?
The answer to that question is inseparable from learning to argue.
quote:[Elided for brevity]
Originally posted by Barnabas62:
3. There is indeed a contemporary neurosis (and here I quote).
quote:
Debates...are regularly shadowed by ...sometimes startlingly coercive insistence on the rational and canonical status of one perspective only.
quote:On the other hand, I would add another observation from that article:
Originally posted by Barnabas62:
Rowan Williams George Orwell Lecture.
I draw three observations from article that which seem germane to this thread.
quote:I'd like to take credit, but blood types are a real thing not discovered by me (though the Nobel Prize would've been sweet), and you were the first person to mention them on this thread. If anything you're the one making it up!
Originally posted by Kaplan Corday:
quote:But I didn't .
Originally posted by Crœsos:
If you say so.
You did.
You just made it up.
quote:Sorry, but I have to call "bullshit" on that kind of revisionism. Women's second-class legal status is an almost universal characteristic of "Christian culture which prevailed in Western countries in the past" until about the twentieth century, and toleration of forced labor (either outright slavery or some watered-down version like serfdom) was prevalent for almost as long.
Originally posted by Kaplan Corday:
quote:Whatever else it might be, as a point of historical fact it is not characteristic of the Christian culture which prevailed in Western countries in the past.
What kind of Christianity is that?
quote:Couldn't that have been said of most historical Christians throughout the period you call "the hegemonic Christianity of the past"? Or was every believing Christian up until about 1950 a master theologian without any heretical belief? That seems at odds with what I know of both Church and general history.
Originally posted by Kaplan Corday:
Such evidence as there is indicates that there are many Australians who can produce, if called upon to do so, some sort of inherited denominational label, but who do not participate in any sort of corporate Christian activity; have little or no knowledge of the Bible, theology or church history; and often hold New Agey beliefs which are incompatible with Christianity.
quote:Very glad you added that. There are times when I think the 10Cs of this discussion forum capture things very succinctly. Like Commandment 5
Originally posted by Dafyd:
"Our current cultural panics about offence are, at their best and most generous, an acknowledgement that language can be code and enact power relations." (ETA From Rowan Williams link)
One of the things I take from that summary is that expressing controversial views without causing appropriate offence is something we need to learn to do, just as much as hearing views without taking offence.
quote:Learning to argue courteously, to live with disagreement, and explore the boundaries of those aims, is not at all easy. But trying is worth the effort and we learn something about ourselves thereby.
5. Don't easily offend, don't be easily offended
Disagreement is normal here. Try not to nurse hurt feelings, and, conversely, if you know you've stuffed it up, cop to it without excuse. We've all had to at some point.
quote:Hold on there. Being offended is an emotive tool that no one should be allowed use, but it's perfectly okay to dictate what kind of emotional reaction other people have to your statements? That seems kind of messed up. Some things are simply going to be offensive whether couched in civil terms or shouted in slurs and profanities.
Originally posted by Enoch:
If there is a difference, then any claim that though X has no right not to be offended, X still has the right to take offence, must carry with it no obligation on me to accept that they are entitled to be offended.
<snip>
The claim 'I am offended', or even 'somebody else might be offended', is an emotive tool that people use to deny others that right.
quote:I explicitly explained that the similarity lay solely in treating the two labels as pieces of information, and that the denominational label could be, and in many cases is, inherited but lacking in any substance.
Originally posted by Crœsos:
And are there really people who falsely claim a blood type that's not really theirs?
quote:You are quite right.
Women's second-class legal status is an almost universal characteristic of "Christian culture which prevailed in Western countries in the past" until about the twentieth century, and toleration of forced labor (either outright slavery or some watered-down version like serfdom) was prevalent for almost as long.
quote:No and no.
Couldn't that have been said of most historical Christians throughout the period you call "the hegemonic Christianity of the past"? Or was every believing Christian up until about 1950 a master theologian without any heretical belief?
quote:I don't think your statements ambiguous in the least. They clear brush aside past Christian practices you do not agree with and cling to those you do. SOP.
Originally posted by Kaplan Corday:
quote:You are quite right.
Originally posted by Crœsos: Women's second-class legal status is an almost universal characteristic of "Christian culture which prevailed in Western countries in the past" until about the twentieth century, and toleration of forced labor (either outright slavery or some watered-down version like serfdom) was prevalent for almost as long.
I was referring specifically to SSM.
Apologies for ambiguity.
quote:"Inherited but lacking in any substance" doesn't sound at all like "the same way they write down their blood type". I can't think of any form where blood type would be asked after and where the person filling out the form would regard the question as insubstantial or lacking substance.
Originally posted by Kaplan Corday:
quote:I explicitly explained that the similarity lay solely in treating the two labels as pieces of information, and that the denominational label could be, and in many cases is, inherited but lacking in any substance.
Originally posted by Crœsos:
And are there really people who falsely claim a blood type that's not really theirs?
quote:Actually that's your syllogism. You picked blood type as another type of information that is "a mere label with little or no content" (or now as "lacking in any substance"). I'd argue that most people regard it, in situations where it becomes important enough to ask after, as a matter of life and death. Coupled with your claim that a lot of people list a religious affiliation to which they're not entitled it seems fair to conclude that a lot of people are lying or misleading others about their blood type.
Originally posted by Kaplan Corday:
Your implied syllogism of "Denomination and blood type are both labels; many people do not believe the doctrines or practice the precepts of the denomination with which they label themselves; ergo, people must lie about their blood types", is interesting to say the least.
quote:So we're in agreement that those who support women's equality before the law fall outside what you consider "Christian culture which prevailed in Western countries in the past"? And that by your standards such people's identification as "Christian" is deceptive at best?
Originally posted by Kaplan Corday:
quote:You are quite right.
Women's second-class legal status is an almost universal characteristic of "Christian culture which prevailed in Western countries in the past" until about the twentieth century, and toleration of forced labor (either outright slavery or some watered-down version like serfdom) was prevalent for almost as long.
I was referring specifically to SSM.
Apologies for ambiguity.
quote:Sorry, but you can't have it both ways. You're claiming that, unlike "the hegemonic Christianity of the past", modern Christians "have little or no knowledge of the Bible, theology or church history; and often hold New Agey beliefs which are incompatible with Christianity". In other words, you posit some golden age of theology when every serf behind a plow could expertly expound on the Trinity and certainly didn't hold any non-Biblical superstitions.
Originally posted by Kaplan Corday:
quote:No and no.
Couldn't that have been said of most historical Christians throughout the period you call "the hegemonic Christianity of the past"? Or was every believing Christian up until about 1950 a master theologian without any heretical belief?
quote:I don't have the faintest idea what you are talking about.
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
]I don't think your statements ambiguous in the least. They clear brush aside past Christian practices you do not agree with and cling to those you do. SOP.
quote:Don't want to speak for LB, but he's probably referring to your assertion that anyone willing to grant homosexuals the same legal standing as heterosexuals is outside the fold of "Christianity", properly defined by past practice, but that you don't apply the same standards to gender discrimination or forced labor. Note how carefully your above statement is parsed. "[M]ost Christians today" disagree with the sexism and pro-slavery position of past versions of Christianity, but they're still considered "Christians". That's a concession you're apparently unwilling to extend to anyone who deviates from the past Christian practice of legal discrimination against (and presumably jailing and execution of) homosexuals.
Originally posted by Kaplan Corday:
quote:I don't have the faintest idea what you are talking about.
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
I don't think your statements ambiguous in the least. They clear brush aside past Christian practices you do not agree with and cling to those you do. SOP.
Much of Christendom supported in the past attitudes toward women and slavery which today most Christians today would disagree with.
All of Christendom until the recent past would have found the idea of SSM incomprehensible.
With which of these two historical facts do you disagree?
quote:Which part of "the similarity [lies] solely in treating the two labels as pieces of information" don't you understand?
Originally posted by Crœsos:
I can't think of any form where blood type would be asked after and where the person filling out the form would regard the question as insubstantial or lacking substance.
quote:No, it doesn't seem "fair" at all, it seems another specious piece of obfuscation.
it seems fair to conclude that a lot of people are lying or misleading others about their blood type.
quote:So you agree that those who believe in a 14 billion year old universe and a heliocentric solar system fall outside historic Christian orthodoxy?
So we're in agreement that those who support women's equality before the law fall outside what you consider "Christian culture which prevailed in Western countries in the past"?
quote:Sorry, but a false dichotomy employing the excluded middle fallacy won't cut it.
Sorry, but you can't have it both ways.
quote:Crœsos parsed it easily enough, so I am not sure where I was not clear.
Originally posted by Kaplan Corday:
I don't have the faintest idea what you are talking about.
quote:The part where being treated "solely . . . as pieces of information" is taken as obvious evidence of unreliability.
Originally posted by Kaplan Corday:
quote:Which part of "the similarity [lies] solely in treating the two labels as pieces of information" don't you understand?
Originally posted by Crœsos:
I can't think of any form where blood type would be asked after and where the person filling out the form would regard the question as insubstantial or lacking substance.
quote:Since I'm not particularly interested in using "historic Christian orthodoxy" as a sieve to sort out who is and isn't really Christian among modern self-proclaimed believers, I've never really given the matter the full attention someone willing to make such an inquisition would. Let me know what you come up with.
Originally posted by Kaplan Corday:
So you agree that those who believe in a 14 billion year old universe and a heliocentric solar system fall outside historic Christian orthodoxy?
quote:It is not obvious evidence of reliability.
Originally posted by Crœsos:
"solely . . . as pieces of information" is taken as obvious evidence of unreliability.
quote:And having never formulated any criteria for what Christianity involves, are therefore happy to accept as such someone who puts it down as their religion on an official form without any understanding of it, because it was the religion of their grand-parents.
I've never really given the matter the full attention
quote:Straw man.
Originally posted by Crœsos:
anyone willing to grant homosexuals the same legal standing as heterosexuals
past Christian practice of legal discrimination against (and presumably jailing and execution of) homosexuals.
quote:Sorry, I'm having trouble following the reasoning of your chosen example. You argue that:
Originally posted by Kaplan Corday:
quote:It is not obvious evidence of reliability.
Originally posted by Crœsos:
"solely . . . as pieces of information" is taken as obvious evidence of unreliability.
There is a difference.
quote:So you argue that people's claimed religious affiliation is "a mere label with little or no content" in the same way as their blood type. But most people take their blood type very seriously, especially in situations where official-type people are asking for that information on forms, all of which carries the implication 'whatever you're signing this form for may potentially involve you getting a transfusion at some point'. Most people take that kind of thing very seriously, which seems to be the exact opposite of what you're trying to communicate with this analogy.
First, the 60% vote in fact represents a mere label with little or no content.
People write down "CofE" or "RC" in the same way they write down their blood type.
quote:". . . in the same way they write down their blood type." Does anyone really list their grandparents' blood type instead of their own? Seriously, why this analogy? It makes no sense whatsoever. If you're arguing that it's like information on a form you could just as easily use 'name' or 'gender' as things that are often listed on forms, but that makes no sense either because no one substitutes their grandparents' name or gender for their own on a form either!
Originally posted by Kaplan Corday:
quote:And having never formulated any criteria for what Christianity involves, are therefore happy to accept as such someone who puts it down as their religion on an official form without any understanding of it, because it was the religion of their grand-parents . . .
I've never really given the matter the full attention
quote:Well there's Rick Santorum, whose unfortunate internet neologism [slightly NSFW] dates from a 2003 interview when he decried the potential decriminalization of homosexual sex that was at the time being debated at the U.S. Supreme Court. As a sitting U.S. Senator he was certainly "representative" of the Christians of Pennsylvania, at least in the electoral sense of the term. However, since your standard for whether someone is truly Christian is how closely they match the standards of "the hegemonic Christianity of the past" the question of what modern Christians "in the West" believe is irrelevant. "[T]he hegemonic Christianity of the past" almost universally applied criminal penalties to homosexual acts prior to the twentieth century so that is obviously the standard to apply. If you believe modern Christians who are willing to accept the legality of same-sex marriages are an example of why modern Christians are fakes because they deviate from "the hegemonic Christianity of the past", the same reasoning applies to any Christian who supports equal rights for women, the abolition of slavery, or the decriminalization of homosexual sex.
Originally posted by Kaplan Corday:
quote:Straw man.
Originally posted by Crœsos:
. . . your assertion that anyone willing to grant homosexuals the same legal standing as heterosexuals is outside the fold of "Christianity", properly defined by past practice, but that you don't apply the same standards to gender discrimination or forced labor. Note how carefully your above statement is parsed. "[M]ost Christians today" disagree with the sexism and pro-slavery position of past versions of Christianity, but they're still considered "Christians". That's a concession you're apparently unwilling to extend to anyone who deviates from the past Christian practice of legal discrimination against (and presumably jailing and execution of) homosexuals.
I don't know of any Christians, in the West at any rate, however conservative, who want to criminalise homosexuality, and if they do exist they are an unrepresentative minority.
quote:To quote Doctor Johnson in not wholly dissimilar circumstances, "I have provided you with an explanation. I cannot provide you with an understanding".
Originally posted by Crœsos:
Sorry, I'm having trouble following the reasoning of your chosen example.
quote:There is a difference between accepting the legality of SSM and accepting that it is morally right, just as there is a difference between accepting that in a pluralist society there is a right to worship idols and believing that idolatry itself is right.
Originally posted by Crœsos:
If you believe modern Christians who are willing to accept the legality of same-sex marriages
quote:If that's the case, then why cite it as a reason that those who self-identify are doing so falsely? The implication you claim follows from the fact that people list their religion on forms doesn't follow from your claimed analogy, at least as you've explained it above.
Originally posted by Kaplan Corday:
In this case, the analogy is that boxes on a form are filled out simply because that is required by some authority, which carries no implications whatsoever as to any other points of comparability eg sincerity, truth.
quote:If by "doctrinally orthodox in other areas" you mean the same thing as you meant by "the hegemonic Christianity of the past" (can you manage to hold to a consistent standard on this?), then the distinction between "legally right" and "morally right" is not one that would be accepted by Real True Christians™, as you've defined the term. The hegemonic Christianity of the past had no trouble attaching all kinds of penalties to heresy and idolatry.
Originally posted by Kaplan Corday:
quote:There is a difference between accepting the legality of SSM and accepting that it is morally right, just as there is a difference between accepting that in a pluralist society there is a right to worship idols and believing that idolatry itself is right.
Originally posted by Crœsos:
If you believe modern Christians who are willing to accept the legality of same-sex marriages
Even in the West, and overwhelmingly amongst the more numerous Christians outside the West, a belief that SSM is wrong (a different matter from whether it should be legal or not) is the majority position amongst those who are doctrinally orthodox in other areas, and almost certainly will be for the foreseeable future.
quote:Hmm. I guess I should probably stop putting down T-negative, then.
Originally posted by Crœsos:
But most people take their blood type very seriously, especially in situations where official-type people are asking for that information on forms, all of which carries the implication 'whatever you're signing this form for may potentially involve you getting a transfusion at some point'.
quote:I'm suggesting that tolerance is about restraining the urge to try to make other people conform to our own ideas, about giving them the space to speak and act as we would rather they didn't.
Originally posted by Boogie:
quote:That narrative should, imo, include not tolerating the exclusion - by word or deed - of people for who they are rather than what they do.
Originally posted by Russ:
So the argument goes that if we want that peaceful pluralist society we have to have some curbs or sanctions on the parts that want to dictate to the whole. Some intolerance of intolerance. Some shared meta-narrative of multiple religions and multiple political groupings respecting each other's existence while pursuing their own narratives. And arguing for their perspectives in the public forum within a well-defined framework that is not itself up for grabs.
quote:While this is true, it is also true that some ideas have a rather greater affinity for giving other views the right to be heard.
Originally posted by Russ:
So that firstly it's about process rather than content - more or less any belief can be held tolerantly or Intolerantly, according to whether we seek to impose it on others and make it mandatory for them, or whether we merely advocate it within a framework where the other person's ideas have as much right to be heard as our own.
quote:I don't think this is about tolerance, I think it's about attitude.
Originally posted by Russ:
For example, one can imagine an intrinsically-good belief such as the belief that it's a good thing to give money to animal welfare charities becoming a bad thing when it is held intolerantly. What would we think of a private or State body that monitors how much you give to such charities and seeks to pressure you into giving more by insult (telling you what scum you are because you haven't donated much this week) or threat (we'll sue you unless...) ?
quote:Filling in a form because you are required to do so in itself says nothing one way or the other about the value of the responses, but there is evidence from elsewhere, ie churchgoing statistics, to question the meaningfulness of the religion responses.
Originally posted by Crœsos:
cite it as a reason that those who self-identify are doing so falsely?
quote:Which is not the same as saying that this was integral to orthodoxy, otherwise you would have to argue that the RC and Orthodox Churches no longer subscribe to Nicene Christianity because they no longer persecute Arians.
The hegemonic Christianity of the past had no trouble attaching all kinds of penalties to heresy and idolatry.
quote:Is the idea that children should be protected (by not being exposed to some of the ideas that circulate in the adult world until they're of an age when they can deal with them) necessarily an intolerant idea ?
Originally posted by Dafyd:
If someone argues that their opponent's views have as much right to be heard as their own, but that children should not be exposed to their opponent's views, then they're contradicting themselves.
quote:And there is a difference between rejecting SSM as morally right, and feeling that the morality of your religion should be binding on people who are not members of your religion, and there is a difference between that rejection and feeling you have to tell the world at every possible juncture that you so reject it.
Originally posted by Kaplan Corday:
quote:There is a difference between accepting the legality of SSM and accepting that it is morally right, just as there is a difference between accepting that in a pluralist society there is a right to worship idols and believing that idolatry itself is right.
Originally posted by Crœsos:
If you believe modern Christians who are willing to accept the legality of same-sex marriages
quote:It is the banner to which they rally the troops. By any estimate, people wishing to enter an SSM are a small percentage of the population. A constant other that divorce, permiscuity, etc. doesn't have.
Originally posted by mousethief:
What makes homosexuality and SSM so very different?
I submit that it is the religious Zeitgeist. Homosexuality is the sin of the week, and denouncing it is fashionable among the religious right, and this fashion, and the tribalism that comes from it and prompts it (i.e. if you don't renounce teh gayz loudly and publicly you're not "one of us") that drives the behavior we see.
quote:Innocence <> ignorance.
Originally posted by Russ:
Is the idea that children should be protected (by not being exposed to some of the ideas that circulate in the adult world until they're of an age when they can deal with them) necessarily an intolerant idea ?
I would have thought it possible to value both innocence in children and tolerance in adults.
![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
quote:Speaking as one who was raised just this way in early childhood, it is of mixed value. I had the wonderful experience of seeing people for who they were, everyone was us, no thems. But the shock,of the real world is a difficult transition that not everyone makes well.
Originally posted by Soror Magna:
Pretend that there's no such thing as racism until they're a certain age?
quote:It depends on whether the ideas you don't want children exposed to include your own ideas on the subject.
Originally posted by Russ:
quote:Is the idea that children should be protected (by not being exposed to some of the ideas that circulate in the adult world until they're of an age when they can deal with them) necessarily an intolerant idea ?
Originally posted by Dafyd:
If someone argues that their opponent's views have as much right to be heard as their own, but that children should not be exposed to their opponent's views, then they're contradicting themselves.
I would have thought it possible to value both innocence in children and tolerance in adults.
quote:You have to live in the real world.
Originally posted by Russ:
Is the idea that children should be protected (by not being exposed to some of the ideas that circulate in the adult world until they're of an age when they can deal with them) necessarily an intolerant idea ?
I would have thought it possible to value both innocence in children and tolerance in adults.
quote:Depends what you mean by binding.
Originally posted by mousethief:
And there is a difference between rejecting SSM as morally right, and feeling that the morality of your religion should be binding on people who are not members of your religion
quote:Not sure to what religious traditions (Catholic, Orthodox, Evangelical), and to which countries, your "religious right" refers, but what you write bears very little relation to the conservative Protestantism with which I am familiar.
I submit that it is the religious Zeitgeist. Homosexuality is the sin of the week, and denouncing it is fashionable among the religious right, and this fashion, and the tribalism that comes from it and prompts it (i.e. if you don't renounce teh gayz loudly and publicly you're not "one of us") that drives the behavior we see.
quote:In which we see two things:
Originally posted by Kaplan Corday:
There is a general acceptance of the inevitability of SSM, but the concern is not primarily over its morality or lack thereof, but the possibility of its being made an occasion for the erosion of freedom of speech.
quote:Au contraire.
Originally posted by mousethief:
people who are the apex of the cultural shot-calling
quote:Nor is there any evidence like "churchgoing statistics" offered in your claim that people lie about their religion on forms "the same way they write down their blood type". If your claim is based on church attendance statistics, what do forms have to do with it? This seems like moving the goalposts.
Originally posted by Kaplan Corday:
quote:Filling in a form because you are required to do so in itself says nothing one way or the other about the value of the responses, but there is evidence from elsewhere, ie churchgoing statistics, to question the meaningfulness of the religion responses.
Originally posted by Crœsos:
If that's the case, then why cite it as a reason that those who self-identify are doing so falsely?
There is no outside evidence, such as hospital statistics showing patients misrepresenting their blood types, to question blood type responses.
quote:I probably wouldn't argue that, but someone who claims that the only legitimate form of Christianity is "the hegemonic Christianity of the past" probably would. What I find most interesting is the implication that questions of heresy and idolatry are tangential matters to "Christianity" (properly defined) but using the state to discriminate against and punish homosexuals is "integral to orthodoxy". Most modern Christians would say it's the other way around, which I guess is just further proof that they're not really Christians, having deviated so far from "the hegemonic Christianity of the past"!
Originally posted by Kaplan Corday:
quote:Which is not the same as saying that this was integral to orthodoxy, otherwise you would have to argue that the RC and Orthodox Churches no longer subscribe to Nicene Christianity because they no longer persecute Arians.
The hegemonic Christianity of the past had no trouble attaching all kinds of penalties to heresy and idolatry.
quote:How is that possible, given that anti-homosexuality is so "integral to orthodoxy"?
Originally posted by Kaplan Corday:
Within [the conservative Protestantism with which I am familiar] there are individuals with a great deal to say about homosexuality and SSM, but the vast majority of Christians with whom I have anything to do very rarely mention either, and the topic is rarely preached on.
quote:What's really interesting about this strand of argument is that in every jurisdiction that has hate speech laws (which are a bad idea in general terms, but that's another topic) such laws are always written to cover religious defamation. In other words, those moaning about the "erosion of freedom of speech" had no problem with such laws when they were the beneficiaries. It was only when such laws were extended to cover sexual orientation as well that we started to hear all this moaning about "the erosion of freedom of speech". In other words this literally an example of Christian privilege (i.e. "private law") in action. "Legal protection for me but not for thee."
Originally posted by Kaplan Corday:
There is a general acceptance of the inevitability of SSM, but the concern is not primarily over its morality or lack thereof, but the possibility of its being made an occasion for the erosion of freedom of speech.
quote:I have never said that people deliberately "lie" about their religion in this context.
Originally posted by Crœsos:
Nor is there any evidence like "churchgoing statistics" offered in your claim that people lie about their religion on forms
quote:Which is precisely the opposite of what I said, and illustrated for you with the Arian/Nicene quote to help you understand it.
questions of heresy and idolatry are tangential matters to "Christianity" (properly defined) but using the state to discriminate against and punish homosexuals is "integral to orthodoxy".
quote:You are being disingenuous.
How is that possible, given that anti-homosexuality is so "integral to orthodoxy"?
quote:Phew, that's a relief!
such laws are always written to cover religious defamation.
quote:ISTM, it answers questions as to your definitions more than anything else.
Originally posted by Kaplan Corday:
Re statistics, over 60% of Australians put down a denomonational label, but far fewer than 10% attend church regularly which, at the very least, raises questions about how much they understand the implications of their label.
quote:That sounds fair, but I don't think it works in practice.
Originally posted by Dafyd:
quote:It depends on whether the ideas you don't want children exposed to include your own ideas on the subject.
Originally posted by Russ:
quote:I would have thought it possible to value both innocence in children and tolerance in adults.
Originally posted by Dafyd:
If someone argues that their opponent's views have as much right to be heard as their own, but that children should not be exposed to their opponent's views, then they're contradicting themselves.
quote:
An intolerant sabbatarian wants Sabbath-keeping to be imposed on others, to form part of the framework of law. (Just as Boogie wants her private political beliefs around the ideas of inclusion and equality to form part of the framework of law.)
![[Killing me]](graemlins/killingme.gif)
quote:Please, let's. Now, without bringing gods and belief systems into it, explain why the state should decide whether or not people can shop on Friday / Saturday / Sunday*. Explain to me why the state should require my Muslim dentist to work on Fridays but forbid him to work on Sunday.
Originally posted by Russ:
That sounds fair, but I don't think it works in practice.
Take as an example belief in keeping the Sabbath as a day free from certain activities ....
quote:As Boogie has said, her beliefs are hardly private. Private political beliefs is something of an oxymoron. In any case, political beliefs in inequality and exclusion are ipso facto intolerant. You can't hold political beliefs about inequality or exclusion in a tolerant spirit.
Originally posted by Russ:
quote:That sounds fair, but I don't think it works in practice.
Originally posted by Dafyd:
quote:It depends on whether the ideas you don't want children exposed to include your own ideas on the subject.
Originally posted by Russ:
I would have thought it possible to value both innocence in children and tolerance in adults.
Take as an example belief in keeping the Sabbath as a day free from certain activities.
An intolerant sabbatarian wants Sabbath-keeping to be imposed on others, to form part of the framework of law. (Just as Boogie wants her private political beliefs around the ideas of inclusion and equality to form part of the framework of law.)
quote:That's all very well, but it's got nothing to do with innocence.
The tolerant sabbatarian's children will, when they're old enough, be told something like "we believe that we are respecting God and His Word by not shopping on Sunday, but other people don't believe it. We cannot make them believe it and it would be wrong to try by any means other than reasoned persuasion." Before they're old enough for that, they'll probably grow up thinking that shopping on Sundays is bad.
quote:We deal with them by discussing/chatting/arguing reasonably, yes?
Originally posted by Russ:
Because tolerance is about process not content, about how we deal with those who don't agree with our ideas.
quote:I don't think that's a standard sense of 'private'.
Originally posted by Russ:
quote:They're private in the sense of not-universally-shared. In much the same way that belief in Sabbath-keeping is corporate within a group or sub-culture without being universally shared.
Originally posted by Dafyd:
As Boogie has said, her beliefs are hardly private. Private political beliefs is something of an oxymoron.
quote:I don't think that distinction between process and content holds. It would be comic for a Stalinist to assert that he thinks all kulaks should go to the gulags but only if they agree.
And - as with most beliefs about how one thinks the world should be ordered - it seems to me entirely possible to hold such ideas tolerantly (as a guide to one's own action, and as what one recommends to others that they choose to adopt) or intolerantly (as something that should be imposed on those who don't agree).
Because tolerance is about process not content, about how we deal with those who don't agree with our ideas.
quote:The alternative seems to be that the market requires him to work on Fridays?
Originally posted by Soror Magna:
Now, without bringing gods and belief systems into it, explain why the state should decide whether or not people can shop on Friday / Saturday / Sunday*. Explain to me why the state should require my Muslim dentist to work on Fridays but forbid him to work on Sunday.
quote:Some is. Some content is inherently non-tolerant. "Those people should not be allowed to live in this country" is content. It is also not tolerant. Disproving your claim.
Originally posted by Russ:
Because tolerance is about process not content,
quote:As it happens, my dentist works every other Saturday, which would also be a problem for some religions.
Originally posted by Dafyd:
The alternative seems to be that the market requires him to work on Fridays?
I think I trust the state to make allowances for minority groups more than I trust the market to do so.
quote:How is that likely? If a dentist offers appointments Sunday - Thursday, do you really think he's likely to have a load of potential customers go elsewhere because they all really want to get their teeth done ready for a big weekend?
Originally posted by Dafyd:
The alternative seems to be that the market requires him to work on Fridays?
quote:No, I don't think so. Every time we have an election, the pollsters discover a load of "shy tories" who vote Conservative, but won't admit it to a pollster. They probably don't admit it down the pub either.
Originally posted by Dafyd:
Private political beliefs is something of an oxymoron.
quote:Secret political beliefs?
Originally posted by Leorning Cniht:
Every time we have an election, the pollsters discover a load of "shy tories" who vote Conservative, but won't admit it to a pollster.
What do these people have if not "private political beliefs"?
quote:It's true. I still don't think that an absence of state compulsion is automatically more free. I certainly don't trust the market left to its own devices to protect the people with the least power. Rather the reverse.
Originally posted by Soror Magna:
You can't please everybody in a pluralist society.
quote:I acknowledged previously that the process/content distinction isn't logically watertight because one can form a belief about a process.
Originally posted by mousethief:
quote:Some is. Some content is inherently non-tolerant. "Those people should not be allowed to live in this country" is content. It is also not tolerant. Disproving your claim.
Originally posted by Russ:
Because tolerance is about process not content,