![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
silveradeptThere will be cuttage, just thought I'd let you know.
Okay, here's the setup. My dearest friend![[livejournal.com profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/external/lj-userinfo.gif)
miyabiarashi had some links to a post of someone expressing their opinion about homosexuals and morality. The place was degenerating quickly into a fiery doom, and I restrained myself from trying to provide something useful, although she and I did (and are) talk about it over Aye Em. But, the large amount of flame had me think up an excellent question, which I posed.
Question 1: Do the "enlightened" adopt a condescending attitude toward the intolerant? If so, does that really accomplish anything? Or is that being intolerant to the intolerant?
An excellent response byfromaway asked me whether there's a difference between being intolerant of someone because of his/her public behavior and being intolerant of someone because of who he or she fundamentally is. There is. It's the semantics between respect and tolerance. We may not respect someone because they've just said something incredibly boneheaded. But we still tolerate their presence... it's not like we believe because of such a stupid remark that they, and all who have that opinion, should be erased from the face of the earth.
Or, rather, we shouldn't. (Thinking about it produces the realization that... well, that last statement was pretty accurate.) We should be trying to make the less desirable opinions into things that are desirable. We should be trying to show, in the many myriad ways, that the opinion being held is incorrect and trying to get someone to understand the incorrectness of it. If they continue to hold that opinion, then they may not garner respect, but one should still be willing to let them exist as a fellow human being, if a bit misguided.
However, in the shower this morning, after poring through the comments and responses, another idea came to mind, following this one's lead.
Question 2: If there are such opinions being formed, is it the fault of the Enlightened or of the Intolerant?
The answer I cam up with was that the Enlightened are at fault. Why? Either they :
a) Forgot to emphasize the conditions of their statements
.
-or-
b) Failed to be clear enough that their statements could be made into proper maxims.
Explaining a) is easy. We've seen problems where, through flawless logic, things that are not true in mathematics are made to be so. (Such as things like 0=1) By manipulating the numbers using formulae correctly, but without regard to the conditions under which the formula can be used, they produce erroneous results. It's not a fault of the logic, it's because the conditions are not emphasized properly to prevent the operation from being done.
The Bible may be a major example of this. Everyone has their interpretation, all possibly correct. There are no parameters that make the formulae useful and able to be properly used. It's not "Love thy neighbor, except if he's a Samaritan or a homosexual." With wiggle room, all sorts of insanities can be done using the source material. We've heard many reports about how some terrorists use the Quaran out of context to justify themselves. Christians are doing, and have done, the same.
b) is a little bit harder to explain. However, we have plenty of excellent examples to draw from, so hopefully I'll be able to forge my way through.
Murphy's Law is a classic example of b). Quoting, (from this site... Murphy's Law is such:
One day, after finding that a transducer was wired wrong, Murphy cursed the technician responsible and said, "If there is any way to do it wrong, he'll find it."
That's a pretty far cry from what we have as Murphy's Law today: "If anything can go wrong, it will." That's b) in a nutshell. Somebody mistranslated, ("All Your Base Are Belong To Us") misinterpreted, or otherwise botched the original when trying to make it something nice and mnemonic. It then becomes the duty of the Enlightened, who know the true original, to set things straight and possibly come up with a better maxim or a corollary to make the intent correct and the maxim properly useful.
Anyway, that's my big philosophical self at the moment. Probably more to come as the responses and ripostes come a’ flying through my sphere of existence. Be forewarned, however. If I feel that you're flaming or not contributing, I have very little hesitation in exercising my authority over my space.
Okay, here's the setup. My dearest friend
miyabiarashi had some links to a post of someone expressing their opinion about homosexuals and morality. The place was degenerating quickly into a fiery doom, and I restrained myself from trying to provide something useful, although she and I did (and are) talk about it over Aye Em. But, the large amount of flame had me think up an excellent question, which I posed. Question 1: Do the "enlightened" adopt a condescending attitude toward the intolerant? If so, does that really accomplish anything? Or is that being intolerant to the intolerant?
An excellent response by
fromaway asked me whether there's a difference between being intolerant of someone because of his/her public behavior and being intolerant of someone because of who he or she fundamentally is. There is. It's the semantics between respect and tolerance. We may not respect someone because they've just said something incredibly boneheaded. But we still tolerate their presence... it's not like we believe because of such a stupid remark that they, and all who have that opinion, should be erased from the face of the earth. Or, rather, we shouldn't. (Thinking about it produces the realization that... well, that last statement was pretty accurate.) We should be trying to make the less desirable opinions into things that are desirable. We should be trying to show, in the many myriad ways, that the opinion being held is incorrect and trying to get someone to understand the incorrectness of it. If they continue to hold that opinion, then they may not garner respect, but one should still be willing to let them exist as a fellow human being, if a bit misguided.
However, in the shower this morning, after poring through the comments and responses, another idea came to mind, following this one's lead.
Question 2: If there are such opinions being formed, is it the fault of the Enlightened or of the Intolerant?
The answer I cam up with was that the Enlightened are at fault. Why? Either they :
a) Forgot to emphasize the conditions of their statements
.
-or-
b) Failed to be clear enough that their statements could be made into proper maxims.
Explaining a) is easy. We've seen problems where, through flawless logic, things that are not true in mathematics are made to be so. (Such as things like 0=1) By manipulating the numbers using formulae correctly, but without regard to the conditions under which the formula can be used, they produce erroneous results. It's not a fault of the logic, it's because the conditions are not emphasized properly to prevent the operation from being done.
The Bible may be a major example of this. Everyone has their interpretation, all possibly correct. There are no parameters that make the formulae useful and able to be properly used. It's not "Love thy neighbor, except if he's a Samaritan or a homosexual." With wiggle room, all sorts of insanities can be done using the source material. We've heard many reports about how some terrorists use the Quaran out of context to justify themselves. Christians are doing, and have done, the same.
b) is a little bit harder to explain. However, we have plenty of excellent examples to draw from, so hopefully I'll be able to forge my way through.
Murphy's Law is a classic example of b). Quoting, (from this site... Murphy's Law is such:
One day, after finding that a transducer was wired wrong, Murphy cursed the technician responsible and said, "If there is any way to do it wrong, he'll find it."
That's a pretty far cry from what we have as Murphy's Law today: "If anything can go wrong, it will." That's b) in a nutshell. Somebody mistranslated, ("All Your Base Are Belong To Us") misinterpreted, or otherwise botched the original when trying to make it something nice and mnemonic. It then becomes the duty of the Enlightened, who know the true original, to set things straight and possibly come up with a better maxim or a corollary to make the intent correct and the maxim properly useful.
Anyway, that's my big philosophical self at the moment. Probably more to come as the responses and ripostes come a’ flying through my sphere of existence. Be forewarned, however. If I feel that you're flaming or not contributing, I have very little hesitation in exercising my authority over my space.
