posted
Abstinence is the hard thing and its noble to want to keep that moral. However, I think its pretty clear that we've proven we can't -- even the most religious with the best of intentions and morality. What, practically, should we be doing then, to promote sexual morality as you see it? But there is the trouble -- who decides those "wrong behaviors?"
Posts: 1777 | Registered: Jan 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
You miss a major theme in all three sample cases -- your movie experience, abortion, AND homosexuality -- and it's a huge flaw in your argument:
What you consider harmful may not be perceived as harmful by someone else.
Ergo, the people complaining about being yelled at during the movie were upset not because they were treated badly, but because they didn't perceive their behavior as excessive and/or deserving of that treatment. Many pro-choicers do not believe they're ending a human life, and are endlessly confused and insulted by arguments that say they are. And most homosexuals, not granting that their behavior is harmful to society, are directly insulted by individuals who suggest otherwise.
In other words, it's not the "gee, let's do this about this bad behavior" that's the problem; it's that ANYTHING is being done about this behavior, which the other group doesn't believe needs to be redressed at all.
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
Alas, that is much easier said than done. Many times it is the majority's rule to disenfranchise the minority. Satyagraha
Posts: 359 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:Ergo, the people complaining about being yelled at during the movie were upset not because they were treated badly, but because they didn't perceive their behavior as excessive and/or deserving of that treatment. Many pro-choicers do not believe they're ending a human life, and are endlessly confused and insulted by arguments that say they are. And most homosexuals, not granting that their behavior is harmful to society, are directly insulted by individuals who suggest otherwise.
I actually said this several times in my article, the point of this argument is not if it's wrong or not, people disagree on that, the point is if it's wrong, what should we do about it? I was pretty specific on this.
posted
Let's just say that when I began reading your page, I thought the theme was going a totally different direction than what it did by the end of the essay.
posted
Yah, that's the problem is I don't write in article format, I write more stream-of conciousness, I may have a predefined goal in mind but I tend to get sidetracked by new things I find along the way. It's more like an adventure than a read.
Tom, the reason that hit one of my buttons is the number of times I said exactly that.
quote:This issue is not of interest to me, nor is it related to this article, but its off-shoot argument is. If we assume that homosexuality is detrimental to society, significantly so (and no, you don’t have to assume that in the rest of your life, we’re just doing so for the purposes of investigating the consequences of such an assumption)
quote:Now I’d like to reiterate, the truthfulness of this moral view is not a necessity for this argument, we’re assuming the view is truthful, even if you believe differently this argument isn’t changed.
posted
Hobbes, I think that if you are going to write about responsibility and in doing so you are going to say that it is justifiable to make homosexuals repress themselves and that abortion in non-rape cases is irresponsible, you are just going to have to deal with the fact that people are going to take issue with your examples, even if you also say that the base morality is not the point. Especially when you say things like being anti-homosexuality is "a moral view on homosexuality."
Posts: 4534 | Registered: Jan 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
"the point is if it's wrong, what should we do about it?"
But MY point isn't that people are offended by the suggested solutions, the "constructive" ideas meant to resolve the issue; they're offended by the suggestion that what they're doing is wrong in the first place.
You can't say "X shouldn't complain about being offended" or "it's regrettable that we're so concerned about offending people" without acknowledging that people have a legitimate RIGHT to be offended if you're challenging their actions from a set of premises they don't share.
If we could prove that being Mormon was bad for society, should Mormons be offended if we suggested locking them away in some desolate corner of Utah?
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
quote:These are some of the questions that get thrown at anyone who holds a moral view on homosexuality.
You're right, that could be taken the wrong way, it should instead read this:
quote:These are some of the questions that get thrown at anyone who holds a negative moral view on homosexuality.
Was that you're complaint?
quote:But MY point isn't that people are offended by the suggested solutions, the "constructive" ideas meant to resolve the issue; they're offended by the suggestion that what they're doing is wrong in the first place.
Tom, I spent practically 1/5th of the entire article being specific that these were abstract examples and that we should not, nor do I expect us to accept the assumption that any of those actions where morally wrong. I was asking the question "if they were wrong, then what?" I was offering a solution to the reality in which those things are wrong, and I spent lots of time being absolutley explicit that I was not trying to rpoove, nor do I necessarily even think that this abstract reality was our reality.
quote:You can't say "X shouldn't complain about being offended" or "it's regrettable that we're so concerned about offending people" without acknowledging that people have a legitimate RIGHT to be offended if you're challenging their actions from a set of premises they don't share.
Once again, I was incredibly specific that the premises on which I was making my case were not widley accepted, nor valid assumptions. I wasn't trying to get people to agree that homosexuals should try to repress their view on life, nor that abortion should be stopped, I was saying if it is true that they are wrong then we should do something about it.
You're pushing my buttons here, I was incredibly careful to not say it was wrong, nor imply that everyone believed it was, nor imply that anyone believed it was, and you seem to keep insiting that I tried to make people take assumptions that I specifically said they don't have to believe.
Like starting out with "what if healthy grass was naturally purple?" No one actually has to think healthy grass is purple, but if it was then... well no one starts off with that because you can't really learn anything by investigating that possiblity, but I would hope that people didn't accuse me of trying to get people to believe grass really was naturally purple.
quote: If we could prove that being Mormon was bad for society, should Mormons be offended if we suggested locking them away in some desolate corner of Utah?
Well my main theme was personal responsibility, which based on the assumption (and to explicit here, not an assumption you're supposed to believe in) that a speficic action was wrong, you should stop that action despite the unhappieness it causes you, though I did include some specific mentions of society enforcing right and wrong. So if I thought that being Mormon was wrong, then despite the fact that it would cause be great personal pain, I should stop being Mormon. If all of society thought that being Mormon was determinetal and wrong then society should act to try and stop it.
And before anyone says something about how that's exactly what society did to Mormons and now we all see it as wrong, I'll be perfectly explicit. The assumption is two-fold, as I mentioned in the article. One is that all of society thinks that something is determinetal to it's overall health, and two is that changing it will cause overall less damage then letting it continue. I don't think our case would meet either of these two assumptions, so the idea remains abstract, but should it meet both, then yes, I think society would be justified.
If SOCIETY thinks it's wrong, and you DON'T think it's wrong, are you right to be offended by the assertion that it's wrong -- or is that offense, as your essay suggests, a petty personal flaw that you should just get over?
I wasn't attempting to argue abortion or homosexuality with you, Hobbes. I was specifically pointing out that the three examples you used in which you suggested that people should be less offended are examples of exactly when, IMO, taking offense would be appropriate.
posted
Well OK, we're closer now. I was absolutley not saying anything about who should be offended and not offended (though that's something else, I find the concept of getting offended rather odd, I get mad, sad, happy, joyful, and various other things, but offended seems more like... well this is a rant for another time ). Absolultey, if you think it's right and everyone else thinks it's wrong then you shouldn't give in, you should keep it up. This is something I should've been more explicit about, so thanks for pointing it out.
Here's my whole point in a nutshell (writting these articles is really a learning process for me, english is a like a second language for me and I've never been that good at explaining myself to other people so this is good practice):
When you're doing something wrong and either your told to stop it, or you think you should stop it, freedom of choice is just a way of avoiding an issue that should be dealt with. And I feel that our societal trends seem to be that personal responsibilty is no longer important, and personal gratification is taking over.
posted
In the future [of these articles] I plan on figuring out what I want to say and then sticking to it [instead of leaving the main point stuck somewhere in the begining of it and building to nothing].
posted
I sorta have an opinion about this idea that may be similar, or not, but here it is.
Right and wrong aside, I feel frustrated that I can't suggest that homosexuality may be a psychological phenomenon that can be prevented or stopped because people become so infuriated that I have suggested something bad about the way they live. All offense aside, why isn't it something worth talking about? Why is the question ignored because someone is too annoyed to think about the answer?
I mean, people here at Hatrack have no problem suggesting that they think that believing in a higher power is a psychosis, severe form of brainwashing, or similar. Why does it only work one way?
Posts: 6367 | Registered: Aug 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
"I can't suggest that homosexuality may be a psychological phenomenon that can be prevented or stopped because people become so infuriated that I have suggested something bad about the way they live."
It is within our power to make sure that every single child born in this country is caucasian in appearance. We can fix all the minorities! Why would anyone find this offensive? After all, it would eliminate a lot of problems.
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
I don't think there's anything wrong with being offended, but why must that stop you from considering another point of view, even if it sounds ridiculous? That's how new ideas get out. Many of them may be wrong, but one or two may be right.
Posts: 6367 | Registered: Aug 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
"Well, Planned Parenthood is the most successful organization in this respect."
While I share your views on this subject, I should point out that this IS a genuine digression. (And, of course, even WITH abortion legal, that doesn't mean that poor minorities still don't have the highest birthrates in the developed world.)
posted
Tom, I was wondering if you had an opinion on what I said before? Would it be wrong, or at least very rude, to suggest that believing in a higher power is a symptom of a psychosis or brainwashing?
Posts: 6367 | Registered: Aug 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote: When you're doing something wrong and either your told to stop it, or you think you should stop it, freedom of choice is just a way of avoiding an issue that should be dealt with.
Call me a humanist (?), but I always thought freedom of choice, provided no harm came to anyone else, was perfectly fine. I might not make your choice, but if it doesn't hurt me or anyone around me, please let me choose.
Posts: 1813 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Why do personal responsibility and personal gratification have to be in conflict with each other? I personally gratify myself as often as possible, but I feel I live a fairly (edit: certainly not completely, although I try) responsible life. I pay my taxes, am not promiscuous, give the bums a dollar if they ask, attempt to support local businesses over chains, etc. Not that I do not see my friends and peers behaving in manners I consider irresponsible, but my personal concept of responsibility is that it cannot be enforced upon another. I have a hard enough time being living up to my own standards without trying to push them upon those who disagree.
Of course, when someone tells you to be responsible, they usually mean do what they say, more or less.
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Embarrassed]](redface.gif)
