Opening the Gates

Sean, whenever I debate, I DO get very competetive. I know that it's not a competition, but debating requires a certain level of zeal.

Thank you for your friendship and your compliments.

I would love to add a smile or an explanation of my feelings to all of my posts, but I think it weakens my argument when I write something like "Rape is unconscionable and unforgivable ". Do you know what I mean?

I'd also like to posit a bit of advice: do not heed my example. If you believe in the Force, cultivate that belief. My thought process is my own, and I would hate to compel you to think differently. I also hope that you keep this message in mind in future posts; don't let intimidate you!

But in regards to the topic, i'd like to speak to ren's defense. I don't pretend to know what he thinks when he posts something, but I seriously doubt he was COMPARING sitting in church to being raped. It's simply, as far as I know, a more radical example that you might be able to understand better. Try to conceptualize it like this: would you ask a holocaust survivor to sit in the same room as someone named Hitler, if they knew he was there? Even if it isn't the Hitler we all know? Would you blame them if they didn't want to?

Instead of jumping to dismiss people's posts, you should try to analyze their argument objectively, and then decide what to write (which isn't to say that you jump to conclusions or don't perceive things objectively).

Wendaline wrote: You're right. It can be really hard to defy what your family, friends, authority figures want for or from you, but becoming bitter over it doesn't help either. The fact is there are some things in life that we will experience that we don't like. Disrespecting others just doesn't help the situation. It's a weird lesson and maybe not always a right one (sometimes there are battles to fight) but learning it really does help. I'm just now figuring it out and it has saved me soooooooooo much trouble.

P.S. We are all telling each other what we should or shouldn't do by asking these questions and pointing out what we think is false reasoning.

Becoming bitter over it isn't always something people can help. It's easy to fall into a bout of negativity, and incredibly difficult to climb out of it. Though it is true that being negative is a choice.

Logic isn't my opinion, it's universal. When I asked him those questions, I was challenging his beliefs, not flaunting my own. Is it wrong to tell a heroine addict that they shouldn't be using drugs? Isn't survival a human imperative? Logic dictates that the purpose of life is, among other things, assuring the continuity of the species. Since heroine is so dangerous, and often fatal, it's reasonable to argue that you shouldn't do it. This is what makes logic unique; it is not an opinion, but a thought process.

Though, I do see your point. Not everyone practices logic, and that's fine. But there is a difference between imposing your beliefs on someone, and introducing them to someone.

Angelus wrote: Becoming bitter over it isn't always something people can help. It's easy to fall into a bout of negativity, and incredibly difficult to climb out of it. Though it is true that being negative is a choice.

Logic isn't my opinion, it's universal. When I asked him those questions, I was challenging his beliefs, not flaunting my own. Is it wrong to tell a heroine addict that they shouldn't be using drugs? Isn't survival a human imperative? Logic dictates that the purpose of life is, among other things, assuring the continuity of the species. Since heroine is so dangerous, and often fatal, it's reasonable to argue that you shouldn't do it. This is what makes logic unique; it is not an opinion, but a thought process.

Though, I do see your point. Not everyone practices logic, and that's fine. But there is a difference between imposing your beliefs on someone, and introducing them to someone.

Maybe this is an illogical thing to say, but I'm not so sure I agree that logic is universal. Sure, there are some things that the logic is easily understood (ABC), but philosophically there can be more than one logical viewpoint.

By challenging his beliefs with your questions you could be giving glimpses into what you believe. By telling a heroine addict that he or she shouldn't shoot up aren't you implying heroine is bad? And who's to say it is (I believe it is but philosophically...)? It all depends on what their goal is. Maybe the goal is suicide.

As for imposing vs. introducing, wouldn't that again be based on a viewpoint? I might think I'm introducing something in a friendly way, but the person I'm talking to might believe I'm imposing on him or her.

Wendaline wrote: Maybe this is an illogical thing to say, but I'm not so sure I agree that logic is universal. Sure, there are some things that the logic is easily understood (ABC), but philosophically there can be more than one logical viewpoint.

Logic is the product of objectivity. It surpasses socio-cultural values and beliefs. This is what I mean when I say that it's universal. But what about mathematical logic? In equations, only one solution is correct. The process may vary, but only one conclusion logically follows.

Wendaline wrote: By challenging his beliefs with your questions you could be giving glimpses into what you believe. By telling a heroine addict that he or she shouldn't shoot up aren't you implying heroine is bad? And who's to say it is (I believe it is but philosophically...)? It all depends on what their goal is. Maybe the goal is suicide.

But while I may intimate my own beliefs, I never say that mine are superior or correct, nor do I suggest that he should think the same way I do. Logically, i'd still argue that heroine is a bad thing, as is suicide. And i'm not familiar with any branch of philosophy that debates the use of heroine. Morally and logically, I can think of no valid argument that supports drug abuse or suicide. Though, I concede the fact that it is a matter of choice/preference. It is true that people do these things of their own volition.

Wendaline wrote: As for imposing vs. introducing, wouldn't that again be based on a viewpoint? I might think I'm introducing something in a friendly way, but the person I'm talking to might believe I'm imposing on him or her.

Following conventional standards for rational discourse, i'd disagree with you on this as well. Semantically, I can't see anything in my last few posts suggesting that my views are superior, or worthy of greater consideration. In another thread, I discussed Gobel's incompleteness theorems, namely the second, which states that any effectively generated argument that states it's own consistency is inconsistent. I could be wrong, but I believe that I avoided definitive statements and sweeping generalizations. I am not infallible, but in debating logic, opinion takes the "back seat".

However, in your scenario, it IS a matter of viewpoint.

Wendaline wrote:

ren wrote:

For example, there's this atheist classmate who, in every mandatory chapel session, constantly whispers to the guy next to him, "that couldn't happen....that's fake...that's the truth for messed up people."

Are you saying that this guy should enjoy it/ remain silent? It's not as if he chooses to be there. You'll tell me the guy could just sit there, not listen, play on his gameboy... But would you ask this of someone who is being raped?

Are you actually comparing that with rape? haha Wow! I once was made to go to a Catholic school where I had a Jewish friend who also attended. She didn't become snarky or rude during mass. She sat quietly and studied her school work, listened to the service, or daydreamed. She was so very polite and respectful of another culture, and it showed what a good person she is. You don't have to agree with what's being said, but you don't have to ruin another's experience either. The kid next to that boy might actually want to listen to what's being said in the chapel session.

It's not rape. The boy could most likely get up and walk out if he's so inclined, ask his parents to enroll him in a public school, rebel and get expelled if it's indeed comparable to rape. Or is he held down? Strapped to the chair? Oh wait I know, it's a knife, right, being held to his neck? "Come on, cupcake, you know you want it. This chapel will make you feel gooood."

His freedom of conscience was being violated. freedom of conscience is a human right. If you talk to rape victims (and people who help rape victims), you'll quickly find that they feel integrity of the mind is more important than that of the body. the whole "therapy" thing they do seems centered around "don't let your mind be violated".

So, yeah. I am comparing the two.

Concerning the "tolerate your oppressor" thing, no thanks. To tolerate the intolerant is to be the most intolerant of all!

Logic is the product of objectivity. It surpasses socio-cultural values and beliefs. This is what I mean when I say that it's universal. But what about mathematical logic? In equations, only one solution is correct. The process may vary, but only one conclusion logically follows.

I agree. In mathematics there is usually only one correct answer. There are, however, different branches of logic (or so I've been told).

But while I may intimate my own beliefs, I never say that mine are superior or correct, nor do I suggest that he should think the same way I do. Logically, i'd still argue that heroine is a bad thing, as is suicide. And i'm not familiar with any branch of philosophy that debates the use of heroine. Morally and logically, I can think of no valid argument that supports drug abuse or suicide. Though, I concede the fact that it is a matter of choice/preference. It is true that people do these things of their own volition.

No, you don't flat out say, "my beliefs are better!" (never said that you did) but by questioning another persons beliefs you are asking them to consider that they are wrong, which could come across as implying that they are wrong.

Following conventional standards for rational discourse, i'd disagree with you on this as well. Semantically, I can't see anything in my last few posts suggesting that my views are superior, or worthy of greater consideration. In another thread, I discussed Gobel's incompleteness theorems, namely the second, which states that any effectively generated argument that states it's own consistency is inconsistent. I could be wrong, but I believe that I avoided definitive statements and sweeping generalizations. I am not infallible, but in debating logic, opinion takes the "back seat".

However, in your scenario, it IS a matter of viewpoint.

I guess we both read things into each others post that neither of us said. I never said you felt your views were superior. I just said that we all, to some point, tell one another (or imply somehow) how to act. I wasn't berating anybody, I was just pointing it out. But I have enjoyed discussing all this with you. Maybe when I log on again tomorrow another fun topic will emerge.

ren wrote: His freedom of conscience was being violated. freedom of conscience is a human right. If you talk to rape victims (and people who help rape victims), you'll quickly find that they feel integrity of the mind is more important than that of the body. the whole "therapy" thing they do seems centered around "don't let your mind be violated".

So, yeah. I am comparing the two.

Concerning the "tolerate your oppressor" thing, no thanks. To tolerate the intolerant is to be the most intolerant of all!

Hmm, maybe but maybe not. We can choose how to think, we can choose to listen, and we can choose to act. The boy didn't have to listen, he didn't have to sit in the room, he didn't have to do anything. Though, I agree it's hard to disobey authority sometimes, and there are most likely consequences, but I don't believe he was being mind raped. Everybody hears or experiences things they don't like in life, school, whatever. It happens. The choice is yours to internalize it, dwell on it, or let it go.

It just surprises me, I guess, how many people seem to think they or others are being "oppressed." Whatever happened to self responsibility and independence? Just because someone tells you something doesn't mean you have to listen and believe. How many times have you tuned out somebody while they were talking because you were thinking of something else?

There's a lot more I could say, but darn it this time I will log off. Have a nice evening.

Wendaline wrote:
You're right. It can be really hard to defy what your family, friends, authority figures want for or from you, but becoming bitter over it doesn't help either. The fact is there are some things in life that we will experience that we don't like. Disrespecting others just doesn't help the situation.

See the bold - I agree with Wendaline's statements in full. (Good teamwork

Angelus wrote: But in regards to the topic, i'd like to speak to ren's defense. I don't pretend to know what he thinks when he posts something, but I seriously doubt he was COMPARING sitting in church to being raped. It's simply, as far as I know, a more radical example that you might be able to understand better. Try to conceptualize it like this: would you ask a holocaust survivor to sit in the same room as someone named Hitler, if they knew he was there? Even if it isn't the Hitler we all know? Would you blame them if they didn't want to?

Instead of jumping to dismiss people's posts, you should try to analyze their argument objectively, and then decide what to write (which isn't to say that you jump to conclusions or don't perceive things objectively).

True.

ren wrote:
His freedom of conscience was being violated. freedom of conscience is a human right. If you talk to rape victims (and people who help rape victims), you'll quickly find that they feel integrity of the mind is more important than that of the body. the whole "therapy" thing they do seems centered around "don't let your mind be violated".

So, yeah. I am comparing the two.

Concerning the "tolerate your oppressor" thing, no thanks. To tolerate the intolerant is to be the most intolerant of all!

I find that in life we encounter things we dont like or peapole with ideas that we disaprove of so strongly that we get angry, maybe lose our cool, maybe just walk away, whatever. Is THIS not a violation of our mind? I think it is, at least in comparison to the situation.
Sometimes our minds do get violated. I dont mean to say we should agree just becouse we feel we dont have the right to tell whats wrong and whats right. Honestly i dont think we have to accept such an idea as a rational or even accepteble idea.
But just becouse you feel that you have been violated doesnt give you the right to violate others. You have the right to defend yourself against your violator, but preferebly just by avoiding him/her.
Isnt it a common agreement in this community to take an as peaceful way as possible? and to do as little harm as possible?
Im sure that the priest didnt mean to violate the young boys mind. and im quite sure no one meant any harm. But still harm was inflicted, in my honest opinion, mainly becouse his own perception of the matter. Does that give him the right to violate others minds?
How would the world look if we felt given the right to hurt others every time we felt hurt ourselves, even if no one ment to hurt us? Gandhi said: -An eye for an eye makes the world blind.

A thought comes to mind that first came to me when i was the firsthand witness to a horrible car accident. A woman had hit a man on a bike and he got hurt pretty badly. A bit in shocked myself, and knowing that theres really nothing anyone can say to make the pain go away. the only thing i could think of to say to the woman was something i find to be very true about most mishaps in life.

- "No one means for things like this to happen. But they happen anyway."

A question is.. if the goal is to try to prevent a negative situation to happen again. Should we do so in a destructive mannor or in a constructive one?

Sorry for preaching, sorry for rambeling.

With respect..