Smoking ban

[Yorick]

Originally posted by Chewbacca: Exactly where have I stated that my personal sense of morality is better or worst than anyone elses, even if it differs? How exactly am I unaware. Prove these assertions about me. Prove them or retract.

You have repeatedly spoken of a "higher morality", regarding human rights and equality.
Chewbacca, they are no more or less subjective than any other morality. You personally regard them as causes that justify going against other parts of your moral code, like following laws prohibiting gay marriages for example. However, that's your personal subjective value system, not some universal truth.

Here, I will spell it out so it will be on the record: If you think that intolerance, bigotry, ethnic cleansing, segregation, inequality, ect. are some how morally high, then you've got me...I think my 'morality' , including the conscious practice of tolerance, is higher than people who have or support any of those qualities. Am I all alone in this perspective of being moral? I think not. Lay off the ad hominems and personal commentary and quit changing the context of words mid-discussion (you know very well what context of the word intolerance I am using, and its not the same context of being intolerant to being killed) and maybe, just maybe, I will have a thoughtful reply that pertains to the topic. But if thats the best that can be offered, an accusation of being "holier than thou", with a lecture on the subjectivity of morality and some word twisting then I have nothing more to add in reply in this discussion beyond this post. ******************************************** If the spirit of the word tolerance included tolerating hate-speech, the KKK, Nazi death Camps, bigotry, segregation, and Ect. then we would not need the word intolerance at all. It wouldn't matter. There is a third state that should be described, and that is apathy. Apathy is what you get when intolerance is tolerated. Indifference to hate, ignoring bigotry- allows it to flourish. The spirit of being tolerant is naturally against intolerance. Another perspective: Tolerance is like water for illustrative purposes It is like Ice and steam. Water can only be one form or the other at any give time. Apathy is like water that has stood too long: stagnant. Not exactly a perfect metaphor, but tolerant is not a perfect word as evident by this very discussion. For example: Someone can get so totally hung up on proving the literal defintion of a word, that they fail to grasp the spirit of its meaning from the perspective I have provide. They even go so far as to assume that, because I find the focus on being totally literal incorrect, that I must think myself higher or better. When the truth is I have a different perspective, one that is correct for me. I'm willing to allow these two different ideas stand side by side, expressing my opinions that the literal perspective, is incorrect and why. I tolerate the differing perspective, as it seems not to be rooted in intolerance,( though the ad hominem tactic used to reply to my disagreeance may skirt the border) but I disagree. Disagreement is not intolerance. Disagreement is not to automatically say I am morally better. Can you tolerate disagreement? The other thing is I can grasp and understand the literal perspective, but I reject it for a perspective that has personal meaning and an inspired call for action that has demonstratably brought results for the betterment of society. After all Rosa Parks didn't just give her seat up to a white guy on the bus that day. I sure the hell wouldn't call her intolerant. You can if you want, if that perspective works for you fine. I disagree. I can also formulate a literal perspective that differs: Tolerance doesnt tolerate intolerance because tolerance is the exact opposite of intolerance. Ideas that are mutually exclusive. Very much a paradox, but like i said I reject the narrow literalist perspective in this case even it if creates a concept that logic wants to deny. Even if it might give a big middle finger to the dictionary defintions. [img]graemlins/finger.gif[/img] Are my perspectives understandable? Are they graspable? Are they tolerable? Will I get a reply that isn't a cheapshot-accusation that I think I'm better than thou? Will dictionary definition number three or four of the word get tossed in the mix? I guess I will find out next time....

All you've done is argue reasons that justify intolerance in given situations. But your are wrong to believe you are being tolerant.

Why aren't you understanding this? INTOLERANCE is AMORAL. The morality hinges on what you tolerate or not. You can be intolerant of "evil" actions. You can be intolerant of murder, rape, abortion, homosexuality, bigotry, cigarette smoke, smoking bans, taxes, children, noise, injustice, rudeness, or anything else. Intelerance, like discrimination have become politically incorrect, yet, it's an absurdity. Those decrying intolerance itself - per se - are hypocritically engaging in the same judgemental process they are decrying.

Thanks for your support Timber. I was beginning to think I was in a mad house.

It's like someone being critical of criticism.

????

Or someone hating hatred.

???

Or someone refusing to refuse anything.

???

All completely impossible.

And Chewbacca, it's more than pertinent. All that's happening in American society, is that what is tolerated and intolerated is changing, rather than tolerance itself growing. Gibsons lynching by the media before TPOTC showed how far the "religious freedom/freedom of speech" barometre has swung to the other extreme, but equally as restrictive, intolerant and blind.

Take homosexuality. The United nations has been discussing enacting international laws regarding it. However, this directly runs over Islamic nations freedom of religion, and autonomy regarding national laws. By DECREEING tolerance of homosexuality, the Islamic, Jewish and Christian religions are not tolerated.

Same intolerance, just a different subject.

I will digress if I repeat the mantra, that the Bible (considering the New Testaments GRACE for all humankind) accepts homosexuals, but not homosexuality - making a distinction between the person, and the action - but so be it.

[ 04-06-2004, 05:47 AM: Message edited by: Yorick ]

[Night Stalker]

Originally posted by Yorick: Take homosexuality. The United nations has been discussing enacting international laws regarding it. However, this directly runs over Islamic nations freedom of religion, and autonomy regarding national laws. By DECREEING tolerance of homosexuality, the Islamic, Jewish and Christian religions are not tolerated. Same intolerance, just a different subject. I will digress if I repeat the mantra, that the Bible (considering the New Testaments GRACE for all humankind) accepts homosexuals, but not homosexuality - making a distinction between the person, and the action - but so be it.

I too will agree that true tolerance tolerates intolerance. Though it is a paradoxal concept. But it is one thing to tolerate intolerant ideas, and another to oppose intolerant actions that infringe upon the liberties of another. I can't speak for Chewie, but I think that is where he is going with his rant.

Also, without digressing too much - maybe this should be continued in a new thread, toleration of one idea does not follow that religions are automatically not tolerated. They ARE able to co-exist ya know. Live and let live and all that.

*slips into Lennon reverie*

[Yorick]

Thanks Nightstalker, [img]smile.gif[/img]

However, I don't know if they can. If you legislate it so that no writing can condemn homosexuality, that no writing can suggest homosexuality is somehow morally wrong, then you legislate against the Islamic, Jewish and Christian religions. You ban the works held sacred by the "big three". Certainly the Islamic nations are getting very upset by the proposals put forth by the "secular" west.

I'm for living and let living. Don't legislate against homosexuality, but don't swing the other way and legislate against condemning or criticising the practice.

Additionally, in legislating secularism, you legislate against religion also. I would say, legislating secularism is in effect legislating one worldview - atheism - over all others.

[ 04-06-2004, 09:26 PM: Message edited by: Yorick ]

[Yorick]

The problem gets complex concerning national sovereignty, democracy and human rights.

Take Iraq. Say the Iraqis voted Saddam Hussein back into power. Does the international community respect the "will of the people" to choose to be oppressed?

In prioritising and enforcing human rights, we step all over the concepts of democratic will, and national sovereignty.

We do need to address the issue, for it's happened before. History repeats. Athens, during it's "Empire" (albeit a comparitively small collection of cities compared with Russia, Britain or America) would force 'democracy' on rebellious city states, and forcibly change governments in recalcitrant cities.

How sacrosanct is democracy? How sacrosanct is international sovereignty? The collective "free will" of a nation.

Do we make suicide a punishable crime? Overriding an individuals free will to self harm? Do we internationally legislate against nations harming themself?

Who decides what is a nation anyway? The people themselves? Why are the Basques, Tibetens, Lapps, Quebecois, Kurds, Corsicans, Flemish, Chechnyans etc NOT handed their demands to be sovereign nations? Does the international community decide? The last time the UN gave a nation - Israel - sovereignty, all hell broke loose.

[ 04-06-2004, 09:21 PM: Message edited by: Yorick ]

[Yorick]

Originally posted by Night Stalker: Also, without digressing too much - maybe this should be continued in a new thread, toleration of one idea does not follow that religions are automatically not tolerated. They ARE able to co-exist ya know. Live and let live and all that. *slips into Lennon reverie*

And what about a religion that demands you eat your dead? Or that you sleep with your children? Or that you murder if someone offends you? I think religions do not all peacefully co-exist. It entirely depends on the content of the religions declarations.

[Djinn Raffo]

Originally posted by Yorick: Additionally, in legislating secularism, you legislate against religion also. I would say, legislating secularism is in effect legislating one worldview - atheism - over all others.

I don't agree with that. But maybe that's because I see Athiesm as just another religious viewpoint.

[Yorick]

You don't agree with what I said, or you don't agree with legislating atheism above other religious views?

[Night Stalker]

Secularism in not the antithesis of religion. It is a non positional stance, neither advocating nor decrying. Thereby legislating secularism and basing laws on concepts like liberty allows for the inclusion of all religions (as long as their practices don't violate standing laws). Atheism is the opposite of religion (though arguements could be made that it is itself a religion), but legislating secularism in not the same as legislating atheism.

However, I don't know if they can. If you legislate it so that no writing can condemn homosexuality, that no writing can suggest homosexuality is somehow morally wrong, then you legislate against the Islamic, Jewish and Christian religions. You ban the works held sacred by the "big three". Certainly the Islamic nations are getting very upset by the proposals put forth by the "secular" west.

Just because a secular nation has laws for the inclusion of ideas or lifestyles does not mean that a particular religion can't be morally opposed to particular ideas or lifestyles. They are entitled to Freedom of Speech and all that. Their forums for expressing those ideas are the Temples, Mosques, Churches, Glens ... whatever ... where they practice. Not in public law or in governmental buildings.

Clergymen, because of their belief that they answer to a higher power, very often forget that not all sheep are part of their flock, that they are the shepards of one particular flock only. (I know that this is a grand generalization and does not apply to all clergy or to this level of severity)

MOD REQUEST: Could the last few posts be moved to a new thread, up to and including my previous post? They get away from the topic of public smoking.

[Chewbacca]

Originally posted by Yorick: quote: Originally posted by Chewbacca: Exactly where have I stated that my personal sense of morality is better or worst than anyone elses, even if it differs? How exactly am I unaware. Prove these assertions about me. Prove them or retract.

You have repeatedly spoken of a "higher morality", regarding human rights and equality.
[/QUOTE]So?

You have not proven the remarks made about me, only repeated them.

Chewbacca, they are no more or less subjective than any other morality. You personally regard them as causes that justify going against other parts of your moral code, like following laws prohibiting gay marriages for example. However, that's your personal subjective value system, not some universal truth.

So?

Why even comment like this Yorick? What does belittling my personal perspective of morality accomplish? Where have I stated that my value system is universal truth or even based upon it? Even if I think were, why is it any of your business to comment upon? Why are you continuing to discuss me like you have some secret valuable insight into my psyche? You DONT know me and quite frankly have no place in lecturing me in that "holier than thou" tone of yours. What is your point? Are you trying to bait me or something?

If you don't like my opinions and dont like that I disagree with you- fine I dont care. I myself enjoy disagreemnt and differing opinion. But, if you make it personal and belittle me rather than simply disagree my opinions then- bye bye.

[Chewbacca]

Originally posted by Night Stalker: Secularism in not the antithesis of religion. It is a non positional stance, neither advocating nor decrying.

I totally agree and stated more or less the same opinion in the "pledge case" thread.