Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
2 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,807 Year: 3,064/9,624 Month: 909/1,588 Week: 92/223 Day: 3/17 Hour: 1/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Rationalism: a paper tiger?
jar
Member (Idle past 393 days)
Posts: 34026
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004


Message 16 of 125 (433366)
11-11-2007 3:14 PM
Reply to: Message 10 by Hyroglyphx
11-11-2007 2:24 PM


Re: Yet more nonsense.
Fine. Then there is no morality. And the grandeur must then be explained in other terms.
Sorry but that is simply stupid and also has been explained to you over and over again. The fact that no one has ever been able to present some example of "Absolute Morality" does not mean that there are no morals.
Why do you continue to present false dichotomies?
What does morality have to do with grandeur?
Why can't grandeur be explained by many methods?
Chesterton was a humorist.

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

This message is a reply to:
 Message 10 by Hyroglyphx, posted 11-11-2007 2:24 PM Hyroglyphx has not replied

  
nator
Member (Idle past 2169 days)
Posts: 12961
From: Ann Arbor
Joined: 12-09-2001


Message 17 of 125 (433378)
11-11-2007 4:01 PM
Reply to: Message 14 by Hyroglyphx
11-11-2007 2:51 PM


Re: The catch-22
quote:
Some people deride the chasteness of women, calling them prudish, as if chastity is just some antiquated and silly relic of a previous era.
But then when she finally does throw off the shackles of what they claim oppress her, she now gets to be a slut by doing the very thing they said would free her. She can't win, not even amongst those of her own sex, who often times are the worst offenders and the most judgmental. She's damned if she does, damned if she doesn't. Where can she go that is safe?
She can go where the progressives and liberals are, because in my experience, that's where people are most encouraged and allowed to get the information they want and need in order to make the personal choices that are best for them.
I was a virgin for far longer than most women in my generation, but I had not a single one of my "liberal" friends chastize me for it. That's mostly because none of them ever thought to invade my privacy by inquiring about it. It wasn't their business. It didn't affect them.
The only camp that ever made me feel negative about any of my choices regarding sexuality was the conservative religious camp. Those people did think it was their business, and thought nothing of invading my privacy and giving their opinions where it wasn't asked for.
Edited by nator, : No reason given.
Edited by nator, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 14 by Hyroglyphx, posted 11-11-2007 2:51 PM Hyroglyphx has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 18 by Silent H, posted 11-11-2007 9:00 PM nator has replied
 Message 41 by Hyroglyphx, posted 11-12-2007 1:58 PM nator has replied

  
Silent H
Member (Idle past 5819 days)
Posts: 7405
From: satellite of love
Joined: 12-11-2002


Message 18 of 125 (433411)
11-11-2007 9:00 PM
Reply to: Message 17 by nator
11-11-2007 4:01 PM


Re: The catch-22
Hello, not to start out by disagreeing with you, but I definitely didn't have the same experience you had with progressives and liberals. Some sets within that yes, which may have been the source for your experience, but as a whole I found the busybodies within progs/libs even worse than the conservatives.
I tend to think, and you might agree with this once I say it, it's because most cons tend to have some sort of deviation themselves. So they might poke in general, but not so much specifically... unless you make yourself very outspoken... and relatively quick to forgive.
A good example might be someone that had an abortion. I've found cons willing to accept and help women that have had one. Progs tend to shut down and isolate women that chose not to have one (for personal faith reasons) or ironically have had one (if the specific progs personally don't like it... i.e. its okay for someone else, not people they know).
Its sort of like Monty Python's Meaning of Life, with the Protestants mocking the Catholics next door. They should be more tolerant but instead criticize the choice another group makes, while never actually taking advantage of the freedoms they have. I've found many progs/libs hold the same relation with cons.
Does this make sense?
On NJ's quote, I think the author missed the point that people do get criticized by others all the time, whether the critics are rationalists or not. And they will always be criticized for wandering beyond the small (or large) window of "acceptable" acts any specific critic holds. Each person will hold a scale of Prude on one side and Slut on the other, and yes another person (being judged) can switch from one to the other, getting nailed twice. That isn't actually inconsistent, it is consistency within a set of parameters.
On your last comment, were you suggesting cons gave you problems for being a virgin? So much for abstinence education!

h
"Civilized men are more discourteous than savages because they know they can be impolite without having their skulls split, as a general thing." - Robert E. Howard

This message is a reply to:
 Message 17 by nator, posted 11-11-2007 4:01 PM nator has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 19 by crashfrog, posted 11-11-2007 9:22 PM Silent H has replied
 Message 20 by nator, posted 11-11-2007 10:03 PM Silent H has replied
 Message 21 by molbiogirl, posted 11-11-2007 10:32 PM Silent H has replied

  
crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1466 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


Message 19 of 125 (433413)
11-11-2007 9:22 PM
Reply to: Message 18 by Silent H
11-11-2007 9:00 PM


Re: The catch-22
I tend to think, and you might agree with this once I say it, it's because most cons tend to have some sort of deviation themselves. So they might poke in general, but not so much specifically... unless you make yourself very outspoken... and relatively quick to forgive.
What on Earth are you talking about? When people like Mark Foley and Larry Craig were busted for their individual sex problems, didn't you read anything about their voting records? Both of them voted for every single bill that discriminated against gay people, even though they were both gay.
These people are driven to suss out other people's sins, H, because they think going on a crusade to punish other people's wickedness absolves them of their own. The idea that they're minding their own business because they're afraid of being found out is nonsense. That's why there's a new conservative caught with his pants down every week.
A good example might be someone that had an abortion.
Right - the women conservatives call "murderers" and "sluts."
That's the tolerance you're talking about?
Each person will hold a scale of Prude on one side and Slut on the other, and yes another person (being judged) can switch from one to the other, getting nailed twice.
Except that there's no middle. If you're never sexually available to a man, you're "frigid", "unfriendly". You need to "smile more." The second that you are sexually available to anyone, you're a "slut."
It's never about exceeding some range of "parameters." The parameters overlap in the middle. Just ask a woman about it.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 18 by Silent H, posted 11-11-2007 9:00 PM Silent H has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 22 by Silent H, posted 11-12-2007 2:48 AM crashfrog has replied

  
nator
Member (Idle past 2169 days)
Posts: 12961
From: Ann Arbor
Joined: 12-09-2001


Message 20 of 125 (433419)
11-11-2007 10:03 PM
Reply to: Message 18 by Silent H
11-11-2007 9:00 PM


Re: The catch-22
quote:
A good example might be someone that had an abortion. I've found cons willing to accept and help women that have had one. Progs tend to shut down and isolate women that chose not to have one (for personal faith reasons) or ironically have had one (if the specific progs personally don't like it... i.e. its okay for someone else, not people they know).
I have no clue what world you live in, but that's never been my experience, nor the experience of anybody I have personally known who has been involved in this sort of thing. It has been the opposite, in fact, to your description.
quote:
On your last comment, were you suggesting cons gave you problems for being a virgin?
No.
I am saying that they gave me a lot of guilt for even considering having sex before I was married, let alone actually doing so. And real facts and information about sex? Had to get that all on my own.
Actually, I was pretty much taught by conservatives that having sexual feelings at all was dangerous, and that sex before marriage was a terrible sin and morally repugnant.
No liberal ever said anthing to me about my personal choices about sex either way.
Again, it has been the conservative, religious parents who have been far more likely to kick their gay/pregnant children out of the house, not the liberals, in my experience.
Edited by nator, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 18 by Silent H, posted 11-11-2007 9:00 PM Silent H has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 23 by Silent H, posted 11-12-2007 3:03 AM nator has replied

  
molbiogirl
Member (Idle past 2641 days)
Posts: 1909
From: MO
Joined: 06-06-2007


Message 21 of 125 (433425)
11-11-2007 10:32 PM
Reply to: Message 18 by Silent H
11-11-2007 9:00 PM


Re: The catch-22
I've found cons willing to accept and help women that have had one.
I'm not sure what you mean by "help".
99.9% of women who have had an abortion don't need any post abortion "help".
You can't mean post-abortion syndrome? Can you? Surely a reasonable man such as yourself couldn't possibly buy such dreck.
A woman that suffers guilt (or some other adverse psychological rxn), might get sucked in by "abortion trauma clinics" or "abortion trauma self help groups" -- and I suppose you might categorize that as "help".
Mostly, tho, beaten half silly with the guilt stick by their "counselors", the women are "helped" to drown in their self-imposed pain.
Here's a snippet from a "PAS" site:
Consider Other Risks of Abortion
Abortion and Preterm Birth:
Women who undergo one or more induced abortions carry a significantly increased risk of delivering prematurely in the future. Premature delivery is associated with higher rates of cerebral palsy, as well as other complications of prematurity (brain, respiratory, bowel, and eye problems).
Abortion and Breast Cancer:
Medical experts are still researching and debating the linkage between abortion and breast cancer. Here are some important facts:
* Carrying your first pregnancy to full term gives protection against breast cancer. Choosing abortion causes loss of that protection.
* A number of reliable studies have concluded that there may be a link between abortion and the later development of breast cancer.
A 1994 study in the Journal of the National Cancer Institute found: “Among women who had been pregnant at least once, the risk of breast cancer in those who had experienced an induced abortion was 50% higher than among other women.”
Emotional and Psychological Impact:
There is evidence that abortion is associated with a decrease in both emotional and physical health. For some women these negative emotions may be very strong, and can appear within days or after many years. This psychological response is a form of post-traumatic stress disorder. Some of the symptoms are:
* Eating disorders
* Relationship problems
* Guilt
* Depression
* Flashbacks of abortion
* Suicidal thoughts
* Sexual dysfunction
* Alcohol and drug abuse
Spiritual Consequences
People have different understandings of God. Whatever your present beliefs may be, there is a spiritual side to abortion that deserves to be considered. Having an abortion may affect more than just your body and your mind -- it may have an impact on your relationship with God. What is God's desire for you in this situation? How does God see your unborn child? These are important questions to consider.
Oh. My. Effing. Gawd.
Abortion & breast cancer??? That's complete bullshit.
Abortion & premature birth??? More bullshit.
God won't love you???
Yeah.
Those cons. They'll help you ... to death.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 18 by Silent H, posted 11-11-2007 9:00 PM Silent H has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 25 by Silent H, posted 11-12-2007 3:19 AM molbiogirl has not replied

  
Silent H
Member (Idle past 5819 days)
Posts: 7405
From: satellite of love
Joined: 12-11-2002


Message 22 of 125 (433453)
11-12-2007 2:48 AM
Reply to: Message 19 by crashfrog
11-11-2007 9:22 PM


Re: The catch-22
Isn't it unfair to paint all conservatives with the brush of a few specific ones? That said I certainly was not trying to claim that all or even a vast majority of cons were sympathetic.
My statement was that from my experience cons in a general sense (and I suppose I should add on a personal level) were less probing and more forgiving. The reason for this (I speculate) is that most of them have deviations.
I'm well aware of bigotry and even violence from specific cons. I'm also aware that it cuts the other way. Is the violence from cons usually worse, yes. Is the snobbery and intolerance from progs worse, from my experience yes. Which is one more common to run into? That may be different from what hits the headlines.
As an example of forgiveness, I'd point out that when con politicians and other leaders get outed (for whatever they did), they may lose their leader status, but they generally stay within the community. They do get forgiven. That is a fact usually lampooned in liberal circles.
Right - the women conservatives call "murderers" and "sluts."
? All do this? Most? I can agree that what you describe happens but it doesn't mean everybody, and it generally does not happen to people they know, or get to know. They usually throw the hyperbole on complete strangers.
Except that there's no middle. If you're never sexually available to a man, you're "frigid", "unfriendly". You need to "smile more." The second that you are sexually available to anyone, you're a "slut."
? Again I'm not sure who you are talking about. What you describe could be true for some people, but I'm not even sure I'd consider that a plausible case for most cons. As far as I have seen most generally accept sexual availability of some kind, the parameters (the window) is set around where and how it is made available, not if.
And I should clarify, my last statement about NJ's quote, was not specifically about cons. In fact because I was addressing his quote I was more referring to rationalists (who I assume would be taken as libs). His guy was saying that rationalists damn a girl if she does or doesn't, as if to suggest there was some sort of contradiction, and no sense of acceptability. My point is that for most people there usually is a window, a set of parameters, thus too high and too low results in condemnation, but does not indicate what was suggested.
Does that make sense?

h
"Civilized men are more discourteous than savages because they know they can be impolite without having their skulls split, as a general thing." - Robert E. Howard

This message is a reply to:
 Message 19 by crashfrog, posted 11-11-2007 9:22 PM crashfrog has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 38 by crashfrog, posted 11-12-2007 1:10 PM Silent H has replied

  
Silent H
Member (Idle past 5819 days)
Posts: 7405
From: satellite of love
Joined: 12-11-2002


Message 23 of 125 (433455)
11-12-2007 3:03 AM
Reply to: Message 20 by nator
11-11-2007 10:03 PM


Re: The catch-22
I live on this earth. I apparently had opposite experiences from you, and so have those I have known.
I hope there is something to be learned from this, besides that I must be wrong. I was not attempting to say yours were wrong. As a question, have you spent long periods of time within very conservative communities, as in having to live directly with them, and seen them experience things like abortion or someone being gay?
And real facts and information about sex? Had to get that all on my own.
Well to be truthful not all libs are up on information and truth regarding sex. I could go on about this, but its really getting away from the thread. Let's just remember that it was libs who fired the surgeon general for discussing masturbation.
No liberal ever said anthing to me about my personal choices about sex either way.
If you had been having sex, this very well might have been different, no? Rarely have I heard people, from lib or con, hassling others that haven't had sex about not having it. You are right about marriage being an issue for many cons (heard it from libs too myself) but there are many other sexual variations you can get caught on.
Again, it has been the conservative, religious parents who have been far more likely to kick their gay/pregnant children out of the house, not the liberals, in my experience.
Not mine. I might note there does seem to be a bit of hypocrisy going on when such acceptance happens, but it does. Reagan? Cheney? I always find it interesting when libs make fun of it, instead of embracing that reality.
Edited by Silent H, : lil fix

h
"Civilized men are more discourteous than savages because they know they can be impolite without having their skulls split, as a general thing." - Robert E. Howard

This message is a reply to:
 Message 20 by nator, posted 11-11-2007 10:03 PM nator has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 26 by nator, posted 11-12-2007 7:22 AM Silent H has not replied

  
arachnophilia
Member (Idle past 1343 days)
Posts: 9069
From: god's waiting room
Joined: 05-21-2004


Message 24 of 125 (433456)
11-12-2007 3:04 AM
Reply to: Message 6 by jar
11-11-2007 12:08 PM


Re: Yet more nonsense.
This is the face of postmodernism which lives in consummate contradiction-- moralizing absolutely about the falseness of a moral absolute, with an allegiance to nothing but its own self-congratulatory spirit.
Yet more misrepresentation.
We've been down this path many times Nem yet you seem to forget everything that has been explained to you.
No one denies that there are absolutes.
i've been to a few postmodern philosophy classes. they do deny absolutes. absolutely. and then talk about the contradiction.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 6 by jar, posted 11-11-2007 12:08 PM jar has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 27 by Chiroptera, posted 11-12-2007 7:30 AM arachnophilia has replied
 Message 28 by PaulK, posted 11-12-2007 7:34 AM arachnophilia has replied

  
Silent H
Member (Idle past 5819 days)
Posts: 7405
From: satellite of love
Joined: 12-11-2002


Message 25 of 125 (433457)
11-12-2007 3:19 AM
Reply to: Message 21 by molbiogirl
11-11-2007 10:32 PM


Re: The catch-22
I'm not sure what you mean by "help".
Oh dear god... yes some clarity is in order. I was trying to address the concept of tolerance and acceptance in general, and then used a woman who'd had an abortion as a specific. I was not addressing common con attempts to "help" women REGARDING abortions.
What I meant is that if you have done X (name the sin), which cons tirade against, I have found that on a personal level they will generally not ostracize you. You can keep them as friends, unless you keep in their face about it, and they are forgiving of your "defects". Now that may seem a bit condescending, but you still get their help, by which I meant friendship, or other forms of physical support. And the reciprocal point is true, when they have defects they expect the same from you. Kind of like everyone's all in it together.
On the opposite side, I've found libs to be generally unforgiving of friends and family that differ from them, and commit an offense they don't like.
Maybe its cultural, most libs being urban, and most cons being rural? I dunno. That's just been my experience, so I can't fully support nator's unequivocal endorsement of approaching any specific group for better understanding. Not to say she didn't have such.
On your list o' crazy ideas, a korean friend said she had been taught by her mother that getting married would make the pain of periods go away. People will promise the darndest things.

h
"Civilized men are more discourteous than savages because they know they can be impolite without having their skulls split, as a general thing." - Robert E. Howard

This message is a reply to:
 Message 21 by molbiogirl, posted 11-11-2007 10:32 PM molbiogirl has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 29 by nator, posted 11-12-2007 7:37 AM Silent H has replied

  
nator
Member (Idle past 2169 days)
Posts: 12961
From: Ann Arbor
Joined: 12-09-2001


Message 26 of 125 (433477)
11-12-2007 7:22 AM
Reply to: Message 23 by Silent H
11-12-2007 3:03 AM


Re: The catch-22
quote:
As a question, have you spent long periods of time within very conservative communities, as in having to live directly with them, and seen them experience things like abortion or someone being gay?
Dude, I was raised a Roman Catholic. Twelve years of CCD.
But I really don't see why this is relevant. We can exchange personal stories all day, but it doesn't mean that either one of us is "righter or wronger" about the larger tendencies of the community.
But seriously, are you expecting me to believe that a woman wanting an abortion is more likely to get real support or a guilt trip from a conservative, considering the typical anti-abortion position of the majority of conservatives?
quote:
If you had been having sex, this very well might have been different, no?
Well, eventually I did have premarital sex. And nobody but the conservatives had anything to say about it.
quote:
I might note there does seem to be a bit of hypocrisy going on when such acceptance happens, but it does.
Yeah, just a bit of hypocrisy!
Calling for a constitutional amendment to prevent gays from getting married while having a gay child is pretty disgusting.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 23 by Silent H, posted 11-12-2007 3:03 AM Silent H has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 33 by Modulous, posted 11-12-2007 11:12 AM nator has not replied

  
Chiroptera
Inactive Member


Message 27 of 125 (433479)
11-12-2007 7:30 AM
Reply to: Message 24 by arachnophilia
11-12-2007 3:04 AM


Re: Yet more nonsense.
i've been to a few postmodern philosophy classes. they do deny absolutes. absolutely. and then talk about the contradiction.
Huh. Is that so? You know what that sounds like to me? It sounds like no one (including the postmodernists themselves) know what they mean when they use the word "absolute". I've never seen anyone give a precise definition of what an "absolute" is -- and so how could anyone know whether or not there are absolutes? Or whether the statement, "There are no absolutes" is itself an absolute?
But I may be wrong -- I know nothing about postmodernism (or modernism, for that matter). Just the impression I get from discussions with anti-postmodernists (remember this used to be Rob's Schtick?).

Computers have cut-and-paste functions. So does right-wing historical memory. -- Rick Perlstein

This message is a reply to:
 Message 24 by arachnophilia, posted 11-12-2007 3:04 AM arachnophilia has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 34 by arachnophilia, posted 11-12-2007 11:58 AM Chiroptera has not replied
 Message 124 by Rob, posted 01-05-2008 1:53 AM Chiroptera has not replied

  
PaulK
Member
Posts: 17822
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.2


Message 28 of 125 (433480)
11-12-2007 7:34 AM
Reply to: Message 24 by arachnophilia
11-12-2007 3:04 AM


Re: Yet more nonsense.
I think you're right about postmodernists. But there were no postmodernists when Chesterton was writing. AFAIK the only postmodernist to play any significant role in the Ev/C "controversy" is Steve Fuller who is linked to the ID movement (and testified for them at Dover). Postmodernists aren't "rationalists", nor do they seem to play much of a role in shaping the attitudes of society. (If they did then maybe Steve Fuller's testimony would have been more helpful !)
So what exactly is the relevance of postmodernism ?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 24 by arachnophilia, posted 11-12-2007 3:04 AM arachnophilia has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 31 by Chiroptera, posted 11-12-2007 7:57 AM PaulK has not replied
 Message 35 by arachnophilia, posted 11-12-2007 11:59 AM PaulK has not replied

  
nator
Member (Idle past 2169 days)
Posts: 12961
From: Ann Arbor
Joined: 12-09-2001


Message 29 of 125 (433481)
11-12-2007 7:37 AM
Reply to: Message 25 by Silent H
11-12-2007 3:19 AM


Re: The catch-22
quote:
What I meant is that if you have done X (name the sin), which cons tirade against, I have found that on a personal level they will generally not ostracize you. You can keep them as friends, unless you keep in their face about it, and they are forgiving of your "defects". Now that may seem a bit condescending, but you still get their help, by which I meant friendship, or other forms of physical support. And the reciprocal point is true, when they have defects they expect the same from you. Kind of like everyone's all in it together.
On the opposite side, I've found libs to be generally unforgiving of friends and family that differ from them, and commit an offense they don't like.
Looked at another way, maybe this means that conservatives are really just hypocrites who denounce certain activities as immoral, disgusting, and want to pass laws forcing all of us to live by their moral code or go to prison, but then when they themselves are caught doing those very things, or one of their immediate circle of family and friends, they are suddenly very interested in second chances, redemption, and forgiveness. Rush Limbaugh's drug addiction hypocrisy comes to mind. And that's just if they get exposed. There are conservative girls and women who have had abortions who continue to oppose the right of women to get safe, legal abortions. They think that their own abortions were "different" and they "really needed them", not like those "sluts".
This sort of thing is consistent with the psychological profile of the Right Wing Authoritarian Follower personality type.
By contrast, progressives may tend to stick to their code of ethics (or whatever) more, and apply it more consistently, even to themselves, and their friends and family. They apply their "rules" to everybody, even those closest to them.
This is all just speculation, and in no way should be considered a strongly-held position by me. I'm just sayin'.
Edited by nator, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 25 by Silent H, posted 11-12-2007 3:19 AM Silent H has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 30 by Phat, posted 11-12-2007 7:46 AM nator has not replied
 Message 48 by Silent H, posted 11-12-2007 8:19 PM nator has not replied

  
Phat
Member
Posts: 18262
From: Denver,Colorado USA
Joined: 12-30-2003
Member Rating: 1.1


Message 30 of 125 (433483)
11-12-2007 7:46 AM
Reply to: Message 29 by nator
11-12-2007 7:37 AM


Re: The catch-22
You are probably on the right track.
One side likes to believe in absolute moral standards which they themselves never live up to, advocating grace and forgiveness....
The other side emphasizes behavior and personal responsibility which they try mightily to live up to and expect their friends and family to do likewise.
Its like how you get disgusted when I listen to a preacher and apply peer pressure to get me to listen to N.P.R.
In contrast, I could care less what you do in the privacy of your own life...I figure you made the choice and its none of my business.
BTW....I don't insist that your kids believe in God, either....I just don't want it to be taught that God is a myth.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 29 by nator, posted 11-12-2007 7:37 AM nator has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024