Intolerance - a new breed of ex-JW

by LittleToe 260 Replies latest jw friends

• 

  AuldSoul

  IMO, subjective experiences are objective to the one experiencing them. They only become subjective when the person attempts to explain, relate, or demonstrate them. To put it another way, it is possible to ideate that which one cannot communicate.

  I see this happen with my wife all the time, her vocabulary is not very robust but she is very intelligent, and she gets frustrated with using nearest equivalents that do not accurately express what she is thinking. We have to slowly chip away at it by offering each other synonymous words with different connotations until she is satisfied that the finished product represents what she was actually thinking.

  It is possible to experience something that to the observer is concrete proof, incontrovertible evidence, and which becomes subjective experience the moment they attempt to reduce it to language, or drawing, or pantomime (<-- ).

  This was one of the related points of the bee sting analogy. The one who experienced it needs no clinical proof. This person has all the evidence they need, it is incontrovertibly proven as far as they are concerned. It is actual. It occurred. If they never tell another soul it is still fact. If they waited five weeks to tell anyone (well after any trace could be found) it would still have factually occurred. From the perspective of the observer, experiences ARE evidence, and reason, and basis, and valid cause for bias.

  Science tries to remove the influence of the observer to the extent possible. Thus double-blind studies. But we don't live day-to-day in a laboratory and I, for one, refuse to yield my concept that reality exists outside the laboratory. This concept, if you agree with it, compels acceptance that the rules of the laboratory do not apply outside the laboratory. And, in my opinion, that ought to compel tolerance.

  Respectfully,
  AuldSoul
• 

  katiekitten

  Love and Hate are real. So real that people die all the time from one or the other.

  The actions are what make love and hate real.

  Hair splitting academia. Yawns.

  I think you have come a long way from the original point that there is no need to have vitriolic hate for religious belief. All LT said was 'how about a bit of tolerance'.

  Maslows hierarchy of needs. Once we have enough food, clothes, shelter etc etc we can afford to spend 10 pages splitting hairs on whether 'love' is real or not. (to paraphrase Maslow!!)
• 

  Terry

  There is often an area of thinking which people don't bother exploring as to being precise about what they think, know or believe.

  It pertains to the Rule of Fundamentality.

  When a group of existing things has more than one characteristic distinguishing it from other existing things, man must observe the relationship among the various characteristics and discover the one on which all the others (or the greater number of others) depend.

  This fundamental characteristic is the ESSENTIAL distinguishing characteristic of the existents involved, and the proper DEFINING characteristic of the concept.

  A conceptual grasp of reality is necessary.

  For example, a circle is a geometric figure. Is the size of the circle the fundamental characteristic? Is the thickness of the line? Is the location of the circle? Or, is it the fact that the sides are equidistant from the center?

  As pertains to the discussion about intolerance.....

  We need to know what the distinguishing characteristic of it is.

  For me, it isn't the attitude of the one disagreeing which is essential. It is the act which follows the attitude.

  This raises an essential flag. Nobody would expect an ordinary person to tolerate child molestation or murder or lying or theft. We wouldn't even use the word intolerant in describing the attitude which expresses dismay or who ridicules the molester, the murderer or the liar and thief.

  Why? Because it is a demonstration of morality and sanity to oppose such actions as follow from those persons.

  The key ingredient (essential characteristic) to intolerance would seem to stem from activity which is not OBVIOUSLY evil or destructive.

  The act of opposing an opinion which isn't demonstrably evil would be intolerant.

  Why? Because, intolerance interferes with the right of others to express their views unless and until they are identified with evil or harm.

  If you oppose a terrorist website you are not intolerant.
• 

  LittleToe

  Kid-A:
  NOW you're talking!!!

  Since I'm bringing chaps to the Fest, are ya coming?

  Terry:I'm afraid I have to bug out, at this point. If it's any consolation, having read quite a number of your posts, I can quite understand your rancor towards most things "spiritual". While I might disagree with its application to my life, I don't just tolerate your opinion, I respect it. Peace

  I hope you'll join us at the Fest, too, for a nice quiet beer
• 

  Terry

  Last time I looked the thread was still about intolerance (to which end I'd suggest that while there's been plenty of robust debate, there's been little intolerance shown). Were I to adopt a similar stance over use of "emphasis" I'd be taking you to task over your garish use of red and highlighter, but it's a non-issue, really.

  Pure passive aggressive!

  I didn't design the highlite, the color or the mechanism. I can only use what is possible. The red, the yellow--aren't a choice.

  I use a variety of schemes to place emphasis. Sometimes I put distance between one____word____and the others.

  Sometimes I darken a word.

  Often I'll Change the size.

  What possible difference does it make to the discussion if it isn't an actual passive agressive reaction, eh?
• 

  Terry

  Do you mean that, while it may be an actual reality, there are two different ways of philosophically viewing it? Sounds similar to something that some other folk have been suggesting all along...

  Strawman.

  A question was posed. To give an answer I need a precise context.

  After all, the entire discussion has spiraled around the difference between subjective and objective---hasn't it?

  Are you perhaps offering us a new way of looking at the world in which there is no substantial difference between subjective and objective?

  Or, is it more passive agressive tendency?
• 

  peggy

  CLASSIC PEANUTS----Charles Schulz

  LUCY misses the CATCH while playing baseball.

  CHARLIE BROWN---LUCY--You're the WORST player in the history of the game!

  LUCY---YOU CAN"T PROVE THAT! YOU SHOULD NEVER SAY THINGS THAT YOU CAN"T PROVE!

  CHARLIE BROWN---In all PROBABILITY you are the WORST player in the history of the game!

  LUCY--I CAN ACCEPT THAT!!!

  Peg
• 

  funkyderek

  LittleToe:

  "God" is not an objective "fact"

  If God actually exists in any meaningful sense, then his existence would be objectively factual, even if nobody knew of it.

  To cut a long story short, I'm agreeing with ya

  You know I hate it when you do that

  I also agree with this, however doing so would not be deemed polite.

  Of course, which is why under most circumstances I refrain from openly laughing at people even though I would be within my rights to do so.

  AuldSoul:

  Let me make this as simple as I know how: Do you love anyone, anyone at all? Do you respect anyone?

  Of course I do.

  Can you cllinically prove that you love someone?

  Potentially, if you define love suitably it can be measured. If there is difficulty doing this in practice, I see none in principle.

  Does your lack of objective clinical proof make your love less factual? Your esteem?

  No, but (unlike your bee or your stop sign) it's not just a fact that's only known inside my mind. It's a fact that only exists inside my mind (assuming, as you seem to, that there is no objective measurable definition of love). It is fundamentally different from an objective external fact that happens to be known only to me.

  Stop me where I get this wrong: (1) You acknowledge you do not have all possible demonstrable facts at our disposal.

  Agreed.

  (2) You ackowledge there is no evidence for it, which I will translate into what I believe is a more correct presentation, you acknowledge you do not possess any evidence for it (see Point 1).

  Agreed, there may be evidence which is not known (by me) to exist. When presented with that evidence, I will change my opinion accordingly. If I am required to trust that another person has convincing evidence which is not available to me, the likelihood of me believing would depend on my knowledge of the person in question, the likelihood of the claim made being true, and the plausibility of the reason I am to be denied access to the evidence. Is any of that unreasonable?

  (3) You acknowledge that determination of the validity of reason for any belief is subjective.

  Stop! You've got it wrong. Belief in an external fact of reality should only be based on objective evidence. Tentative beliefs may be held subject to conclusive evidence coming in.

  (4) You acknowledge that your subjective perception is that a certain belief has no plausible reason.

  Aren't all my percetions, by definition, subjective? I perceive that certain beliefs have no plausible reason based on the objective evidence available to me. If there is no conclusive evidence either way, my beliefs are based on my best guess given what evidence I do have. I am always willing to change my mind when objective evidence does become available.

  (5) Based solely on your subjective assessment of the basis for a belief you are comfortable expressing ridicule of a belief.

  No, based on how closely such a belief fits in to an objectively measurable framework of reality (or in some tediously pedantic sense, my subjective interpretation thereof).

  Wow. No wonder the whole world is at each others throats quite a lot of the time.

  I don't see how that follows at all. In my view, a lot of the world's major conflict has been due to people taking their subjective interpretations of facts - and remarkably, those of others - as real objective facts.
• 

  kid-A

  Since I'm bringing chaps to the Fest, are ya coming?

  Yup, and wearing a formal kilt in your honour! LOL

  I hope Terry is going to be showing up topless as per his avatar.....LOL
• 

  AuldSoul

  It is the act which follows the attitude.

  Agreed. Ridicule and scorn are intolerant ACTS, when directed toward anything which is not demonstrably evil. Intolerance, as you have defined it, is itself evil. If the associated behaviors are directed toward something which is demonstrably evil, it is not intolerance.

  If you cannot demonstrate that belief in (fill in the blank) is evil, then any rage, ridicule, or scorn, or any other intolerant behavior directed toward that belief would itself be evil. Thus costing the intolerant person any ethical basis for insisting on toleration. Because, as you demonstrated, there is no need to tolerate intolerance. Intolerance is evil.

  Were I to adopt a similar stance over use of "emphasis" I'd be taking you to task over your garish ;use of red and highlighter, but it's a non-issue, really.

  Not all teasing is passive-aggressive behavior . Besides, passive-aggression isn't really real, anyway.

  AuldSoul