| Author | Thread |
|
|
11/20/2008 07:56:49 PM · #1251 |
OK, I officially prescribe everybody a chill pill this evening. We were having a great day of conversation until the last 5 posts when it all blew up in my face. I was totally joking with Paul and you guys both jump on me. Before that Dahkota did her best "You don't know me! You only think you know me!" when I was just trying to reach out after getting excited by Haidt's stuff.
Chill out everybody! |
|
|
|
11/20/2008 08:02:20 PM · #1252 |
| Ummm... I didn't blow up on anybody.... yet.... :( |
|
|
|
11/20/2008 08:06:15 PM · #1253 |
Originally posted by BeeCee:
You know, I really hate how people in our society are defined based on the configuration of their genitals. |
What I hate is how so much more of it is perpetuated by the male of the species.
It's embarrassing to those of us who don't think with their genitalia.....
|
|
|
|
11/20/2008 08:07:51 PM · #1254 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
OK, I officially prescribe everybody a chill pill this evening. We were having a great day of conversation until the last 5 posts when it all blew up in my face. I was totally joking with Paul and you guys both jump on me. Before that Dahkota did her best "You don't know me! You only think you know me!" when I was just trying to reach out after getting excited by Haidt's stuff.
Chill out everybody! |
That 40-50 years crack, albeit meant in levity, just kinda stunk.
And to tell you the truth, if you can rile Courtenay, I'm not gonna hang out with you....8>)
|
|
|
|
11/20/2008 08:09:24 PM · #1255 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
You may feel you aren't pushing your view on others because everybody shares the two moral axises of avoiding harm and fairness. You don't have to push your views because EVERYBODY agrees. However, you do not value (as much) the three axises of ingroup/loyalty, authority/respect, and (in this case perhaps especially) chastity/purity. Because they are less important you a) don't feel the need to share those views with others and b) don't understand why other people want to share those views with you. |
The opposite is probably true too, because you care less about fairness and avoiding harm, you probably don't realise the increasing general offensiveness of your position as you explain it more. I'm not trying to 'blow up in your face' here, just point out an alternative way to look at how your apparently indefensible and apparently morally reprehensible position is to those who don't have 'the other three axises' to grind. |
|
|
|
11/20/2008 08:15:09 PM · #1256 |
Originally posted by NikonJeb:
Originally posted by BeeCee:
You know, I really hate how people in our society are defined based on the configuration of their genitals. |
What I hate is how so much more of it is perpetuated by the male of the species.
It's embarrassing to those of us who don't think with their genitalia..... |
Yes, the too-common male attitude has always totally confounded me, that whole thing of women's lib and gay men being a "threat to their masculinity". I've never understood the rationale behind that. |
|
|
|
11/20/2008 08:36:31 PM · #1257 |
Originally posted by Gordon:
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
You may feel you aren't pushing your view on others because everybody shares the two moral axises of avoiding harm and fairness. You don't have to push your views because EVERYBODY agrees. However, you do not value (as much) the three axises of ingroup/loyalty, authority/respect, and (in this case perhaps especially) chastity/purity. Because they are less important you a) don't feel the need to share those views with others and b) don't understand why other people want to share those views with you. |
The opposite is probably true too, because you care less about fairness and avoiding harm, you probably don't realise the increasing general offensiveness of your position as you explain it more. I'm not trying to 'blow up in your face' here, just point out an alternative way to look at how your apparently indefensible and apparently morally reprehensible position is to those who don't have 'the other three axises' to grind. |
Ya, I understand. I'm talking "theta waves". It makes sense. I DID find it interesting in the video and article that the 5-channel morality doesn't value fairness and care LESS, but they valued all 5 channels equally. The difference doesn't come in those first two channels, it comes in the last three. OTOH, I hear your argument (I think) "how can you pay attention to the first two as much if you value three or more?" That makes sense to me too. |
|
|
|
11/20/2008 08:41:32 PM · #1258 |
Originally posted by NikonJeb:
And to tell you the truth, if you can rile Courtenay, I'm not gonna hang out with you....8>) |
I'm not riled in the least. slightly perturbed that some people think that watching a video that labels people is an answer to a problem. Achoo said that I needed to watch a video to understand the difference between our views. I stated (maybe too forcefully, if so, I apologize) that just because I disagreed with him on this issue doesn't mean that his label is valid.
I hate labels. She's black, he's white, he's gay, she's a liberal, he's... it all doesn't matter. Once you label or stereotype a person, you cease to see them for who they truly are. Haidt is promoting labeling, not understanding. you are not learning anything from watching his video except a new way to classify people into us and them. and that view, that idea of us and them, that perpetual need to divide people, is the cause of all the problems. Before, it was by sex. And then it was by color. now it is by sexual preference. Its still abhorrent. And to promote this division, and hide behind religion to do it, I find very sad. As I stated before, Jesus says love everyone. treat everyone as you would like to be treated.
Achoo, if you woke up as a gay man tomorrow, how would you feel? Hated? Vilified? Unloved? To love, accept, and respect a person for who they are, not for what they are, is the most wonderful gift you can give. To accept marriage in all its forms is the best way to show that you love, respect, and accept people in all their forms. |
|
|
|
11/20/2008 08:47:46 PM · #1259 |
Originally posted by dahkota:
Jesus says love everyone. treat everyone as you would like to be treated. To love, accept, and respect a person for who they are, not for what they are, is the most wonderful gift you can give. To accept marriage in all its forms is the best way to show that you love, respect, and accept people in all their forms. |
See, this is to me the crux of Christianity.
If you can live by these simple concepts, you will be a truly good person.
The rest of it seems to be what creates all the controversy and strife, especially when scholars try to decide what it REALLY means.
|
|
|
|
11/20/2008 09:15:01 PM · #1260 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
OK, I officially prescribe everybody a chill pill this evening. We were having a great day of conversation until the last 5 posts when it all blew up in my face. I was totally joking with Paul and you guys both jump on me. Before that Dahkota did her best "You don't know me! You only think you know me!" when I was just trying to reach out after getting excited by Haidt's stuff.
Chill out everybody! |
I realize you meant it to be humorous, but like most humor, there's a painful kernal of truth at its core -- I think being blunt is just another way to (hopefully) get people to have to stop and read rather than skimming; the "real" basis of your opposition is that it doesn't comport with your own comfort zone. As has been said, we all have to accept some things which go against our grain, and the right to equal, gender-neutral treatment of all citizens under the law trumps your right to feel "comfortable." |
|
|
|
11/20/2008 09:20:32 PM · #1261 |
Originally posted by GeneralE:
we all have to accept some things which go against our grain, and the right to equal, gender-neutral treatment of all citizens under the law trumps your right to feel "comfortable." |
Very well said, sir!
|
|
|
|
11/20/2008 10:26:10 PM · #1262 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
I DID find it interesting in the video and article that the 5-channel morality doesn't value fairness and care LESS, but they valued all 5 channels equally. The difference doesn't come in those first two channels, it comes in the last three. OTOH, I hear your argument (I think) "how can you pay attention to the first two as much if you value three or more?" That makes sense to me too. |
Yes, 1/5 is a lot less than 1/2. The alternative I suppose is to claim a much larger capacity for morality. I'm mostly uncomfortable with the neat compartmentalization expressed in the paper I read - still haven't seen the video.
Sometimes things that seem this simple really are insightful. Other times they are just pandering to preconceived notions. In this case it seems awfully easy and previously ignored or missed at the same time, which tends to make me suspicious.
Message edited by author 2008-11-20 22:29:09. |
|
|
|
11/20/2008 11:43:20 PM · #1263 |
Marry whoever the hell you want, but stop pluralizing axis that way. I WON'T TOLERATE IT.
Axes, people! You are grinding axes!! |
|
|
|
11/21/2008 12:00:18 AM · #1264 |
Originally posted by Gordon:
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
I DID find it interesting in the video and article that the 5-channel morality doesn't value fairness and care LESS, but they valued all 5 channels equally. The difference doesn't come in those first two channels, it comes in the last three. OTOH, I hear your argument (I think) "how can you pay attention to the first two as much if you value three or more?" That makes sense to me too. |
Yes, 1/5 is a lot less than 1/2. The alternative I suppose is to claim a much larger capacity for morality. I'm mostly uncomfortable with the neat compartmentalization expressed in the paper I read - still haven't seen the video.
Sometimes things that seem this simple really are insightful. Other times they are just pandering to preconceived notions. In this case it seems awfully easy and previously ignored or missed at the same time, which tends to make me suspicious. |
I agree Gordon that the real world is messier than we like to describe it. I don't even fit perfectly in Haidt's "liberal" and "conservative" because while I seem to value the other three axes more than many on this thread, I also seem to value them less than lots of my church friends. It's all a continuum, I suppose, and maybe even changes from issue to issue for individuals. Still, it's a decent framework for understanding why people don't seem to even be able to communicate on a thread like this. Like John Stewart said, âIt is so funny; you know whatâs so interesting about this is ultimately you end up getting to this point, this crazy stopping point where literally we canât get any further. I donât think youâre a bad dude, I donât think Iâm a bad dude, but I literally canât convince you.â I'm quite sure 'humous and Mousie and dahkota and everybody else is quite frustrated with me because, "IF HE'D ONLY SEE!!!" I don't blame them, but I do think I understand now.
Look at it this way, I'm pretty sure Haidt is pro gay-marriage. He basically said it in his paper. But he also validated my position and said we need to understand where we are coming from before he eventually tries to win me over to his side. His closing is nice: "Conservatives and many moderates are opposed to gay marriage in
part due to moral intuitions related to ingroup, authority, and purity, and these concerns should be addressed, rather than dismissed contemptuously." Frankly I've seen far too much "contemptous dismissal" on this thread. (not from you actually. I'd say you've been rather neutral.)
Message edited by author 2008-11-21 00:07:18. |
|
|
|
11/21/2008 12:06:32 AM · #1265 |
Originally posted by posthumous:
Marry whoever the hell you want, but stop pluralizing axis that way. I WON'T TOLERATE IT.
Axes, people! You are grinding axes!! |
LOL. Thanks Don. You don't know how many times I hop over to Google to check the spelling of a word. Sometimes I get lazy and just type the word into google instead of, say, dictionary.com. If it pops up enough times I assume it's right. Apparently 31,300 webpages have it spelled wrong. :) I'll fix it from now on. I promise.
Although, what if I WANT to spell it "axises". Am I really hurting anybody?... ;) |
|
|
|
11/21/2008 12:15:18 AM · #1266 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Originally posted by posthumous:
Marry whoever the hell you want, but stop pluralizing axis that way. I WON'T TOLERATE IT.
Axes, people! You are grinding axes!! |
LOL. Thanks Don. You don't know how many times I hop over to Google to check the spelling of a word. Sometimes I get lazy and just type the word into google instead of, say, dictionary.com. If it pops up enough times I assume it's right. Apparently 31,300 webpages have it spelled wrong. :) I'll fix it from now on. I promise.
Although, what if I WANT to spell it "axises". Am I really hurting anybody?... ;) |
You are hurting my purity axis. |
|
|
|
11/21/2008 04:02:35 AM · #1267 |
Okay - read most of this from 16 pages back, and while I feel obliged to correct certain interpretations of Kant's ethics, I would first like to honour  Mousie's contributions, both historical and personal. Marriage has never been a big thing for me, possibly because each of my parents married three times, and because in Canada living with my partner is sufficient to secure legal spousal rights. But being heterosexual, having a child and staying together has allowed us the recognition and acceptance normal to legally married couples. I hadn't really realized that until I read what Mousie wrote about his marriage. It was a beautiful illumination of what all this is about.
Deep relationships are a great gift. Hiding them under bushels deprives us all.
(Kant did not base his ethics on God. The meat of his thinking lies in the Critique of Pure Practical Reason, which takes us beyond the categorical imperative to another beautiful point of illumination very like Julian of Norwich's "And all shall be well, and all shall be well, and all manner of things shall be well." It is all incredibly simple). |
|
|
|
11/21/2008 06:19:09 AM · #1268 |
Originally posted by posthumous:
Marry whoever the hell you want, but stop pluralizing axis that way. I WON'T TOLERATE IT.
Axes, people! You are grinding axes!! |
ah. A hetronym. Hard to make a pun when the word is the same. I disambiguated it with Jason's bad speiling deliberately. |
|
|
|
11/21/2008 10:31:39 AM · #1269 |
Doc, I put my money where your mouth is:
( test offered at //YourMorals.org )
I'm green. Blue is left and red is right.
In three cases, I split the difference between liberals and conservatives. The only place I seem to veer off into liberalism is on the issue of ingroup loyalty.
I noticed some flaws in the questions that speak to certain issues about these five categories. One's definitions of "God" and "disorder" will change how one answers the questions. So, it's not solely a matter of how important you think each axis is, but how you define the scope of each axis.
Message edited by author 2008-11-21 10:32:16. |
|
|
|
11/21/2008 11:17:34 AM · #1270 |
Originally posted by posthumous:
I noticed some flaws in the questions that speak to certain issues about these five categories. One's definitions of "God" and "disorder" will change how one answers the questions. So, it's not solely a matter of how important you think each axis is, but how you define the scope of each axis. |
Ah, that's cool. I think I didn't realize you could actually take the test (although now I recall him saying something like that). Maybe I'll hop over and see what it shows. Would be interesting to do some comparisons in the conversation here.
EDIT: Here you go.
I realize it's possible the numbers are skewed because I've seen "behind the curtain" and could tell what a number of questions were asking about. I tried my best to answer honestly. I didn't, for example, just peg the purity questions as 6 to prove a point. I do find it interesting. Maybe I AM weird. Harm and Fairness are about where we'd expect. Loyalty is quite low (which makes some sense in my life. I'm pretty low on the "patriotic" scale.), Authority is more "liberal", but I seem to be some purity/chastity freak. At the least I am clearly along the conservative lines for that axis (assuming my knowing what the test was about skewed the result on that axis).
It probably proves Gordon's point that you can't pigeonhole people, but it's interesting. I think it would be really interesting to see more people take the test. Dahkota, if you do, I promise I won't label you anything. ;)
Message edited by author 2008-11-21 11:39:22. |
|
|
|
11/21/2008 12:19:20 PM · #1271 |
Apparently I am the least chaste person on the planet. Ok.
 |
|
|
|
11/21/2008 12:37:42 PM · #1272 |
Originally posted by Louis:
Apparently I am the least chaste person on the planet. Ok. |
LOL. Wow Louis. That's impressive! :)
|
|
|
|
11/21/2008 12:41:51 PM · #1273 |
| I gave the test to my family to see what they would come out as. My brother is pretty equal to the blues which makes sense since he's to the left of center. I'm interested in what my parents will come out as. Do the values of the parents rub off on the kids? If their Purity scale is low, it may reflect mine had some bias. |
|
|
|
11/21/2008 12:49:20 PM · #1274 |
Originally posted by Louis:
Apparently I am the least chaste person on the planet. Ok.
|
Impure and disloyal...why...you slut.
j/k ;-) |
|
|
|
11/21/2008 01:03:29 PM · #1275 |
| I wonder though. In my case, the answers were my gut feelings, and I had a visceral reaction to some questions (such as, "Hell, no!"). I have a feeling those were the questions related to purity. However, I wonder, if faced with something so completely disgusting, whether or not I would answer differently. In general my answers were related to the fact that I couldn't care less, and it is completely irrelevant to me, how unchaste, or lascivious or whatever, other people are, or even to what extent people are willing to degrade themselves, so long as no intentional harm or degradation comes to others. |
|
