Octopus Overlords

Sorry I couldn't put more information in the title. Bear with me because I don't have my question clear in my head, and am looking for guidance input from you to help with that.

Fed recently brought something up that I see repeated again and again in various forms. I'll start with the more familiar political discussion.

I like to be tolerant. I think I am. I try to tolerate and accept others are different than me. Don't laugh, I really do put in effort. I like to think I succeed, mostly.

Liberals are known for the all encompassing, tolerant, everyone's equal approach. Ignoring whether they actually believe it or whether it is actually true or not, what you often hear from the more conservative side is the opposite. Lack of tolerance. Homogeneity. Be like me otherwise we have a problem sort of thing. Paraphrase that any way you need to to make it understandable to you. I know I am wording it badly and lots of people will have a problem with it.

Ok, trying to be more clear.

Side 1) Everyone is valid as they are.

Side 2) No one is valid except for me. Be more like me.

Side 1 to side 2) No, that's wrong. Stop being like that. Be more like us.

Side 2) Aha! You're just what you preach against! You are intolerant of everyone who isn't like you!

As you can see, that's a bit of a conundrum for Side 1. Because how can you be all encompassing when you can't accept a position diametrically opposed to your own? Can both philosophies exist? What happens to Side 1? What should happen? Is this truly a paradox, or just the appearance of one?

We can see this is other areas. I had one other example but my son needed something and now I've lost it.

Fed recently pulled this. While potentially valid, I think it's kind of a cheap argument. This is not the first time he's directed this at me, which is probably why I finally took note of it. Or enough to write about it anyway.

Side 2) They are doing it wrong. I disapprove.

Side 1) Don't judge people.

Side 2) Aha! You're judging us! Hypocrite.


I really wish I hadn't forgotten the 3rd example I was going to write about, but hopefully this is enough.

I'm not even sure I have a question that you can answer.

I guess I'll leave it like this: Any thoughts? Opinions? Does the concept of diametrically opposed viewpoints, when one is all encompassing and the other all exclusive, cause a paradox? If not, why not? If so, what is the solution, if any?

Sorry for the length. Like I said, it's pretty muddled and am looking for input.

I guess my opinion on other people's opinions has a lot to do with whether or not I perceive that harm is being done in the name of their views. This clarifies very little, as everyone has opinions about what is or is not harmful, be that secondhand smoke or letting teenagers sail around the world.

Humans are complicated.

My motto:

Learn to live with ambiguity.

GreenGoo wrote:Does the concept of diametrically opposed viewpoints, when one is all encompassing and the other all exclusive, cause a paradox? If not, why not? If so, what is the solution, if any?

If these extreme viewpoints actually existed they wouldn't cause a paradox, it is more like hypocrisy.

I dream in color
I live in black and white
But still I have those days when I'm stumbling through the grays,
When I drink for boredom and for spite

IMHO it's pretty difficult to effectively communicate via posting comments in a thread, but admittedly some are better at it than others.

Most of the time (for me) it's not about convincing someone that you're right - it's more about trying to understand how the person in question came to their particular position.

Smoove_B wrote:Most of the time (for me) it's not about convincing someone that you're right - it's more about trying to understand how the person in question came to their particular position.

Wow. Did I ever drop the ball on this one. Because my only response to your response is:

....what?

I guess I'll leave it like this: Any thoughts? Opinions? Does the concept of diametrically opposed viewpoints, when one is all encompassing and the other all exclusive, cause a paradox? If not, why not? If so, what is the solution, if any?

I guess my point was that I'm not posting on here to change minds. The idea of "diametrically opposed philosophies" doesn't come into my posting style as I'm not looking to win hearts and minds. You post what you want, I'll post what I want. If we can agree and have a discussion, terrific. If not, no big deal and I'm on my way.

My opinion is that humans are not computers, and as such our opinions are constructs based on the loosest of logic. Ultimately my stance is going to be formed of the thousands of little events that have influenced my belief system since the time I was born. So there is absolutely no reconciling diametrically opposed viewpoints, because I am arguing from a stance inherent to my own experience just as my opponent is arguing from a stance inherent to their own experience. The best I can hope for is a compromise in which each person steps outside the boundaries of their own experience and agrees to entertain notions that are completely foreign to them.

I don't post on this board to change minds, because going into a debate I'm fully aware of the above paragraph. At best I'm hoping to get the other person to see things from a perspective they may have not considered. On a superficial level, I just think it's fun to debate people. Not in a trolling or antagonistic way, but in a debate club/logic exercise kind of way. I find it challenging and entertaining.

So to your specific example, I see this as one of the numerous debate "tricks" that we all use, either consciously or subconsciously, to "win." Sometimes they are documented logical fallacies (straw man, etc.) Other times they are examples of cherry picking or selective memory. If they're blatant enough to recognize them immediately, I may point them out. Otherwise, I'll probably let it go. In the Fed example, it's probably technically true but it's also a shift of focus away from the real debate (lawyers are sneaky that way) It's a bit of Johnny Cochran "if the glove don't fit you must acquit" chicanery.

Note: Despite my lawyer cracks, I have only the deepest respect for Mr. Fed. He is truly one of the master 'baters of this board.

I hear ya Smoove. I was actually reflecting on that recently.

But my op had nothing to do with posting or forums at all. Which is part of why I was confused by your response.

How do you reconcile those who claim their way is the only way and all others are invalid with those who claim that all ways are valid, except those which claim that only their way is valid.

Religion might be easier to understand, although Jag's point about the theoretical positions not actually existing in the real world might make it more difficult.

Country says all religions are welcome.

Religion 1 says all other religions must be destroyed.

Country says that's not what we're about.

Religion says stop stepping on my religious freedoms.

Does that illustrate the concept better or just make it worse?

YellowKing wrote:Note: Despite my lawyer cracks, I have only the deepest respect for Mr. Fed. He is truly one of the master 'baters of this board.

Agreed. And I enjoy when he chooses to engage me directly. I only feel a little sad that the only time he chooses to is when he's wrong. It's like some weird twist of probability.



I want to make it clear that this is not about Fed or even our discussion in the other thread. I've been thinking about this idea for awhile and made no headway. Fed's response only reminded me and I thought it was a good time to ask for input from everyone while it was fresh in my mind.

I now somewhat regret mentioned the specific example at all, but really and truly, this thread was not supposed to be directly related to the other. When I referred to it, I hoped it would make it easier to understand what I was talking about, rather than redirect the focus onto it.

I think your main problem is that there are zero people in the world who claim "all ways" are equal. Many folks voice a live and let live philosophy and hold to it. The differences between them are in regards to where their life ends and others begin. It is not hypocracy to hold a different opinion of where that line exists between us.

Remus West wrote:I think your main problem is that there are zero people in the world who claim "all ways" are equal. Many folks voice a live and let live philosophy and hold to it. The differences between them are in regards to where their life ends and others begin. It is not hypocracy to hold a different opinion of where that line exists between us.

I think there are many people who claim "all ways" are equal except when one of the ways says "no ways but my way are right".

Which is where the conflict comes into play.

Ok, yeah, "all ways" might be pushing it. Because ways that involve human blood sacrifice are probably not going to be acceptable to the "all ways" people either.

Hopefully we can switch to "all ways" within a probable doubt or whatever society has decided is a reasonable way to judge subjective things.

GreenGoo wrote:I hear ya Smoove. I was actually reflecting on that recently.

But my op had nothing to do with posting or forums at all. Which is part of why I was confused by your response.

Sorry. I guess I was thinking you were talking specifically about the forums. I can't think of a specific situation I've been in IRL that reflects your concerns. Perhaps I subconsciously avoid them.

Here Ill help simplify things, some people like to debate and others like to argue. Once you figure out who does what, communication becomes a lot easier. Ive myself have learned that the world shouldn't be viewed in absolutes. Two people can have differing points of view and ( GASP! ) both can be correct.

rshetts2 wrote:Here Ill help simplify things, some people like to debate and others like to argue. Once you figure out who does what, communication becomes a lot easier. Ive myself have learned that the world shouldn't be viewed in absolutes. Two people can have differing points of view and ( GASP! ) both can be correct.

That's true. Except in the situation I've been mulling over, it's very clear that they both can't be.

I try ti ignore conflicting philosophies.

For example, I will not look a gift horse in the mouth unless it is given by gift-bearing Greeks.

In other words, we strive, I think, to balance each person/sect/group's stands with our own lines. If I believe that all religions are equal, then by necessity I must disagree with someone who believes that only his is right. I do not think that makes a hypocracy, just a difference of opinion. There really is no way around the conflict, the question for me is how close are you to crossing my (arbitrary) line and infringing on me.

It's clear that I completely screwed up the OP, not because I'm not getting the answers I wanted (I had and still have no clue where I stand on this) but because the answers aren't touching on the conflict I'm working on.

Feel free to respond or not to this thread. I won't alter the OP because that would lead to even more confusion between the OP and responses. But since we're not covering what I wanted to cover, I hope you can understand if I don't participate much more.

Of course I blame my OP, and feared as much as I wrote it. My apologies for the confusion.

GreenGoo wrote:
Hopefully we can switch to "all ways" within a probable doubt or whatever society has decided is a reasonable way to judge subjective things.

But now aren't we saying that "all ways that are reasonably acceptable are acceptable."? Either it's all ways or it isn't. Once it's not, the binary falls apart.

I think the reason that you're running into a problem is that you're creating the irreconciliable binaries to begin with. You are defining the problem in a way that you wind up with two opposing things, rather than a spectrum.

Yeah, that happens quite often on forums. Not sure what the specific situation is but when I reach an impasse I try to separate opinion from fact. If you re going round and round arguing opinions, ( a favorite forum activity it seems ) then you re going to end up quite frustrated. If a person isn't willing to look outside their personal opinions too see the other persons point of view, then its doubtful any resolution is ever going to happen. If you've reached that point then this takes place and its often best to just drop the discussion.

GreenGoo wrote:It's clear that I completely screwed up the OP, not because I'm not getting the answers I wanted (I had and still have no clue where I stand on this) but because the answers aren't touching on the conflict I'm working on.

Feel free to respond or not to this thread. I won't alter the OP because that would lead to even more confusion between the OP and responses. But since we're not covering what I wanted to cover, I hope you can understand if I don't participate much more.

Of course I blame my OP, and feared as much as I wrote it. My apologies for the confusion.

Actually I think part of the issue is that folks read the thread title and started forming their answers before reading your actual post. In the future (assuming something similar were to come up again), I'd change your subject line to "How do you handle this specific philosophic difference?" (Maybe get rid of the word "philosophic" if it puts you too long.) That is much less likely to lead people to "knowing" their answer before they actually read what you were hoping to have them discuss.

FWIW.

GreenGoo wrote:I think there are many people who claim "all ways" are equal except when one of the ways says "no ways but my way are right".

Then I guess you and I just see the world very very differently. Personally I think I'm almost as far left as you can get but if someone told me they thought "all ways are equal" I would simply lump them in the idiot catagory and move along with my life.

El Guapo wrote:

GreenGoo wrote:
Hopefully we can switch to "all ways" within a probable doubt or whatever society has decided is a reasonable way to judge subjective things.

But now aren't we saying that "all ways that are reasonably acceptable are acceptable."? Either it's all ways or it isn't. Once it's not, the binary falls apart.

Roger. We should be able to discuss the theoreticals as a sort of thought experiment despite real life being shades of gray though? Or not.

But you're completely right about acceptable and unacceptable, which is why I tried to cover that base with the tried and true legal use of "reasonable" or not. I guess that didn't work.

Ok. Since All inclusive can not, ever, exist as an absolute unless it can accept the completely exclusive perspective, I guess it resolves itself.

It's very similar to some aspects of the Free Speech argument. Although that seems to have been resolved not by accepting suppression of all speech besides mine as valid, but by putting all Speech except in these instances. It seems to be very similar to this in fact.

Hmmm. Will try to straighten out the question more before trying to answer it.

Thanks for your input El Guapo, I see you are following me, which says more about your ability to be communicate than mine.

Remus West wrote:

GreenGoo wrote:I think there are many people who claim "all ways" are equal except when one of the ways says "no ways but my way are right".

Then I guess you and I just see the world very very differently. Personally I think I'm almost as far left as you can get but if someone told me they thought "all ways are equal" I would simply lump them in the idiot catagory and move along with my life.

Yes, I clarified (or attempted to) later. You're right, I'm wrong.

The Meal wrote:Actually I think part of the issue is that folks read the thread title and started forming their answers before reading your actual post. In the future (assuming something similar were to come up again), I'd change your subject line to "How do you handle this specific philosophic difference?" (Maybe get rid of the word "philosophic" if it puts you too long.) That is much less likely to lead people to "knowing" their answer before they actually read what you were hoping to have them discuss.

FWIW.

I actually tried to avoid exactly that when I wrote the title Meal. Guess I better practice more.

Just to see if I have this right...your conundrum is: Do the tolerant need to tolerate intolerance, and if they won't, does that make them intolerant?

If that's what you're asking, then I think that you're tripping up on absolutes. That is, one can tolerate the intolerants' existence and rights to their beliefs while opposing their ideas and trying to block their agenda. I don't think that's hypocritical. "I don't agree with what you say, but I defend to the death your right to say it."

That really pisses off the intolerant.

I'd like to be the first to call for a separate "GreenGoo philosophical pontificating" forum.

What you're doing is creating a false dilemma an then asking for a rationalization for it.

GreenGoo wrote: Ok, trying to be more clear.

Side 1) Everyone is valid as they are.

Side 2) No one is valid except for me. Be more like me.

Side 1 to side 2) No, that's wrong. Stop being like that. Be more like us.

Side 2) Aha! You're just what you preach against! You are intolerant of everyone who isn't like you!

The problem is your position is self refuting and logically incoherent. You start off by saying that everyone's position is valid but the moment someone claims exclusivity for their position, you say they are wrong. That simple exchange shows the logical fallacy of your position - it can't be sustained.

No matter what position you take, your premise is proved false. If you disagree with them as in the example above, you refute your premise. If you agree with them, you refute your premise. The plain truth is everyone can't be right, that all positions aren't valid, no matter how much you wish to "play nice".

It would be much more honest if we all realized that everything can't be true, that all paths don't lead to the same place, and some values are better than others. You can then have an open honest discussion rather than some pretending to take the high road because they think they accept all other views.

I don't reconcile different philosophies, I guess. I have my own world view and it gets reshaped from lots of different things.

Liberals are known for the all encompassing, tolerant, everyone's equal approach.

I find that liberals like to known for this but that's not necessarily true.

I find that people who are tolerant of every one cope with toleration by withdrawal which is popular conservative motive. Have your life. I'll be over here away from you. I find the popular way liberals become do their thing is not become tolerant but to become accepting and immerse themselves in differences.

I don't find enough conservatives or liberals being tolerant or accepting. That's life. When a liberal or conservative push too much I become intolerant or non accepting. I tune them out.

I often like to hear people's thoughts. The help me think better. Sometimes they help me grow. Sometimes I live vicariously through their them. I recognize that my picture of the world is different than most so I generally just try to stay out of the way.

How do you reconcile those who claim their way is the only way and all others are invalid with those who claim that all ways are valid, except those which claim that only their way is valid.

That depends. Do their claims come with actions that demand something from you? If so then you figure out if he you want to accept their demands or you want to reject them. If their claims are just claims then you figure out if it's worth it to hear them or if you simply ignore them.

Country says all religions are welcome.

Religion 1 says all other religions must be destroyed.

Country says that's not what we're about.

Religion says stop stepping on my religious freedoms.

Does that illustrate the concept better or just make it worse?

Country ought to realize and accept that all religions are not welcome, that religions of destruction are not free.

rshetts2 wrote:Here Ill help simplify things, some people like to debate and others like to argue. Once you figure out who does what, communication becomes a lot easier. Ive myself have learned that the world shouldn't be viewed in absolutes. Two people can have differing points of view and ( GASP! ) both can be correct.

And still others like to talk and discuss and mumble and blather.

Remus West wrote:Personally I think I'm almost as far left as you can get but if someone told me they thought "all ways are equal" I would simply lump them in the idiot catagory and move along with my life.

You're not. You're not even on the extreme academic left side. Take it from someone who tends be on the "right" side of things and the lunatic right side of things at that.

There is no problem with having conflicting philosophies, as long as one does not try to impose on another.

In the Country vs Religion 1 example:

Free religion is a public policy. Since it is 'free', as in most tolerant of everyone, it is 'right'. Everyone practices, or not, as they see fit.

Religion 1 saying "no, ours is the one, all others must be eliminated' is fine for THEM to practice, but not as public policy. That's because the 'public' is everyone, not just them. Their right to practice is not being imposed upon, in fact what they are asking for is their rights AND the right to impose on others as well.

GreenGoo wrote: I like to be tolerant. I think I am. I try to tolerate and accept others are different than me. Don't laugh, I really do put in effort. I like to think I succeed, mostly.

Liberals are known for the all encompassing, tolerant, everyone's equal approach. Ignoring whether they actually believe it or whether it is actually true or not, what you often hear from the more conservative side is the opposite. Lack of tolerance. Homogeneity. Be like me otherwise we have a problem sort of thing. Paraphrase that any way you need to to make it understandable to you. I know I am wording it badly and lots of people will have a problem with it.

Some would argue that. Others would argue that "liberals" are responsible for "political correctness" and various forms of (sorry) Canadian-style speech-policing. They would also say that "conservatives" are, in the modern context, more likely to be supporters of free expression (boobies and criticizing the President during wartime not included, supplies limited, no liability, read your ticket).

That may or may not be. Or it may depend upon your definition of liberal or conservative. I'm skeptical that it can ever be a useful generalization.

Side 1) Everyone is valid as they are.

Side 2) No one is valid except for me. Be more like me.

Side 1 to side 2) No, that's wrong. Stop being like that. Be more like us.

Side 2) Aha! You're just what you preach against! You are intolerant of everyone who isn't like you!

This is like a riff on the classic "be tolerant of intolerance" conundrum, a centerpiece of discussion of free speech (particularly of hate speech laws) for the last 25 years or so. See, e.g., Lee Bollinger. It's sometimes called the paradox of intolerance.

I think it tends to be overstated, and ignore important distinctions:

1. The distinction between private and public action. Say that I announce that I favor freedom of speech and oppose content-based speech bans. A politician announces he wants to ban hate speech. I rally people to vote against him. Say someone says "Aha! You're a hypocrite! You are trying to inflict harm on him for speaking freely!" But (almost) everyone would immediately recognize that's bogus. I'm opposing official action proposed by the candidate. I'm not, for instance, proposing that the candidate be arrested for making his suggestion.

2. The distinction between speech and action. The prior example illustrates this. So does another: I state that I am opposed to hate speech laws. Some fuckstain who doesn't want a mosque near ground zero beats a Puerto Rican guy because the fuckstain thinks he looks Muslim. I advocate him going to jail. "Aha!" says our accuser. "You're a hypocrite! You support intolerance by opposing hate speech laws, but want to punish this man for acting from intolerance." Again, no one of consequence would buy that. Action (beating someone) is not the same as speech (saying hateful things about someone).

3. The distinction between non-judgmental and judgmental tolerance: Say I am against hate speech laws (and I am). But I routinely ridicule and criticize people who engage in hate speech (and I do.) "Aha!" says our critic. "You're a hypocrite! You're not tolerant at all!" Actually, I'm judgmentally tolerant. That means that I support people's right to do many sorts of things that I hate and feel free to criticize. Because only scary totalitarians think that if a thing is morally wrong it ought to be illegal.

There are a few other distinctions as well, but those are the big ones.

Fed recently pulled this. While potentially valid, I think it's kind of a cheap argument. This is not the first time he's directed this at me, which is probably why I finally took note of it. Or enough to write about it anyway.

Side 2) They are doing it wrong. I disapprove.

Side 1) Don't judge people.

Side 2) Aha! You're judging us! Hypocrite.

You're free to spin it that way.

It was a throwaway line, inspired by what I thought was your over-the-top defensiveness and anger that anyone would question whether it's good parenting to send a 16-year-old to sail alone under circumstances that many adult sailors seem to be saying are ridiculously dangerous. This kind of captured it for me:

Luckily Abby and her parents don't need any of your approval. And they will go on to do great things, or do great things and die, or just die attempting to do great things, none the wiser that some computer geeks disapprove.

It just struck me as odd, in this instance, to be so angry at other people's expressions of opinions under the umbrella of preaching tolerance for other people's choices.

It might be a little different if people expressed their criticisms in a rude, abusive, or obnoxious way that suggested bias rather than reasoned critique, like "those parents are fucking evil; they ought to be jailed," or "typical of religious people," or something. Then I might be throwing elbows right with you.

But you seem to go beyond that. You seem to want to pursue a style of non-judgmentalism that means that people's choices should not merely be protected from government interference, and not merely that decent people shouldn't be dicks about those choices, but that those choices should be immunized within our community from debate and (non-dickish) criticism.

(Well, on some topics, at least. )

Whereas I'm not laying claim to being non-judgmental. I'm Judgey McJudge. I will judge the living shit out of you. Oh, I'll try not to do it in a first-stone-throwing professional Pharissee way, like Dr. Laura (for instance, you won't catch me going on rants about goddam sarcastic people). I don't judge a vast amount of conduct that I think doesn't hurt me or innocents. I don't tend to judge things that I find personally unappealling just because I find them unappealling. But there's all sorts of things that I will happily judge.

And don't even get me started on your abuse of "chill speech" theory.

Mr. Fed wrote:
It was a throwaway line, inspired by what I thought was your over-the-top defensiveness and anger that anyone would question whether it's good parenting to send a 16-year-old to sail alone under circumstances that many adult sailors seem to be saying are ridiculously dangerous. This kind of captured it for me:

Luckily Abby and her parents don't need any of your approval. And they will go on to do great things, or do great things and die, or just die attempting to do great things, none the wiser that some computer geeks disapprove.

Ok. Wow. Defensive and angry? Again, wow. I felt neither defensive nor angry. In fact reading your example quote I am struggling to see our viewpoint. Defiant possibly? But defensive? That's weird, because the way El Guapo will raise his kids and the way I will raise mine are basically parallel, on this topic.

And angry? Not at all. Hep and I got into it slightly but I don't think my temperature even began to rise. Which is not to say that I've never been defensive or angry on these forums, just this particular time it surprises me to hear I came across that way.

Fed, as I said in the other thread, it's not exactly people's opinions that get me writing, it's that I value behaviour that Abby and her parents are engaged in. I think it speaks well of mankind as a whole when people take their god given abilities and use them to their fullest. When they look at a situation and instead of playing it safe they go for it. In fact I think the Abby's of the world (and other, less physical risk takers, such as intellectually risky fields of research or whatever) that drag the rest of us kicking and screaming into the future. When a group of people stand around pointing their fingers and say "bad boy" is has a discouraging effect. Peer pressure isn't make believe. In fact society uses it to keep most of us in line. So when I see a group of people criticizing behaviour that I value, I feel the need to defend it. Not because I don't think they are entitled to their opinion, but because I want Abby to not have to deal with naysayers. They are like anchors on those striving to accomplish things. Of course this is all at the intellectual level, since nothing either side says here on the OO forums will have any effect on Abby or other like her out there in the real world.

I was only partially kidding when I implied that if everyone behaved in ways that wouldn't draw the disapproval of those in this thread, that we'd end up with a society of accountants.

Phew. Written word is not as good a medium as I would like. At least my faculty with it I guess.

In any case, don't want to have the same conversation in two different places. Moving along.

Thanks for the rest. Valuable input as usual. And thanks to everyone who gave me their opinion. Helps with perspective, for sure.

Jaymann wrote:My motto:

Learn to live with ambiguity.

Mine is close to that........I rarely believe I am right with any belief anymore, that way I don't get upset when people disagree with me....

Besides...the other guy is always wrong anyway....................

Scuzz wrote:

Jaymann wrote:My motto:

Learn to live with ambiguity.

Mine is close to that........I rarely believe I am right with any belief anymore, that way I don't get upset when people disagree with me....

Besides...the other guy is always wrong anyway....................

+1.

I may not always be right. I just can't understand why the other guy is always wrong.

GreenGoo wrote:it's that I value behaviour that Abby and her parents are engaged in. I think it speaks well of mankind as a whole when people take their god given abilities and use them to their fullest. When they look at a situation and instead of playing it safe they go for it. In fact I think the Abby's of the world (and other, less physical risk takers, such as intellectually risky fields of research or whatever) that drag the rest of us kicking and screaming into the future.

The question isn't whether we need the people that take risks and lead us into new areas of knowledge/experience. I think we do. The question is whether a 16 year who is barely of age to be allowed to drive a car, who has such limited life experiences, who generally our society prevents from engaging in any number of potentially dangerous activities, has the experience, maturity and ability to properly assess the risks of an endeavor like this, and the specific risks she may encounter along the way.

Grifman wrote: The question is whether a 16 year who is barely of age to be allowed to drive a car, who has such limited life experiences, who generally our society prevents from engaging in any number of potentially dangerous activities, has the experience, maturity and ability to properly assess the risks of an endeavor like this, and the specific risks she may encounter along the way.

Agreed on all counts. We are definitely at loggerheads about where the line is in terms of activities as they relate to age.

Too bad Runningmn9 isn't around. Not that I think he'd support me, but I do know that he has some specific viewpoints on what kids are capable of, and feels society in general coddles them too much.

In any case, going to try to stop discussing this in both threads. Sorry for keeping it going in this one. Instinct.

Open minded means a willingness to consider conflicting points of view, not to blindly accept whatever is thrown at you.

I'm a very tolerant person. I'm willing to give any idea a chance, and will admit to the validity of opposing viewpoints. That does not, however, prevent from calling bullshit when I see it.

gameoverman wrote:There is no problem with having conflicting philosophies, as long as one does not try to impose on another.

In the Country vs Religion 1 example:

Free religion is a public policy. Since it is 'free', as in most tolerant of everyone, it is 'right'. Everyone practices, or not, as they see fit.

Religion 1 saying "no, ours is the one, all others must be eliminated' is fine for THEM to practice, but not as public policy. That's because the 'public' is everyone, not just them. Their right to practice is not being imposed upon, in fact what they are asking for is their rights AND the right to impose on others as well.

So they are free to destroy others as long as they are in pursuit of their religion? The public policy in contention with religion is not the one granting freedom of religion. It is laws that prevent people from committing atrocities in their name of their religions.

My girlfriend and I had a long conversation last night that fits well in this thread. I'll post more about it when I can condense it a bit.

gameoverman wrote:Their right to practice is not being imposed upon, in fact what they are asking for is their rights AND the right to impose on others as well.

This is pretty much where I would usually end up.

"They" seem to be using the all encompassing policy to justify their oppression. When oppressing other religions is part of your religion, and the country your in has a freedom of religion policy, do you get to cry about your religious freedoms being repressed when you aren't "allowed" to oppress others?

This may seem obvious but I see this concept semi-regularly in the news, covering various topics. It rarely comes up in Freedom of Speech issues because those have been analyzed to death. But we seem to need to reinvent the wheel when the concepts are parallel but the details are different.

I'll try to point out what I think is this sort of argument the next time I see one in the news. It's not a daily basis, so it could be 6 months from now or longer. I hope I remember and revisit this thread when it happens.