Thoughts from a Newbie: Rose Reads Safehold

hanuman wrote:"Does conviction not merit something more than being called a pyschopath? Strong conviction and strong faith even when those convictions and faith are not shared are worthy of recognition and respect. Otherwise its oh so easy to demonize those that disagree and hold those disagreement powerfully. Especially in times of war"

Peter, THAT was your original argument. We've by now agreed that a definitive, concrete standard exists to differentiate between evil and good. You put it very nicely, in fact: 'recognising each other's humanity' (or something to that effect).

I'll argue that no matter how strong one's convictions and beliefs are, the moment they cross that point and forget or deny that the other side is also human, then they're moving into evil territory. It is at that point that one can in fact start speculating as to whether the transgressor is a psychopath or not. I do not care whether their sincerely-held religious beliefs justify their behaviour - their actions condemn them as evil.

By the way, at no point have I ever argued that gays are some kind of saints. Au contraire, I've always argued that we are fully human, with all the strengths and weaknesses inherent to the human condition. So, I really do not understand why you felt it necessary to get that shot off...

For the same reason you sent your shot about Christians in the prior post. To illustrate that the recognition of each other's humanity begins with recognizing one's own failing. Then one can look for the elements of value in others.

As usual when we try to communicate, you read things and believe I said something that I did not. Having a standard for evaluating behavior and morality is not enough. A common standard must be agreed to. Simply asserting that in order for you to acknowledge the value of another's moral code requires that they accept your non-negotiable items first only works if you can dictate to that individual. Negotiation isn't possible under those conditions.

The bolded states that unless a people/group/nation/society acknowledges the humanity in others as you describe it, they are evil. Evil is not something that one negotiates with. Evil is destroyed. How quickly does that attitude shift to agree with me or die? I suspect not very quickly at all. At the very least it prepares the holder of that attitude to embrace their intolerance.

PeterZ wrote:

hanuman wrote:"Does conviction not merit something more than being called a pyschopath? Strong conviction and strong faith even when those convictions and faith are not shared are worthy of recognition and respect. Otherwise its oh so easy to demonize those that disagree and hold those disagreement powerfully. Especially in times of war"

Peter, THAT was your original argument. We've by now agreed that a definitive, concrete standard exists to differentiate between evil and good. You put it very nicely, in fact: 'recognising each other's humanity' (or something to that effect).

I'll argue that no matter how strong one's convictions and beliefs are, the moment they cross that point and forget or deny that the other side is also human, then they're moving into evil territory. It is at that point that one can in fact start speculating as to whether the transgressor is a psychopath or not. I do not care whether their sincerely-held religious beliefs justify their behaviour - their actions condemn them as evil.

By the way, at no point have I ever argued that gays are some kind of saints. Au contraire, I've always argued that we are fully human, with all the strengths and weaknesses inherent to the human condition. So, I really do not understand why you felt it necessary to get that shot off...

For the same reason you sent your shot about Christians in the prior post. To illustrate that the recognition of each other's humanity begins with recognizing one's own failing. Then one can look for the elements of value in others.

As usual when we try to communicate, you read things and believe I said something that I did not. Having a standard for evaluating behavior and morality is not enough. A common standard must be agreed to. Simply asserting that in order for you to acknowledge the value of another's moral code requires that they accept your non-negotiable items first only works if you can dictate to that individual. Negotiation isn't possible under those conditions.

The bolded states that unless a people/group/nation/society acknowledges the humanity in others as you describe it, they are evil. Evil is not something that one negotiates with. Evil is destroyed. How quickly does that attitude shift to agree with me or die? I suspect not very quickly at all. At the very least it prepares the holder of that attitude to embrace their intolerance.

I'm not convinced that lack of common standards is the real issue that confronts most negotiations.

The real issue is a whole lot more difficult really...

It is envy over something in someone elses possession or perhaps fear that someone else will take what I have away, whether I gained it rightfully or not.

It is the conviction that my bunch is better than the rest which gives me permission to dehumanize the other to the point where I am free to abuse him, gives me freedom to regard his life as having less value than my own...

Finally it is the conviction that I am right and the other wrong which makes my cause noble and his less so.

Lack of shared values is not the issue so much as our human capacity for warping those values, for endlessly using them to our own advantage as we rationalize away our own bad behavior rather than naming it for what it teally is.

Don

n7axw wrote:
I'm not convinced that lack of common standards is the real issue that confronts most negotiations.

The real issue is a whole lot more difficult really...

It is envy over something in someone elses possession or perhaps fear that someone else will take what I have away, whether I gained it rightfully or not.

It is the conviction that my bunch is better than the rest which gives me permission to dehumanize the other to the point where I am free to abuse him, gives me freedom to regard his life as having less value than my own...

Finally it is the conviction that I am right and the other wrong which makes my cause noble and his less so.

Lack of shared values is not the issue so much as our human capacity for warping those values, for endlessly using them to our own advantage as we rationalize away our own bad behavior rather than naming it for what it teally is.

Don

Again, we agree(Bold). How do we as humans AGREE on enough points in common to make negotiations possible?

It is indeed the acknowledgement that the conviction that makes our goals noble also resides in those we disagree with. No their goals might not be noble, but their conviction IS every bit as noble as ours (if misdirected). That shared nobility is one place to start building common ground.

Envy and fear are more easily quantifiable. What does one side desire? What does it fear? Improve access to the former and reduce exposure to the latter. There problem solved! Not willing to pay the price for these goods and that security? Fine let's negotiate.

Duplicity is a matter of trust but verify with a smidge of we can always go back to fighting.

PeterZ wrote:Again, we agree. How do we as humans AGREE on enough points in common to make negotiations possible?

It is indeed the acknowledgement that the conviction that makes our goals noble also resides in those we disagree with. No their goals might not be noble, but their conviction IS every bit as noble as ours (if misdirected). That shared nobility is one place to start building common ground.

That is the thing standing in the way of common ground. It is the worst possible place to begin building common ground. That's like saying "Here's a lava flow, that's one place to build the foundation of our new house."


Being convinced that your cause is right and just and thus by extension an opposing cause is not is the very definition of denying common ground on the issue. The starting point of finding common ground between opposing viewpoints is acknowledging the possibility, at the very least, that your side of that issue may not be completely right. In other words, putting ASIDE your damn conviction that you know best and subjecting your position to dispassionate critical scrutiny.


Faith and Conviction is where dispassionate critical scrutiny goes to die.

I'm sorry, but I do not need to agree on a shared value standard with an opponent to know when that opponent has crossed the bounds of human decency. Their actions will be evidence enough.

You regard me as a human being? Then don't torture me. Then don't rape me. Then don't starve me. Then TREAT me with human dignity when you capture me.

You don't do that, you have violated my humanity. Whether you do that because you BELIEVE that it is the right thing to do simply does not matter. Your actions have betrayed you as depraved, as evil.

Actions count, not words and not beliefs. Words are intangible, beliefs are subjective, only actions are concrete.

What I meant by my previous post is that we've got to draw a line somewhere, and say 'this is acceptable and this is not'. Our common humanity seems to me, at least, to be that line. And it is our behaviour and actions under especially stressful conditions, but in everyday life as well, which determines whether we've crossed that line or not - not what we believe or think.

Telling ourselves that belief and conviction determines acceptable human behaviour, as Peter seems to be arguing, leaves us with a situation where any kind of behaviour or action is acceptable, as long as we can justify it with our sincerely-held beliefs. Murder? It's fine, my god commands me to kill the unbelievers. Rape? It's fine, my god declared that women are just there for men's pleasure. Starvation? It's fine, my god says the earth belongs to the wealthy. Slavery? It's fine, my god says that humans may own other humans.

See what I mean?

Define torture. Define all those things you assert deny you your human dignity. Only those that already agree with you will accept your assertion. Those that disagree will do as they please unless you forcibly assert your will on those people because you choose not to seek common ground.

You assert that another's behavior is beyond human decency unless they follow your definition of decent human behavior. Whether they have reasons to believe differently is irrelevant.

In short only your convictions matter. That is the definition of intolerance.

hanuman wrote:I'm sorry, but I do not need to agree on a shared value standard with an opponent to know when that opponent has crossed the bounds of human decency. Their actions will be evidence enough.

You regard me as a human being? Then don't torture me. Then don't rape me. Then don't starve me. Then TREAT me with human dignity when you capture me.

You don't do that, you have violated my humanity. Whether you do that because you BELIEVE that it is the right thing to do simply does not matter. Your actions have betrayed you as depraved, as evil.

Actions count, not words and not beliefs. Words are intangible, beliefs are subjective, only actions are concrete.

Breathe.....

Please refrain from being insulting. Your second paragraph contains nothing that I have posted.

My point has been conviction has value independent of the beliefs it serves. That people with strong convictions can find common ground in the strength of their convictions. I at no point argued that a strong enough belief, that enough conviction justified ANY belief no matter how vile.

That you make this assertion makes my point crystal clear. You and I have no common references with which to engage in a discussion or in other words verbal conflict. We are left with either compelling each other to accept the other's views or separate. I choose the latter.

Good bye.

hanuman wrote:What I meant by my previous post is that we've got to draw a line somewhere, and say 'this is acceptable and this is not'. Our common humanity seems to me, at least, to be that line. And it is our behaviour and actions under especially stressful conditions, but in everyday life as well, which determines whether we've crossed that line or not - not what we believe or think.

Telling ourselves that belief and conviction determines acceptable human behaviour, as Peter seems to be arguing, leaves us with a situation where any kind of behaviour or action is acceptable, as long as we can justify it with our sincerely-held beliefs. Murder? It's fine, my god commands me to kill the unbelievers. Rape? It's fine, my god declared that women are just there for men's pleasure. Starvation? It's fine, my god says the earth belongs to the wealthy. Slavery? It's fine, my god says that humans may own other humans.

See what I mean?

I've often argued that we should spend less work on arguing who is right, and more on arguing what are the best methods of testing the evidence.

"The Ring makes all the Difference", by Glenn T. Stanton makes the point that with the increase of cohabitation in the last fifty years, social scientists now have a big enough sample size to produce a good multi varied statistical analysis. It is a good read: he has a chapter on one aspect, and a page or so of bibliography. Rinse and repeat. Some will disagree with his conclusions, but do they provide solid analysis to back their ideas, and what methods are they accepting ?

Of course, there is Mark Twain's comment on statistics, but I think that should be reserved for badly done statistics

For non fiction, I prefer books with bibliographies, they let anyone dig deeper if they are willing to do the work needed.


Douglas Hvistendahl
Retired technical nerd
ddhviste@drtel.net

Dumb mistakes are very irritating.
Smart mistakes go on forever
Unless you test your assumptions!

DDHvi wrote:I've often argued that we should spend less work on arguing who is right, and more on arguing what are the best methods of testing the evidence.

"The Ring makes all the Difference", by Glenn T. Stanton makes the point that with the increase of cohabitation in the last fifty years, social scientists now have a big enough sample size to produce a good multi varied statistical analysis. It is a good read: he has a chapter on one aspect, and a page or so of bibliography. Rinse and repeat. Some will disagree with his conclusions, but do they provide solid analysis to back their ideas, and what methods are they accepting ?

Of course, there is Mark Twain's comment on statistics, but I think that should be reserved for badly done statistics

For non fiction, I prefer books with bibliographies, they let anyone dig deeper if they are willing to do the work needed.


Douglas Hvistendahl
Retired technical nerd
ddhviste@drtel.net

Dumb mistakes are very irritating.
Smart mistakes go on forever
Unless you test your assumptions!

The problem with statistics is that are generally badly done as they are typically used as part of a persuasive argument. As Jim Carey said in Liar Liar "I Object, that is ruinous to my case!"

In other words, all statistics should be suspect as it is difficult to tell without access to the source data if the analysis is good or not. With a lot of persuasive arguments the source data is not provided. Besides we all know that 89% of quoted statistics are made up on the spot [Just like that one was]

I think what has just occurred is a great example as to why negotiation does not always accomplish the goals expected. I expect that there will likely be no opportunity for a negotiated peace with the Go4 since the expected terms would be detrimental to their continued health.

Thank You,