You justify your positions by an appeal to reason and rationality, yet from my experience and in my eyes, you are often both unreasonable and irrational (http://vox-diabolica.livejournal.com/198646.html) in your judgment. Further, the discussions in your journal are rarely rational or reasoned. It's all "I get it! You get it? He so doesn't get it!" At first I thought this was amusing shorthand. And, well, in some ways it of course is. But scrutinize a little, and you realize that the emperor is mostly naked, it's just that you've been too busy staring at his penis to notice.
You are absolutely right, of course, in that I am not objective or detached and in that I've long fetishized those. And as far as I'm concerned, I am closer to rationality and reason than either you, Wright, or the camps you respectively represent. It is a very strongly held belief, too.
Another of my beliefs is that there is rarely any disagreement on issues that can be convincingly settled by reason and demonstration. That is why mathematics is largely devoid of flamewar, and most other areas of life aren't. The issue of social attitude to homosexuality, for instance, is as complex as any issue of social attitude to anything. It isn't clear cut - not much about society is -, there are many forces at play, and both sides (let's assume there are two) can be, and are, subject to critique. If a reasoned position is to be found, the various arguments should surely be examined first. Some people do so. In my opinion this usually results in moderate mainstream positions. Others refuse to consider the arguments of the other side at all. They never go beyond the "getting it" style of reasoning. They believe, as you point out, that someone out there has decided for them, be it a god or a propagandist, that the correct and reasonable position on the issue is one and not the other. It is not, in my opinion, very rational or reasonable to reject the position of the other without understanding it well first, and without admitting that a course of action proposed by the other side has its logic and merits. You label such thinking as characteristic of investigative reporters. I don't think I mind the label.
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
no subject
Date: 2010-02-24 04:28 am (UTC)You are absolutely right, of course, in that I am not objective or detached and in that I've long fetishized those. And as far as I'm concerned, I am closer to rationality and reason than either you, Wright, or the camps you respectively represent. It is a very strongly held belief, too.
Another of my beliefs is that there is rarely any disagreement on issues that can be convincingly settled by reason and demonstration. That is why mathematics is largely devoid of flamewar, and most other areas of life aren't. The issue of social attitude to homosexuality, for instance, is as complex as any issue of social attitude to anything. It isn't clear cut - not much about society is -, there are many forces at play, and both sides (let's assume there are two) can be, and are, subject to critique. If a reasoned position is to be found, the various arguments should surely be examined first. Some people do so. In my opinion this usually results in moderate mainstream positions. Others refuse to consider the arguments of the other side at all. They never go beyond the "getting it" style of reasoning. They believe, as you point out, that someone out there has decided for them, be it a god or a propagandist, that the correct and reasonable position on the issue is one and not the other. It is not, in my opinion, very rational or reasonable to reject the position of the other without understanding it well first, and without admitting that a course of action proposed by the other side has its logic and merits. You label such thinking as characteristic of investigative reporters. I don't think I mind the label.