2
   

The new morality.

 
 
Reply Mon 26 Jul, 2010 05:46 pm
I recently realised I have very little prejudices, apart from one: Judging. E.g. disapproving of people on the basis that they drink too much, are gay, have casual sex, etc.
Which means I 'judge' judging.
Is this a legitimate position or am I being contradictory?
  • Topic Stats
  • Top Replies
  • Link to this Topic
Type: Discussion • Score: 2 • Views: 1,324 • Replies: 9
No top replies

 
talk72000
 
  1  
Reply Mon 26 Jul, 2010 05:57 pm
@The Pentacle Queen,
There are reasons for disapproval as too much of anything is bad for the health. Too much drinking (alcohol) is bad for the liver and besides drunkeness also can be costly as the drunkard will have to pay for the damages he/she caused in the inebriated state. Too much sex can bring about carelessness and greater chance for STD (socially transmitted diseases like gonorhea, syphilis, herpes, AIDS, HIV, etc.) infection not to mention broken relationships as people do have jealousy. As for gay sex, people of different sexual orientation don't care about what others do except when their health is affected. I cannot speak for the hardline religious fanatics. Personally I feel gay is physically dirty as the rectum is where we excrete our faeces.
The Pentacle Queen
 
  1  
Reply Mon 26 Jul, 2010 08:18 pm
@talk72000,
Yeah, but there's a difference between understanding those issues and their dangers, and then disapproving of them. If you're claiming casual sex is wrong on the basis that one may contract something- then surely a liberal environment where people can be educated about the dangers is more beneficial than one where people embarrassed because they think they will be made to feel like they have done wrong. What's the point of 'disapproving' just because there's a risk attached, it's not like you're in danger of catching something from their activity.
I don't 'disapprove', as such, (in fact I hardly 'judge' anything, we are what we are and I just observe it) but I understand the issues and understand that even certain issues, like excessive drinking, may be the result of inner turmoil, although I would argue that mostly they are not, particularly here in the UK where it's taken as the norm.

With regards to gay sex, what is the relevance of that and why does it matter? Are you suggesting that physically 'dirty' translates to morally 'dirty'? I understand where that opinion comes from but it isn't actually true, my best friend is gay and I know that (sorry there's no gentle way of putting this) basically the majority of the time the rectum is clean, and they would not engage in intercourse if it wasn't. Also, apparently, doing that act doesn't make it taste any different afterwards.
There you go, some nice myths dispelled Wink
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Mon 26 Jul, 2010 11:01 pm
@The Pentacle Queen,
TPQ, We are all individuals with our own prejudices, likes and dislikes. I wouldn't worry about how you react to different people or situations; it's just a fact of life that we all experience in one way or another. Just be thankful we're alive to react to it.
0 Replies
 
joefromchicago
 
  2  
Reply Tue 27 Jul, 2010 08:28 am
@The Pentacle Queen,
The Pentacle Queen wrote:

I recently realised I have very little prejudices, apart from one: Judging. E.g. disapproving of people on the basis that they drink too much, are gay, have casual sex, etc.
Which means I 'judge' judging.
Is this a legitimate position or am I being contradictory?

That's what would normally be called a "fallacy of equivocation." That's when you use a word in a single sense when it has multiple meanings. In your case, however, you're not really making the argument, so it would be more aptly termed an "error of equivocation."

In this case, the word is "judging." When you say "judging people is wrong," you mean "making negative judgments of people based on limited or biased information is wrong." In contrast, when you say "I'm judging judging," you mean "I'm making an informed, rational decision about how people make negative judgments based on limited or biased information."

There's no contradiction, since you're not using the terms "judging" consistently. It's just sloppy reasoning.
talk72000
 
  1  
Reply Tue 27 Jul, 2010 06:47 pm
@The Pentacle Queen,
Considering the risks involved I would say one would be a risky person to make those decisions thus making people avoid that person as a prudent person wouldn't take those risks. Some people are attracted to daredevils while others would shun them. It is not disapproval but prudence that rules.
Another thing is that anyone seeking thrills could be in some depressed mode. The gratification would be short-term as the novelty wears out. The thrill seeker would have to go deeper and deeper as just like the drug users that seek new highs as their nervous system seems to adjust to the level till the drug paralyses the nervous system.
What is needed is that the depression or sadness should be addressed i.e. find out what is causing the depression.
0 Replies
 
Sentience
 
  1  
Reply Sat 7 Aug, 2010 01:11 pm
@The Pentacle Queen,
Why are they mutually exclusive?

For example, anyone who campaigns for gay rights is intolerant of intolerance.
0 Replies
 
failures art
 
  1  
Reply Sat 7 Aug, 2010 02:28 pm
Joe hit it on the head. If you wanted to resolve yourself of any perceived contradiction some simple housekeeping on the language will do it.

You're not prejudice about people who are prejudice. You're judging people who are prejudice. Your frustration is in seeing people have shallow or petty character judgments on people that poorly summarize a person's character in whole. You are not judging in the same way as they are.

A
R
T
0 Replies
 
The Pentacle Queen
 
  1  
Reply Sat 7 Aug, 2010 06:47 pm
@joefromchicago,
joefromchicago wrote:

The Pentacle Queen wrote:

I recently realised I have very little prejudices, apart from one: Judging. E.g. disapproving of people on the basis that they drink too much, are gay, have casual sex, etc.
Which means I 'judge' judging.
Is this a legitimate position or am I being contradictory?

That's what would normally be called a "fallacy of equivocation." That's when you use a word in a single sense when it has multiple meanings. In your case, however, you're not really making the argument, so it would be more aptly termed an "error of equivocation."

In this case, the word is "judging." When you say "judging people is wrong," you mean "making negative judgments of people based on limited or biased information is wrong." In contrast, when you say "I'm judging judging," you mean "I'm making an informed, rational decision about how people make negative judgments based on limited or biased information."

There's no contradiction, since you're not using the terms "judging" consistently. It's just sloppy reasoning.


Thanks Joe, and thanks Failures Art (Is this ANOTHER name I'm going to now know you by!). I feel like a right douche.
failures art
 
  1  
Reply Sat 7 Aug, 2010 08:01 pm
@The Pentacle Queen,
The Pentacle Queen wrote:
Is this ANOTHER name I'm going to now know you by!

Call me "hey you," for all I care as long as you call me. Cool

A
R
T
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

 
  1. Forums
  2. » The new morality.
Copyright © 2021 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.03 seconds on 09/24/2021 at 03:40:54