"You don't get to decide how your actions affect or are perceived by other people. The thing is theirs. They have every right over it, and if they don't want you doing the thing, then you're not allowed to do the thing."
Vs.
"You don't get to decide what the intentions of my actions were. It doesn't belong to you. You can claim ownership of it all you want, that doesn't make it so. I have every right to make my own choices about what behaviors I engage in, styles I want to wear, and grooming habits I want to engage in."
"The thing" in the initial statement is a reference to cultural habits and customs, which was suggested as analogous to physical items being stolen.
This post arises, yet again, from my growing irritation with the "claim to be the aggrieved party and use that status to demand others alter their behavior or be stigmatized" fad.
Zeroing in on:
"You don't get to decide how your actions affect or are interpreted by other people."
This strikes me as simultaneously circular logic and inconsistent application.
Doesn't that mean I get to decide their objections are an attempt to dominate my sovereign free will through social ostracism?
This language, applied consistently, would mean that Christians are right to object to same-sex marriage. They "sincerely believe" that this is a tradition they hold sacred. They feel it is "disrespectful" to engage in similarly-themed ceremonies that condone behavior outside of what they believe the concepts that underlie them represent. They also "interpret" such claims to be very intentionally hateful towards their beliefs, that it is "thumbing our noses" at them in a mocking, insensitive way. It can be proposed that claims of desire for equal treatment are insincere rationalizations employed as socially accepted cover.
It means that when I say "I'm not sure I want automatic weapons and grenade launchers in the hands of random civilians" that another person is entirely correct to then accuse me of "coming after their guns and condoning their doors being kicked in and them and their entire family being murdered in the middle of the night." I have no right to object to that interpretation, after all.
Where does this end?
When did misunderstandings between subjective views get replaced by unilateral declarations of objective intent?
This also seems to suggest that cultural identities are monolithic and uniformly held by all adherents. I have not observed this to be this case. There's even instances of a person of a given ethnic/cultural group being told they are wrong ("you've been brainwashed! Fear not, for I shall protect you in your stead!") for declaring they are not bothered by something...by someone not of said ethnic/cultural group.
Vs.
"You don't get to decide what the intentions of my actions were. It doesn't belong to you. You can claim ownership of it all you want, that doesn't make it so. I have every right to make my own choices about what behaviors I engage in, styles I want to wear, and grooming habits I want to engage in."
"The thing" in the initial statement is a reference to cultural habits and customs, which was suggested as analogous to physical items being stolen.
This post arises, yet again, from my growing irritation with the "claim to be the aggrieved party and use that status to demand others alter their behavior or be stigmatized" fad.
Zeroing in on:
"You don't get to decide how your actions affect or are interpreted by other people."
This strikes me as simultaneously circular logic and inconsistent application.
Doesn't that mean I get to decide their objections are an attempt to dominate my sovereign free will through social ostracism?
This language, applied consistently, would mean that Christians are right to object to same-sex marriage. They "sincerely believe" that this is a tradition they hold sacred. They feel it is "disrespectful" to engage in similarly-themed ceremonies that condone behavior outside of what they believe the concepts that underlie them represent. They also "interpret" such claims to be very intentionally hateful towards their beliefs, that it is "thumbing our noses" at them in a mocking, insensitive way. It can be proposed that claims of desire for equal treatment are insincere rationalizations employed as socially accepted cover.
It means that when I say "I'm not sure I want automatic weapons and grenade launchers in the hands of random civilians" that another person is entirely correct to then accuse me of "coming after their guns and condoning their doors being kicked in and them and their entire family being murdered in the middle of the night." I have no right to object to that interpretation, after all.
Where does this end?
When did misunderstandings between subjective views get replaced by unilateral declarations of objective intent?
This also seems to suggest that cultural identities are monolithic and uniformly held by all adherents. I have not observed this to be this case. There's even instances of a person of a given ethnic/cultural group being told they are wrong ("you've been brainwashed! Fear not, for I shall protect you in your stead!") for declaring they are not bothered by something...by someone not of said ethnic/cultural group.
via International Skeptics Forum http://ift.tt/2dz5htT
Aucun commentaire:
Enregistrer un commentaire