Respect

[RecoveringKinkoid]

But you're saying it DOES have to do with the people involved. Ideas don't form in a vacuum. They form inside someone's head. And you're saying (at least, it seems you are saying) that if someone forms an idea in their head based on what you believe to be faulty logic, then they are an idiot and not worthy of your respect.

Either the idea is separate from the person or it isn't. If you say anyone who adheres to a certain mindset is an idiot, then yeah. Individual people are going to believe that you consider them idiots, and rightly so. Because you do.

I'm not saying compromise your beliefs for the sake of popularity. I'm saying nobody else is, either, and if you're unwilling to extend basic human respect to those that you don't agree with, don't be surprised when they disrespect you the same way. Because they probably came to their beliefs in way that makes them as sure of them as you are of yours.

[Ghel]

And you're saying (at least, it seems you are saying) that if someone forms an idea in their head based on what you believe to be faulty logic, then they are an idiot and not worthy of your respect.

No, I'm not.

[SLIGHT ASIDE]You can not prove something about the world based on logic alone. You have to have confirmation of your conclusions based on evidence and/or research.[/ASIDE]

Respect is not an all-or-nothing concept. It is many levels of varying degrees of respect. If someone doesn't vaccinate their children, the level of respect I have for them goes down a long way. If I catch someone in a lie, the level of respect goes down a little. But other things they say or do may move that level back up again. Being open to disconfirming evidence improves the level greatly.

Either the idea is separate from the person or it isn't. If you say anyone who adheres to a certain mindset is an idiot, then yeah. Individual people are going to believe that you consider them idiots, and rightly so. Because you do.

I'm saying we can discuss the idea separate from the person. If I criticise an idea that a person holds, I'm not necessarily criticizing that person. Nor does that criticism mean that I don't respect them. I can tell a friend that something they just said was stupid and not mean any disrespect by it. If that friend values the truth, we will have a discussion about why I think it's stupid, and one of us may change our minds at the end of the discussion. Even if neither of us change our minds, the fact that we were able to have the discussion will increase my respect for them.

I'm not saying compromise your beliefs for the sake of popularity. I'm saying nobody else is, either, and if you're unwilling to extend basic human respect to those that you don't agree with, don't be surprised when they disrespect you the same way. Because they probably came to their beliefs in way that makes them as sure of them as you are of yours.

If they came to their beliefs through research, skepticism, and critical thinking, then they will be open to changing their mind based on contrary evidence, just as I am.

What do you mean by "basic human respect"? Are you really talking about courtesy? Because respect is something that is inside your own mind, like an emotion. That level of respect is a guage insided my head, that no one else can see. How I feel about another person rarely translates into how courteous I am to that person. It will translate into whether I am willing to "go the extra mile" for someone, though.

[Andara Bledin]

If someone doesn't vaccinate their children, the level of respect I have for them goes down a long way. If I catch someone in a lie, the level of respect goes down a little.

Somewhat outside of this discussion, I find it fascinating that anyone would prefer that another purposefully deceive them as opposed to making what they consider to be an informed decision about something that they don't happen to agree with prior to even asking why.

^-.-^

[Hyena Dandy]

Respect is not an all-or-nothing concept. It is many levels of varying degrees of respect. If someone doesn't vaccinate their children, the level of respect I have for them goes down a long way. If I catch someone in a lie, the level of respect goes down a little

You'd rather people lie than be wrong?

[Rapscallion]

I can't speak for Ghel, but I think what's being said is that someone who is wrong in spite of the evidence and injures people via the vector of disease is going to cause more immediate harm than someone who lies. At least a liar usually has an understandable (if not credible) reason for their actions.

Rapscallion

[Andara Bledin]

At least a liar usually has an understandable (if not credible) reason for their actions.

Why would anyone assume that the person with the allegedly "wrong" decision not have the same?

^-.-^

[Ghel]

Raps, you've got the gist of it. I don't think that a lie is automatically or always a bad thing. In some cases, it can be the right thing to do, perhaps by easing hurt feelings or preventing harm.

Additionally, if someone doesn't immunize their children, they're exposing them and other children to harm through illness. Thus, the level of respect with which I view them generally decreases more if they forego immunizing their children (unless they have a good reason not to) than if they tell a little white lie.

[Rapscallion]

Why would anyone assume that the person with the allegedly "wrong" decision not have the same?

^-.-^

There's a difference for me between the following positions.

First: Person X claims that all fairies are gap-toothed. Person Y produces several fairies that have no dental gaps. Person X, in spite of the evidence to the contrary, maintains that position.

Second: Person X claims that all fairies are gap-toothed. Person Y produces several fairies that have no dental gaps. Person X lies, saying that there was a pixie dentist doing the rounds, obviously, and that the species is born with gap teeth.

I can understand the reason for the lie - it's to cover the embarrasment of being proven wrong. However, I still think the position taken is imbecelic. While it's not laudable, lying is something humans do and can be understood if not always appreciated, and it goes some way to making a rational explanation (even if untrue) of a situation or circumstance. Maintaining a dogmatic position in the face of the evidence to the contrary is delusional and/or illogical.

It's probably a bad example for the point, but it's been a long day.

Rapscallion

[AdminAssistant]

Thus, the level of respect with which I view them generally decreases more if they forego immunizing their children (unless they have a good reason not to) than if they tell a little white lie.

Ditto, except for the "good reason" part. I mean, go to Alan Alda's memoir Never Have Your Dog Stuffed. Read the part where he talks about having polio as a kid. In my mind, if you don't immunize your kids, you're basically wishing that not only on your children, but all the children they're in contact with. And, trust me, it's not a happy fun time.

Generally, believing a falsehood, no matter how you came to that belief, only harms yourself. However, if you go about acting on it, then you can harm other people, whether that's through proselytizing, lobbying for legislation to restrict the rights of gays/women/Hispanics, or not vaccinating your kids. If someone merely believes something I don't agree with, I still respect them. However, if they act on that belief in a way that harms people, then I lose respect for them. Hence why I can respect individual Catholics (belief) and not the Roman Catholic Church (hiding/protecting pedophile priests, encouraging the spread of AIDS through Africa, etc.)

[BlaqueKatt]

a wonderful little essay on respect can be found here

the basis of it is "I would like to explore the distinction of respect for ideas, people, and rights."

And all three are separate. Some highlights to encourage you all to read it.

Idea portion-

I’m asking if the idea is itself respectable. To put it more clearly, if the idea were encountered on its own, say if it were read on a piece of paper outside of the context of someone who may or may not believe in it, then could one think it respectable?

People-

Whether or not we respect the ideas that people have, it is also possible to respect the actual person. I may disagree with you, agree with you, or perhaps be unsure whether we agree due to some uncertainty of your or my belief, but that little to do with what I think about you. Now, I have criteria for what I think makes a good person. For me, it is a desire to be self-challenging, honest, and so forth. These qualities are things I respect in a person.

Rights-

I may not agree with you or even like you, but I would be willing to fight for your right to say what you believe openly. I think that freedom of expression is just about the most important right we as people can defend.

So, let’s stop the pretenses of respect and start really talking about our beliefs. Respect, for me, starts with honesty, not treating other adults with different ideas like emotionally insecure children. My disagreeing with your belief is not disrespect, but people trying to shut critics up is disrespect because they are not allowing us the right to our beliefs. Respect is really only relevant when it infringes on the ability to practice what we believe, and ironically it is the accommodationist and the ecumenical types that do this while pointing the finger of blame at their target.

[Ghel]

a wonderful little essay on respect can be found here

Thank you. I'm bookmarking that. It says what I've been trying to say through two threads on respect, and it says it far more succinctly and eloquently than I can.

It's just coincidence, but of the views presented by the blogger (in that post, anyway) are nearly identical to my views, not just regarding respect.

[FArchivist]

Some of the people on both sides of that debate are, in fact idiots. But not all of them are. But according to what you're saying, if they reach a different conclusion than you have, they are idiots and do not deserve your respect.

Considering that anti-vax viewpoints are primarily based on anti-science and fraudulent research, no they do not deserve my respect. There are some very few who's anti-vax beliefs are based on religious or philosophical reasons; those I won't disagree with. But they're a minority. Anti-vaxxers who are based on woo do not deserve respect.

Crank ideas, woo, and conspiracies do not deserve my respect. That's the standard I go by.

[SLIGHT ASIDE]You can not prove something about the world based on logic alone. You have to have confirmation of your conclusions based on evidence and/or research.[/ASIDE]

I would like to point out that all of philosophy disagrees with you on that. I think claiming that Stoicism or Existentialism or Utilitarianism can't prove things about the world would be disagreed with by many philosophers.

If I criticise an idea that a person holds, I'm not necessarily criticizing that person. Nor does that criticism mean that I don't respect them.

I'm definitely the opposite.

I can't speak for Ghel, but I think what's being said is that someone who is wrong in spite of the evidence and injures people via the vector of disease is going to cause more immediate harm than someone who lies. At least a liar usually has an understandable (if not credible) reason for their actions.

I prefer to hold it all as equivalent. A lie is as bad as active fraud. A thief is a murderer is a liar. I believe in simplifying things.

I don't think that a lie is automatically or always a bad thing. In some cases, it can be the right thing to do, perhaps by easing hurt feelings or preventing harm.

I do. Worse than a murder is a lie. Worse than lying is hypocrisy. If I could, I would reward both with immediate execution without trial. It is better to tell the truth and rip someone to shreds then it is to cover up things with soft lies.

[Rapscallion]

I would like to point out that all of philosophy disagrees with you on that.

A bold claim.

I prefer to hold it all as equivalent. A lie is as bad as active fraud. A thief is a murderer is a liar. I believe in simplifying things.

That's a tad extreme for my worldview and pretty much along the old testament style of stoning for every transgression. Not all theft is the same as murder. A desperate mother stealing food to feed her starving child when destitute is one thing, whereas a banker making off with the life savings of thousands of people is a different level and with a different intent. One is trying to prevent death, and the other is a wanker who has taken time out of the lives of many people, possibly rendering them destitute in the process.

Are you really sure that's the position you're taking?

Rapscallion

[Kheldarson]

A bold claim.

Actually, he has a point. A lot of the ancient philosophers and early modern philosophers sat and tried to prove how the world works through logic alone. It's pretty much the root of Western philosophy.

My only issue is that most of them came to the conclusion that essentially it's impossible to prove that anybody, besides ourselves, exists. Descartes anyone?

[Rapscallion]

Truth to tell, I don't know all the ins and outs of every philosophy out there, but quite frankly whenever someone says 'all of X disagrees with you' there's someone waiting to prove you wrong. That's why I said the claim was bold.

Your comment was that 'a lot of', which isn't all. Somewhat safer claim to make.

Rapscallion