Respect

[Andara Bledin]

Technically, you can't even prove that you, yourself, exist. But since you're all you really have to work with, it's allowed as a base assumption.

^-.-^

[Kheldarson]

Oh right. See, there's a reason why I dropped the philosophy focus in college...too confusing.

[BlaqueKatt]

just wanted to add:

saying I have to respect all ideas, is the same as saying "my ignorance is as good as your knowledge" Which it isn't.

Look at the Obama birthers, or the flat earth society-these are two positions that have been irrefutably proven to be wrong, but I'm supposed to respect them? Because someone holds them as a belief? No, no, no, hell no.

[Kheldarson]

Actually, why not? Assuming you can talk to them about any other topic, just because they hold one idea that you can say/show is false, does that automatically put them in your contempt? Just the one topic?

[RecoveringKinkoid]

Really, what I think it all boils down to is that people like feeling that they are smarter, or wiser, or in some way superior and should not have to extend tolerance and respect to whatever group or person they have decided is "not worthy" of said respect.

Nobody is saying "my ignorance is a good as your belief." What people ARE saying is "my beliefs, which I have reached through soul searching, interpretation of evidence, and my own thought processes are as good as your soul searching, interpretation of evidence, and your own thought processes."

But that is a very scary concept. Because it leaves open the possibility that you're on equal footing with someone who has reached a different conclusion. And therefore might actually be wrong.

Someone who thinks the Earth is flat is not worthy of respect because he's got one weird notion? No, of course you don't have to respect the notion, but the guy who holds the notion is going to be condemned on that one point?

I don't see the world that black and white. There isn't a person alive that doesn't hold some nutty ideas or flat out wrong beliefs.

[AdminAssistant]

It depends on the situation. If the "flat-earth" guy is just a regular Joe, then fine. However, if I were to come across a fellow scholar who was a serious "flat-earther" or "birther" then I would likely not respect them as a scholar.

[BlaqueKatt]

stop putting words in my mouth-I said i did not respect all IDEAS/BELIEFS as equal-do not assume that ideas=people-it's absurd.

[FArchivist]

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?

Absolutely. I do not care if the intent of the thief is enrichment or to feed their family; they'll both get the same sentence from me. Quoting from elsewhere, "Intent is not magical." I don't care what you intended, just what actions you have performed.

saying I have to respect all ideas, is the same as saying "my ignorance is as good as your knowledge" Which it isn't.

Look at the Obama birthers, or the flat earth society-these are two positions that have been irrefutably proven to be wrong, but I'm supposed to respect them? Because someone holds them as a belief? No, no, no, hell no.

I'm all for this.

Actually, why not? Assuming you can talk to them about any other topic, just because they hold one idea that you can say/show is false, does that automatically put them in your contempt? Just the one topic?

For me, it's the principle of crank magnetism. To quote the article: "Let's put it this way... take a tax protestor in the United States. There's a very good chance such a person will also be a Christian fundamentalist, a racist, a conspiracy theorist, a birther, a teabagger, a creationist..."

Personal experience has borne this out for me.

[RecoveringKinkoid]

Absolutely. I do not care if the intent of the thief is enrichment or to feed their family; they'll both get the same sentence from me. Quoting from elsewhere, "Intent is not magical." I don't care what you intended, just what actions you have performed.

You do realize that this is the same black and white world view that brings us "Zero tolerance" policies (such as confiscating rescue inhalers from school children and expelling kids for having a green plastic army man attached to his hat), and things like stoning twelve year old rape victims for adultery, right?

Not a world I personally would like to live in. However, there are evidently plenty of very scary people out there in the world today that agree with you.

[Talon]

What people ARE saying is "my beliefs, which I have reached through soul searching, interpretation of evidence, and my own thought processes are as good as your soul searching, interpretation of evidence, and your own thought processes."

But is that actually the case?

For example, creationists on youtube, who routinely spout phrases like "Evolutionists believe people came from monkeys", or "everything came from nothing". Those statements have been shown over and over again to be strawman falsehoods, yet creationists don't acknowledge them, and keep repeating said strawmen arguments. That's not interpretation of evidence, that's willful ignorance of evidence.

Lets take a professional creationist, "Dr." Michael Behe, who testified in the Kitzmiller v. Dover trial of 2006. Youtube's Aronra demonstrated his dishonesty in his video, "How could creationism not be dishonest?"

(Paraphrasing slightly from the above video)
Behe claimed, under oath, that the scientific literature had no evidence supporting the evolution of the immune system. A lawyer then produced a stack of books and articles on just that subject. Behe admitted he hadn't read them, but still asserted that those books didn't support the topic. How could he assert knowledge of books he's never read? More willful ignorance.

Intellectual dishonesty does not merit respect.

Speaking of respect, the aformentioned Aronra is a man I respect. In this video, "AronERRata", he admitted publicly that he was factually incorrect in some of his videos. Now THAT merits respect.

[Kheldarson]

For me, it's the principle of crank magnetism. To quote the article: "Let's put it this way... take a tax protestor in the United States. There's a very good chance such a person will also be a Christian fundamentalist, a racist, a conspiracy theorist, a birther, a teabagger, a creationist..."

Personal experience has borne this out for me.

But does that person deserve less respect for having these ideas?

Let me speak from my personal experience. I had an acquaintance who honestly believed she was the reincarnation of the Gaia card. Like from a Tarot deck. Yeah. She was absolutely batshit insane. But I never dissed her on her belief. In fact, we talked about our comparative beliefs a number of times before she sank into further madness.

What made me lose respect for her was the fact that she talked behind other people's backs, was cheating on her husband (even with their crazy rules about what did and did not count as cheating as they were a semi-open relationship), completely neglected her own kids, and then started trying to manipulate the school into giving her straight A's because of her learning disability.

Her ideas were crazy, sure. And I did ask her for her proof once or twice (it was something about hypnotism and reincarnation). But just because she had a crazy idea (or two or three...) didn't mean I couldn't talk to her without calling her stupid, without insulting whatever idea she had at the time, and if she rejected what I was trying to point out as being wrong with her particular idea at the time, I backed off. Why? Because she wasn't going to listen any further. Proving my point to her wasn't going to be done by constantly poking at that one point. She'd stop listening.

And that's kind of the point about respect when it comes to people and their ideas. Even if we have the wrong basis for it, we still have a reason for believing the way we do. We want people to respect that we are still a rational human being and came to a conclusion based on being a rational being. To constantly attack the basis of those thoughts without confirming the fact that there was a reason for the belief just makes people go defensive and defeats the purpose of respectful civil debate.

[Boozy]

Look, anyone who says that they have respect for a person but no respect for that any of that person's beliefs and ideals is lying. If we do not formulate our opinion of a person based on their minds, we cannot formulate opinions at all.

If I think you hold a great number of idiotic ideas, I will hold you to be an idiot. And I have less respect for idiots than I do smart people.

However, I do give people a minimum amount of respect based on the fact that they are the same species as me and walk the same planet. Everyone does this. Most of us who step on an ant (accidentally or otherwise), will not think much of it. Any one of us that hits and kills a man with our car - even if that man is a convicted rapist and murderer - will have some emotional and mental processing to do. That is because we all innately respect other human beings and their right to exist.

[RecoveringKinkoid]

Look, anyone who says that they have respect for a person but no respect for that any of that person's beliefs and ideals is lying. .

That's pretty much what I'm getting at. What annoys me is the hypocrisy of those who pretend otherwise.

[Boozy]

That's pretty much what I'm getting at. What annoys me is the hypocrisy of those who pretend otherwise.

The only thing I would add is the caveat that most of us are able to respect people who believe one or two things we think are ridiculous, as long as it doesn't snowball into insanity.

My dad holds a few wacky beliefs, but I still respect him. I know that his opinions on certain matters are bred of ignorance instead of maliciousness, and for the most part he is a smart and caring person.

However, I think FArchivist summed it up best:

For me, it's the principle of crank magnetism. To quote the article: "Let's put it this way... take a tax protestor in the United States. There's a very good chance such a person will also be a Christian fundamentalist, a racist, a conspiracy theorist, a birther, a teabagger, a creationist..."

People who fall for one crack theory tend to fall for ALL crack theories that back up their general world view. They also tend to ignore all evidence to the contrary, no matter how compelling. I can forgive ignorance and still respect someone, but I cannot forgive willful ignorance.

[FArchivist]

You do realize that this is the same black and white world view that brings us "Zero tolerance" policies

I have never had a problem with zero tolerance, personally. I've argued both for and against it, depending on what I was debating, but the concept itself does not bother me.

Not a world I personally would like to live in. However, there are evidently plenty of very scary people out there in the world today that agree with you.

People generally automatically crave hierarchies and rules, despite what they may otherwise profess.

But does that person deserve less respect for having these ideas?

Yes.

Her ideas were crazy, sure. And I did ask her for her proof once or twice (it was something about hypnotism and reincarnation). But just because she had a crazy idea (or two or three...) didn't mean I couldn't talk to her without calling her stupid, without insulting whatever idea she had at the time, and if she rejected what I was trying to point out as being wrong with her particular idea at the time, I backed off. Why? Because she wasn't going to listen any further.

You see, the difference between you and I is that when I encounter someone like that, I cut them off. I'm not friends with them. I don't talk to them. They are not my acquaintance. My life is too short to bother with nonsense. If I do remain acquainted with the person for whatever reason, I don't discuss belief systems.

But there is a difference in "What I believe" versus "This is fact." If she claims to be a reincarnated tarot card, well, more power to her. I believe in salvation through cannibalism, according to transubstantiation. But if she begins promoting her belief with authority, that her belief is Fact instead of Truth, that's when I walk away.