The problem is that in the case of dogmatic types, even when honestly presented as opinion without the unnecessary "bolstering" of pseudo-factoids, the argument does not boil down to "after due consideration, I believe that pink does not look good on me," but rather "after due consideration, I believe that no man should be allowed to wear pink even if they believe otherwise."
This is in fact clearly marked as opinion, but it so overreaches the bounds of logic (a common problem with moral absolutists) as to be offensive in and of itself. At which point someone who strongly holds an opposing view, e.g., "On the contrary, I beleive that women are just as capable as men at acting as Priests," or "Sorry, but I don't believe that Black people have an extra bone in their feet that gives them natural rhythm," or "No, I don't see any reason why sexual orientation should have any bearing on whether a couple should be allowed to marry, regardless of what some wandering Semites said 3000 years ago," then has to make the decision whether to let the first person's remarks pass, or make a stand for what they believe to be right. It comes down to a question of Picking Your Battles vs Standing Up For What You Believe To Be Right. And yes, I'm aware the first person is expressing what they believe to be right (or have been indoctrinated to parrot). I'm not suggesting that any real communication is likely at this point, unless one party is able to really break through the other's barricades, perhaps with a personal anecdote ("well, dear, your uncle is gay -- are you really saying that he and his lover of 10 years should not be able to have their relationship recognized by the State?").
One then reaches a point of having to decide whether one's differences of view present an insurmountable barrier to friendship, or even acquaintanceship in more egregious cases (blatant racism, for example), or whether there is enough in common that it can be overlooked.
no subject
Date: 15 Nov 2005 01:57 am (UTC)This is in fact clearly marked as opinion, but it so overreaches the bounds of logic (a common problem with moral absolutists) as to be offensive in and of itself. At which point someone who strongly holds an opposing view, e.g., "On the contrary, I beleive that women are just as capable as men at acting as Priests," or "Sorry, but I don't believe that Black people have an extra bone in their feet that gives them natural rhythm," or "No, I don't see any reason why sexual orientation should have any bearing on whether a couple should be allowed to marry, regardless of what some wandering Semites said 3000 years ago," then has to make the decision whether to let the first person's remarks pass, or make a stand for what they believe to be right. It comes down to a question of Picking Your Battles vs Standing Up For What You Believe To Be Right. And yes, I'm aware the first person is expressing what they believe to be right (or have been indoctrinated to parrot). I'm not suggesting that any real communication is likely at this point, unless one party is able to really break through the other's barricades, perhaps with a personal anecdote ("well, dear, your uncle is gay -- are you really saying that he and his lover of 10 years should not be able to have their relationship recognized by the State?").
One then reaches a point of having to decide whether one's differences of view present an insurmountable barrier to friendship, or even acquaintanceship in more egregious cases (blatant racism, for example), or whether there is enough in common that it can be overlooked.