Philosophy

» redback - pachyderms

In response to pachyderms posted by spiritalk:

Exactly, And I reckon there ought to be gentle manmade shoves along the way. I at least benefit from them.

-- posted by redback

» spiritalk - pachyderms

In response to pachyderms posted by redback:

And that is evident in the exchange on tolerance and respect. I have long seen the difference, where others interchange their meanings....they are just not the same thing.

God bless, J

-- posted by spiritalk

» RLSharp - Pure Rawls

In response to Pure Rawls posted by redback:

No, I didn't mean forced tolerance, where you have to tolerate something because you are a powerless minority. I was thinking more about tolerance FROM the majority rather than about them. In many ways, U.S. politics is supposed to be about the rights of the minority, since majority rights are rarely a problem (they have the power anyway). The problem, IMO, is that one can tolerate what a person does in a very negative way, in a patronizing or pitying way.

If, for example, I said that I tolerate your use of smiley faces, even though I would never do it, that would be a sort of insult, wouldn't it? If, however, I say I respect the fact that you choose to use smiley faces to keep the conversation amiable, this is much less insulting. As far as your ability to add smileys is concerned, nothing is changed, but the way the message is carried out is very different. In one, I have subtly (or not so subtly, actually) asked you to change. In the other, I support you.

BTW, the example was just off the top of my head. I have no feelings about your use of smileys either way, though I lean toward thinking it's a nice way to carry on a debate without creating animosity.

-- posted by RLSharp

» redback - Pure Rawls

In response to Pure Rawls posted by RLSharp & spiritalk:
I think I'm reading that both you and Spiritalk have no problems with my efforts here...but you'll have to excuse me..I speak Strine. ABC

One of my problems is that sometimes when I post, my harder worked comments of substance attract less attention than my almost throwaway lines. And with our time difference, I wait the extra 18 hours or so for it.

I am trying to get your sense of the difference you see between 'tolerate' and 'respect' without bogging the discussion down. I can see there is always a challenge to get the defining example. To me, 'tolerant' is squarely on the good side of the ledger with 'intolerant' on the other..and token tolerance is tending to hypocrisy.

Respect it always is...there aint never no sneer attached to any of my smilies.

-- posted by redback

» spiritalk - Pure Rawls

In response to Pure Rawls posted by redback:

I see tolerance as: "I will tolerate your belief, but, of course, I am right".

I see respect as: "you are free to choose your own path".

God bless, J

-- posted by spiritalk

» redback - Pure Rawls

In response to Pure Rawls posted by spiritalk:

There seems layer upon layer with these concepts and I recall from my uni studies in this area a lifetime ago, the more questions I asked the more I was told I was on the "right track". Maybe it's called a 'sidewalk' over in the USA.

I was pondering earlier today about the generic concept of 'society'. If you were able to live in the ideal society of your choice, would you choose a predominantly Christian, multicultural, capitalist, democratic, western, other label. (I'm picking some of the labels I see more frequently) Maybe there's better labels eg American society' but that is one I'm unfamiliar with, particularly their different sense of humour.

Or is any society functional if one is allowed the freedom to go against the flow or keep "below the radar" ie members of a community primarily of convenience or geography.

My dictionary offers me 10 definitions of 'society' and logic suggests to me the definitions in practice, get rubbery at the edges.

Talking of Canada, do you keep in touch with Cat (Sacred Insights?) If so, please say "G'day" for me.

-- posted by redback

» spiritalk - Pure Rawls

In response to Pure Rawls posted by redback:

I am always amused when someone thinks Canada and that we may be in touch. As a matter of interest, the island of England would fit into our local lake (Lake Ontario) I believe it is 6 times! As it turns out...I do know SI and am not in touch.

Multicultural fits my thoughts best...the multi part. Unfortunately, when we live anywhere labeled it tends to exclude the 'different' as a matter of course. This, too, comes into sight with regard to tolerance and respect.

In a diverse society we need to work towards living together in respect of each others' diversities.

God bless, J

-- posted by spiritalk

» redback - Pure Rawls

In response to Pure Rawls posted by spiritalk:

Sorry. I was relying on "ancient" (flawed?) memory of much earlier topics/posts at Suite101, 2000 onwards that suggested some eyeball contact between you and Catherine. She and I had earlier exchanged personal emails but they fizzled out. I had only made such personal contact with two people here. The othar was Mary (Red) from the Health Community. I'm thinking they were the "good old days" of suite101.

I'm interested to read you think of dumping England in the lake. OK...we thrashed them at cricket (Ashes) but I wouldn't wish drowning on top.

I know the convenience of labels. But on some matters that matter, and that includes the need to work towards living together, labels can become clumsy. I like the umbrella term: fair dinkum'. If we are fair dinkum with each other, much more can be achieved.

-- posted by redback

» spiritalk - Pure Rawls

In response to Pure Rawls posted by redback:

Yes there is a history with SI. Was only giving some misconceptions of size! LOL. I have no intention of drowning anyone...lol....it was merely a representation of size, again.

Yes fair dinkum in that respect can convey so much. As a non-resident we don't always get the full gist of local phrases. Thanks for the update.

God bless, J

-- posted by spiritalk

» redback - Pure Rawls

In response to Pure Rawls posted by spiritalk:

I had thought you may have confused where I'm from with your 'England' reference. And you were giving me some idea of a different flavour needed for Lake Ontario. I'm a fair dinkum Aussie who "stalks Strine".

We may all need to change the way we think to change the way we act. Laws and social mores can attempt to control how we act/express ourselves publicly. The introduction of antidiscrimination laws here is a direct example of that. But I like to think we draw on something deep within, to be fair dinkum.

Pure coincidence but shortly after mentioning the option of 'multiculturalism' to you, that term has been dropped from the name of the relevant Federal Department. A subtle reference to it no longer being a government core objective, perhaps?

But, its the only one that seems to claim more inclusiveness to it than the other models listed in my earlier post.

-- posted by redback