Fascinating indeed. I am thinking about a number of rather philosophical issues, but I will need your permission to put them down here as I am not sure whether or not you want to risk having a flame in your blog.
1. To me (I may be wrong, but as a viewer I am entitled to my own opinion, right?) this video looks like a rather cheap propaganda. It goes as far as to basically say - Bible is bloody stupid, period.
2. Above is valid point to make. I mean, great many people may indeed think this way and are entitled to do so.
3. Given that still another great many people hold Bible (and similar texts) for their face value, I would say that this video insults them in a way, or at least it comes across that way in my understanding.
4. To summarize these points above. We have a video designed to promote certain idea (promote like in propaganda) that does so by insulting (or coming very close to insulting) the opposition.
So here is my question - is it ethically valid to do what has been done in this view especially given one of the closing shots about love, etc?
1. A compendium of folklore cannot be stupid or smart. Its contents may be more or less useful. As far as the case in point is concerned, they are not useful at all.
2. With the corrections above.
3. It may displease them, but I don't see how it insults them.
4. Granted, it is a piece of propaganda, but it works by pointing out the disconnect of the opposition with reality, and, if you're willing to go that way, the opposition's hypocrisy.
According to the golden rule, I personally would not mind that kind of counterpropaganda - if one could be constructed, it would be rather amusing if barely displeasing - therefore this one is ethical to me.
1. You see, Bible or as you call it a compendium of folklore is slightly more than that. No, I am not talking about holy matters here. I am talking about the _fact_ that people are still getting killed in a name of Bible or some other similar text.
2. Indeed.
3. Well, it did not insult me. In fact it made me chuckle. However I can easily see how it can insult them. Realistically, it is a matter of difference in belief or world view between you and me. Thus, the argument between you and me whether it is insulting or not for these people is probably moot.
4. I see your point. I find it hard to believe though that the people who made that video are free of hypocrisy either. Let me try to explain. Assume for the moment that Bible never existed and the world was somewhat different that it is today, supposedly governed by the people similar to those who made this video. It seems to me that anyone who were to propose chastity before marriage and other similar values would be persecuted just the same.
1. I pity them but grant them the natural right (as in physical possibility) to do that as far as I am not involved.
3. I still don't understand how people define the boundary between displeasing and insulting in purely intellectual matters. Whoever perceives non-threatening but displeasing ideas as a physical threat and displays aggression should be isolated as a danger to others.
4. Persecuted - no. Ridiculed - sure, but so what?
3. Reaction to insult does not necessary involve display of aggression, does it? You seem to have pointed at the problem exactly. These people perceive videos such as this as a physical threat. At least this has been my understanding from whatever contact I had privilege to have with them. There are countries where public display of such a video will get one isolated as a danger to others.
4. Well, I respectfully disagree. The scandal around Gay Pride Parade in Jerusalem last year was way and far away from mere ridicule.
But I obtained what I wanted to obtain. Correct me if I am wrong but:
1. You find all of the above including the video a mere intellectual exercise.
2. You are not going to be offended by similar counter propaganda should you come across some such.
3. You find the above video ethical and you have explained why.
3. Correct. The problem is that while they feel threatened they are not aware of being delusional. The threat is pretty real to them. That, in my view, is quite a problem.
4. Whenever I heard the voice of that person who was speaking for Gay Pride Parade in Jerusalem on the radio, they did not sound too amused to me. In fact, they were pretty verbal and pretty threatening. But then again, it could have been staged.
3. Indeed. Another way to (work around or) solve it, is to keep this problem in mind and take it into account while dealing with these people.
4. Aren't you locking yourself into a specific course of action here? Although I can hardly draw a parallel between physical threads and righteous indignation.
Here I'd like to make a generalization, if you don't mind. Given two large groups of people with sharply opposing views, the way both groups will behave towards the other party will be roughly the same. Both will try to rhetorize their way out by some kind of politically correct or otherwise seemingly honorable argument, whereby one (at most two) level beneath this argument, the true nature of their views on the opposition will be evident. Or, in other words, and please take no offense in this, as I mean none, I opine that whatever the delusional ones think about the enlightened ones is pretty much the same as what the enlightened ones would like to be done with the delusional crowd.
You see, when one of the two sides wishes for the destruction of the other and will not be satisfied with less, whereas the latter only wishes to be left alone, do we really have to explain which one is delusional and which one is enlightened?
Oh, indeed, my mistake. I used words 'delusional' and 'enlightened' only as labels, variable names if you wish. Assuming the premise of the desire of being left alone is true, you're absolutely right.
Returning back to the video - you therefore maintain that it is mere ridicule. I see it differently, but we may be starting a new cycle, so that may be we could stop here.
In any case, I sincerely thank you for giving me a chance to talk to you in some length, which hadn't happened for quite some time now, had it?
If I may, IMHO this is exactly the problem with one side - the messianic ideas. Let's (rewire, reform, teach, etc.) them so that *they* will do it *our* way. Far as I'm concerned anybody is absolutely free to do whatever their religion (or whatever else) tells them to do as long as they don't try to force me to do it the way they consider right. The Bible actually says a lot of great things like "do not judge and you will not be judged" or something to that effect. Why can't the zealots follow this idea?
Yes, you may, unless Spamsink objects. I am afraid you have severely misread the comment to which you posted that of yours. I happen to know mr Spamsink here from 1988 or 1989. Along with that I should add that my reply has a smiley as well as his and it is intended as a most friendly jocular exchange between two friends. No, I don't really propose brain rewiring.
As for rewire, reform, _teach_ - I reckon you teach your kids (assuming you have some) in a certain way, or rather you let them be because you don't force them to do what you consider right so as not to do to others what you don't want to be done to yourself...
Also, some things, such as messianic behavior is probably pretty much built-in in humans. Look I found this tasty berry, let us all eat this berry. Sounds pretty messianic to me.
I'm not implying you actually propose lobotomy :) I just used that phrase to illustrate the point that Spamsink already made - that one side tries to wipe the other off the face of the planet while the other side just wants to be left alone. Well, unfortunately not all of them. Some "activists" are very militant but that's another story. I don't buy your argument about the kids because my kids are my responsibility, at least before they grow up. On the contrary my neighbors are not and I can not tell them what to do or not do. The good old "live and let live" thing... I can express my opinion but not try to make others live by my standards. I don't have any personal stake in the issue that started the thread. I just have a rather strong opinion that one should follow his own religious beliefs (or not) but not tell others what to do.
You're quite right. In fact, most of the so called opponents of one side also desire to be left alone. The actual clash is between relatively small number of activists on both sides of the fence. Or at least this has been my understanding so far. Given the general backdrop of rating driven media we arrive to rather ugly situation.
I don't buy your argument about your neighbors though. Say you walk by your street and see your neighbors son seriously beating the daughter of your another neighbor (assuming you live in the middle of a street and have neighbors from both sides) - would you just pass by? The world is not black and white. Live and let live is a good thing, when taken with sensible proportion. The same goes about responsibility for your kids 'cause as they grow up you might have to cut them more slack.
By expressing your opinion (and correct me if I am wrong) you already assume that whatever you say or write will be understood by the other party. The mere understanding of your position assumes that some of those who listen to you may want to take your words to their heart. So, either you choose your words extremely careful, or you just accept the fact that some people may convince other people of something and even some may do that on purpose.
No, I don't have any personal stake in the issue that started the thread either. However, I wanted to discuss the matter in some depth with my friend, which I did.
Let me quote you once more, for this specific sentence strikes me somewhat. "I just have a rather strong opinion that one should follow his own religious beliefs (or not) but not tell others what to do." Let me emphasize words "rather strong" and "one should follow". Basically you're already preaching here. That itself is at contradiction to what you said before.
No, I am not trying to argue with you or attack you. I am just trying to point out that in actuality this whole thing is not _that_ simple.
>The actual clash is between relatively small number of activists on both sides of the fence.
In most cases one side is much more violent than the other. For example nobody ever killed a doctor who does NOT perform abortions.
>neighbors son seriously beating That's a CRIME. A very different thing. I'll try to stop it if I can. If on the other hand the neighbor drives on a Sabbath it's none of my business.
>By expressing your opinion... As I see it there is a huge difference between expressing an opinion and trying to FORCE somebody to follow your own rules.
>Basically you're already preaching here. That itself is at contradiction to what you said before.
You have a point - I do preach for tolerance but not trying to enforce it.
I don't see any personal attack here either and to show that one should practice what he preaches I'll stop right here. I expressed my opinion. You are perfectly free to disagree and do everything your own way. Not *you* personally - any person.
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png)
winterfish
no subject
Date: 2009-06-16 07:02 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2009-06-16 07:08 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2009-06-17 04:18 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2009-06-17 04:21 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2009-06-17 04:28 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2009-06-17 04:36 am (UTC)1. To me (I may be wrong, but as a viewer I am entitled to my own opinion, right?) this video looks like a rather cheap propaganda. It goes as far as to basically say - Bible is bloody stupid, period.
2. Above is valid point to make. I mean, great many people may indeed think this way and are entitled to do so.
3. Given that still another great many people hold Bible (and similar texts) for their face value, I would say that this video insults them in a way, or at least it comes across that way in my understanding.
4. To summarize these points above. We have a video designed to promote certain idea (promote like in propaganda) that does so by insulting (or coming very close to insulting) the opposition.
So here is my question - is it ethically valid to do what has been done in this view especially given one of the closing shots about love, etc?
no subject
Date: 2009-06-17 04:53 am (UTC)2. With the corrections above.
3. It may displease them, but I don't see how it insults them.
4. Granted, it is a piece of propaganda, but it works by pointing out the disconnect of the opposition with reality, and, if you're willing to go that way, the opposition's hypocrisy.
According to the golden rule, I personally would not mind that kind of counterpropaganda - if one could be constructed, it would be rather amusing if barely displeasing - therefore this one is ethical to me.
no subject
Date: 2009-06-17 05:18 am (UTC)2. Indeed.
3. Well, it did not insult me. In fact it made me chuckle. However I can easily see how it can insult them. Realistically, it is a matter of difference in belief or world view between you and me. Thus, the argument between you and me whether it is insulting or not for these people is probably moot.
4. I see your point. I find it hard to believe though that the people who made that video are free of hypocrisy either. Let me try to explain. Assume for the moment that Bible never existed and the world was somewhat different that it is today, supposedly governed by the people similar to those who made this video. It seems to me that anyone who were to propose chastity before marriage and other similar values would be persecuted just the same.
no subject
Date: 2009-06-17 05:26 am (UTC)3. I still don't understand how people define the boundary between displeasing and insulting in purely intellectual matters. Whoever perceives non-threatening but displeasing ideas as a physical threat and displays aggression should be isolated as a danger to others.
4. Persecuted - no. Ridiculed - sure, but so what?
no subject
Date: 2009-06-17 05:39 am (UTC)4. Well, I respectfully disagree. The scandal around Gay Pride Parade in Jerusalem last year was way and far away from mere ridicule.
But I obtained what I wanted to obtain. Correct me if I am wrong but:
1. You find all of the above including the video a mere intellectual exercise.
2. You are not going to be offended by similar counter propaganda should you come across some such.
3. You find the above video ethical and you have explained why.
I most definitely appreciate our dialog so far.
no subject
Date: 2009-06-17 05:50 am (UTC)This perception is delusional. There is no way to substantiate it by analyzing just the content of the video, only in reference to some "writings".
4. That's exactly my point. One side is "insulted" by the opposing non-threatening ideas, and the other would be merely amused.
no subject
Date: 2009-06-17 05:55 am (UTC)4. Whenever I heard the voice of that person who was speaking for Gay Pride Parade in Jerusalem on the radio, they did not sound too amused to me. In fact, they were pretty verbal and pretty threatening. But then again, it could have been staged.
no subject
Date: 2009-06-17 06:20 am (UTC)4. Yes, without a display of righteous indignation there is no way to counteract the religious crowd.
no subject
Date: 2009-06-17 06:29 am (UTC)4. Aren't you locking yourself into a specific course of action here? Although I can hardly draw a parallel between physical threads and righteous indignation.
Here I'd like to make a generalization, if you don't mind. Given two large groups of people with sharply opposing views, the way both groups will behave towards the other party will be roughly the same. Both will try to rhetorize their way out by some kind of politically correct or otherwise seemingly honorable argument, whereby one (at most two) level beneath this argument, the true nature of their views on the opposition will be evident. Or, in other words, and please take no offense in this, as I mean none, I opine that whatever the delusional ones think about the enlightened ones is pretty much the same as what the enlightened ones would like to be done with the delusional crowd.
no subject
Date: 2009-06-17 06:38 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2009-06-17 06:46 am (UTC)Returning back to the video - you therefore maintain that it is mere ridicule. I see it differently, but we may be starting a new cycle, so that may be we could stop here.
In any case, I sincerely thank you for giving me a chance to talk to you in some length, which hadn't happened for quite some time now, had it?
no subject
Date: 2009-06-17 06:52 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2009-06-17 07:02 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2009-06-17 08:27 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2009-06-18 04:35 am (UTC)As for rewire, reform, _teach_ - I reckon you teach your kids (assuming you have some) in a certain way, or rather you let them be because you don't force them to do what you consider right so as not to do to others what you don't want to be done to yourself...
Also, some things, such as messianic behavior is probably pretty much built-in in humans. Look I found this tasty berry, let us all eat this berry. Sounds pretty messianic to me.
Pleasure meeting you, sir.
no subject
Date: 2009-06-18 04:53 am (UTC)Well, unfortunately not all of them. Some "activists" are very militant but that's another story.
I don't buy your argument about the kids because my kids are my responsibility, at least before they grow up. On the contrary my neighbors are not and I can not tell them what to do or not do. The good old "live and let live" thing...
I can express my opinion but not try to make others live by my standards.
I don't have any personal stake in the issue that started the thread. I just have a rather strong opinion that one should follow his own religious beliefs (or not) but not tell others what to do.
no subject
Date: 2009-06-18 06:32 am (UTC)I don't buy your argument about your neighbors though. Say you walk by your street and see your neighbors son seriously beating the daughter of your another neighbor (assuming you live in the middle of a street and have neighbors from both sides) - would you just pass by? The world is not black and white. Live and let live is a good thing, when taken with sensible proportion. The same goes about responsibility for your kids 'cause as they grow up you might have to cut them more slack.
By expressing your opinion (and correct me if I am wrong) you already assume that whatever you say or write will be understood by the other party. The mere understanding of your position assumes that some of those who listen to you may want to take your words to their heart. So, either you choose your words extremely careful, or you just accept the fact that some people may convince other people of something and even some may do that on purpose.
No, I don't have any personal stake in the issue that started the thread either. However, I wanted to discuss the matter in some depth with my friend, which I did.
Let me quote you once more, for this specific sentence strikes me somewhat. "I just have a rather strong opinion that one should follow his own religious beliefs (or not) but not tell others what to do." Let me emphasize words "rather strong" and "one should follow". Basically you're already preaching here. That itself is at contradiction to what you said before.
No, I am not trying to argue with you or attack you. I am just trying to point out that in actuality this whole thing is not _that_ simple.
no subject
Date: 2009-06-18 08:01 am (UTC)In most cases one side is much more violent than the other. For example nobody ever killed a doctor who does NOT perform abortions.
>neighbors son seriously beating
That's a CRIME. A very different thing. I'll try to stop it if I can. If on the other hand the neighbor drives on a Sabbath it's none of my business.
>By expressing your opinion...
As I see it there is a huge difference between expressing an opinion and trying to FORCE somebody to follow your own rules.
>Basically you're already preaching here. That itself is at contradiction to what you said before.
You have a point - I do preach for tolerance but not trying to enforce it.
I don't see any personal attack here either and to show that one should practice what he preaches I'll stop right here. I expressed my opinion. You are perfectly free to disagree and do everything your own way. Not *you* personally - any person.
no subject
Date: 2009-06-18 08:23 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2009-06-18 02:14 pm (UTC)