« Liberty and Ownership | Main | The Realism of "Techno-Libertarians" »

August 10, 2009

Comments

Apathy until proven otherwise. At least it is better than showing disrespect.

I think you have pulled any significant meaning out of yet another word. That seems to be your M.O.

I am saddened, I sure you can not fathom why, that these ideas are so prevalent in society these days. Many that consider themselves critical thinkers are not thinking critically at all. Ideas become so small that the arguments themselves make the ideas all but meaningless. From your blog title and reading your posts, I would say you have a too much respect for your own thoughts and too little respect for the rest of humanity. And, I don't mean respect as you define it, but as a concept so easily understood by many with much less education than you.

I think you lack of understanding of humanity, which can not be proven by science, is truly limiting your thought.

Goodbye.

Haha - "apathy until proven otherwise" - you're funny, Frank. I think my reasoning here goes along with my demand for evidence for religion as we discussed before. The real default position is dignity - showing that everyone is human and should be treated fairly. I think this is the type of "respect" that you're talking about that is, "so easily understood by many with much less education than you".

I also think it's funny that you criticize my critical thinking while at the same time not bringing any rational points to the table. Saying that, "critical thinkers are not thinking critically at all. Ideas become so small that the arguments themselves make the ideas all but meaningless", is just so much rhetoric.

I'm trying to understand humanity the best that I can, and I believe respect is something to be explored. I think most people use my system. Plenty of people say that "respect is earned" and when people say to respect all people they mean to give them their dignity - which could be considered some base level of respect. Any respect above this is earned. This is as basic as primate society.

Thanks for the comments, Frank.

"Plenty of people say that 'respect is earned' and when people say to respect all people they mean to give them their dignity - which could be considered some base level of respect."

"The truth of the matter is that we should start out not respecting anybody..."

Good catch, Frank. I think I should refine my position to say that there is a base level of respect: called dignity. However, for the purposes of respecting authority & tradition this base line isn't really relevant because we're talking about respecting people above the baseline for things that they haven't earned.

What do you think?

respect: "Respect is esteem for, or a sense of the worth or excellence of, a person, a personal quality, ability, or a manifestation of a personal quality."
-en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Respect

I believe that everyone should be give respect unless proven otherwise. You should always be respectful to everyone unless they proove they don't deserve that respect. However, with such a loosely defined term, it's easy to argue either way.

You also seem cofussed by the idea of respecting something at the same time dissagreeing with it. Let me give you an example.

You have a friend suggest you paint your house a different color but you just painted it last year green you really like the color green. You can respect his suggestion by asking him to explain why he'd like you to repaint your house but you would be disrepecting his suggestion by just saying something like "stfu, i just painted it last year."

in my opinion, respect is something slowly dieing in society these days.

@vic One thing to remember is that respect is not a binary kind of situation. I agree with most of what Nick said, and I certainly show strangers what I'd call 'courtesy." It's not ultra-respect, but it's certainly not disrespect either. I think Nick is talking more about a more serious, deeper respect than simply showing them common courtesy that they deserve for being another human being.

Yea, Steve is right on. If you look at my commenting with Frank, you'll see that I'm for a baseline of respect. Call it: courtesy, dignity, whatever, but it's not what people are talking about for respecting authority - which is what I'm against: blind respect of authority or tradition sans evidence.

@Nick Pinkston: I think your refined position is much better. And, I like your word choice "dignity" for this discussion.

Dignity is a term used in moral, ethical, and political discussions to signify that a being has an innate right to respect and ethical treatment.(wikipedia)

@Steve: The black and white concept of respect is right out of Nick's original post. He shows things he respects about people and things he does not have to respect about people. I think the wording can be easily misunderstood. I think the "don't have to respect" is probably not "show disrespect" to these people for these things. Nick's wording is, I think, a little harsh and can be refined to help others understand the basic point that he is trying to make.

Thanks Frank...

The comments to this entry are closed.