homegrown wrote:Spheres of Balance,
The right to an opinion must be balanced with a responsibility to a valid basis of analysis - for if the premises of an argument are invalid, then the conclusion must also be invalid. For instance, everyone should acknowledge that no-one knows whether or not God exists. While to hope so is perfectly sane, faith is an irrational approach to knowledge, but based on this false premise, religious identity has an inclusive/exclusive dynamic that by the moral justification of the included, demonizes those excluded. It's right there on his facebook page: 'I have no American friends. I don't understand them. They have no values.' In the minds of the Boston Bombers, the victims had no moral worth. That's an invalid conclusion. No-one has a right to that opinion.
Accepting that valid knowledge is established by scientific method - and that middle ground physics, chemistry and biology constitute a highly coherent understanding of reality can't tell you what to have for breakfast. I had salmon and scrambled eggs. You may have had crosissants and coffee. That's a matter of opinion - and in matters of opinion everyone is entitled to their own. I could argue that my breakfast is high in protein and low in saturated fat relative to yours which is all fat and sugar. It would be a scientifically valid argument, but you could still argue that you don't care about nutrition; that you like croissants and coffee, while the very thought of fish and eggs together makes you wretch. I'd have to accept that, but I shouldn't have to entertain the argument that fish and eggs together are sinful; an offence against God. You are not entitled to that opinion.
It's not a matter of opinion that the Earth is a single planetary environment, or that humankind is a single species. The religious, political and economic ideological architecture of societies are held to be true in denial of those two simple facts. It may or may not be that those two Chechen Muslims embarked on a murderous rampage in order to assert a religious identity undermined by the secular relativism of American society. Such considerations are generally the context of a more specific motive - but it's unlikely, even given the same motive, they'd have bombed a crowd constituted solely of Chechen Muslims. I mean, Israelis may evict other Isrealis, but they don't drive a bulldozer through the house with the people still inside.
Two news channels and a documentary by Dan Snow now inform my opinion on the conflict in Syria. BBC News and Russia Today present diametrically opposed views - while historian Dan Snow explained the long history of sectarian violence, and colonial interference in the region. What's happening in Syria follows directly from sectarian identity - relative to the identities of others in the struggle for power. A long history of sectarian massacres dictated the heavy handed response of the ruling Alawite sect to Shia and Sunni's employing the guise of an Arab Spring style popular uprising to make a grab for power. If memory serves, it was in the 1920's that 30,000 Alawites were slaughtered by the Shia's and Sunnis, so Assad could not but employ the machinery of state to resist an ostensibly pro-democratic revolt.
BBC news utterly disregard the religio-ethnic sectarian underpinnings of the conflict. By altering the premises, consequently, Assad's motive is not the survival of his religio-ethnic group, but merely to cling to power. This serves as propaganda for the UK government who pretend to the opinion that supporting 'the rebels' is the right thing to do - while their real opinion revolves around a Christian country and major arms manufacturers seeing political and economic advantage in destablizing a Muslim country - and with luck the wider region for a generation to come. Wanting to arm terrorists to foment civil war against the government of a sovereign state is not a valid opinion - so BBC news alters the premises in the public mind, such that government can sell arms for future oil contracts as if they were champions of the oppressed.
Accepting a scientific understanding of reality in common; that the Earth is a single planetary environment and humankind is a single species implies that religio-ethnic identities are socially constructed - as opposed to constituting fundamental differences between people. But I don't imagine that doing so would immediately resolve the conflict in Syria, or Israel/Palestine, or in Burma, or elsewhere... Had we embraced science as it emerged back in the 17th century, and integrated it into politics on an ongoing basis since - such conflicts wouldn't occur now, but we are such a long way down the wrong road we are threatened with extinction. We need to accept a scientific understanding of reality in order for our species to survive. Accepting a scientific understanding of reality in common as a political rationale to solve the energy crisis and climate change would establish science as a rightful basis of analysis relative to religious, political and economic ideology, and dissolve religio-ethnic identities as a species identity emerged organically over time.
Speaking of time - sorry it takes so long to reply, and for the lack of debate. I'd like to be able to engage more but internet access is a real problem for me. I have to take my computer out of the house - get your reply, and because my batteries suck, then come back home to write my reply, then go out again to post it. And why? Because I'm poor and technology is applied (or withheld) for profit - not in accord with the inherent merits of the technology. After solving the energy crisis and climate change, and desalinating sea-water to irrigate the deserts to grow enough food to feed the world while reducing the impact of human need on natural habitat, I'll wire the world so everyone can have a thousand TV channels, phone and faster than light broadband as standard. Doing it is not that difficult - it's just the getting started!
hg.
I agree with all that you have said above, and I identify with your plight, as I too am of meager means, and I too would join you in the job of helping others on the road to equality, especially as to needs, i.e., water, food and shelter. But as to opinion you are incorrect.
Opinions drive change, and the only responsibility one has, is to ensure that they always question everything, to formulate these opinions. It would seem that you have confused the right of an opinion, with the right to act upon that opinion. I never said one has a right to act, especially when it comes to another's life, as the only man that could possibly have that right, would be that man that knows of the entire universe, and all it's secrets, and could prove, not only that he knows, but that another could actually harm the balance of the universe, if not stopped, but even then, I see killing as an extreme measure, to right any wrong, as surely the wrong doer that would upset the balance of the universe, would not really know what it was, that he was doing, such that he could never actually be held accountable.
Action then, where it might adversely affect another, must comply with my Fundamental Social Axiom (The Golden Rule{revised}): "Treat others as you would have others treat you, to the extent, that all parties, knowingly agree, at the time," as no mere mortal man, knows of the entirety of the universe, and can prove it.
