Log in

Previous Entry | Next Entry

Agreeing to disagree we ain't!

joreth has just written a passionate essay about why everything I said here was bullshit.

Dear me. I think I'm about to cry!

Or, you know, not.

Actually, I'm really surprised by my feelings on this -- usually, I would really want to argue, I'd spend hours writing wordy replies and exchanging ideas, involving other people into the discussion, trying to learn. I always want to argue when I disagree with someone -- for me, wanting to discuss it is a sign of respect, sign of being interested in understanding. This time is different... or, maybe I'm just tired. But the fact is, I just don't give a fuck.
Oh, yes, so she said:

I do not respect anyone who defends the position that it is ever morally or ethically "right" to do any of those things.[...] And if the defender is also polyamorous, is also a community leader or activist or "celebrity" espousing the values of polyamory as a valid and, especially as an "ethical" relationship choice, not only do I not respect that person, I also think she's a hypocrite. Since I've already heard all the defenses, continuing to defend that position only makes the defender look worse in my eyes.

Well... ooookay. So be it. I honestly don't give a shit. I have a lot of respect for joreth (check out here if you want to know why), but I just... really don't care if she gives me any in return, you know? Strange, right? Maybe it would be different if she was a friend in real life. Yeah, probably so.

Or maybe it's because I feel that no further understanding would be gained by discussing it. As she said, she already heard other people defending my point. I don't think I could defend it much better. Maybe I'm wrong, but I just don't feel like trying. And, of course, for my part, I've read what joreth had to say, and I was not convinced at all (just a couple of non-sequiturs in her logic that, in my opinion, completely break down her argument -- but I don't feel like explaining it). I suspect that in this instance, she already understands my position -- and I already understand hers -- and we still disagree.

Just a few months ago, I would say that this situation is impossible. I guess I am growing up.

P.S. joreth does not read my journal, so this post is not a lowly "bait", or whatever. She's not going to see this. This post is more for contrasting the two opinions on this tough and nuanced topic (we both don't nearly do it justice), and also for noting an uncharacteristic emotional reaction on my part.


( 10 comments — Leave a comment )
Jun. 1st, 2012 08:15 am (UTC)
Actually, I am going to see it. LJ tells me when someone references my posts.
Jun. 1st, 2012 03:09 pm (UTC)

Shit. Sorry!
Jun. 1st, 2012 01:18 pm (UTC)
I wrote a long comment but, given that you aren't really inviting discussion on the topic, I think I will go make a post of my own. :)
Jun. 1st, 2012 03:36 pm (UTC)
Yes, that was another thing I didn't consider (joreth might not read my journal, but some people who know her do). *facepalm* I just keep forgetting that anyone besides my IRL friends reads it...

Making a post of your own is a better option for unrelated reasons. You have much more readers, and this topics deserves attention. You're right, I wasn't inviting a discussion -- at that time, with that person. But at another time, or with other people, things might be different! (In particular, with my boyfriend I always discuss the important things that joreth writes). So I'm looking forward to reading what you and your commenters had to say (when my oncall ends... :-( )

In any case, I hope there were no hurt feelings as a result of my post -- knowing what I know now, I'm sorry I posted it.
Jun. 1st, 2012 04:19 pm (UTC)
The pingback bot informs her regardless, I think, if you link to her post. I don't think there was anything wrong with you posting it, unless you specifically *didn't* want her to read it, in which case filtering it might have been wise. :)

If you want to discuss at my post, feel free to jump in!
(Deleted comment)
Jun. 3rd, 2012 03:04 pm (UTC)
Well, I can actually kind of understand her point on that. Sometimes disagreement is not just a disagreement -- if ethical issues are involved, disagreeing with someone can indeed mean that you apriori don't respect that person. For example, some people believe that homosexuals should not be allowed to marry or adopt. I don't just disagree with that belief, I also think it's shitty, and a person who believes that would not be my friend. So that's where she's coming from.
(Deleted comment)
Jun. 3rd, 2012 04:25 pm (UTC)
You're right! I take that back.

But that reminds me of this video. You probably could say that the pastor in this story honestly believed that this child's fantasies were actually causing bad things to happen to his family, as punishment from God for him thinking about boys. So the pastor wasn't bad -- just very, very misinformed... Right?
(Deleted comment)
Jun. 3rd, 2012 04:40 pm (UTC)
I'm not sure. It's tough.
Btw, why do you call him bad? Suppose he sincerely believes that crap. I thought that's what separates the bad from the misinformed for you, no?
(Deleted comment)
Jun. 3rd, 2012 05:03 pm (UTC)
But isn't his motivation understandable, given his faulty beliefs? If homosexual behaviour really causes suffering for everyone, then shouldn't such behaviour indeed be intolerable by society?
For this pastor, it's the same as sermons against stealing, for example. He believes that stealing is harmful to society, so he preaches that thieves should be shunned by the community, punished for their deeds, and tries to scare thieves into not stealing anymore. And we wouldn't call him a bad person for that, right? So what's the difference?

Sorry for the offtopic, I'm just curious what you think...
(Deleted comment)
Jun. 3rd, 2012 06:25 pm (UTC)
BTW , what your userpic means in context of this discussion , why did you switched to it?

Nothing in particular, sorry! Vague connection. I just love OOTS, I guess :-)
( 10 comments — Leave a comment )