| Subject: Mercedes, I'll be leaving till tomorrow night, so I won't post again till then. But I've been thinking, and perhaps I could have made my point better with a different tone. |
Author:
obitchecker
|
[
Next Thread |
Previous Thread |
Next Message |
Previous Message
]
Date Posted: Sat, May 23, 2009 7:20:52
In reply to:
obitchecker
's message, "And, I have NEVER opposed or questioned your right to feel strongly about anything." on Fri, May 22, 2009 3:59:30
I think in debate/discussion you have to leave your opponent some "breathing room" and if I have not done that, I apologize.
The point I have been trying to make has really not been about Bush or Cheney. That is why, respectfully, you have been missing the point in your posts where you constantly assume that it is.
What I have been trying to convey since I started coming to the board is that however strongly you feel about an issue (and it's a good thing that people feel strongly), the assumption of IEI never holds. For anyone.
By IEI I mean: Intensity Equals Infallibility
That is, the belief that because you feel very intensely about an issue, you could not possibly be mistaken about it, or even about any part of it.
Now, let's just suppose that IEI were true. Let us suppose that your intensity of feeling did show that your view on an issue was indisputably correct, because of your intensity of feeling.
Then there is another person who just as intensely feels the opposite from you on a particular issue.
By IEI, that person, therefore, is also indisputably correct. Right?
But how can two contradictory beliefs both be indisputably correct?
Because they can't, then IEI...Intensity Equals Infallibility....can't be correct for everyone.
Not for everybody, anyway. But of course, the person who believes in IEI for themselves can then just deny that it applies to other people...by maintaining that these other people who feel just as intensely against their position are stupid, immoral, or uninformed, or something.
What this resembles more than anything else is religious zealotry, which has led to numerous wars throughout history between people who believed that the intensity of their religious beliefs made those beliefs indisputably true, and thus that there had to just be something wrong with people who held other religious beliefs.
Today, I'm seeing the same with politics, and on both sides. It's as if people need politics to fill in for the zeal they once had for religion in an earlier age.
I respect that you feel as strongly as you do. But you definitely demonstrate IEI when you make statements like this:
We ALL know that Cheney could have 'made up' classified material to support his claims, then use it to justify his positions. The proof will be if Anyone else will AGREE with him.
But if they do:
Cheney is trying to make sure there are a few 'friendly' people out there who will defend his actions when he was Vice.
What you are doing here is saying that because of your intensity of feeling, you are indisputably right in your whole assesssment, and even if evidence is produced which disputes any of your beliefs, you therefore know it was just made up.
When someone states that they will just dismiss any evidence that contradicts their views, they are demonstrating IEI.
Again, the problem is, what does this make people who just as intensely feel the opposing view? Not to mention that none of us are infallibe.
Least of all myself. I think we are all vulnerable to thinking along IEI lines, myself included. If I feel strongly about something, and come across evidence the other way, my first instince is probably to try and explain it away somehow. I try to be objective, but trying to hold onto your deeply-held position is human nature. But that doesn't make the evidence go away.
Now, it's possible that I could be wrong about what I just said. You, Mercedes could be a person whose intensity of belief gives her infallibility in knowing the truth in those beliefs, and there could just be something wrong with others who feel the same intensity but disagree with you.
Or, perhaps, I'm wrong in stating that two contradictory beliefs can't both be true, and maybe all intensely-held beliefs are therefore true, even when contradictory, and all religions are true as well. If there is evidence for this, let me know and I'll look at it.
In saying this I acknowledge that there are some things (like the Nazi holocaust) which virtually all rational and caring people agree are simply evil. We get into problems however, in extending Hitler comparisons too much. For instance, is it indisputably true that Truman was absolutely evil for dropping the bomb on Hiroshima? Or that Sherman (and, by extension, Lincoln) was absolutely evil for pillaging the South in his march in the Civil War? On these issues (which, if out of context of the circumstances, I agree WOULD be evil) there is great disagreement.
I think you are very intelligent, Mercedes, and I think you are a good person. I never meant to imply otherwise. Just asking that you, and others, and myself, leave some leeway for the possibility that we are wrong even when we feel very strongly. Without that leeway, freedom of speech has far fewer legs to stand on
[
Next Thread |
Previous Thread |
Next Message |
Previous Message
]
| |
Feedback: 