TB to ADG
Your caring about gender discrimination in the SES indicates an underlying fundamental belief in gender equality and/or differences. I would guess from this comment that you believe that equality of the sexes is a good thing to strive for. If you do believe this then you will take issue with SES teachings. However, can you support your belief in gender equality with logic and evidence or is it a faith/socially based thing?
I'd like to respond to this question in a moment, TB, as I agree that
gender issues are key to the discussion of SES.
However this thread has gotten really long, so I'm going pull together the quotes just around the gender equality question. I find fault with TB's superior tone, but also the content of his arguements.
TB, you write,
For this reason discussion of topics gender equality/sameness can be fundamental to some of the judgements made for or against SES. If we are starting with unsupported premises how can we expect the conclusions to be correct?
Gender equality does not imply gender sameness. I think you are aware of that, TB, but you seem to want someone to assert that gender equality is based on sameness so you can refute them, and argue that the sexes are different, therefore men and women should be treated differently. Yes, the sexes are different, although it is difficult to say how much of that difference is genetic or "natural" and how much environmental or cultural. (The SES is certainly strict about observing gender difference in the environment, but if these differences were really so "natural" and genetic, there would be no need to enforce them culturally.)
You seem eager to apply the philosophical method, TB, which is interesting, because in my experience of SoPP they do not use the philosophical method, premise-argument-conclusion, but instead read out loud an "inspiring" text and ask the students to apply it in their own lives for a week. Anyway, you state "If we are starting with unsupported premises how can we expect the conclusions to be correct?" but what you mean to say is "if we start with a FALSE premise the conclusion will be incorrect" -- an unsupported premise will still lead to a true conclusion, if the premise is true. A nit-picky point I'll admit, but your pedantic tone brings it out of me, TB.
I have a feeling there are a lot of people in the world you find it difficult to get along with, TB, and many of them are women. I would suggest to you, as kindly as I can, that you may not realize how patronizingly you speak. If your relations with women are happy and and harmonious, please accept my apologies for assuming otherwise. If you often feel the women you encounter are hostile to you for seemingly no reason, I suggest it might be your condescending attitude. Nobody likes to be addressed with condescension, although some will tolerate it more than others.
Back to the content of your argument -- I think you fail to comprehend that
difference is not an obstacle to
equality. Men may be different from women, but still no better or worse. One historical period may be different from another culture, but not necessarily better or worse. SES is a highly hierarchical organizaion, it seems, & it's tough for someone steeped in hierarchical thought to grasp that although two quantities may be different from each other, one is not necessarily better since in the hierarchical system it's always one-up other-down or vice versa.
I'm afraid I'm going to have to belabor this point -- that people do not have to be alike to be equal.
Math is the simplest language for logical expression. The terms "like" and "equal" are not synomonous. Unlike terms (take 4X and 16Y, for example) can be equal although they are dissimilar. People may also be unalike without being unequal. Whether its women and men, blacks and whites, Pakistanis and Brits, although the two categories are vividly different, one group isn't necessarily better than the other. Of course, you may actually believe in your heart of hearts, TB, that men are better than women, whites are better than blacks, Brits are better than Pakis - or you may not, I really don't know. But the simple fact of difference is not evidence of one group's superiority.
Okay, back to quoting - Emmalu9 writes that over 10 years she was
entrusted into the care of many different families babystters and teachers in both term time and holidays. Some were competent and caring, others were shockingly abusive.
and criticizes
the total egomania of the SES, which allows the belief that people have differing levels of inherent human worth. Your paragraph on gender equality clearly demonstrates that you too are suffering from this very sad delusion. I pity you and hope that you will one day be able to be released from the bondage of pride.
TB responds
If you read my comment carefully and not assume what underlies the questions, it does not indicate at all what I might believe. I am checking to see what YOU believe and how you have formed your ideas. It is a comment about your views, not mine. Not suprisingly most people do interpret this type of questioning and backfill with their assumptions. You might have a coherent argument to support your case on gender equality, then again you might not.
Emmalu9 back
If you have a point, then state it clearly. Otherwise, you leave others no choice but to read some coherent argument into your convoluted grammar...
TB responds by quoting Emmalu9
I believe that this forum gives people a place where they can begin to heal the wounds inflicted through connection with the SES and St James schools. Sharing experiences and feelings with others whose lives have been similarly damaged can help to gain closure and to deal with a history of abuse.
and writes
TB
I apologise for entering into debates that inhibit this. However as a past member of the SES I have an interest (but perhaps not the right) in this forum. Your point is well taken, I will try and be more sensitive.
Magnanimous man! But no quoting Emmalu9's criticism of your "convoluted" grammar, just
Excuse my complex grammar, I will work to simplfy it.
TB, while it's big of you to apologize for your lack of sensitivity, you sort of ruin the effect with the implicit insult in "Excuse my complex grammar, I will work to simplify it." It's as if you believe your thought processes are so complicated and intricate that you couldn't possibly expect lesser lights to keep up - and graciously promise to dumb it down so the rest of us can follow you. You are insulting where perhaps you mean to be concilatory. You say yourself that "Not suprisingly most people do interpret this type of questioning and backfill with their assumptions," so why do it that way?
But this is a question of attitude/tone, as for content, back to Emmalu9
Just for the record, I believe that all humans have equal inherent worth, regardless of age, gender, race, sexuality or morality. Would you agree?
TB responds
I would have to ask you to define 'inherent worth' in practical terms. This vague statement sounds like a political banner. Sounds great but you cannot pin it down.
TB, you dropped the word "equal" there, Emmalu9's premise is that "all humans have
equal inherent worth" (regardless of differences) and I agree with FreeThinker that "equal inherent worth" is not all that hard to understand unless you just aren't payin attention (or have been schooled in an obsessively hierarchical system where people are not only treated differently based on rank but also have their fundamental humanity disrespected.)
Free Thinker writes
TB - ...I agree that your choice of things to take issue with is quite SES-ian, ... Inherant worth is quite simple. It means that we are all worth the same in the world, either through God's eyes if you're religious, or through our own if you're not, no matter what color, creed, sexuality, class, etc. you are.
I would just like to add that for religious people, a person's inherent worth comes from possession of a soul. But the idea that a person has intrinsic value is not limited to religious people - the irreligious just have a harder time saying where this innate dignity or worth comes from. The Enlightenment & the SES's beloved Renaissance were two points in history where a number of philosophers were arguing that "man" has innate dignity which must be respected. more on this below.
TB writes
I believe all people are different, and are affected by age, race, gender, sexuality, intelligence, morality, sexual orientation, education, nationality, health, parents they are born to, etc.
I believe that, by the way we measure value, this makes them unequal in many ways and means we treat them differently. I also believe that MOST should be offered equal OPPORTUNITY (as opposed to equality itself) to achieve things. But this should not overly affect others.
TB, your premise is that "all people are different," which is fine. Advaita Vedanta proposes that all the differences you mention, ethnicity, gender, intelligence, morality, etc. are
uppadhis, temporary characteristics, not who a person is. But whatever, you may be so turned off by the SES that Advaita Vedanta is an enormous turn off as well. I don't wish to push Sanskrity ideas on anyone here.
You go on to say that "I believe that,
by the way we measure value, this makes them unequal in many ways." But how do "we" measure value? In some cultures, the fastest runner will have the greatest value; in other cultures, the best computer scientist.
But more to the point, the "inherent equal worth" Emmalu9 and Free Thinker speak of has nothing to do with the value of the contribution an individual makes to the group. It's not related to a person's accomplishments. "Inherent equal value" is unearned. It is equal among people of different capabilities, not only because difference is NOT a hindrance to equality, but also because the rock-bottom worth of a person has nothing to do with how s/he acts and everything to do with the fact s/he exists. And I'm a little concerned about anyone who really needs this broken down -- can't you tell that you possess innate value, independent of your abilities? And that other people do as well?
I have heard a lot of adolescents say that they don't respect anybody just automatically, it has to be earned. They assume that others are NOT worthy of respect until proven otherwise. But I think mature people realize it's much better to respect EVERYBODY at a baseline level, no matter how foul the person's behavior.
But let's leave aside the premise that "all people have equal intrinsic worth" in case you still don't undersand or agree, TB. You write that "I also believe that MOST should be offered equal OPPORTUNITY (as opposed to equality itself) to achieve things. But this should not overly affect others." I think your unwillingness to extend equal opportunity to all, even if it "overly affects" others, is symptomatic of a certain grasping unwillingness to give up the high status you've assumed is your birthright as an Englishman, TB. You follow with the example of not giving children or the mentally ill the opportunity to drive a car, but I think this is a bit of a red herring -- I suspect that if you are honest with yourself there are a lot of other opportunities you are really reluctant to extend to people who don't look or act like you do.
Reading over your last post, TB, you seem to be genuinely asking questions from the heart, not just attempting to get somebody to respond so you can slam 'em.
Give me some practical description that I can apply to daily living. Give me something to measure this worth.
I'm afraid I can't do that. Innate worth, the intrinsic value of a person is not tangible.
How am I going to know if people respect this worth with their actions and not just words?
Oh you'll know it when you meet it TB. Besides, what worry is it for you? You seem unwilling to admit innate worth exists.
In my view we use these empty words to satisfy our need to appear virtous to ourselves and others.
I think you mean to say OTHER people use these empty words to appear virtuous.
I do voluntary work for others, for the environment, and have done so over most of my adult life. I am struck by the expectation and lack of gratitude that it brings from those who benefit
If I understand you, TB, you feel that worth -- your own and others - is dependent on what you do. I can only say again, I think there is a baseline of value that each person has, independent of what s/he does. I also hope that you get something, some pleasure or a good feeling when you volunteer your time & energy. If you don't, then don't do it?
Gahh. It's late. And I haven't introduced myself properly here. And this post is ridiculously long. TB, although I find both your tone and your belief system infuriating in the extreme, I should remember that I haven't walked a mile in your moccasins & maintain amiability. will try to anyway.