Wednesday Whining Venting.
Okay, please understand that my intent with this post is not to start an argument. But can I just whine about how disagreements are often treated?
I don't mind it when people disagree with me. It happens often. That's fine.
What I do mind are the constant insinuations from some people (and this happens on both sides) that anyone who disagrees with them must be either (a) brainless or (b) heartless or (c) careless. Or all of the above.
You see, I disagree.
[If you'd rather skip the specifics and go straight to the point, click here.]
I don't think President Bush made up the idea of Saddam Hussein having or trying to make weapons of mass destruction out of thin air to start a war on a pretense.
I don't think the type of surveillance the current administration is doing is anything all that new or shocking. I do understand why people are upset, but I am not yet convinced that laws were broken. I'm not sure why anyone actually thought their cell phone calls and other activities done in/through public mediums were completely secure and private.
I also don't think the President caused the hurricanes by not funding enough research into global warming. I also don't think he caused the disaster in New Orleans.
I think an unborn child is just as human as anyone else, and that the issue of when abortion might be necessary is more akin to the issue of conjoined twins in jeopardy than to a decision about doing cosmetic surgery, although that's still not a perfect comparison.
I believe disabled people are also just as human as anyone else--even severely disabled and unresponsive or minimally responsive ones. I think decisions about end-of-life care should be made according to what would or wouldn't benefit the person and what is humane, not according to some arbitrary judgement about whether the life of someone who isn't dying is "worth" living or not. I think witholding food and water to cause the death of someone who isn't otherwise dying is murder, just as it would be murder if I purposely stopped feeding my baby and let her die.
My opinion is that Darwinism is a theory (which, I might add, does have some flaws and missing information) and should be taught as such in schools. I think it would be beneficial to kids to point out that there are other theories out there also, including intelligent design.
Yes, I believe God created the earth. I'm not sure exactly what method he used, but I believe He is real and is the source of all life.
I believe right and wrong exist. I believe there are absolutes, along with the possible grey areas.
On the other hand, I don't think that everything Republicans do is right, or that questioning anything "the Right" does is bad.
To me, the current President and Administration are neither the devil incarnate nor the greatest thing that's happened in recent history.
[And the point:]
I disagree on theology with many of my friends; on morals and principles with others.
I also believe in respect and compassion for everyone, whether I agree with them or not. I believe everyone is of value and should be treated as such.
I generally believe I could be wrong, and am willing to look into and explore things more. But I don't automatically agree with any one camp or believe everything I hear without questioning it.
There are lots of other things I disagree with friends and acquaintances about. This doesn't mean I don't care, am brainless, or don't think about these things.
Interestingly enough, both my husband and I frequently are accused of following a party line on one side or the other, of being too liberal or too conservative, too right or too left, too fundamentalist or too lenient, too opinionated or not opinionated enough. In fact, we tend to be accused of being on each side of the fence, by different people, at the same time--sometimes in the same discussion. Personally, I think that might be a good sign.
Maybe, just maybe, it means I'm a reasonably intelligent, thoughtful and caring person who *gasp* thinks for myself. Maybe I actually considered the issues, and came to a different conclusion about them than someone else did.
Maybe it doesn't mean I'm stupid or don't care.
Maybe it just means I disagree.
16 Comments:
You are too smart and caring for anyone to think that you are brainless or don't care...
I disagree with you on most of those things, but I'll fight to the death for your right to disagree with me.
I think the thing that disturbs me about our President is that he seems to block out all disagreement, and to think that anyone who disagrees with him is per se an enemy. His decisions bother me less than his methods of arriving at those decisions and his refusal afterwards to question whether what he decided was the BEST decision in retrospect and to learn from his mistakes as well as his successes. How can he learn from mistakes if he doesn't admit he makes any?
Now you, on the other hand, arrive at political conclusions I often disagree with, but I applaud your methods at arriving at them and I have complete respect for you, your life, your parenting and home-schooling skills, your beautiful children and your wonderful writing.
Much love,
Well, I don't consider this to be whining because it is expressing how you feel--and you have the right to do that! I agree with you, people need to respect each other :)
Awww, thanks, Liz. You're sweet--and you're one of my favorite bloggers too. :)
Thanks, R2Ks. :)
Well written post and good points!! Hehe, I know how you feel. I've been called an awful lot of things...
Hi Angela,
Followed Mark's link here. While I disagree with a lot (most?) of issues you said in the "specifics", I also can't agree more on "the point". I couldn't have said it any better. People can say they "respectfully disagree" all they want, but we need to actually mean more than just that "disagree" part :)
Oh, and while I'm at it: does evolution have flaws? Sure, just like all scientific theories, even gravity, molecular bond theories and quantum mechanics. But should ID be taught in science classroom? No, coz while it is an alternative explanation, it is not only a theory lacking in scientific credential, it simply is not a scientific theory (it does not produce testable and falsifiable predictions).
Did my husband inspire this blog note?... Hehe, I wouldn't be surprised!! ;-) C
C, if you're D's wife, no he didn't inspire this post. :)
He and I may disagree on a lot of things, but he's one of the most sensible and respectful debaters I've ever had a discussion with.
He actually listens to and interacts with the ideas rather than attacking the person, and I really appreciate that. I have great respect for him.
Whew!!! I'm glad to hear that - thx! D's wife
Thanks, Amy!
Ambivalence, hi! Thanks for stopping by. It's good to "see" you--I've always enjoyed reading your points of view in the discussions on Mark's blog.
I agree with you that origin theories aren't science in themselves, since nobody was there to observe the beginning of life and we can't reproduce it. There are things we can observe and draw conclusions from, though, and they are interesting to discuss and theorize about.
Maybe origin science (of any kind) is more a mix of science and philosophy.
I agree with you on a lot of those things. It's a sign of our times that name-calling has replaced actual debate. I don't think people know how to do that any more.
WRT ID/evolution (sort of a response to another comment)--there was a whole hullaballoo in a school district around here because the board wanted stickers on textbooks that said, "This textbook contains material on evolution. Evolution is a theory, not a fact, regarding the origin of living things. This material should be approached with an open mind, studied carefully and critically considered." That's it. No mention of ID, no mention of anything except that theories haven't been proven. Not reproducible or predictible. Unlike the *law* of gravity. Drop something, it accellerates downward at 32feet/second squared. Both reproducible & predictible. That's the difference between a theory and a law.
I disagree with you on most of these issues, but have never been able to believe that people could honestly be on one "side" or the other for every issue.
Thinking about the issues and trying to make the most informed decision about an issue is the absolute best thing a person can do. You cannot change yourself and should not have to to avoid offending someone. Someone will always disagree no matter where you stand, but I love that you are confident with your positions and did not arrive at them because someone else said you should.
You are wise beyond your (now) 29 years! :)
I disagree with most of the "specifics" too, but I'd rather disagree with someone (like you) who has clearly thought about the issues than agree with someone who's just spouting the party line. We need more open and respectful discourse in this world.
Carson, thanks for the interesting tidbit. What was tthe reasoning against including that in the textbooks?
CCW and Julie, thanks and I agree!
I'm feeling the appropriate shame for debating in your comments, btw. Here's the link.
http://www.cnn.com/2005/LAW/01/13/evolution.textbooks.ruling/
Carson, no need to feel shame. :) It's very interesting, and I enjoyed reading the links.
Post a Comment
<< Purple Puzzle Place Home