Ooh! My old Early Modern lit prof just liked my essay criticising PoMo forms of feminism on Facebook. Will have to see if she's free for tea
This is two separate things, I think. 1)Liberalism - people must be able to believe what they like & live according to it if it harms no-one
-
-
2) We can still criticise what people believe & the epistemic basis for believing it. I call them 'right to choice' & 'rightness of choice'
-
And I have a thing coming out on the problem of conflating them in a few days. I use the example of Islamic modesty codes.
-
Sounds interesting. I'd like to read

-
It's awaiting editing at the moment. I say that we can both support ppl's right to comply with gender-specific modesty codes...
-
... and be very critical of the idea of gender-specific modesty codes.
-
In same way that we can support a gay man's choice to be celibate coz he thinks gay sex is a sin but not accept idea that gay sex is a sin
-
I agree this respect 4 the opinions of others allows true "choice". Note: this attitude was that of my Goldwater Republican family. I'm lib
-
But I'd very firmly separate 'respecting the opinions of others' from 'respecting the rights of others to have opinions you don't respect'
- 6 more replies
New conversation -
-
-
Actually the "if it harms none" is a sticky wicket because that "harm" and that "no-one" has to be politically defined but ends up debated.
-
There needs to be a high threshhold. My disbelief in God could cause many true believers genuine anxiety & distress but can't be helped.
-
Provided I'm not stopping them from believing & saying so & living according to their belief, I can disbelieve & say so & live accordingly.
-
So you draw the line at intentional interference? For example you do not bring up your aetheism unless it's relevant to a policy issue?
-
I can and have argued the issue with people who want to argue the issue. I think faith-based epistemologies are terrible ones...
-
Respect for reason & evidence matters for its own sake not simply because of the consequences of not respecting them.
-
But I also respect people's right not to respect them and not to want to discuss the matter.
-
In the same way, I think its fine for religious people to argue for faith whether or not theirs is being threatened.
End of conversation
New conversation -
-
-
Define "harm" though. Tricky.
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.