Jeremy Stangroom

@PhilosophyExp Depends on how you define "respect". Respect for rights? Should be automatic. For ideas & personality? Mine must be earned.

@blondgecko Why *must* it be earned? Where does the must come from?

@PhilosophyExp Only speaking for myself: if your ideas are stupid or you act like a twit, I'm not going to pretend otherwise. /1

@blondgecko But that's entirely compatible with a default position of respect (i.e., something to be lost).

@PhilosophyExp Imagine "respect" as a sliding scale from 1 to -1. My default position would be zero, and constantly shifts with interaction

@blondgecko Do you not think there is merit, for example, in a default assumption that one's interlocutor is discussing in good faith? 1/2

@PhilosophyExp I think a neutral stance is compatible with that.

@PhilosophyExp That’s an excellent point. To me, it makes more sense to give respect until there’s a strong & legitimate reason not to

@mirandachale @PhilosophyExp If "respect" means, say, viewing/treating you as a decent person/competent citizen, etc., it's the default.

@Metamagician @mirandachale Yes, the decent person thing, but with a Kantian twist - i.e., fully human, moral being, with own ends, etc.

@PhilosophyExp @mirandachale Sure - no argument. But so many people think "respect" means "deference" or "esteem" or some such thing.