I'm becoming increasingly convinced that one of the problems in discussions of substance is that so many people, even educated, intelligent, erudite folks, see things only in terms of black or white. Either you are for something or against it. I am very surprised to be noticing this, because when I was younger I thought it was one of my own problems, and that when I overcame it I would be immersed in an intellectual world of enlightened thinkers who did not suffer from it. Now I've grown up and I'm left wondering why 90% of the world hasn't.
Let me offer a few examples.
The city of Dallas has been considering a total smoking ban in all Dallas restaurants and bars. (The bar part is especially silly. Remember as I say that that I'm anti-tobacco and a non-drinker.) Unfortunately, most people view the discussion as centering around two alternatives: either you believe smoking is bad and you support the ban, or you believe smoking is good and you oppose the ban. Under this way of thinking, if someone opposes the ban, it's because they don't realize smoking is bad and you must convince them. (Usually by reciting results of studies over and over again, or simply trying to shout louder.)
Infantile! It's impossible to have a reasoned discussion with these people! Everyone knows smoking is bad ("harmful" is a better word, with less value judgments). I am very anti-smoking and have been all my life. It's not simply a matter of comfort with me: I am a severe asthmatic and also allergic to tobacco. I am thrilled to see declines in smoking rates, worried to see that they are on the rise among young people (I guess the old people are just dying), and I despise tobacco companies and hope they fail some day through lack of demand for their product. (Note the libertarian desire to see great economic harm come to them without legal interference.) I have been increasingly pleased all my life to watch market forces change smoking sections from tiny rarities buried in the back of smoke filled rooms to the norm everywhere. If the smoking ban passed, I'd probably in some sense be happy in that I could personally enjoy not having to endure smoke in restaurants. Nevertheless, I only see one issue here: property rights. As long as smoking is legal, the only person to decide whether or not you should be allowed to smoke on a piece of property is the owner of the property. But woe to those who try to explain this to the non-smokers of Dallas! It's not a simple matter of disagreement. They refuse to listen to another point of view, because your point of view is not worthy of consideration since it supposedly starts with the false premise that "smoking is not bad."
Another example: a toymaker making parody dolls of Osama bin Laden and Saddam Hussein has gotten angry letters from American Muslims criticising them for "vilifying an entire religion." Whoa! If bin Laden and Hussein were claiming to practice my religion, I'd be trying to distance myself and my faith from them as much as possible. Most Muslims I know do. I personally seem to spend time every week repudiating the crusades, Calvinism, original sin, government enforced "Christianity," the Catholic Church, and the Protestant Churches as not being part of the religion of the Bible. Can't we all agree that civilized people of any religion don't do what was done on September 11, even if some of us are Muslims and some of us aren't, and some of us support the war and some of us don't, and some of us are pacifists and some of us aren't, and some of us understand the economic and political conditions that make terrorists so desperate and some of us don't?
But with these folks, it's black and white. One angry letter asks, "How can you expect to hate and not be hated in return?" For crying out loud! Osama bin Laden killed thousands of people. That's hard to forgive in a year. These people see "pro-Muslim" and "anti-Muslim" viewpoints, and apparently are so black and white on the subject that even making fun of Osama bin Laden shows that you must be clamoring for new crusades against the entire Muslim world. The whole middle east problem since Sept. 11 has polarized in some very strange ways. It's impossible to believe in war against al Qaeda without automatically being a supporter of war in Iraq. It's impossible to believe this situation must be resolved by force without being a war-monger and imperialist. It's impossible to believe Israel has some changing to do without being anti-semitic. It's impossible to believe bin Laden and/or Hussein are genocidal maniacs like Hitler that must be stopped at all cost without believing in turning the entire Muslim world into a radioactive glass parking lot. Grow up, people! 13 year olds take positions like this. Real adults have more complicated thinking that doesn't always neatly fall into one of two categories.
[If you've read all that and think you know which "side" I'm on in the middle east/Al Qaeda/Iraq issue, you have completely missed my point.]
A final bonus example. I'm a firm believer in the Gospel of Jesus Christ. But to most people's minds, a whole host of other issues are automatically decided when you make that commitment. It's unfathomable to atheists and Christians alike that I don't believe in school prayer, believe in total freedom of religion, believe in total freedom of speech, and think people have the right to work on Sunday (or Saturday, or Friday) if they want to. Oh, and that I don't believe in leading the entire nation into a river like Charlemagne or Vladimir and forcibly baptizing them. There's not just two viewpoints on these issues! It doesn't boil down into black and white! "For" Christianity doesn't mean "for" coercion, any more than "anti" tobacco means "for" smoking bans.
I just keep seeing issue after issue where I'm shut out from talking to people because I have to explain millions of shades of red, green, and blue to binary, color-blind people.
Seriously, though, I think you've chosen to discuss a small number of issues that are exceedingly easy to polarize. Smokers (and tobacco companies) are strongly in favor of a right to smoke, while the anti-smoking lobby is seeking to slowly eliminate smoking (or at least eliminate the idea that there is a right to smoke in public).
The middle east is one big soup of polarity. Everyone is right, and they disagree with pretty much everyone else. It's been that way for thousands of years, and it's not going to change because of the President of the United States (or a succession of Presidents). Ditto the situation in the Balkans.
I don't think that people insist on seeing issues in black and white. It's more a case of issues being simplified and reduced to a pair of conflicting views. If you accept the polarization, it's about right and wrong, communism vs. capitalism, or chocolate vs. vanilla. If not, then it's a lot more complex. Notice how no one can simplify the US relationship with China into a simple set of opposites...
Re:Polarizing
jdavidb on 2002-12-06T18:58:14
I really like that first sentence!
Yes, these issues might be more polarized than others. It's just that I keep seeing the same thing, over and over again. Pick some issues you and I are in complete agreement over (DMCA, perhaps? Are there any such issues?
;) ), and you'll see what I mean. (Either you're an American believing in free enterprise and strong intellectual property rights, or you're an evil MP3 sharing pirate who just wants something for nothing.) No, I don't expect the President to change the problem in the middle east. I expect him to do his best, though, and to hopefully protect us in the process.
Incidently, one of the reasons I like this site is that most of us, both people I agree with and disagree with, don't often evidence the black and white problem. I enjoy having my mind stretched by people who want me to consider another point of view, particularly if they also enjoy hearing mine.
Oh, and as for China, everybody knows they're just a bunch of evil Commies...
1. One argument for smokefree restaurants is that restaurants are workplaces, and employees should not be exposed to hazardous materials in the air at work. If a workplace has asbestos in the air, is it okay for the employer not to do anything about it, simply because it's private property? After all, in the ideal libertarian world the workers can always choose to work somewhere else.
2. Aren't you the one with the sig equating abortion to killing babies? That seems pretty black-or-white and not conducive to reasonable discussion. Are you really all that different from these other people with strongly held beliefs?
Re:Two comments
jdavidb on 2002-12-06T18:53:16
1. Yep; I agree with that ideal libertarian world. If they don't like smoking they can choose to work somewhere else. But of course in practice it's not all that black and white...
;) 2. Mostly I'd just like to get legitimacy for the viewpoint that abortion is or might be killing babies. Right now we're more concerned with protecting a mother's right to believe the baby in her womb is not a baby than we are with any rights the baby might have on the off chance that it's a person. We can't "force beliefs" on the mother, but the thing in her womb gets the most serious consequences of other peoples' beliefs than any other party in the discussion. Or, to quote Calvin when responding to his dad on the issue of black and white, "Sometimes that's the way things are!"
:) My main point is that many issues are not as simple as people make them out to be, and that I'm frustrated that people often won't consider my reasoned points of view because they think I'm in the "other" camp 100%.
Re:Two comments
ziggy on 2002-12-06T20:54:15
That's fine, but understand that abortion is intertwined in a rat's nest of issues: religion, medicine, crime (incest / rape), family planning, eugenics, the constitution/law, and politics.Mostly I'd just like to get legitimacy for the viewpoint that abortion is or might be killing babies. Right now we're more concerned with protecting a mother's right to believe the baby in her womb is not a baby than we are with any rights the baby might have on the off chance that it's a person.Understand that there will never be a "simple resolution" to the abortion issue.
The point you raise (rights of the fetus, killing babies) touches on a couple of central religious issues. The Christian POV is that in the case of a pregnancy where both the mother and child are in danger, it is your obligation to try and save the child. The Jewish POV is the exact opposite -- do your best to save the mother.
Ignore all of the other issues around abortion. If you outlaw abortion, you are infringing on religious beliefs (and violating the separation of church and state, regardless of whatever other issues you touch). If you keep abortion legal, you impact a different set of religious beliefs (regardless of whatever other issues you touch).
This issue will never be solved. The only optimal solution is peaceful coexistance with those who believe differently.
Re:Two comments
pudge on 2002-12-11T16:46:29
Understand that there will never be a "simple resolution" to the abortion issue.
I disagree. I see treating a fetus as a person with full rights as a simple solution. Sure, there are some complications, most especially the point at which it becomes a fetus with full rights. But the solution is simple, even if there are complications surrounding it and its implementation.
The Christian POV is that in the case of a pregnancy where both the mother and child are in danger, it is your obligation to try and save the child. The Jewish POV is the exact opposite -- do your best to save the mother.
You misrepresent the "Christian POV." I believe, as do most Christians I know, that there is no specific religiously mandated obligation to either one over the other, and that the mother in most cases would be the primary obligation. I believe the proper Christian perspective in *all* situations is to pray and trust the guidance of the Holy Spirit (cf. Romans 6-8). I see nothing in the New Testament saying to favor the child of the mother.
If you outlaw abortion, you are infringing on religious beliefs (and violating the separation of church and state, regardless of whatever other issues you touch).
Separation of church and state, to the very limited extent that it exists in codified law in this country, does not mean that you can't "lesgislate morality/religious beliefs." We have Constitutional amendments to prove the point, outlawing slavery (the abolitionist movement was Christian at its core) and alcoholic beverages. We repealed the latter, but not for separation-of-church-and-state reasons.
The only sense this could be considered a religious issue is if you say that believing the child in the womb is only a full person with full rights in a religious sense, that it cannot be arrived at otherwise, and that seems like an exceedingly odd thing to say. Sure, it is often (most often?) from a religious perspective that this point is made, but not always. And again, abolitionism, and the idea of slavery as evil, of the created equality of everyone, was most often coming from a religious perspective, too.
Re:Two comments
mary.poppins on 2002-12-08T01:25:30
1. Yep; I agree with that ideal libertarian world. If they don't like smoking they can choose to work somewhere else. But of course in practice it's not all that black and white...;)
Indeed, it is not that black and white -- after all, there are a limited number of places to find employment, and the owners of those establishments can agree to *all* allow smoking. The cost of starting up a bar is substantial, and beyond the reach of most people who work at one.
The "ideal libertarian world" will never appear, because markets are tilted in favor of the propertied. That is why there are unions, and state regulations of capitalism -- without those moderating forces, the workers would rapidly lose patience with their lot (it's happened before, you know!).
Apologies for sounding indelicate...But this sounds like it might be an evaluation of Texans, not of people in general.
In the communities where I've lived, there have been a huge number of public issues of discussion; generally, the news media collapse issues down to a few viewpoints, but at least when I talk to people, they often see things in many shades of grey.
(Whew, especially here in Canada; first of all, people I've met love to talk at length; secondly, they love to see all sides of an issue... Yes I am aware this is a gross generalization).
To me, seeing complex things as only black and white is a simplification, either for time/space considerations (in the media) or out of intellectual laziness/narrowness.
For what it's worth, Toronto and Kitchener (where I live) both have smoking laws that forbid indoor smoking. Basically, an establishment is a restaurant (and smoke-free) or it's a bar/pub (and people under the age of 18 have to leave after ?8pm). Other than that, a place can attract whomever they like. A pub can serve food and attract a dinner crowd; they just can't have kids after 8pm. Seems like a fair answer to me (as a non-smoker who really appreciates the clear air in restaurants).
I happen to belong to a faith that brings decision-making and seeing all sides of issues to an extreme level; I'm Quaker. All group decisions are made by "Sense of the Meeting". Which is sort of like consensus, but it isn't consensus of what WE'd like to do, it's consensus of what we think God would like us to do.
Quaker business meetings can feel really long, but they usually embody the antithesis of only seeing black and white in an issue.
Re:reasoning people...
jdavidb on 2002-12-06T19:35:45
Apologies for sounding indelicate...But this sounds like it might be an evaluation of Texans, not of people in general.
No offense taken; you gave me a good laugh. Actually, though I gave the Dallas example, I'm also thinking particularly of people in Internet discussion sites like, say, slashdot. As I said in another comment, I like use Perl; because we are often such an exception to it.
You make a good point about simplification. Sometimes we need such simplification. I can't learn everything about every issue, and sometimes I have to settle with a simplification as an indefinite stop-gap solution. But when I do I should admit I haven't fully considered it. And, of course, some people just don't like to consider many issues at all...
Interesting about Quakers; thanks for sharing that.
Re:reasoning people...
rafael on 2002-12-06T22:29:01
Yeah, slashdot... k5 (kuro5hin.org) used to be quite a nice place too. Then, it gained visibility. I read it sometimes but I haven't logged in since its defacement years ago.While I'm at it. This information about Quakers reminds me one of the sunnit branches of Islam (there are four main sunnit branches, not counting chiits, mutazilits, ismaelits, wahabbits, etc.) -- I don't remember which one -- : consensus is very important in their theology and legislation also. I don't know if it's actually comparable though.
Nevertheless, I only see one issue here[1]: property rights. As long as smoking is legal[2], the only person to decide whether or not you should be allowed to smoke on a piece of property is the owner of the property. But woe to those who try to explain this to the non-smokers of Dallas!
[1] With such a wonderfully enlightened mind one might expect that you could see there are a myriad of issues tangential and coincident with property rights and that such rights are not so simple, or black and white.
[2] The obvious and simple thing here is that the passing of a law is an attempt to change the legality of smoking in such a way that it is constrained by location. Such constraints exist in many ways in our legal systems in relation to many activities, so there are reams of precedent for them. Example: We (supposedly) have freedom of speech and it is legal to yell "Fire!", just not in a crowded theatre.
You might want to step back from the top of the mount you placed yourself on and re-evaluate your enlightenment.
Re:Funny
jdavidb on 2002-12-07T00:54:37
Guilty as charged; I stand corrected, and I thank you.
My big gripe is that I understand why other people are guided by those other issues, but they refuse to listen when I try to say there's more involved.
* I think it was Alan Watts who once said like (I can't quote from memory) "one way to express a central approach of Buddhism is the idea that all concepts are wrong." That's a good starting point.
* Even when I was a young hyoomon in school, I wan annoyed by the existence of "debate club", which promulgated the already viral idea that an issue is best considered as two (not three! or seven!) exactly diametrically opposed, hostile positions. We need more of that kind of thinking (or that kind of television) like we need more skin cancer!
Re:Culture of Argument
pudge on 2002-12-11T16:49:57
I think debate between two diametrically opposed, hostile positions is a wonderful tool, and we do need more of it, if done in the right frame of mind. The point should not be to win, or to make the other lose, but to explore the issue. I consider a debate where one side beats the other and nothing new is learned to be an utter failure. If the debate ends with no winner and much is learned by all, it is an unqualified success.
That's not to say other methods of exploring issues aren't perfectly valid, but I think this one is, too (again, when approached from a proper framework and purpose).Re:Culture of Argument
jdavidb on 2002-12-11T18:06:00
If the debate ends with no winner and much is learned by all, it is an unqualified success.
Congratulations on the success of use Perl;, pudge!
:) Actually, that is what I like about this site, as I've said elsewhere. I often have my brain stretched here. It greatly helps that most of this group does not suffer from the black-and-white problem I described, at least not often. (I think we all get it from time to time.)
