From: max@hilbert.cyprs.rain.com (Max Webb)
Subject: Re: BofA and UW can now support discrimination against blacks and Jews
Organization: Cypress Semiconductor Northwest, Beaverton Oregon
Distribution: usa
Date: Thu, 10 Sep 1992 20:04:36 GMT

In article <1992Sep9.154723.21575@cs.yale.edu> rescorla@rtnmr.chem.yale.edu (Eric Rescorla) writes:
>This argument started with someone claiming that the golden rule
>prohibited coercing homosexuals to become straight. I pointed
>out that the same argument could be used to come to the conclusion
>that the Golden Rule REQUIRES you to coerce homosexuals to become
>straight.

That someone was me. I replied that you had to honestly try to assume
the viewpoint of the other. I still don't think Eric has adequately
addressed this point.

When I posted the original bit about the Golden Rule, Eric Rescorla
replied that the GR was useless; as I understand it, his reasoning is
that a christian applying it to the case of trying to 'cure' a
homosexual would do the following operation:

	Take the viewpoint of the gay, as he would see the situation
	if he but knew God's Truth (tm).
	^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

	In that case, the gay would want to be cured, even forcibly.

	Hence, the right thing to do is simply attempt to cure him,
	even over his objections.

Note the ^^^. They haven't tried to assume the viewpoint of the other,
they have dismissed it, and substituted their own. It is certainly true
that someone who habitually dismisses viewpoints they disagree with will
be able to use the GR to justify all sorts of things, in fact, anything
they personally think should be done.

>Which one you substitute depends entirely upon your assumption set.

Right. When I apply the GR, I try to use the others assumptions about
the world, as far as possible. Yes, there are complications. Yes, there
can be ambiguities. Fundamentalists appear to be much less
capable of this - I can usually predict their moves in a debate, but
they have trouble doing the same.

Fundamentalists have admitted to me in the past that they can't even imagine
what the mental state of a nonbeliever (or other-believer) is like, and some
have even claimed that it is a _good_thing_. They simply cannot shed any
portion of their memetic parasitic - it is compulsively held.

It shows up in circular proofs of the Bible via Bible proof-texting. They
can't even drop the assumption of biblical inerrancy, even while trying
to build up an argument for it. It shows up in Pascal's Wager, in that
it never even occurs to these people that they could substitute Thor for JHWH
and the argument would be just as (in)valid. It shows up in their insistence
that atheists _must_ lead purposeless lives, no matter how many times we
insist to them that it simply isn't so. They know our inner lives better than
we do, because they have a book that tells them so.

This inability to drop their assumptions breaks a lot more than
the GR. It also breaks scientific inquiry, because when you assume you
know the truth infallibly, evidence becomes merely a token in the debate
game. Lately, in talk.origins, we have had a steady stream of Creationists
who have literally argued that if the evidence contradicts their theory,
then the evidence is _wrong_ -- end of discussion. This leads to
falsification of evidence, both consciously and unconsciously. It breaks
democracy, because they assume they know better than the rest of us what
we need (I live in Oregon, and am experiencing this first hand.) 

None of these things are flawed, simply because fundamentalists find
difficulty in honoring them. The fault lies not in the Golden Rule,
but in their own concrete skulls. To apply the Golden Rule, you must
admit that other viewpoints exist, and honor them. This the fundamentalist
cannot do.

Eric has also complained that their are areas where the application is
ambiguous. The world is an ambiguous place, and a reasonably complete
world view will have areas of ambiguity in it. That in itself does not
damn that world view - if I were to toss everything that didn't have the
rigor of science, I would be greatly impoverished.

I don't know what Eric means when he says he doesn't believe in morality;
I presume he would feel outraged if he came home to find his house
burgled, and would feel that it was within his rights to have the perp
prosecuted. I also assume he would 'feel bad' if he discovered that
carelessness on his part while fixing a CM400 led to a fatal accident.
Care to clarify, Eric?

Regards,
	Max G. Webb


>-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>Eric Rescorla, DoD#431 (Nighthawk S)              rescorla@rtnmr.chem.yale.edu
>Former chemist now CM400 mechanic                 ekr@eitech.com(preferred)
>                       I will hack Unix for food.

Xref: sparky rec.scouting:2938 alt.discrimination:4231 chi.general:1051 alt.atheism:16794 alt.politics.homosexuality:5817