MartinP
Mentor
Roger Hicks said:
I'm not so sure of the inevitable benefits of a free press. For example, unfortunately one of my first impressions of the US, when visiting, was the degree of self-censorship by the media during the pre-Gulf War 2 period. I have got a bit more optimistic since then though.
How any individual can sanely go in the opposite direction to the prevailing status-quo is a puzzle, and even more so when everyone might all be "wrong" anyway. (Then the discussion moves to Plato's Forms and we all get confused). I suppose this is why debate and discussion is a positive thing, on average, and why all those sources of information are so part of our culture here. <--- wild optimism
bmattock
Mentor
MartinP said:
I understand, but many do not make that distinction. When you announce YOUR beliefs, you have insulted them - by their point of view. And which point of view do you suppose they consider valid? I would posit it is their own.
You're simply saying it is wrong for them to feel that way. Perhaps - but they do.
And that is where the trouble begins.
I am not only allowed to be insulted by a statement of personal belief that religion is foolish or superstition, I am allowed as well to be insulted by the fact that you think I should not be offended, since you prefaced it by saying it was your personal belief.
Once the words leave your lips - or fingers - you do not have control of how others will choose to perceive them. And their perceptions - to them - are as valid as yours are to you.
If I were truly offended by your words (I assure you I am not), I would also have taken issue with your assertion that I am also an 'absolutist' in my beliefs. Do you not see how your own beliefs - which are free to hold and cherish - insult others, even when you insist that's not how you mean it? Put yourself in their place - you're actually calling them one name after another. You can control what you say, but not how others choose to take it.
Roger Hicks
Mentor
Dear Bill,bmattock said:
If everyone has an absolute right to such things, then I have an absolute right to call them a fool, a liar, a bully, a bigot, if those are MY beliefs.
EDIT: Sorry, you already (sort of) addressed this point with your argument about thought and action. My point was that I will not know of their repulsive beliefs unless they choose to publicize or defend them, in which case, I must be at liberty to attack them.
Surely it is a question of zeitgeist. At any time, there is a broad consensus: For example, that torture is wrong. If a few people step outside conventional behaviour, the rest of the world then has a choice: go back to a world where torture is accepted as normal, or put pressure on the torturers.
The same must surely be true of religious belief, human rights and politics. A belief that a man is entitled to beat his wife is not, I suggest, widely held today; but it is no so long since it was his legal right, and he would never have been prosecuted for doing so. A Roman could kill his slaves with the most horrible tortures, and if he wished, invite his neighbours around to watch; the Southern slave-holder was not (at least in theory) allowed to kill them; today slaveholding is illegal...
Cheers,
Roger
Last edited:
kevin m
Mentor
On an individual level, that's true. But only because the 'solutions' tried through history have proved to be worse than the problem.
But any society worth living in MUST have an education system that minimizes the number of ignorant, superstitious bigots in its ranks. We in the U.S. are in the sad state now where, thanks to our woeful education system, doubt about journalistic 'truths' is leading to the frightening belief that there is no such thing as 'evidence' or 'proof,' and therefore any one opinion is just as valid as another. Scary stuff.
Roger Hicks
Mentor
ARE YOU ATTACKING THE ENGLISH?sitemistic said:
What's wrong with English weather?
I am offended!
Cheers,
R
MikeL
Go Fish
What do people think of using a half-case on the Leica M or Ikon or Bessa?
MikeL
Go Fish
sitemistic said:
Thanks sitemistic for helping me bring this back to what we really care about here.
When people tell me that they don't like pleather, my favorite, I feel personally insulted and degraded.
bmattock
Mentor
Roger Hicks said:
Truly, my statements were meant to be taken in the context of what is acceptable for discussion on RFF. I find no fault with your statements as such. I merely point out that no matter how worthy such discussions might be, if they cannot be carried out in an amicable manner on RFF, then they are detrimental. History, to date, has seemed to indicate to me that the general RFF membership is not ready or willing to engage in such soul-searching and enlightened discussion.
bmattock
Mentor
kevin m said:
Unfortunately, not one ignorant, superstitious, bigot thinks of themselves as such. And each would demand the right to set curriculum. Shall we then say that the noisiest, or pushiest, or richest of these competing groups get to determine how YOUR children are educated? Scary stuff indeed.
I believe it is for schools to teach mathematics and for families to teach values, to include religion and other 'superstitious ignorant beliefs.' (wink)
bmattock
Mentor
sitemistic said:
I am aiming for a more practical level - that being the history of what works well on RFF and what does not. There are always lots of people being offended - for example, it gets right up my sleeve when someone asks, once again, what camera bag to carry to a rally versus what camera bag to carry to the grocery store, or what my favorite f-stop is. However, I am trying to practice something I have historically not been very good at - like telling the miscreant to duct tape their camera to their forehead and that my favorite f-stop is the letter 'q'.
On a more serious note, I know for certain that previous attempts to discuss politics or religion on RFF, even as they properly fit into a serious discussion of a photograph or a photographer, do not seem to work well. This is not logic I'm applying - it is history. I therefore argue for leaving it out - and for only that reason. I'll not request that people stop talking about camera bags, though it galls me no end.
MCTuomey
Mentor
Limits to free behavior exist in any commonwealth. Etiquette is such a limit. Most of us find some utility in conforming to conventional limits. Some don't. Depending on the degree, those who can't conform are, at minimum, ostracized or, at the limit, institutionalized. Occasionally, the non-conformists are lionized as geniuses, revolutionaries, choreographers of the dionysian. This is not typically true for a simple case of peevishness or bad manners, however, of which fact I often remind myself when I'm feeling the need to behave poorly.
In the interest of self-rule, can we return this thread amicably to its original purpose?
EDIT: looks like it has been. well done.
In the interest of self-rule, can we return this thread amicably to its original purpose?
EDIT: looks like it has been. well done.
Last edited:
kevin m
Mentor
The idea that there are NO standards outside personal bigotry and prejudice is scarier still. If a society can't agree to a reasonable common denominator as to what it means to be "educated," then it's in trouble. I'd say the ignorant fundamentalists among us have done a pretty good job of poisoning the well of public discourse of late, with their insistence that religious ideology be taught in a science classroom, for starters.
MartinP
Mentor
Yikes, I just came back to this thread after a short pause.
Maybe we can consider the side issue of whether there is any art without context ? The context of the originally posted photo-series happens to appear to be political though, oops, there we go again. Possibly the purpose might really be to fill space in a publication in such a way as to attract the preferred marketing-demographic, regardless of what the individual photographer was thinking at the time. Tricky isn't it ?
Regarding the important point raised by Mark, above, the strange plastic stuff used for my Contax erc didn't survive being stuffed in a removals-box for five years, so I would support leather for that purpose - though I do now expect to be hammered by vegans.
Maybe we can consider the side issue of whether there is any art without context ? The context of the originally posted photo-series happens to appear to be political though, oops, there we go again. Possibly the purpose might really be to fill space in a publication in such a way as to attract the preferred marketing-demographic, regardless of what the individual photographer was thinking at the time. Tricky isn't it ?
Regarding the important point raised by Mark, above, the strange plastic stuff used for my Contax erc didn't survive being stuffed in a removals-box for five years, so I would support leather for that purpose - though I do now expect to be hammered by vegans.
MikeL
Go Fish
kevin m said:
Yup, the fact that it is even discussed says much about people's understanding of what science is, much less the notion that we should debate something for which the evidence (which people are not educated about or don't understand or don't listen to) is overwhelming. The evidence would certainly pass the mustard in a court of law, but then again O.J. is walking the streets.
(Stands on soapbox)
Nothing has damaged our education system more than the low expectations parents have for themselves in the role they play in their child's education. The power of a teacher to entertain/engage/teach pales in comparison to the power of parents expectations set for their kids. It's often stated that lessons skip generations, and it will be interesting to see if learning is again emphasized by U.S. parents (to a greater extent than now) in the next generation. (Steps off soapbox)
tripod
Well-known
sitemistic said:I'm a vegetarian (really) and I'm offended
My condolences. Life without meat - grilled meat, is not worth living IMO.
Roger Hicks
Mentor
Dear Bill,bmattock said:
Fine in theory, but impossible in practice. It comes back to my point above about the zeitgeist. Do you really want families to teach jihad/ creationism/ white supremacy, with no counter from the schools?
Cheers,
Roger
bmattock
Mentor
Roger Hicks said:
Actually, yes, although your statement is a bit reactionary. It's like saying 'so you agree, men should beat their wives?' No, I do not agree that parents should teach their children, for example, racism. I would prefer parents instill moral values in children rather than the state. Those parents who would teach bomb-making and hatred will do so in any case.
MCTuomey
Mentor
Pitxu said:
My thought is that the thread's purpose is a wide-ranging discussion of the photos that would not involve personal attacks. I didn't say or imply anything about how often to post or when to "move on." Can I buy you a drink as a gesture of goodwill?
Roger Hicks
Mentor
Dear Bill,bmattock said:
Sorry, I must be misunderstanding you here. Do you or don't you believe that the schools should counter hatred (e.g. race-hate, religious supremacy) if it is taught by parents?
If I read you right -- and as I say, I cannot believe that I do -- then you are saying, "Parents should not teach racism, but if they do, it is no business of the schools to attempt to counter this".
Likewise, if parents teach creationism, it is scarcely possible for the school not to teach evolution, as the accepted scientific norm, disbelieved only by those with a religious agenda supported only by a Holy Book without strong supporting evidence.
By the same token, I can't quite see what is reactionary in this stance.
Cheers,
Roger
Roger Hicks
Mentor
Dear Pitxu,Pitxu said:
I would not argue for a moment; and indeed we might adduce Franco's attitude towards Catalans, Basques and others. But equally, the more sources of information or education available to the children -- Martin's point, as I recall -- the lower the likelihood that everyone will be pulling in the same direction.
Diversity of opinion/information is what I would argue is important, and if the schools are barred from giving any sort of moral guidance, that's one less source of information for the children. And indeed intellectual guidance, in the case of creationism versus evolution.
Cheers,
Roger
- Status
- Not open for further replies.