4 ms·

The point is, intelligent people at the time thought that it was biologically predetermined that some men should enslave others. For a more recent, horrific exa

by zasz 15y ago

The point is, intelligent people at the time thought that it was biologically predetermined that some men should enslave others. For a more recent, horrific example, it used to be legal to sterilize people without their permission if they failed an IQ test. A Supreme Court justice, Oliver Wendell Holmes, endorsed this. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eugenics_Board_of_North_Carolina http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eugenics_Board_of_North_Carolin... It is entirely possible to be an intelligent person too blinded by the social norms of the time to give people the benefit of the doubt, the justice, and the mercy that they deserve. And a true skeptic ought to recognize that, and be afraid of embracing any belief that feels natural or true. You are not a good skeptic if you are willing to consider beliefs that are bizarre or taboo. Religious fundamentalists do the same thing, too. You are a good skeptic if you're willing to question your own intuitions.

skeptical 15y ago
The examples you pick and the way you present them are very relevant. your observations are also very well made and in my opinion very reasonable. In fact i agree with you. I just think your conclusion is undermined by your unwillingness to question yourself, even if you state that everybody should do just that. To pick up on your example, castration. I recently red about swedish history and found out that some decades ago the Swedish government forced castration on a rather high amount of people through criminal law. Sure, the reason was supposedly not the same as in North Carolina, but if 1 to 3 percent of the population got the penalty, one may ask if the criteria were really all that well defined and legit. Personally, I also consider this horrific. The truth is, the developed and tolerant swedish society we all know basically started after the castration trend. I will not say it's a consequence of it, I sincerely hope it's not. But will I disregard that possibility just because I don't like it? No, never. I dare to look at those facts and try to understand them. I don't like that possibility, it is brutal, but I will not censor my critical thinking. We have gender distinction in sports because it's obvious that men and women are physically different. No one objects that. But no one dares to admit the possibility of man being different than women intellectually/psychologically/mentally, because that's a taboo. It's not obvious, there is no scientific evidence, etc. but why does everybody gets so angry if that possibility is even talked about? I'm tired of this fake morals. You are not more respectful towards woman rights simply by staying away from sensitive topics. Most importantly, I don't mind if you think I respect women rights less than you because of my opinions. I know I how much I respect women rights, I could care less about proving it.

by zasz 15y ago

skeptical 15y ago

The examples you pick and the way you present them are very relevant. your observations are also very well made and in my opinion very reasonable. In fact i agree with you. I just think your conclusion is undermined by your unwillingness to question yourself, even if you state that everybody should do just that. To pick up on your example, castration. I recently red about swedish history and found out that some decades ago the Swedish government forced castration on a rather high amount of people through criminal law. Sure, the reason was supposedly not the same as in North Carolina, but if 1 to 3 percent of the population got the penalty, one may ask if the criteria were really all that well defined and legit. Personally, I also consider this horrific. The truth is, the developed and tolerant swedish society we all know basically started after the castration trend. I will not say it's a consequence of it, I sincerely hope it's not. But will I disregard that possibility just because I don't like it? No, never. I dare to look at those facts and try to understand them. I don't like that possibility, it is brutal, but I will not censor my critical thinking. We have gender distinction in sports because it's obvious that men and women are physically different. No one objects that. But no one dares to admit the possibility of man being different than women intellectually/psychologically/mentally, because that's a taboo. It's not obvious, there is no scientific evidence, etc. but why does everybody gets so angry if that possibility is even talked about? I'm tired of this fake morals. You are not more respectful towards woman rights simply by staying away from sensitive topics. Most importantly, I don't mind if you think I respect women rights less than you because of my opinions. I know I how much I respect women rights, I could care less about proving it.