nazis (what is this crap?)

[Guest guest]

with the big philosophical question of Realism versus Relativism?

 

>

> Lesley Dove [Lesley]

>

> I would say my feelings about animal-eaters are quite

> rational, but then I

> suppose fascists would think their feelings/beliefs were

> rational too, so

> where does that leave us?

[Guest guest]

>I would say my feelings about animal-eaters are quite rational, but then I

>suppose fascists would think their feelings/beliefs were rational too, so

>where does that leave us?

 

You would have to admit then you could not put aside such feelings. That

the presence of a the type of person against who you hold a " rational " (so

you believe) belief means you will act upon it, not to do so would be

irrational. It is no more logical to put that belief aside, as it would be

to put the AR one aside.

 

>...a fascist in an AR group (although

>unlike you and Edith, I would not have reason to feel threatened by them

>personally just for what I am, so I would be able to tolerate their

>presence).

 

So you would have to concede that their presence would scare some people

away, which is basically the whole point of the discussion. You have to

pick a side.

 

>...but I would accept it that anti-AR people have the right to be

>against fascism, and within an anti-fascist group...

 

Isn't the difference here though that a nazi (a more accurate term than

fascist) would hate people like me and Edith for what we are, whereas you

hate an anti-AR person for what they do. The anti-AR person could change,

I could not (though some would argue) and Edith certainly could not. You

can unite with an enemy in a common cause because you don't hate them for

what they are, but what they do.

 

(Some would say they do hate them for what they are, but as the vast

majority of vegans were once meat eaters it would be absurd because it

would mean that we should also be hated because that's what we were,

otherwise you concede people can change and so those you are hating can

also change.)

 

>If you join a single issue cause, you have to accept

>a wide variance of people's views on other issues.

 

You have to accept they may share that cause, you don't have to accept them

joining you in fighting for (or against, as the case may be) it.

 

>I don't think I've undermined any of my own arguments, I think I am

>consistent!

 

Consistent, maybe, certainly in the main points. The difference between

hating-for-doing and hating-for-being could be considered a category

mistake. Sometimes though being consistent in with the main points is

because of overlooking the finer ones.

 

Michael

 

(Incidentally a category mistake is a psychological and philosophical term

for when something is mistakenly regarded as being something it is not,

i.e. placed in another category, e.g. mistaking a whale for a fish until

further examination reveals it is a mammal)