What you win them with is what you win them to (Part three)

I like  to think I am democratic and fair minded. I like  to think I am fair to others and give them a fair hearing even when I  don’t agree with them and I would hope others would do me  the same courtesy. To be honest however there is only so much that any one person can take when others want to shove their world view down  your throat.

I would have thought  that when a group advocates for itself (whatever  that right may be) that it would  do so in such a way  that it leaves  others with the  choice  to draw their own conclusion about said group whether they agree or disagree and afterwards everyone behaves like reasonable human beings.

Of course history is full of examples where this isn’t the case Hitler wanted the Jews exterminated, the crusaders wanted  everyone converted  to Christianity at the point of the sword.; the Inquisition put on a huge BBQ  for all  the nonbelievers. There seems  to be a pattern through history of one group wanting  to force everyone else  to see things their way!

In Australia one group who advocates marriage equality for same sex people have a new and very innovative way of getting people on board. Firstly anyone  who disagreed with them was identified as a bigot. Secondly any negative responses or objections  were seen as hate speech. Now, just in the last few days they came up with a new way  to identify all the dissenters. Certain groups and employers asked everyone  to wear a little black ring on their finger  to show support  for same sex marriage.

What is ironic is that  same sex couples already have the same rights as married couples under common law. In other words  the law doesn’t discriminate between a heterosexual or gay couples when it comes  to relationships. If the relationship breaks down everything  is divided equally, if there are adopted children or children form a prior relationship  the court decides on custody and access if the two parties can’t come  to agreement. In the case where one partner dies the law doesn’t discriminate where a will has been put in place and it is generally only  nasty vindictive people who have the gall  to challenge that will.

All  that being said those who militantly advocate same sex marriage don’t want a level playing field. They don’t want open discussion or debate nor  do they want anyone with an opposing voice  to be heard.  No they want  to ram their ideology down every one else throat. What is sad is that as soon as  any group invoke  the argument  that they are misunderstood victims the Government and many media outlets jump on board and start handing out the tissues. In other words it isn’t about rational discussion its about manipulating the public emotionally through misinformation or no information at all.

What is really tragic is how  this seeps into our education system. It isn’t about teaching choices through offering reasoned alternatives; reason doesn’t even play a role. It is about guilt tripping people in to accepting a world view that otherwise others would not have even considered. To use an example of how this works is  to look at the nationalist rhetoric that the Nazi machine used  to rally hatred towards  the Jews that they were subhuman,  inferior and  to blame  for every thing that had  gone wrong.  Add to this  that Hitler used the argument that the German people were superior both racially and intellectually  to the Jews and Gypsies  they exterminated.

When we look at the intellectual landscape today do we ever stop and think about how we are subtly emulating or mirroring  the very same attitude and tactics that the Nazi’s used only not  to the point where people are taken into  gas chambers? It’s not just the same sex advocates  doing this it seems everyone who wants  to be  heard over the myriad of voices and ideologies is  doing the same  thing.

How on earth did  the human race  get  to the point that it no longer argues from facts and reason to arrive at a conclusion on any subject matter? Today it doesn’t matter what the facts  are (if there are any) it’s all about feelings it all about being accepted or your individual choices validated and not having one’s feelings hurts. What If I want  to be a 10.000 year English Willow tree do I get  to have my self determined identity validated? J.R.R. Tolkien validated walking talking trees in the Lord of the rings they were old weren’t they?  I’m not harming anyone by wanting to be an Ent I just want  to be acknowledged and have a square foot of park land  to myself where I can put  down roots! Seriously no one would accept  that as a rational position to argue from but I can manipulate the hell out of that argument simply by claiming  your nonacceptance of it is  doing me emotional harm.

Folks welcome to the modern way of thinking it doesn’t have to be rational or true it simply has  to be believed and others have  to accept it  so you aren’t discriminated against. This is the stuff of fairy tales and make believe  that I used  to practice as a child; the difference is that I knew  I was suspending truth that it wasn’t real and that  to think it was could harm myself  or others.

How did we get to here from where  the Greek philosophers were? Okay, so we know that even  the Greeks had  some strange ideas; their empirical arguments about the world and reality were at times subjective but they did put them  to the test. And that is the point!  They put their arguments to the test they allowed  themselves  to be peer reviewed they let themselves and their ideas be scrutinised…. the were willing  to be proven wrong.

Mostly when a group wants a voice today they don’t want their views challenged they want to impose their views on others by vilifying their opposition even if that opposition is imaginary. Imaginary??? Yes! Group advocates often use the tactic that  they are misunderstood marginalised and victimised… based on what statistics? The other argument is  to say a majority of people want such and such  or believe such and such but never produce the data  that says it. Next is the argument that such  and such is commonly held  to be true by the majority of people… How  do they know this?

Then there are the guilt bombs. The guilt bombs are used to shut down the opposition. This is where the opposition are mis-characterised or made  to be a caricature of their real selves  kind if like what cartoonists do when  they satirise popular figures. It is meant to shame  the opposition, discredit them or malign them  so that no one take them seriously. Shaming is the biggest part so that the victim can argue that their treatment is unfair and that everyone should rally to them. The hope is that anyone opposing the group will be shut down and be made on outcast.

So is it unfair  for me to label the same sex advocates as being militant and Nazi like? I liken their tactics  to shovelling manure; Same manure different shovel. That is not to say  they don’t have the right  to ask for the marriage act to be changed in Australia of course they  do! The problem is I am yet to hear or see them  do anything that would make me want  to change my mind. If anything  they are shooting down their own argument by their action.

They accuse us of being hate filled, closed minded, intolerant bigots… think  for a moment about how they are setting the example and showing us  all how tolerance and acceptance works; think about how reasonable and rational their accusations and arguments are!

Advertisements

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s