why not also show skepticism of the secular?

[charles brough]

For example, why not take the ideal of "equality." We are all "equal." It is the ideal, but does an ideal that is unreal and impossible to achieve be justified or of value? If we are all equal, is it alright to have a transgender president, a gay marching army, "Mister fattest man" contests, and for it to be "politically incorrect" to portray any man as masculine and woman as feminine?

Is anything really equal to anything else? And do we even have "equal rights"?

 

[Lamuella]

Not sure what your OP really has to do with skepticism, but many popular skeptical causes relate to secular activities. Alternative medicine, for example, is a popular area for skeptics to address, and is entirely secular.

 

[Humes fork]

Equality is a value, and values are not matters of fact. So speak of equality as a true or false value is to speak of a pizza being tasty as true or false.

Likewise with rights, they are social constructs, and the rights we have are granted to us by society, not by any god or by nature. Over the centuries we have moved toward more equal and more individualized rights.

 

[Kid Eager]

For example, why not take the ideal of "equality." We are all "equal." It is the ideal, but does an ideal that is unreal and impossible to achieve be justified or of value? If we are all equal, is it alright to have a transgender president, a gay marching army, "Mister fattest man" contests, and for it to be "politically incorrect" to portray any man as masculine and woman as feminine?

Is anything really equal to anything else? And do we even have "equal rights"?

As mentioned by previous posters, skepticism is regularly applied to the secular: climate, cosmology, astrology, medicine, politics, war, finance, social conventions....

How would this play if you turned your question on its head? When is it NOT alright to have the transgender president, a gay marching army, "Mister fattest man" contests?

The second part of your statement creates a false dichotomy: it's not equality related, and not a logical outcome of the first part of your statement.

 

[Dancing David]

For example, why not take the ideal of "equality." We are all "equal." It is the ideal, but does an ideal that is unreal and impossible to achieve be justified or of value? If we are all equal, is it alright to have a transgender president, a gay marching army, "Mister fattest man" contests, and for it to be "politically incorrect" to portray any man as masculine and woman as feminine?

Is anything really equal to anything else? And do we even have "equal rights"?

Secular what, maybe you should try to decide what you want to say before you post.

I am sceptical of street lamps and sidewalks?

 

[Reivax]

I think you are simply pointing skepticism at value judgements here. As others have suggested above.

 

[Cuddles]

We are all "equal."

No we're not. You appear to be getting confused between having equal rights and actually being equal. I am not as strong as Arnold Schwarzenegger. I am not as clever as Stephen Hawking. I am not as fit as Paula Radcliffe. I am not as good a pianist as Tim Minchin. I am not as gay as Freddy Mercury. No-one (well, no-one sane) actually thinks all people are, or should be, exactly the same as each other. The point is that despite not all being equal, we should still all have the same basic rights - food, water, home, voice in government, and so on.

is it alright to have a transgender president, a gay marching army, "Mister fattest man" contests

Yes. Why wouldn't it be?

and for it to be "politically incorrect" to portray any man as masculine and woman as feminine?

Yes. Except that the great thing about freedom of expression and equal rights is that it's also all right for the rest of us to tell the people claiming such things are politically incorrect to bugger off.

Is anything really equal to anything else?

Yes. 0.999... = 1.

And do we even have "equal rights"?

No. If we did, there wouldn't be any need for people to fight for equal rites. There are still an awful lot of racists, sexists, and other bigots in the world. Possibly worse, there's an awful lot of racism, sexism and bigotry that people don't even recognise as bigotry, and which is therefore much harder to eliminate. But just because we don't currently have equal rights, and may not even ever have them, doesn't mean we should just accept things as they are and not try to do better.

 

[Bikewer]

Mandated equality is potentially scary, as in the famous Vonnegut story, "Harrison Bergeron".

 

[GreyArea]

Is anything really equal to anything else?

Mandated equality is potentially scary, as in the famous Vonnegut story, "Harrison Bergeron".

Sameness in physical and intellectual attributes is not what is meant by equal justice before the law and equal regard within society.

To use the people Cuddles mentioned above, the fact that Hawking can't play piano and Minchin can't theorize very advanced physics does not mean that courts should use those qualities to deny one or the other a fair hearing. Nor do these differences mean that one or the other should have more votes to cast in elections. Nor are these differences grounds for the local council or the prime minister to ignore these constituents' views about local noise ordinances or national infrastructure.

I do want the various branches and levels of government to be mandated to treat me as they would any of my peers, and ignore the genuine differences that are simply not relevant to their policy decisions.

I would ask Mr. Charles Brough why he thinks the courts or legislatures should treat him as an inferior person? Do you really think it is "unreal and impossible" for democratic institutions to consider what their people have to say rather than consider what they are?

 

[Gord_in_Toronto]

Mandated equality is potentially scary, as in the famous Vonnegut story, "Harrison Bergeron".

This is why I post so slowly -- the weights on my hands and my figures bandaged together. If only we could all be free to use our abilities to our best advantage.

 

[The Central Scrutinizer]

For example, why not take the ideal of "equality." We are all "equal." It is the ideal, but does an ideal that is unreal and impossible to achieve be justified or of value? If we are all equal, is it alright to have a transgender president, a gay marching army, "Mister fattest man" contests, and for it to be "politically incorrect" to portray any man as masculine and woman as feminine?

Is anything really equal to anything else? And do we even have "equal rights"?

Could you translate this into English please?

 

[Eric D]

If we are all equal, is it alright to have a transgender president, a gay marching army, "Mister fattest man" contests, and for it to be "politically incorrect" to portray any man as masculine and woman as feminine?

It sounds like you're trying to convince us that we should consider not having equal rights because the consequences could be *gasp!* a transgender president or an army of gay people. You fail to realize that most people here aren't bigots.

 

[timhau]

I am sceptical of street lamps and sidewalks?

I confess: I'm not. I always take them at face value.

 

[Dessi]

If we are all equal, is it alright to have a transgender president,

Yes.

a gay marching army,

Well we already have gay baseball teams, why can't we have a gay marching army.

"Mister fattest man" contests,

Yes.

and for it to be "politically incorrect" to portray any man as masculine and woman as feminine?

No, it is neither politically correct nor incorrect to portray men and women in their traditional gender expression.


With the exception of the fat man contests, your other 3 items concern minority sexual orientations, gender identities, and gender expressions. I can see why its necessary to debunk nasty myths and vitriol directed toward these people, but its not really clear what your post suggests.

If you have an argument for or against transgender presidents, gay people serving in the military, or whether political correctness precludes traditional gender expressions in media, I'd be interested to hear them.

 

[John Albert]

Of course everybody is not "equal" in every sense. If that were the case, I'd be as great a scientist as Newton, be able to give a speech as well as Winston Churchill, tell jokes like George Carlin, write a novel like Mark Twain, run a company like Steve Jobs, be able to play basketball like Michael Jordan, football like Brett Favre, and hockey like Wayne Gretzky. Given that I can do none of those things as well as all those guys, it's safe to assume we're not all equal, at least not in terms of talent or ability.

On the other hand, there's the popular civic ideal that "Everybody should be treated equitably under the law." I like this idea. In theory, it's 100% fair. It ostensibly allows for a level playing field so all comers can achieve according to their own individual talents and abilities.

When the idea of "equality" was promoted in the US Declaration of Independence, it was quite a revolutionary concept. Western society in that day was still dominated by monarchs, aristocracy and clergy. The idea was so revolutionary, in fact, that it's taken over 200 years for us to deal with it, and we're still trying to work it out. Back in the early days of the United States, only male, Caucasian landowners enjoyed the rights of full citizens. It took over 90 years for blacks, and then women to achieve voting rights, let alone the right to equal pay, equal opportunity, equal treatment under the law, etc.

I can see why its necessary to debunk nasty myths and vitriol directed toward these people, but its not really clear what your post suggests.

Sounds to me like the OP is sick and tired of the "PC police" telling him he has to respect queers and trannies as equals, but it's not OK for him to act like a naturally dominant, red-blooded man instead of an emasculated metrosexual as men are so often portrayed in our culture. He's asking why we so-called skeptics don't apply our critical attitude toward addressing those issues.

Is this a correct (if crudely-stated) assessment? Please feel free to call me out if I'm being presumptuous.

 

[GreyArea]

I confess: I'm not. I always take them at face value.

I find this also works well with clocks and cliffs.

 

[excaza]

No we're not. You appear to be getting confused between having equal rights and actually being equal. I am not as strong as Arnold Schwarzenegger. I am not as clever as Stephen Hawking. I am not as fit as Paula Radcliffe. I am not as good a pianist as Tim Minchin. I am not as gay as Freddy Mercury. No-one (well, no-one sane) actually thinks all people are, or should be, exactly the same as each other. The point is that despite not all being equal, we should still all have the same basic rights - food, water, home, voice in government, and so on.

But my mom told me I'm special.

 

[CosmicDP]

While I think there is a generally greater tendancy among skeptics to demonstrate more skepticism towards topics of a religious, spiritual, or supernatural nature, secular topics are certainly not excluded from skepticism. A good example pointed out earlier was alternative medicine. I think it would be fair to say that skepticism is less about the singling out of individual topics and more about applying the art of argumentation.

 

[TubbaBlubba]

But my mom told me I'm special.

As did Hitler's mom.

 

[The Central Scrutinizer]

As did Hitler's mom.

Godwin!!!


Mods, please close this thread.