Miles writes:
> You live in a society that values logical discourse and rationality
Were that it were true. I live in a society that values religion, superstition and irrationality.
> you assume that these are superior tools for the creation of a good
society.
No, what I maintain and can provide empirical proof for is the fact that rationality is the most useful tool yet devised to create and maintain a fair and just society. I am not defending the way of my society, I am defending the use of rationality, a tool which is used in societies and cultures all over the world.
> If a society does not use the tools of logic and rationality, you consider
it inferior.
Again, I have not passed judgement on any society in any of my posts. Please point out the specific passages where I claim that a society that does not use logic is inferior.
>This is ethnocentrism (you're assuming the superiority of your moral
guidelines).
No, I am asserting the greater usefulness of rationality. I am passing no comment on my society or any other. Again, please cite the actual passages where I claim that my group (whatever that is) is superior.
> Yes, in this cultural context, I agree that logic and rationality
are good tools.
Why aren't they good tools in other cultural contexts? Does rationality operate differently in different cultures?
> Are they necessary and universal tools that need to be applied in any
human society to create a good society?
The fact is that they are applied in most, if not all, human societies. I only make claims about rationality's usefulness. People can choose to use what they want.
> Why even make grandiose claims about it?
Why do you consider a claim of usefulness to be grandiose?
> Sorry if you consider this sniping, but I'm just trying to
emphasize how the moral standards you consider to be
bedrock (logic and reason) are in fact social contingencies.
Rationality and logic are not socially constructed. Rationality is an ability possessed by human beings -- some part of the brain I think (I hated biology LOL).
I consider your posts sniping because you criticze my position without providing a counter argument. In fact, you engage in what you criticize me for doing (which you then mislabel as ethnocentrism): making assertions that your way is better than mine.
> When you use your deeply held moral standards to judge other
groups who do not share your standards, you're being
ethnocentric.
>From Meriam-Webster:
Ethnocentrism: characterized by or based on the attitude that one's own group is superior.
I have never said my group is superior (though queers are more fabulous).
I have claimed that the tool of rationality is the most useful in helping to bring about a just and fair society (didn't Marx like rationality too?).
Unless you are asserting that rationality is the provence of one specific group of people and not part of all human beings and human societies, your charge of ethnocentrism is nonsense.
Brian Dauth Queer Buddhist Resister