When I asked about attitudes to Carl Sagan, I fully expected it to be challenged as NO politics, NOT philosophy, and NOT religion. I was prepared to come back to that pointing out that to some Science IS to all intents and purposes a religioon, and Sagan a high priest. Hey - one respondent even called him, how seriously I cannot say, a god.
I did NOT expect that some would see it as a POLITICAL statement. Putting some of those responses together with some of the Limbaugh / Coulter statements and other data, I come to the unanticipated conclusion that for certain ones "liking" or "disliking" is politically motivated.
To me, "like", "respect", "approve" and "agree" are different and largely independent - although I have to say that DISLIKE raises the bar for respect, approve, and agree, and DISRESPECT raises the bar for like, approve and agree.
I often like a person whom I cannot respect, of whose life I disapprove, and with whom I do not agree. [You will excuse me if I do not point fingers at individuals]
I often dislike a person [my 10th grade English teacher springs to mind] whom I respect and of whose actions I approve. In his case I disagreed as well, but I hardly ever agree with Lit faculty.
Some - Limbaugh springs to mind - I cannot listen to enough to decide whether I agree or disagree.
But for many here, it seems to be assumed that if you like, you must approve. If you disagree, not cannot respect.
This extends to ideas as well as people. If I put into the "gay marriage" thread a statement that is not vigorously supportive of "gay marriage" and violently dismissive of opponents as bigots, it is assumed I must be a bigotted opponent of labelling homosexual unions "marriages". I become an enemy without speaking to the issue. In fact, I become an enemy - apparently to both sides - because I do NOT speak to the issue.
Frankly, I do not get it.
24 Jun 2011, 9:07 am
