Societal <insert> (Double) Standards

Post Reply New Topic

I have a real problem. The problem is I like to think. And most the people I run into (at least in the area I live) just accept a societal standard. WTF? I understand there are things that just are self evident, like murder and stealing, even though you could explain them. But lets say you ask what the proper age for "X" is. They say it is to protect "the children", but in reality they just dodge my question and never really answer what logical basis they are forming that on. For example, age of majority. What makes 18 that age of majority? Just because someone said so? If that is the case, that means everything granted is a privilege and NOT A RIGHT. So that means that rights are a bunch of BS if that is the case (at least in this context). Or lets say I discussed something else controversial (like lets say age of consent) People say this or that, but if you bring up "oh, this or that country allows that", they continue on. So does that make those people immoral? Are , lets say in India, immoral for allowing their children to get married> Lets see, they have better marriages overall, and they have lower divorce rates. So who is talking?

Another example is when you say that the Muslims in NY should be able to build at ground zero (even if it is slightly offense), religious people say we need to "protect our country". But then when people try to zone churches out of existence, they are up in arms. I think everyone should be able to do whatever they want as long as they harm no ones property, and being a Christian, I have to think to myself "Then what is the point of the Golden Rule?" And also, when people say we need to protect "X" groups rights (Gays, Christians, Muslims, etc.) , they then to proceed to violate other people's rights.


Or another thing, alcohol is legal, it kills many people directly and indirectly, yet it is still legal. Yet, marijuana has killed close to nill, yet people are locked up and have the book thrown at them. In addition, hemp is banned, even though Detroit was built on hemp (Henry Ford) and can be used for so many compounds. Double standard? Nah, couldn't be.


And people boohoo when their rights are taken away, but when the grim reaper took other people's rights away where were they?


But I guess the main point I was trying to make is that we just accept it is wrong, lets say to have the age of consent below fourteen, and we never question if we have strong foundation to legislate it. And so when we say it is wrong, aren't we accusing half the world of being evil? Shouldn't there be some things that are just preferences? Sure I don't want to get married when I am 16, but does that mean I should deprive someone else of their happiness? However foolish it may be? Wasn't this country built on the idea that we have the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness? Or is there an * saying "other terms and conditions may apply, not available in all states, must be 18 years or older, you may need registration in some jurisdictions, please check wikipedia.org for more exclusions".


Maybe it is just the autism and all, but I just feel as though when you are talking about things like rights, you should put emotions off to the side and talk about things in a logical sense. idk, any thoughts?

In my state you can get married at 16 but you have to have your parents permission.

Same here in my state, I am just using this as an example. Honestly I don't care so much, but it is more about the principle of it, and not so much that it is a personal battle.

That was blown completely out of proportion. There was already a mosque built closer than the one that was being asked to be built blocks away from ground zero.

my point.

I think that was mainly Fox News though, you can't ask for anything else

true

to repost a brilliant rant by cleese,
this time in video format
[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7G_zSos8w_I[/youtube]

mostly as a lazy attempt at trying to explain why people at fox news can even handle a normal day after some of the dribble they spew forth.

in the larger picture this all comes down to observer bias, there are hundreds if not thousands of well written papers and philosophical texts on the matter.

The simple issue is that standards are not developed in some intellectually systematic manner. However, they are developed pieces at a time by different people at different times based upon the relative knowledge they have, and with a need for certain political compromises as necessary, and then they are defended as moral rules because of the indoctrination that people regularly take-in, and their natural willingness to defend whatever the status quo happens to be.

I mean, the issue is that you need to recognize that the entire process is a mess, and thus will not and probably cannot match any clear ideal.

A lot of our standards are down to tradition. And yes most are put in place at various times for reasons that are relevent at the time and then never questioned until some issue comes up to make people question them.

The marujana issue is down to fear and ignorance. The masses just think about drugs as all the same and they are all very bad, they are not educated enough.

But I also believe some of the reasons it is still illegal are to do with consumerism.

Well obviously it is a privilege. The idea that something or other is a right is just rhetorical, a way of saying that it should be inalienable and absolute. It has no reality.



Marriage in India is different from marriage in the West. To us, it is the result of love between two individuals. To them, it is probably an alliance between two families, in the broad meaning. It is not comparable.


Marijuana is relatively new. Alcohol is very, very old; tobacco also has a relatively long history. It is easier to legislate on new issues.


What's wrong with having standards? There has to be a simple, easily applicable rule, understandable to all.

Being allowed to vote only at 18 is exactly as arbitrary as putting the limit at 8 or at 28. Yet it was decided that there should be a limit somewhere, because babies and very young children probably wouldn't understand at all what is going on, so 18 it is, probably because of some historical compromise.

Social standards are like any other kind of standard. For example, standard units. The metre was measured as a decimal fraction of the distance between the Pole and the Equator. In the past, units were based on the human body: the length of a foot, of a step, of an arm, a hand, a finger, the height of a human, the length of a field that can be ploughed or walked in a certain time, etc. The metre isn't a "truer" unit than any of those, but the metric system is coherent and useful as a whole, and it is a good standard. Before it was adopted, every city or region had its own units of length (note the plural), generally with the same names, but representing different lengths. It is now a standard almost everywhere, and we are all the better for it. Setting the age of majority at 18 is exactly the same thing: many individuals would probably be mature enough at 15, and some won't be anymore at 21. There had to be a standard, whichever it is.