[dreadgeek]

Originally Posted by Gemme

I haven't seen this myself, to the best of my recollection, but I do see where it could happen. Kind of like the stalemate in the conversation....when all sides have expressed their thoughts/feelings/etc and none of them have the wherewithall to say "I accept your pov and let's agree to disagree".

I've had folks try to pin me down one way or another in a conversation and sometimes, the answer they are looking for just isn't there. So, there may come a time when I feel that all I can say is "this is what I know" or "this is my truth". When I do that, I'm not saying that their truth is invalid or that one is better than the other. I'm saying it's MINE, so keeps your mitts off, bud. Respect that I have the right to have that mindset or opinion. You don't have to agree, but don't try to oppress me with your opinion either.

For the most part, I'm very much a 'if it doesn't hurt anyone and it rocks your boat, then get to it' kind of person. As long as your thoughts and feelings don't lead to hurtful actions, I'm good. I wish more people were like me.

But what if someone's truth is that their thoughts don't lead to hurtful actions or if they do the person's hurt are not inside the circle of moral concern. Then what? Since there is no reason to *prefer* non-hurtful actions as a touchstone if someone holds a truth that leads to harm, all we have is 'I don't like that so please don't". That seems a flimsy basis upon which to build any idea of justice. What we *can't* do is argue that the person holding the truth that leads to malevolent action is wrong because it's their 'truth', so it *can't* be wrong. It can't be wrong even by our own lights since your truth may be that racial discrimination is wrong and my truth may be that racial discrimination is wrong and Ebon's truth may be that racial discrimination is wrong but *of course* we would say that. We all have a vested interest in it being wrong. But since we have conceded that if you believe something is true then it IS true--for any reasonable definition--then all someone has to get around the codicil that it can't lead to harm is for that person to say "racism doesn't hurt people, of course those on the receiving end will *say* that it hurts them but what else would you expect 'those people' to say?" Now, they've stated that their 'truth' is that racism doesn't hurt people. If you insist that it does then they can even concede that it might but that the targets of racism are beyond the circle of reasonable moral concern and the same way you wouldn't, say, crash an airplane with 300 people on board in order to save the life of an ant, one should not force society to roll into the circle of moral concern people who are clearly beyond that circle--it is their truth after all and there is no reason that anyone can give as to why *your* truth is preferable to *their* truth.

Cheers
Aj