What is your definition of idiot? What it says is relative to the individual. How one judges another says more about the one doing the judging than the one being judged. Indeed, but why is that? What harm does long hair cause to others? If long hair causes no harm in and of itself then what basis is there for a negitive judgment? If one tells me something "isn't acceptable", I ask why, and sadly the answer I generally get is silence, personal attack, or a circular argument of; because (insert perceived authority) says so. What axiom is judgment based upon? Indeed, as the mitigation of harm is a good reason to have short hair, or hair that is otherwise restrained in a pony tail, hairnet, tucked into hard hat, etc. Once again how one judges another says more about the judge than the judged. What harm does a braless woman cause others? If no harm is caused then what is the axion the judgment is based upon? What these choices say is relative to the individual observer as we do not all see from the same perspective, ergo how one perceives me says more about them than I.
I do not edit out my negitive as to do so is self defeating, but neither do I in general go out of my way to advertise my negatives. It is illogical by my measure of logic to edit out our negatives as this ensures that the negative will persist. I would rather acknowledge my negatives then seek a solution to remove or otherwise overcome them. Forgiveness of self is impotent without a serious effort to make a positive change. I am a creature or progress as stasis is not much better than regression. We all are an amalgam of habit and change. In a free/ish society, yes. But this does not translate to the right to force change (in most cases). What is the boundary that separates right and wrong? Who gets to decide this and by what authority?
WOW, ok I'll play. Your asking in the context makes me wonder if you are one. Well sure, but not more. Like it or not simple fact is we live in a society and we can't get to know everyone so we must make judgments based on what we do know. Hair choices is one of those things. Complain about it all you want, won't change how most people see a man in his 40s with long hair. You can either spend your life pissing into the wind or get a haircut. Your choice to (*)(*)(*)(*) into the wind says something about you. Your long hair doesn't harm me directly at all, I wouldn't hire you though, nor would many others, and your drain on society due to being unable/unwilling to work harms us all. Your hair choice says you are choosing to be a bum, that harms everyone. Depends on the judge, if I'm looking to hire someone for a job that involves being the face of my company I'm not going to hire someone that doesn't take their appearance seriously, and that is a sound judgment. The bra is the same as most of what I've said about the hair. We live in a society with other people, people want to look at others who look good, and we trust people who look good. Simple fact, it's human nature, put a toddler in a room with two strangers one ugly, one attractive, the toddler will prefer the attractive person. That she is too lazy, just doesn't care, or whatever, her choice to not be as attractive as possible is a choice she is making, a choice to not be trusted by strangers. A choice to make less money if employable at all, a choice to be a bum, and again that hurts us all. Maybe, but does it matter?
All good points. But none of which alter my original sentiment that proper judgement of others is more important than understanding how they see themselves. How someone sees themselves may be accurate, in which case judging them as they are is seeing who they think they are. But taking a persons self view as truth without objectively judging them from your own perspective is flawed. Personally, I am usually pretty good at seeing a persons self image. I have to resist using it to manipulate them. It's hard for me to see a use to this other than that, most people are desperate to not see their own imperfections. It makes them vulnerable. Semantics... really? Right = correct. Wrong = incorrect. We each have to make those judgements. If a person is especially proud of their bravery and then urinates all over themselves when threatened physically, I will think they are wrong(incorrect). If they defend themselves and get beaten to a pulp, I will think they are right(correct). Simple as that.
Dodge noted. Previously I predicted one of three responses, silence, personal attack, or circular argument, you not surprisingly went with personal attack rather than answering a simple question, which leads me to assume that you do not objectively know what constitutes an idiot. Idiot is a word often used to dismiss an argument that one does not understand or agree with. Calling another an idiot is also used as a form of peer-pressure in an attempt to make one conform to a perceived norm. The dictionary defines an idiot as stupid and I argue that what is idiotic to one will be anything but to another. Just because one perceives another as an idiot does not mean that they are an idiot. We must? Says who and by what authority? I argue the less we know about another, the less accurate our judgment will be. Even if we know much about another our judgment is still based upon our perspective which is relative to the individual rather than universal to all humanity, thus subjective. Just as those who judge me as a negative based solely upon my long hair will not lead me to cut my hair. Knowing this gives rise to question why judge a harmless superficial and completely inconsequential aspect as a negative? It is immoral by my measure of morality to judge harmless action as a negative. I reject your binary assessment as too limiting. I choose to learn more about human nature and search for the axiom of judgment of harmless action. Like I previously said, all I have asked to explain the axiom either go silent, personal attack, or give circular logic. If it does not directly harm you then why the negative judgment? What is the axiom that allows for the negitive judgment of harmless action? Moot point as I have cut my hair to be employed, but the above still does not explain what axiom allows for a negative judgment of harmless action. That is your biased perspective that is relative to you and others who embrace bias over objectivity. Indeed, but I see the above as illogical. Why should I care how others want me to look outside of employment? In your off time do you dress how you like or how you precise others want you to? As for trust, serial killers often look trustworthy to their victims thus making them well adapted killers. Bernie Madoff was a psychopath who defrauded the life savings of thousands of people to the tune of billions of dollars. I argue to judge a person based upon the superficial is akin to throwing the dice... it's a gamble. For me to objectively assess another I need observation and interaction over time... the longer the time the more accurate the assessment. Look at the top most wanted criminals in a city and you will likely find lots of men with short hair, thus making short haired men appear more like a criminal that men with long hair. But to rely upon antidotal evidence is to lack critical thinking just as it is illogical to rely upon antidotal evidence to summarily judge all long haired men as a negative. Human nature is subjective thus to make one dimensional claims is to abandon objectivity. Human nature can drive some to be biased which justify their superficial judgment, while the human nature of others compels them to be more objective in their assessment of others. The above is the biased view. Here is the objective view; attractive is subjective as what is attractive to one will be anything but to another. Some people dress to impress while others dress in ways that they like. Dressing to impress is fine in business, but IMO outside of business to do so is to surrender self to an unhealthy degree. I dress the way I do because it is what I like and am perplexed by those who dress how others would like them to. Not all 320 million Americans work, and those that do have off time and should be free to dress anyway they like so long as it does not break any applicable law. Matters to me. Judging one as a negitive does not mean that the judged is a negitive. Perspective is a measure or reality and your reality is not my reality. Judging me by your reality says more about you than I.
Whatever, you asked, I answered, don't like it fine be a miserable bum, just don't expect me to approve of it. BTW your welcome.
Define proper judgment? Agreed. Here we fundamentally disagree. If right is based upon being correct, then what is being correct based upon? Same for being wrong. If I say a thing is right or wrong I can in no uncertain terms tell you exactly why I believe it to be right or wrong... can you? What is your axiom used to tell right from wrong? If the answer is right = correct and wrong = incorrect then I argue that you have not yet found your axiom. I See the above quote as circular logic where right = correct and correct = right... whereas wrong = incorrect and incorrect = wrong.
Your overcomplicating it. In any particular case, yes I could justify any given judgement. However when I used the words right and wrong I was not talking about any specific meaning of them other than the general synonyms of correct or incorrect. As in the right answer or the wrong answer. I was not using them to indicate or be synonymous with good and bad. Is there some point to your digression into specific terminology? If not I think we're done here.
They can be grouped into two mutually exclusive sets: legitimate and illegitimate. The first are a necessary exercise of liberty and the second are an unnecessary exercise of license. You don't think a person's appearance can be reflective of serious character defects? You don't understand what the fact that others are paying for your upkeep has to do with anything? Really?
Yes, to find the axiom that others use to base a negative judgment of harmless action. My axion is that harm is the boundery that separates an action from an immoral action. If I say a style of dress is wrong I can explain the associated harm it causes others. My point is that many judge harmless action as a negitive while being unable to explain an associated harm. If you do not judge harmless action as a negitive then there is nothing for me to learn from you.
Sure it can be, but also how one judges others says more about the one doing the judging than the judged. Some would argue that being a slut is a style of dress, while I would argue that it is an action that has nothing to do with dress. Some sluts dress in a stereotypical style, while others sluts wear their Sunday best for Church, while yet other sluts wear business suits screwing their way up the ladder of corporate success. I don't think my being disabled and living off of SSD gives others the right to dictate to me my hair length nor style of dress.
Thanks, I can work with that. So, first I guess I would clarify that I do not think judging others is immoral. I think its unavoidable. However, acting on a superficial judgement can be. So, its really hard to avoid judging people we meet, but we can at least pretend to remain unbiased until they absolutely prove our bias. And I think that should work both ways, regardless of whether the judgement was positive or negative. As I've said people are creatures of habit. This means they exhibit repeated patterns of behavior. Those behaviors can cover a wide range between moral/ethical, neutral, and immoral/unethical. While a persons physical appearance can give some clues about a persons personality, it can't really tell us much. We must go on to observe their actions in order to form even a rudimentary judgement of them as moral/ethical beings.
For the most part I agree but the above still does not give the justification for judging harmless action as immoral. I think many negative judgments are avoidable if one takes the time to objectively assess an individual rather than making snap judgments based upon anecdotal evidence. Most of the time it takes observation and interaction over time, the longer the time the more accurate the assessment. When I see one judge another based upon nothing but a style of dress or hairstyle, I see bias rather than objectivity. I have yet had anyone answer to my satisfaction what is the basis of judging harmless action as immoral. The best arguments so far are IMO anecdotal rather than based upon observation and interaction over time and even then realizing that to make any sweeping judgments towards a group requires a statistically significant sample to observe and interact with over time. So in answer to my own question the basis for judging harmless action as immoral is based upon anecdotal evidence that is used to make broad sweeping negative judgments of entire groups of people. Here is the thing that I find frustrating, many argue social norms are the basis, but they never take the time to objectively assess what the social norms are based upon. So many blindly follow the group rather than ask why. Perhaps I am a bit odd in that my need to be accepted does not outweigh my desire to live my life by my standards. Thus was not always the case thus my ability to see from both perspectives.
So you acknowledge that judgment can be legitimate. Right? You say this a lot, evidently oblivious to the irony of pointing the bony finger of accusation at those you deem judgmental. Then I daresay you don't think too good, because anyone who gives you money you haven't earned has every right in the world to put strings on it; and every US taxpayer has every right in the world to object to you receiving SSDI, seeing the federal government is not constitutionally authorized to be charitable with the contents of the US Treasury.
Indeed, just as it can be wrong. Who decides if a judgment is accurate and by what authority? The bony finger points in both directions, I am not oblivious to that fact. I like the bony finger analogy, you are the only other person I have heard use the analogy on the forums. My friend Bill W. use to use the term. They have no authority to make me dress and wear my hair in a manner that pleases them. But why would a dress code and hairstyle be mandated? Who gets to decide the dress code and hair style and by what authority?
Not the issue. If I refuse to hire you for having long hair, I may very well hire a guy who looks like Marco Rubio and ends up robbing me blind; but it's my judgment to make regardless. By the same authority by which I exercise freedom of association or any other unalienable right, obviously. Suuuuure don't look like it from here, pilgrim. Sure they do, as a precondition for you receiving any money from them. Any state has the authority to legislate a dress code by virtue of 10A, and thus may delegate the same authority to its counties, municipalities or whatever. You're welcome.
Personally I don't give 2 hoots what people think of me in my personal life, with work it is a little different. If people want to judge me on first appearances and decide they don't want to know me then it is their loss not mine.
Judging others based on how they appear in their dresses, cultures, rituals, behaviors or in their cultural and social appearances is not good as long as they do not disrupt the social harmony of the country or society they inhabit in.
EVERYBODY has the RIGHT to judge and to EXPRESS their judgements. But GOVERNMENT JUDGES have the DUTY to JUDGE RIGHTLY according to the LAW!
As usual these cherry picked images miss the point totally. 1. If the Jewish Deli does not offer ham and cheese sandwiches then no they wouldn't lose anything because they are being asked to provide something they do not sell. If the Jewish Deli DID sell ham and cheese sandwiches but refused service simply because someone was another colour or homosexual etc.then they could be sued for discrimination. 2. If the Muslim caterer does not offer tenderloin the no they wouldn't lose anything because they are being asked to provide something they do not sell. If they did sell tenderloin but refused to sell because someone was another colour or homosexual etc. then they could be sued for discrimination. 3. if the Atheist baker does not offer cakes decorated with nativity scenes then no they wouldn't lost anything because they are being asked to provide something they do not sell. If the atheist baker did sell nativity decorated cakes and refused to sell because someone was a different colour or homosexual etc. then they could be sued for discrimination. 4. The Christians bakers provided wedding cakes therefore they HAVE to provide weddings cakes for any person who wants one, they cannot discriminate. If the Christian bakers did not sell wedding cakes then they could have refused because they cannot be forced to provide something they do not sell. It is rather simple and has nothing to do with religion.
