The World Beyond BetterMost > Anything Goes

We are all gay: In praise of Pluralism

<< < (2/2)

Sheriff Roland:

--- Quote from: Front-Ranger on December 10, 2009, 12:25:28 pm ---Please elaborate. Looking forward to your thoughts.

--- End quote ---

Well, it's sounds intolerant of those views that are neither pluralistic, nor extremist.

It reminds me all to much of the Bush blunder, regarding the Afgan war ... "You're either with us or you're against us" (paraphrasing). The truth can be elsewhere.

People's view can be neither extremist nor pluralistic. Those are merely extremes on SOMEone's graph. There are points in between (like indifference, or mere acceptance-without-embracing different points of views). I think that there are many groups/opinions that are neither pluralistic nor anti-pluralistic. The quote jumped that staged and regarded anything that didn't embrace pluralism as anti-pluralism and therefore, extremist. I'd suggest that there are Muslims/Jews/Hindus/Christians (strange, Christians were not among the religious groups listed) that are neither pluralistic nor extremists.

Front-Ranger:
Re-read the sentence you quoted, friend sheriff. It says, "anybody who seeks to destroy pluralism deserves one label only and that label is extremist. We should just call them extremists and we should treat them as such."

"anybody who seeks to destroy," not anybody who is apathetic or anybody who is wishy washy or whatever.

In his discussion, Patel specifically states that, while there are extremists in all religions (I would add: and all walks of life), the majority of people of all and no religions rever peace and have respect for others.

But in the US, this view is under increasing endangerment.

Sheriff Roland:
Granted, I misread the original quote. Wouldn't that make the leaders of Saudi Arabia (and Bush, for that matter) extremist? Those that do not accept 'the gays', (or as Bush expected- 'those that weren't with us') are another kind of extremists? These people are not aware of their theocracy-ist extreme-ist point of view, but they are none the less out to 'destroy some aspect(s) of pluralism.'

Anyways, I still disagree that it's a jump from not being pluralist = wishing to destroy pluralism = being an extremist.

The quoted article just didn't include the first part of the equation, as though it didn't exist.

Front-Ranger:
Is pluralism a synonym for diversity? I think so, what do you think?

delalluvia:

--- Quote from: Front-Ranger on December 12, 2009, 01:29:43 pm ---Is pluralism a synonym for diversity? I think so, what do you think?

--- End quote ---

Not really.  Diversity is just that, diversity.  Pluralism means more than just diverse groups.  Merriam-Webster defines pluralism as:

a state of society in which members of diverse ethnic, racial, religious, or social groups maintain an autonomous participation in and development of their traditional culture or special interest within the confines of a common civilization b : a concept, doctrine, or policy advocating this state

IOW, a pluralistic society is diverse in nature, but the diversity is limited in practice.

Navigation

[0] Message Index

[*] Previous page