Quote:
Originally Posted by uke_master
This isn't even a cute nonanalogy.
Do you disagree with my claim that positions of authority tend give more social impact to one's "voice"? Do you disagree that there is a tension between respecting people's voices and actively preventing those people from the positions of authority that would give their voices more impact?
More "social" impact? Probably. Is there inherent tension? Not more than any other sorts of leadership tension that exist in virtually every other complex leadership situation.
For example, academic leadership for access-oriented institutions have a tension between the two of their primary missions: providing access and opportunity in higher education to those who are structurally disadvantaged and underprepared while maintaining a high standard of academic rigor.
So tension of this type is really very common. And it's far from obvious that there's hypocrisy or hatred involved.
Quote:
Can you list these many, many, contemporary examples - outside of religion? I can't actually think of a single example in the west. If you want to try and use examples outside of the west to say something like "well in the contemporary islamic world they restrict females from positions of authority all the time ergo it isn't anarchonistic"...well sure I suppose I should add that "in the west" qualifier in. Very, very nitty move though.
Not sure why it's nitty. The Catholic church is a global organization, so I don't see why one should consider it only in its Western context.
Quote:
Is your answer to "what is your view on illegal immigration in the US" merely "my view of the policy doens't matter. I don't think it is wrong to have immigration rules. Those rules are up to that organization"?
As a citizen of the US, my opinion on US immigration matters insofar as it's a part of effective and meaningful citizenship to have at least some level of participation in civic matters. But as a non-Canadian citizen, I really don't have much to say about Canadian immigration policies, and even if I did I don't really know if they matter all that much.
As an outsider, I could certain say that Canadian policies are stupid and find all sorts of reasons to be critical of it. But given that I'm not Canadian and not even connected to Canada in any real way, it's quite obvious that there are probably decisions that would have an impact that I really don't understand at all, and mostly I'm just arguing about things that come in at the level of mindless punditry and talking points, and not really addressing actual issues or concerns in a meaningful way.
Quote:
You are effectively eliminating the need to comment on what other "organizations" do ever.
The "need" to comment? Why is there such a need? I don't need to comment on what happens in Canada.
Quote:
But things that organizations determine are absolutely fair game for any political discussion and to refuse when asked point blank what your view on the policy is simply because organizations can determine stuff seems like an empty cop out.
I never said it wasn't fair game. People can talk about whatever they want. They don't even have to be informed (see politics). But just as you're free to comment on whatever you want, so am I.