WWTKD

[sleepysaj]

You've heard WWJD - What Would Jesus Do. Its a cute, quick phrase meant to help people come to the right moral decision. Well, here's another. WWTKD - What Would the Klan Do?

(Des Moines, Iowa) The Ku Klux Klan is preparing to stage a demonstration next month in Des Moines, Iowa to protest a lawsuit seeking marriage equality for same-sex

Comments

[sleepysaj]

Hi and welcome.

I appreciate your argument, and certainly it has merit in a Logic 101 sort of way. My post was off the cuff as well, not a well researched nor a time-heavy piece by any means. So, your response has put me back here giving further consideration to my words - also appreciated.

On the surface, I would agree that simply because you and Hitler both profess to believe in God, this singular agreement would not mean that you are in agreement in all things. You might also share a love for broccoli, 18th century poetry, and snow at Christmastime. These commonalities would never translate into an assumption that you also support genocide.

But central to this determination is (1) an investigation into the reasoning and the basis behind the person's beliefs; i.e., an identification of the reason Y that someone holds belief X; and (2) an identifiable correspondence among the related concepts that might justify extrapolation.

If the Klan comes out in favor of broccoli, or some other general category of thing, then I would agree that to share that position is not “stand with the Klan.”

In this particular instance, we are talking about bigotry and discrimination; subjects which are the cornerstone of the KKK. The given reasoning behind the Klan’s opposition to gay marriage mirrors the given reasoning of many other (apparent) non-Klan members. The argument that gay marriage is: an approval of homosexuality, immoral, unnatural, against God, etc. are the corresponding concepts which are shared by Klan and non-Klan members in their opposition. So, broccoli and God notwithstanding, I don’t think it’s a reach at all to say that people who find themselves on the same side of the street with the Klan in this issue ought to take a second look at their position.

I know that for me personally, to discover that the Klan and I shared a love for broccoli, I would be completely unaffected. However, if I were to discover that I shared a core moral, ethical, or political viewpoint with the KKK, that revelation would cause me to rethink my position very carefully. That’s not to say that at the end of the day I wouldn’t decide to remain where I was; but I would be extremely aware of with whom I stood and proceed with caution as a result.

[polarbear]

It's still a non sequitur, and saying that "it has merit in a Logic 101 sort of way" seems a little condescending, but maybe I'm seeing that wrong. Swaying people in speeches with non sequiturs has been commonplace throughout history. It's a highly effective albeit logically fallacious method of hitting people emotionally. And what's that they say about winning hearts and minds?

But hate has no place in my life, nor what I've seen of littlebluedog's life, but then neither does faulty reasoning, unless I've been drinking. ;)

[sleepysaj]

The point of that paragraph in which I made my reference to logic 101 was that I had written the post in a cursory manner, and I read littlebluedog's response as a quick reply to a quick post. Surface level thinking on both sides. But, since it appears you know littlebluedog, and you don't know me, I can understand why that part stood out to you.

To dismiss the argument as a non sequitur, or more harshly as faulty reasoning, is IMO, to remain at that surface level. While at that level there are similarities to other engaging, yet fallacious arguments, I see much deeper ties which are, again IMO, worth exploring to a stronger logical conclusion.

As for your hate reference, I must really be slipping. I don't often have this much difficulty expressing my emotional state. I'm about as far from hate as a person can be. The holidays have wiped me out, I guess, and I'm forming less friendly sentences as a result. There's no hate here. Not even for the KKK. :)

[littlebluedog]

Respectfully, I submit that you're conflating preferences (broccoli, poetry, snow) with beliefs (gay marriage is or is not ok), and in so doing perhaps missing the distinction I'm trying to make.

If the given reasoning for two people behind a shared belief is identical, or at the very least strongly similar, only then can we safely affiliate those two people or characterize them as "standing together," but on only that issue and none other.

That's not saying that I personally wouldn't do a double-take if I discovered that hooded racists are shaking signs for a cause that I also happen to believe in, but if that seriously affected my allegiance to an idea, then I stand for nothing.

If someone wants to make an unwarranted assumption of any affiliation I might have with some group, based on a shared belief, I can't really do anything about that kind of judgementalism and intolerance except remain steadfast and explain my reasoning if asked.

[sleepysaj]

My take is that a "belief in God" is both general and practically universal to one degree or another. So, your distinction was clouded for me by that particular example. I see where you are going now with belief vs. preference.

If the given reasoning for two people behind a shared belief is identical, or at the very least strongly similar, only then can we safely affiliate those two people or characterize them as "standing together," but on only that issue and none other.

Take the analogy of a group of people protesting the building of a Wal-Mart in their town. The people are protesting because this Wal-Mart will take away jobs, cause traffic jams, lower their property values, etc. The KKK comes along and joins the protest because Wal-Mart hires black people. The original protesters are there for very different reasons, and would most likely state the differences at every opportunity. Additionally, they would most likely seek to deter the KKK from attending, because by their very presence they taint the proceedings. But, the fact remains that your position in this case would be the more accurate one. Yes, still to stand against the Wal-Mart is to stand with (next to) the Klan, but having the KKK stand next to me at the Wal-Mart protest does not mean that we are there for the same reason.

The majority position against gay marriage is perhaps not identical, but is strongly similar to the KKK position on the issue. Sure, there may be a few people present who have arguments against gay marriage that have absolutely nothing to do with intolerance or discrimination - perhaps a purely economic argument, for example - but a great deal of the time it boils down to the same thing. For one reason or another, "they" aren't the same as "us" and therefore "they" shouldn't have what "we" have. The reason why the KKK are protesting is by and large the same reason that most other people are there.

That's not saying that I personally wouldn't do a double-take if I discovered that hooded racists are shaking signs for a cause that I also happen to believe in, but if that seriously affected my allegiance to an idea, then I stand for nothing.

I submit that there are times when it should. No one is perfect, and I know personally that I have found times when additional information has caused me to re-examine and/or rethink my position on an issue. To insist upon standing-fast in my allegiance to an idea, despite new or conflicting evidence, is an unfortunate and closed-minded way of life, IMO.

My original post read: Tell them - When you go out to protest gay marriage coming to your town, you may very well find yourself standing next to a man in a white sheet and hood. Think. About. That. Take a step back and look at where you are, what you are doing, and WHO you are doing it with.

Its a legitimate question. One I would be certain to ask myself.

Once the question is asked and answered, if a person finds that they are standing there for an entirely different reason then by all means they should continue. But, the fact remains that the sentence in dispute is still true. To stand against gay marriage is to stand with the Klan. Persons who profess to be against gay marriage for whatever reason should *still* be aware of the company they are keeping. If my reason for choosing a particular side on an issue was vastly different from the majority reasoning, I would certainly want to make that distinction whenever possible; especially if that majority reasoning was represented by men in white hoods.

[littlebluedog]

To insist upon standing-fast in my allegiance to an idea, despite new or conflicting evidence, is an unfortunate and closed-minded way of life, IMO.

I think I live in a world of ideals - and I don't intend this to sound lofty or condescending. In my world, all evidence is considered, and beliefs are held because they resonate with something within me (they "seem right") or I've found my own logic behind holding the belief.

So I guess my use of the word "affected" above might mean "changed upon gaining knowledge of this discovery."

To me, changing one's belief upon discovering that someone else also shares the same belief seems to rail against the basic idea of believing in something. Where's the integrity of the belief, if it's so flimsy that it's shaken by the knowledge of someone else holding the same idea in his/her head? Should the belief correspondingly be strengthened upon discovering that cool people also believe in it?

To be clear: evidence that other people hold a similar belief is not evidence about the belief; it's merely evidence of other people who share the belief, for reasoning that may be similar or quite different from yours.

I think this is what you're implying, by stating that

...if a person finds that they are standing there for an entirely different reason then by all means they should continue.

Except that I don't think the reason needs to be entirely different. Subtle distinctions, in terms of reasoning, have profound ramifications.

Also, it seems you and I have different ideas about how the different reasoning aspect should be communicated. I'm passive (i.e., if someone wants to ask why I'm for or against an issue, I'll answer if asked); you're active (i.e., you want to state the distinction up front).

But despite all that, I'm confused how you can acknowledge this and still assert the truth of this statement:

To stand against gay marriage is to stand with the Klan.

We'll have to agree to disagree. I still find this statement to be overbroad, conclusory, and incorrect. To invoke Logic 101 again, if this statement is true, then the contrapositive must also be true. The contrapositive is:

To stand against the Klan is to stand against gay marriage.

I know this statement is false.

[sleepysaj]

I think I live in a world of ideals - and I don't intend this to sound lofty or condescending. In my world, all evidence is considered, and beliefs are held because they resonate with something within me (they "seem right") or I've found my own logic behind holding the belief.

Sounds like a nice world. :) I've been living too long in my world, and I know for me that some beliefs I once held firmly have since melted into greys, or in rare cases changed completely based on new perspectives, new experiences or evidence to which I had not previously been privy - things that make that which "seemed right" now seem not so right after all.

We'll have to agree to disagree. I still find this statement to be overbroad, conclusory, and incorrect. To invoke Logic 101 again, if this statement is true, then the contrapositive must also be true. The contrapositive is:

To stand against the Klan is to stand against gay marriage.

I know this statement is false.

I'm sure you meant to say that the contrapositive is:

To stand against the Klan is to stand for gay marriage.

And, I'm not convinved that statement is entirely false.

And with that, I can agree to disagree. :)

[littlebluedog]

I did indeed! Thanks. And thanks for the conversation.