Posted by so on July 18, 2005, at 3:07:39
In reply to Re: Bigotry defined, posted by SLS on July 18, 2005, at 2:42:07
> Where do you draw the line? Should lines be drawn? Should political correctness be the driving force behind favoring protection of one phrase over another? Should quantum mechanics be protected with the same vigor as creationism?
>
> When, if ever, does an exercise in logic and semantics lose its relevance to civility?
Consideration of the question of whether creationism should be treated equally with prevailing scientific theories of evolution might not be instructive in this cirumstance. We are not talking about carriculums of public schools where best available scientific evidence, along with respect for cultural traditions should govern what youth are forcibly taught -- we are talking about a private web site, where the primary risk would be harm to individuals who might be vulnerable due to the nature of the site to attract emotionally vulnerable guests.In public administration, consistency is usually a preferred approach. Inconsistent administration of policies erodes confidence in policy.
However, other doctrines advocate arbitrary application of power. Sect. of State James Baker is said to have asserted the value of arbitrary application of power by a superpower as a means of keeping opponent wary in the face of unpredicatble power. I would imagine a Web site administrator with nobody but himself to answer to could be torn between the advantages of capricious administration that keeps a group wary of intervention, and consistent administration, which would tend to promote compliance by building confidence in policies. Arbitrary administration might be tempting as a means of protecting group cohesion, but it could as well be harmful to individuals how might be upset and feel victimized by policies intended to protect an inspecific group at the expense of any individual member.
In the case of calling members of a particular religion creepy in the context of this site, the looming question for a psychiatrist who said "so far I let those go" is "why?". Is it because members of that religion really are creepy? Am I creepy?
Or is it because the administrator has already determined that it is his opinion that members of that faith system lack social value?
If he holds a negative opinion of scientology because it routinely challenges his profession, and he values his own opinion more than he values consistent administration of policies he has established, perhaps he needs to re-evaluate how he values his own opinions versus the commitments he has made to a group through publication of administrative guidelines.
poster:so
thread:529057
URL: http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/admin/20050716/msgs/529415.html