Originally posted by DoctorScribbles It sure was, and an easy one to answer.
Too bad you can't compel me to sit in the chair, isn't it?
Too bad.
I'm not going to play word-games, Scribs. You normally show an excellent clarity of thought and logic - and I respect that (whatever the difference in our views).
Some priests are molesters. So are some teachers. So are some fathers.
But the vast majority of priests are good men who do good work and have made many sacrifices in their lives. I respect that too. aardvarkhome's joke did not.
You might find their religious views offensive. You might find the institution they are part of offensive. You might even find the very idea of religion offensive. But that is no reason to discredit them as a class of people; to fail to recognise the good work they do.
Yes, I know it was just a joke. But I found it offensive because I felt it revealed and propogated a prejudice against priests - a prejudice that is completely without merit for the vast majority of them.
Originally posted by bbarr I've heard that most *atheists* like to *feed* and *care* for children, and that the *secular hierarchy* tacitly supports these instances of *general benevolence*.
I believe I can deduce the semantics of your * notation from the context of this thread. Chomsky might say we're dealing with a context-sensitive *grammar*.
I'm not going to play word-games, Scribs. You normally show an excellent clarity of thought and logic - and I respect that (whatever the difference in our views).
Some priests are molesters. So are some teachers. So are some fathers.
But the vast majority of priests are good men who do good work and have made many sacrifices in the ...[text shortened]... ce against priests - a prejudice that is completely without merit for the vast majority of them.
[in cathedra]
I don't believe the majority of priests are molesters.
I do believe jokes about child molesting priests and stereotypes about child molesting priests are valuable.
[ex cathedra]
Originally posted by lucifershammer But I found it offensive because I felt it revealed and propogated a prejudice against priests - a prejudice that is completely without merit for the vast majority of them.
Let us not equate stereotypes with prejudices. They are not the same. One must know when it is appropriate to apply each.
The joke in question was based on a stereotype, not a prejudice.
I will not be held responsible for people forming and holding prejudices based on stereotypical jokes that they hear.
I'm not going to play word-games, Scribs. You normally show an excellent clarity of thought and logic - and I respect that (whatever the difference in our views).
Some priests are molesters. So are some teachers. So are some fathers.
But the vast majority of priests are good men who do good work and have made many sacrifices in the ...[text shortened]... ce against priests - a prejudice that is completely without merit for the vast majority of them.
The joke is a cheap shot at the clergy, in poor taste but, when I was told it, quite funny. I posted it as a wind up in the full expectation that it would cause outrage among the sanctimonious. I was not disappointed.
The church and clergy should not be imune from this kind of thing. The recent cases in the US and Ireland of molestation followed by a long term cover up by the church makes the freedom to say the unsayable essential. If we return to the 1950s were such matters were never aired let alone joked about then the molesters will flourish.
Equally, the religious must be mindful that their pronouncements often cause offence.
Originally posted by DoctorScribbles [in cathedra]
I don't believe the majority of priests are molesters.
I do believe jokes about child molesting priests and stereotypes about child molesting priests are valuable.
[ex cathedra]
Thank you.
Now, a question on stereotypes (and jokes using them) - do you think such stereotypes can be used to create and propogate prejudices against the people being stereotyped? Especially when the stereotypes involve criminal activity?
Now, a question on stereotypes (and jokes using them) - do you think such stereotypes can be used to create and propogate prejudices against the people being stereotyped? Especially when the stereotypes involve criminal activity?
No.
A prejudice manifests itself in the mind of a person.
I cannot compel you to hold a prejudice; I cannot create one in your mind.
I might be able to formulate one, put it on the table for your consideration, persuade you that you should hold it, but if you do, the responsibility lies with yourself, since you alone have final veto power on what you believe.
Nobody really believes that most priests are child molesters, despite the prevalent stereotype.
Originally posted by DoctorScribbles Let us not equate stereotypes with prejudices. They are not the same. One must know when it is appropriate to apply each.
The joke in question was based on a stereotype, not a prejudice.
I will not be held responsible for people forming and holding prejudices based on stereotypical jokes that they hear.
Let us not equate stereotypes with prejudices. They are not the same. One must know when it is appropriate to apply each.
Is there ever an appropriate case to apply a prejudice?
I don't equate the two - but I don't think they are unrelated (especially when the stereotype involves criminal behaviour).
I come from a region of the world where two neighbouring countries (now both nuclear powers), which share a common culture, have been at war for over half a century. Far too many of the people I've met on either side have never met a person from the other country; when they have, they believe they've met the exception rather than the norm. Some of them even seriously hold that a form of the 'Final Solution' is the answer.
The joke in question was based on a stereotype, not a prejudice.
Where does the stereotype end and the prejudice begin?
I will not be held responsible for people forming and holding prejudices based on stereotypical jokes that they hear.
Originally posted by lucifershammer Is there ever an appropriate case to apply a prejudice?
Of course. We all do it every day.
If you browse the employment ads, you are likely to see something like, "College graduates only need apply."
The employer is appropriately pre-judging all people who want the job but are not-educated and finding based on that prejudice that they are not qualified for the position. He is taking a risk that he is missing out on a great potential employee who is an exception, but for that risk what he gains is a greater savings in time in the hiring process. This is a commonplace and rational decision that I don't think you would forbid the employer, but it is an instance of prejudice.
[b]I will not be held responsible for people forming and holding prejudices based on stereotypical jokes that they hear.
Is that not a foreseeable consequence?[/b]
It is a forseeable possibility.
It is also a forseeable possibility that when a gun dealer sells a gun, it will be used for criminal ends. But I don't hold the gun dealer accountable if in fact that possibility is realized.
A prejudice manifests itself in the mind of a person.
I cannot compel you to hold a prejudice; I cannot create one in your mind.
I might be able to formulate one, put it on the table for your consideration, persuade you that you should hold it, but if you do, the responsibility lies with yourself, since you alone have final veto power on w ...[text shortened]... Nobody really believes that most priests are child molesters, despite the prevalent stereotype.
No.
In my experience, they do play their part (see my post above).
A prejudice manifests itself in the mind of a person.
So does a stereotype.
Nobody really believes that most priests are child molesters, despite the prevalent stereotype.
Yes, to smell pork; to eat of the habitation which your prophet the Nazarite conjured the devil into. I will buy with you, sell with you, talk with you, walk with you, and so following, but I will not eat with you, drink with you, nor pray with you. (Shylock in The Taming of the Shrew, Act I, Sc. III)
Was this just a stereotype, or a stereotype that revealed a prejudice?
Originally posted by lucifershammer Yes, to smell pork; to eat of the habitation which your prophet the Nazarit w, Act I, Sc. III)
Was this just a stereotype, or a stereotype that revealed a prejudice?
Revealing a prejudice in one person's mind does not cause that prejudice to manifest itself in another's. It requires the cooperation of the second party. But for the approval of the second party, the prejudice does not propagate.
For example, you can repeat over and over and over again the prejudice that all Popes speak on behalf of God when in the chair, but I won't ever believe it.
Originally posted by DoctorScribbles Revealing a prejudice in one person's mind does not cause that prejudice to manifest itself in another's. It requires the cooperation of the second party. But for the approval of the second party, the prejudice does not propagate.
For example, you can repeat over and over and over again the prejudice that all Popes speak on behalf of God when in the chair, but I won't ever believe it.
That's because you hold the opposite prejudice (that Popes do not speak on behalf of God when "in the chair"😉.
OTOH, if you held no strong views on the matter, or I was a person you trusted and respected, my repeating the prejudice would make you more amenable to adopting the prejudice yourself.
Originally posted by lucifershammer my repeating the prejudice would make you more amenable to adopting the prejudice yourself.
You're mistaken. It would not.
It's a shame that you hold the the rest of mankind's capacity for analysis and reason in such low esteem (unless you meant the hypothetical me specifically). I don't.
Offensive god-less Darwinist joke
17 Sep '05 23:31
Back to Top