I've created this new blog to note down those of my ideas, that I feel are notable and interesting. My prime target is myself, so my main aim is not to bore myself.
Being "Right", can be split into two different ways. Firstly, the idea that you are concretely correct and that there is no way to be proved wrong. This is quite rare, but exists for things such as mathematics, where we can say that if X + 1 = 2, then x = 1. There is no way to disprove the statement and the statement is set in stone, as being valid.
The second way, is what I refer to as being 'socially right'. This is the sense, that given rationality on all parts, your statement, whilst can be disagreed with, is almost impossible to outright dimiss. In other words, you can't be wrong, and opponents technically have no way of finding a weakness in the statement. A quick analogy would be the Martin Luther King Jr's campaign. If it went violent, they would start being 'wrong' and people could quickly criticize on it. By remaining peaceful, opponents have no ammunition to use on the offensive and if they then go aggressive, they will be quickly turned against, given rational behavior on all sides.
I personally am an anti-theist so let's say I was to make the statement: "All Christians are stupid". This statement has weaknesses crawling all over. Firstly, it's a vast generalization. I have implied that *all* Christians have a similar characteristic, which is not likely. I am also being derogatory and have suggested that I discriminate and treat people badly because they are christian. There's also the vagueness of the word 'stupid' which is difficult to define. Finally, the statement is an absolute; if they were to find a single contradiction, the statement would fall apart. Now people could easily judge me based on such a statement, and fairly retaliate towards it, because in this statement, I am not 'being right'.
Lets change the statement:
"I dislike Christianity"
So to analyze this statement. I have used the first person, 'I' which means I acknowledge this is my opinion, and have not presented it as a fact. I have not made any generalizations and I have said nothing about people in general. Whilst people could read into the statement, and believe that I dislike Christians, they have no real basis. I basically just expressing my freedom of speech, and informed others of my dislike towards a certain thing. To a rational person, they will not be able realistically retaliate because the statement has no weakness. It is 'right' by 'never being wrong'.
Moving on from this, let us consider a scenario. Knowing that I dislike Christianity, let's say that I am informed that there are two people in danger, and I can only save one. With no information other than one is a Christian and the other is not, what can I say, being careful to be 'right'?
If you were to follow my mindset, logically the idea that the I should save the non christian makes sense. Overall they have not believed in something I view negatively. Saving the non christian, would be the 'logical' decision. However we now need to consider: is this 'right'? Whilst logically it makes some level of sense, it is not morally valid. The decision has flaws as it is allowing my prejudice to take over which is a weakness. Thus whilst the 'right' thing to do, would really be to flip a coin and choose which one to save.
Anyway, from using the above statements, I can create a general list of things that are socially 'right'. Even if people dislike me for the statement, they may still respect it as just a personal opinion, as long as I don't discriminate based on it.
One example statement that I believe in would perhaps be:
"I don't believe in feminism"
Whilst no doubt the view will receive 'sexist!' retaliation, the view can be perfectly explained without being 'wrong#. If one considers, they might realize that whilst I dislike feminism, this does not mean I do not want gender equality. Even if people claim that feminism directly promotes such, I have still have room for response. I have not at all implied that I am against women improving their quality of life, just that this 'feminism' is not one close to my heart. I haven't insulted anyone so there is no real justification for serious retaliation. And if they do take things to far, perhaps going to insult me, then *they* are in the wrong, as they have created a provocation. I have simply expressed my opinion. The actual reason for the statement, is that the statement is generally 'wrong' as it does not consider the situations when men are 'oppressed' (no matter how supposedly uncommon this is) and that many feminists take things a step to far, no longer being civilized and giving reason for retaliation.
