You see an open mind, but on SI you are looking into a fish tank. The fish aren't really where they seem to be, in my opinion, and no offense to anyone. Everyone has a parallax view of reality.
Mainstream thought and moral values, whether the topic is religion, sexual orientation, politics, or whatever, developed for a reason. I'm not Jewish, but I understand eating meat from swine is forbidden. At one time, trichinosis was rampant, which for me is a valid reason for declaring swine unclean. Now we have ample safeguards against that, but Jewish people still avoid swine because of their tradition. The original reason is no longer valid, but the ethic remains. That does not make it invalid for Jewish people.
Forgive me if I misrepresented this example. My point is: "Laws and beliefs develop out of a valid reason, or out of necessity."
Open mindedness is relative, depending on where you are standing. Tolerance of off-mainstream values DOES NOT equal open mindedness.
Another example: A few of us took a "test" that was supposed to illuminate conflict in our belief systems. One of the questions asked whether freedom to do what one wished was OK as long as it did not hurt anyone else. Another question had to do with an activity or practice that many object to, but on the surface hurts no one but the person choosing that activity. (It may have been drugs or marijuana, I can't remember.) My answers to those two questions triggered a conflict alert, but in my view there is no conflict. Because, BY DEFINITION, indulging in street drugs is harmful to everybody on the planet, no matter how secretive the user is.
Tolerance of illicit drug use, rape, incest, pedophilia, murder, and derivatives thereof, IS NOT open mindedness. I'm not saying anyone here tolerates these things, just that one person's open-mindedness is another person's bigotry. |
