Saving this comment space for a full reply as it’s dinner time.

But, so that I can leave it off later - I’m not going to give an account of direct perception. That’s not relevant. If there is no direct perception for humans, then that’s the case. We need not a comparator.

The reply we are both referring to in turn here, is the one you have quoted. The passage is here:

It would have been good if either this, or your other conception of the conflict, were actually agree upon in the first pages of this thread. Read together, these two passages end the dispute. I have a feeling even Banno would be shown to be prevaricating on this account of the terms. — AmadeusD

Said where? — Luke

The point being, this wasn't to impugn anything particular you've said. I meant precisely what was said there - that an agreement on one or other of the (precedingly-quoted) conceptions you used could have prevented a huge amount of waffling in the thread. Banno particularly would probably need to adjust his veracious responses if one or other was nailed to the wall at the outset. It wasn't at you, Just an observation in geenral - and you're still here :P

Could you elaborate or clarify this? I can't make much sense of it. — Luke

Sure - Likely, the use of the word 'new' there could throw one. It was entirely erroneous.
The dispute i'm here calling 'dumb', can probably be understood by my cleaning up what I said:

(the dispute consists in) whether the inclusion fact that real world objects at the initiation initiate the process of of the process of perception constitutes a “directness” requires required for DR to make any sense. But it doesn’t viz. the fact that 'perception' the process, is initiated by an external, real-world object does not negate the several way-points that prevent our 'perceptions' i.e perceptual experiences being of the real-world object. It seems to me, that negation is required for DR to make any sense. There is no way to pretend that the perceptual experience is 'direct' in any sense other that it is an immediate apprehension of representations. If that's what a DR means, I think that would undercut the entire debate and reduce it to literally a problem of stubborn people (may be) misusing words.

Where did I say that our perceptions are of representations? — Luke

My position is that our perceptual experience typically represents real world objects. That is, our perceptual experience is typically of real world objects; we typically perceive real world objects. The perceptual experience is the representation. — Luke

^^ this seems to indicate, if one cuts through the grammar, to indicate from the bolded that position.. Unless there's some smuggling of the object into the mind going on in the intervening lines?

I see no inconsistency in maintaining that although the content of our perceptual experiences consists of representations, those perceptual experiences are of real world objects. — Luke

While I outright reject that there's no inconsistency between the two notions, this also seems to indicate the same. If the experience consists in a representation, it can't be a direct experience of an object. That much seems modally true. This, as noted, presents the exact problem my lament referred to.

If the above position is truly your position, this is, as best I can tell, an indirect realist position, with the line "Well, it a direct experience via representation" tacked to the end. I wasn't asking at the time, but it would be interesting to here how this can be made sense of. If i may quote myself:

If that's what a DR means, I think that would undercut the entire debate and reduce it to literally a problem of stubborn people (may be) misusing words. — AmadeusD

Both positions mean our perceptual experiences aren't of objects, but representations, no matter which tid bit is appended to that.

The dispute is over what our perceptual experiences are of, and whether they are of real world objects or are of representations of real world objects. Direct realists claim that our perceptual experiences are of real world objects. Indirect realists claim that our perceptual experiences are of representations of real world objects. — Luke

It’s possible my reply to you didn’t land because this was directly addressed, in relation to at least one other commenter. I invite you to reread what I’ve said there :)

It might be the naive realists' view that physical objects are in our minds, but I'm not defending naive realism — Luke

My response doesn’t suggest this of you :)

To describe what is part or is not part of the content of a perceptual experience--what is included in the experience--says nothing about whether that perceptual experience is of a real world object or is of a representation of a real world object. — Luke

Oh, but it does. And we’ve been doing so over these pages. One of the deeeper (and imo dumber) disputes has been whether the new inclusion of real world objects at the initiation of the process of perception constitutes a “directness” requires for DR to make any sense. But it doesn’t.

I see no inconsistency in maintaining that although the content of our perceptual experiences consists of representations, those perceptual experiences are of real world objects. — Luke

Then I couldn’t know what to say. This directly contradicts your earlier assertion that our perceptions are if representations. You are now doing exactly what my reply insinuated we could have avoided across the thread.

This is the claim made by indirect realists, not by direct realists. — Luke

It is not. My comment stands.

Not really. We’re presented with perverse incentives to purchase, but that’s more a matter of individual will.

when anyone claims to "understand" Nietzsche, I try not to make eye contact and slowly walk away. — Arne

:lol: Very real

But mostly, I believe that the dispute between direct realists and indirect realists concerns whether or not we have direct perceptions/perceptual experiences of real world objects — Luke

I also believe that a real world object is not part of a perception, and that only a representation of a real world object is part of a perception. I don't have physical (real world) objects in my mind; only representations of them. — Luke

It would have been good if either this, or your other conception of the conflict, were actually agree upon in the first pages of this thread. Read together, these two passages end the dispute. I have a feeling even Banno would be shown to be prevaricating on this account of the terms.

The reason for this is that, on my reading of the entire 35 pages, no one has been capable or even willing to deny the underlined above - but a swathe are still clinging to Direct Realism as if committing to the above account wasn't a fatal blow to DR. On the other hand, if the second conception:

whether or not we have direct awareness of our perceptions/perceptual experiences — Luke

Were the true dispute, viz. If DR amounted merely to a claim of 'direct perception of representations' it would be a useless term - a fig leaf.

Right, let's just ignore how the CIA literally trained the members of the al-Qaeda and the rise of ISIS was a direct consequence of Obama's policy. Stuff just happens for no reason. — Lionino

It wasn't a rational thing to do. You seem to want to be in this category of rationalising 9/11. That is your choice.

Being anti-USA enough to think that 9/11 can be rationalised is (particularly in light of the intervening years and what effect they ahve had on the region) to say the least, a random view to take.

while that country's people is completely subject to international corporations and Israel — Lionino

Nevermind.

I would suppose that I should not be referred to as 'your guy' in any sense that I am aware of. That turn of phrase seems like the pretentious equivalent of 'bruh'. But yes, quite serious. Is the entire universe not enough evidence? How do you define evidence? — Chet Hawkins

Are you serious, my brethren?

I have only begun to preen. The lightning and the thunder are coming soon. But, no, alas, I am only a humble philosopher, loving wisdom, and trying to help others understand what wisdom is, as many seem to have quite typical and pointless erroneous impressions of what it is. Of course, I admit freely that I am one such, just with less relative error than many and most in my asserted model. — Chet Hawkins

Im now simply happy to say the size of your ego is impressive.

Why bother to respond at all? — Chet Hawkins

Responses to your posts, from my estimation, are largely signals to other posters.

He goes on to say: — 013zen

I can't make a huge amount from those passages. I realise Frege is who he is in the history of Phil and particularly language use. So, may i despair a little...

:ok:

Have either of you read Process and Reality by Alfred North Whitehead?
You're coming eerily close to his method of trying to ascertain a moral calculation, though the entire book merely sets the 'staging'. Im sure his other works take it further.

Yankees and the Soviets used and abused the Middle East for a long, long time before nine eleven happened. And then they play victim. Whatever the motivation was, it is evil through and through. — Lionino

Anything that tries to rationalise 9/11 probably shouldn't be taken very seriously.

It was not a rational event, or action to take.

Deepak is not serious either, but as in a serious person. — Lionino

Oh, I see what you mean. Perhaps. I've spoken to him extremely briefly and he came across pretty robust, but wrong.

I also have no clue what this means. — Lionino

I think he's trying to say that perceiving reality pre-supposed reality, so the Cogito is a step ahead of establishing 'existence'.

I think this is a red-herring though.

two more pop up. — Lionino

Ah piss.

Nietzsche is not much to my taste, why do you dislike him? — Tom Storm

He comes across, to me, like an Emo lyricist of the 19th Century. It's mainly just him wallowing in his own filth and projecting on others. Not much philosophy in it. I can't get through more than a handful of pages without laughing out loud at how he is considered:
1. A philosopher;
2. Important; and
3. Interesting.

Though, I freely admit some of my bias against him is watching a number of my peers (in our late teens) get into to Nietzsche, become and remain insufferably narcissistic wankers who can't have a conversation without saying something extremely obtuse and pretending you're too dumb to get it. Which is what Nietzsche did, mostly. It got worse when they went to Uni and all the stupid uni kids were doing the exact same thing because they didn't realise the world existed outside of their parents ideas until then.
My account of this is that they are just not thinking properly. They seem to get to tier 2 of 10 and go "yep, I like those words, and it supports my broody, self-obsessed personality so, nice".

I would say this is generally true of adherents :P
I've never met a Kantian that thinks Kant is wrong, or a Humean that thinks Hume is wrong. lol — 013zen

What about Kantof Hume? Hehehe.

I'd be interested to hear more. I wouldn't say that he's making things up, but he does take himself to be doing something creative. — 013zen

He seems to have basically invented his own use of things like "language" "reality", "thought" and "object" and then run with it, in the same manner he apparently taught his student - everyone else is wrong.

One might then wonder why anyone bothers trying to make sense of it. — Fooloso4

I feeel this might be the most apt statement in this thread :P

I think that Wittgenstein, like any philosopher - or human for that matter - is simply thinking through these problems, and gets some things right and other things wrong. We read other philosophers to try and see how these problems have been handled, and what we can learn from them. — 013zen

I agree. Wittgenstein, though, is not treated this way by the majority of his adherents.

Plus, I was being a little bit more negative - I think he makes less sense than 'some right, some wrong'. He's mostly senseless, making htings up.

:ok:

No one making Deepak Chopra-like claims is serious. — Lionino

Except Deepak? hehe

A parochial example of where Sex and Gender come apart - and it matters.

This minister is using trans people as a political football here. It's 'despicable' is his words.
Someone who admits they squirmed their way into their portfolio, for ideological reasons, isn't even the standard dishonest politician. They are a liar.

I present to you, the universe. THAT is my evidence. — Chet Hawkins

Are you serious my guy?

offer that the one-eyed man is not in fact considered king in the land of blind. He is put away and thought of as insane. — Chet Hawkins

Your self image is a rather impressive edifice

Reason is fear. Confidence is anger. Who 'wins' when they battle? What of passion as well? — Chet Hawkins

Oh, interesting. :)

I am an antinatalist. I suppose providing ultimate joy would be cool but eradication is a safer bet

oh. I see…

Are you suggesting that "only" those "experiencing it" can grasp the moral character of "it"? And even if that is correct, what is the basis by which their grasp of the moral character of "it" is to be rendered null and void? — Arne

So, this isn't meant to be the usual dig it would be in a face-to-face conversation: Im not 'suggesting' anything - exactly what i wrote is my position. I'll reiterate:

it's moral character exists only in the minds of those experiencing it — AmadeusD

It doesn't exist outside of those minds (directly inferred from the above). It's not a suggestion: the above is my position. Morality does not obtain except as a thought of relation between a sentient observing subject and an action (to be verbose).

I asking for a elucidation of how you view morality obtaining outside of that parameter? Is it an inherent physical property? Is it a non-physical property floating around, or like an aura attached to certain events ? Im not being facetious - I'm interested.

many of Nietzsche's aphorisms are within my muscle memory... — Vaskane

Woah - Has Vaskane deleted his account and become Arne?

Id be interested to hear your take on how Morality exists outside of that context or, more discreetly: What does morality consist in, on your view?

I probably go further than you in thinking that even though it cannot be demonstrated, it is plausible to think that space, time. energy. entropy and causation are human-independently real given what a remarkably coherent synthesis the sciences present. But I also acknowledge there is no definitive measure of plausibility, so... — Janus

Fwiw, even on my slightly adjusted Indirect Realist account, this is still the case.

The law and morality are not the same and whether "evil" is outlawed by the former does not sever it from the latter. — Arne

Hmm, a few things to unpack here. Up-top, it's worth noting that this is not my position - It is my trying to clarify Timothy's. His account seems to suggest the quote you've used. I was pointing it out. I don't think its particualrly consenquential to the disagreemetn we were having anyway - it was just an external possibly objection that Timothy, if he can't make sense of it, might use to review his position. But, i take no position on whether i'm correct.

The absence of natural rights or the absence of law does not cleanse any behavior of its moral character. — Arne

That might be true, but it's moral character exists only in the minds of those experiencing it (on my account/s) so i can't see this as at all relevant. An act, without causal an emotional valence in a sentient being does not have moral character, to me. So, I think it's not true, because of that. But, prima facie, I don't disagree with what you're getting across - i just don't accept objective morality.

Evolution is sentient. The whole universe is. — Chet Hawkins

I think you would need to support this with some pretty exceptionally spectacular empirical evidence.

Even accepting that premise, much of the rest of the post (as example:

How is any 'choice' not somewhat aware? Answer to the aware: It is always aware. — Chet Hawkins

Anger is the honest emotion, 'keeping it real', by demanding that all images, all desires, stay somewhat in tune with objective moral truth. — Chet Hawkins

)

dont make sense in and of themselves. Then, this claim:

It is indeed a very unaware perspective that denies this obvious approach to 'reality'. — Chet Hawkins

It isn't obvious to any but a few who take that line of thinking. Being convinced of something does not make it so. This theory may feel good to you, but it is not something all-together coherent. Particularly when my opening remarks are take into account - No support for the premise is a big problem. I'm not going to get into the Morality issue - you've spent thousands of words explaining that you do not operate on the level others do.

I really don't think this issue involves morality. That is one of the chief problems I have with almost every activist I've ever encountered in any medium. Morality, usually, doesn't matter to solving the problem of reducing numbers of victims of whatever it is..

I saw half of your comment. Probably good you deleted it, but I'd like to say: ignoring the hyperbolic language, I think you merely let yourself say you true feelings. And for that, I hi-five you.

That’s too bad, I did. And though you can refuse it and pretend I didn’t, I’ll still be there granting you the right and defending it. — NOS4A2

Hehe, this is a two way street. And that fact (illustrated in a moment) provides me ample evidence that your position is not stable: You can claim this all you want, but you have no authority or standing to do so. That is entirely the crux of why you are wrong. You are inventing, out of thin air, an institution that doesn't exist. "rights conferred by NOS4A2" is nonsense, and you know it. Your ideals don't matter to anyone else but you. No one accepts your 'rights'. Therefore, they convey and confer nothing but your opinion on another person. Try 'conferring' a right counter to the Law in your locale.

Start small. Give your neighbor the right to borrow your lawnmower, or something. — NOS4A2

That would be a dispensation (though, that's a somewhat imprecise word - trying not to employ legalese). If he's borrowing something of mine, he has no right to it. I have abrogated my legal property rights to him, temporarily which gives him what's called "effective control" where I live. Conferring a right is not something I personally have the power to either effect, or enforce. It is a result, entirely, of the Law which I allows me to abrogate my legal right to another person. You can also do this via 'nominee' when entering into a contract. My wants and needs are secondary to whether or not i legally can abrogate my rights in such a way. I concede, though, there is a second level to this - certain rights can be conferred by the right-holder, by proscription of legal right in the first instance. Meaning, my ability to confer that right is express within the right which I actually have had conferred upon my by the granting authority.
There are several that I cannot do this with (depending on Jurisdiction, the majority of them). Your logic seems to suggest I can also do away with my own rights, at my own leisure. That, in the vast majority of cases, is not true, on either of our accounts it seems.

Might makes right. Or was it the best and brightest make rights? I can’t say I’m a big fan of social Darwinism either way, but limiting social power in favor of state power is the going rate, so you’re not entirely in bad company. — NOS4A2

I'm not entirely sure what the quip underlying this passage is, so If i'm making a fool of myself, fine... They are not, on my view, very much related. Social 'power' is a power separated from legal power. Rights, are not social entities other than to the extent a legal proscription causes certain behaviours. But, that's an externality to the authority conferring a right of whatever kind.

That is odd. Philosophers have been expounding and conferring rights long before any politician, bureaucrat, or jurist has codified them. Hell, some constitutions weren’t created until the disco era. Perhaps society is just a thief. — NOS4A2

While I am somewhat sympathetic to the line you're taking, no. No one but an authority has conferred any rights, ever. Philosophers have discussed them, and pretended to them (in the face of an enforcing authority which does not recognise them). Think: Why did Socrates drink the hemlock ;) There are no other rights. There are ideals. Even 'natural rights' only ever come into being once codified by an authority. The argument that they are derived from some universal, i reject, but even if that were true, the rights themselves are formal enunciations of 'natural ideals' for lack of a better term.

Yet I just granted you the right to free speech — NOS4A2

You absolutely did no such thing, in any sense of that word. If this is your conception of a 'right' I'd just say you're wrong and move on.. What you actually did was tell me you would do what you are now claiming you did do, and that was not to 'confer a right'. It was to act according to your moral outlook. That's fine. It is not a right, and you've conferred nothing on me. So, this was predictably lacking in anything establishing a right.

It is an opinion derived from argument and evidence, all of which attests to the merits of rights. — NOS4A2

Yet, it remains your personal, emotionally-informed opinion. It doesn't do anything but tell me that. I happen to agree on the 'merit' of enforceable rights, too. Says nothing for the disagreement we're having though.

If you have better arguments and better evidence in favor of, say, censorship or theft or kidnapping — NOS4A2

I literally have no clue what you are talking about. You're telling me that rights are derived from some objective, universal 'human nature'. This request has nothing to do with my objection to that.
I've not even tangentially made an argument 'against free speech'. I have no idea where you got that from.

The “universal” I’m talking about simply means the right ought to apply to everyone. — NOS4A2

Then you now seem to have dropped your initial claim. I agree, the right to free speech should be afforded everyone.

Yes, I’m an absolutist. Everyone should have the right to say what they want. Would you censor him? — NOS4A2

I would not. Again, it wasn't a 'gotcha'. I'm just interested - some of your responses have given different impressions. We seem to have similar values. I just reject your premise that rights exist outside of law (or analogous enforcement).

Until there is a law, however, that belief is nothing more than a belief there should be a law, or a right recognized by law. — Ciceronianus

:ok:

Just chiming in - To me, Hegel is ridiculous, pompous and barely says anything interesting, in my opinion. it is no wonder he inspired some of the most insipid, nonsense-laden philosophy of the following centuries. Even people who love his work seem to all devolve, eventually into "Maybe he was just talking shit..." and yeah, he clearly was. His self-aggrandizement may have been his biggest obstacle.

I believe they would find a way to instantaneously eradicate all sentient life. We wouldn't know or care. Nothing would happen from our perspective.

You seem to be hung up on the idea of enforcement, but no natural rights theorists claim that natural rights cannot be violated, it's that they should not be violated. — Count Timothy von Icarus

This confuses me. I don't think that, haven't said that. Enforceability is what i've talked about. Not non-violability. A right wouldn't be a right if it wasn't violable. It would just be a state of affairs. A right is predicated on something being either given, or refused (i.e you have a right to 'something' or a right for others to not 'something'..). In this way, (and this is purely for your clarity) a right could only exist as a violable assertion of normative value.

The natural right then is something you can point to when justifying political action. E.g. "we are justified in revolting and demanding a constitution because the king keeps violating natural rights," or "this new bill should not be passed because it allows the state to violate natural rights." — Count Timothy von Icarus

Which, as I have mentioned, is entirely incoherent. It makes a claim that doesn't stand up to anything at all, best I can tell being "violates natural rights". Err, you're gonna need to justify THAT.

So, "children categorically have a right not to be sold off as sex slaves," is a bridge to far for you because it wouldn't be relativistic enough? — Count Timothy von Icarus

While this is actually exactly counter to what I had said (my quote is charging NOS with being too relativistic), I am currently of the view that, while I could personally tell someone I thought what they were doing was wrong (this, if you need, can be that they want to sell their child into the sex trade) for x, y and z reasons but I have no right to enforce that opinion on them.
That's a bad example though, because I could defend removing the child from the scenario for other reasons than disagreeing with the vendor.

And why stop the relativism at individual cultures and societies? Why not let it apply to the level of individual communities or even individuals? — Count Timothy von Icarus

It does. hehe.

But then why is the "society" the proper dividing line for determining when relativism should kick in? Natu — Count Timothy von Icarus

Because that's where people have to get along. It would be counter to the aim of society (ie, practical, not moral) not to co-operate. So relativism has to breakdown here, to enable things like regulation to take any reasonable shape. This is basically business acumen at this point.

Society dictates rights? I’ve only seen men dictate rights. — NOS4A2

That's odd. Almost all modern sets of rights are come to by deliberation among, what are meant to be, the best and brightest of that society. Which goes to the next point too...

By “society” I assume you mean men in power. But it isn’t true, in any case, that only some men can confer rights. — NOS4A2

I disagree, and see no evidence to the contrary. More than open to it - but I would just be ready for it to be lacking, as this is, in fact, where rights come from presently.

And if you allow only politicians and lawyers the power to grant rights you make of yourself a slave or serf or some other subordinate, at any rate a sorry figure. — NOS4A2

It's not up to me, If i am to take part in society. I think perhaps you think you're not subject to society's policies?

The language faculties are universal. The right to free speech itself has been battle-tested in its own arena, put to the grindstone of trial and error over thousands of years, and has proven itself morally right and socially valuable both in argument and in practice. — NOS4A2

While I totally accept, and find reasonable this take, it is nothing but your personal opinion of the states of affairs previously seen in the world. The 'right to free speech' isn't absolute, anywhere, really. So, what's the "universal" you're talking about? It doesn't seem to obtain. It appears we, at least, value free speech to the same level, if not for hte same reasons.

Yes, anyone who doesn’t confer the right to free speech on others and defend everyone’s right to speak is wrong. — NOS4A2

I'm somewhat surprised, but I suppose given your position in this thread I shouldn't be. I just didn't take you as this type of thinker. Interesting. I'm fine with you feeling that way, as it goes.
Would you say that someone should have the right to call another person (who, aesthetically fits the description) a "Big, fat gay n***a" as a derogatory term intended to harm the person's psyche? This is not a gotcha, I just wanted an example that the answer to would be a clear commitment one way or the other.

But the general practice exists in all social animals — Vera Mont

You are seriously suggesting that non-sentient animals have 'rights and obligations' rather than autonomous reactive behaviours limited by the survival tactics of the species? Interesting.

I also don't rule it out, nor would I personally find it unnerving to actually find evidence that such is the case. — noAxioms

Nice. Similarly, myself.

Was the group’s push for you to conform an example of ‘hive-mind’? — Joshs

It certainly appeared to be. My unwillingness to acquiesce to what I saw as genuinely horrible in-group policies (one particularly pernicious example in this (very gay) space was the insistence that it's a worthwhile endeavour to try to 'turn' straight guys) resulted in everything, and including physical (albeit, inadequate) persuasion, shall be say.

They basically have thought themselves into a corner. If they are unable to see the world through your eyes, you become a danger to them. — Joshs

(imagine i quoted that whole passage) That is pretty much precisely my feeling, but with a little added socialisation problem. Its a self-reinforcing group attribute to be this way. The opinion of hte group keeps your bound to this mode of thinking.

I dont believe in the concept of hive-mind, brain-washing or mindless conformity. People don’t blindly introject ideas from others. — Joshs

While I would reduce the effectiveness of this to a low proportion of the relevant occasions, I have seen this happen in real-time, so i can't agree entirely.

it is not because they are being blindly led by the hive-mind — Joshs

At a point, I think it is not reasonable to think otherwise, myself. That 100 people who are geographically-bound, and are all gay (i.e less than 5% of people to begin with) all thinking and feeling the same way is just 'the natural course' is bizarre and unsupportable to my mind.

they have gravitated to that group based on the fact that they have, as individuals, already arrived at that way of thinking. — Joshs

I reject this. Most people find groups because they don't know what to think. And this i see daily across society, at every level. I see this happening in real-time constantly. Some proportion of people in this situation likely do what you've desribed, and become the thought leaders of the group, or create their own, as the case may be. Most do not have teh mental strength and primacy of individuation to be this kind of robust personality among many similar (on my view).

Once you dig beneath the surface , you’ll find all sorts of splits in ideology among members of the same group. — Joshs

Generally, these are minimal and lead to schisms or outright rejections of certain members. The snake always eats its tail. So, while I agree, this actually goes to my point, I think. It is not true that groups of special interest affinity include those of differing political bents. There are no groups within the gay community in which Douglas Murray and Queer Eye are considered on teh same level.

y impression is that you have strong convictions and values yourself, and that there are issues where you blame others for their moral failings as seen from your perspective. — Joshs

This does not strike me as at all how i approach these matters. I judge behaviour. I don't give a piss what your morals are - morals are useless for me to assess you. Your actions will tell me what I need to know, in light of my own morals. And in that way, there is no 'blame'. I blame people for being assholes. Nothing so high-falutin' as a moral disagreement.

You wouldn’t be a part of the legal profession unless you believed in a concept of justice that is able to determine guilt and innocence. — Joshs

False - there is no necessity to believe in guilt and 'justice' as they are to be part of the legal profession. I know several local scholars (Ti Lamusse is one example) who got into the law literally to tear it apart. He has failed. But nevertheless.
As it transpires, my wanting to be part of this profession is actually to be entirely sui generis. I would rather not work for a firm, but I have to for at least another six years (though, by that point I hope to be teaching). I don't align myself with any community. I'm unsure where you inferring all this from. Law is not a group of affinity. It is exactly the opposite. We are adversarial and accept every strain of thought, as long as you're not losing your firm money. Simply doing a job doesn't apportion any group membership, other than optically from you, the viewer.

So what makes you different from that gay community who tried to impose their values on you? — Joshs

While you're being extremely thoughtful and respectful, this question strikes me as an absolute nonsense. There is nothing to defend - there is no similarity.

as a standard on the basis of which to judge others. — Joshs

Yes. And there is no issue, or relationship to the group-think, tyranny of opinion we're trying to discuss. Unsure where you were going there... seemed to change subject half-way through to moral disagreements per se.

but if I think someone is giving their opinion on something, but making it sound like a fact, I tend to look for another viewpoint. — Beverley

I just get a little argumentative when people write opinions as facts. — Beverley

This does certainly frame your comportment well. It is likely prudent, but I have no interest in such :)

You're welcome to :)

While I appreciate your very long reply, it is much more of the same platitudinous stuff that doesn't move me.

I think you are wrong, and you've not provided more than a continuing repetition of your position, without much argument. Your points aren't lost on me - they just have nothing to do with the objections i've put out. It does, though, seem as if this is a deep ideological commitment and discussion isn't eaxctly something that moves you either. It seems that your position is essentially one where you've taken other people's positions on as your own, and labeled yourself just so. That isn't my vibe, and I genuinely don't think you're making a reasonable point.
So be it :)

@Beverley In the previous exchange, I point-blank quoted several instances where this was not the case. But it is my choice to interact with you, so I take that on as it comes. Its nothing something you should apologise for. I am merely observing why I navigate your posts with that type of trepidation, and ahve a short fuse for prevarication.

Link is fully live and embedded from my end... ah. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T4yh2NZ0kJw&pp=ygUcYmVuIGhvd2FyZCBlbmQgb2YgdGhlIGFmZmFpcg%3D%3D