Sanity Check
Aug. 4th, 2007 11:30 am![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
pasitheaSo... Yesterday I listened to a story on EscapePod.org titled, 'Ej-Es'. It'd actually been in my queue for a while but I hadn't gotten to it. I rather recommend it. It's one of those things that's choc full of moral ambiguity and really makes you think. I really recommend it if you're in for some society-based hard sci-fi. (Come'on. It's a free download!)
Anyhow, one of the few stories I've felt strongly enough about to comment on it. The story is about science versus religion and that invariably sets some people off. Anyhow, I was annoyed by the knee-jerk reaction I got to a rather unimportant part of my comment (I swear for once I wasn't trying to start a fight) Anyhow, I made a longer response to that, which will undoubtedly draw more criticism.
So, I'm kind of looking for a sanity check from friends and asking: Did what I say make sense and sound reasonable or did it sound like the crazy loon I'll invariably be called for having said it?
Link to my comment on forum. The responses are directly beneath. Note: Contains some story spoilers.
I'd like to think I sounded sane and reasonably well-written as I felt like I was doing a better-than-average-for-me bit of writing. Particularly the bit with putting Saddam's timeline in perspective with the US timeline and the end bit where I tied the whole thing back to the story comparing Reagan's handling of the AIDs epidemic to the medics' handling of the plague on this world and at the same time, driving home my counter to his rather irrelevant comment.
The entire point of the story was considering moral relativism. I was commenting on how we consider one form of religious intolerance 'acceptable' and another 'unacceptable' though both were founded on people doing harm to themselves. That's the very meat of the story. I was trying not to pass judgement on any religion or government (for a change) but I feel that in trying to discuss moral relativism, I am expected to chose a side, and in responding most people will say I have.
Anyhow, one of the few stories I've felt strongly enough about to comment on it. The story is about science versus religion and that invariably sets some people off. Anyhow, I was annoyed by the knee-jerk reaction I got to a rather unimportant part of my comment (I swear for once I wasn't trying to start a fight) Anyhow, I made a longer response to that, which will undoubtedly draw more criticism.
So, I'm kind of looking for a sanity check from friends and asking: Did what I say make sense and sound reasonable or did it sound like the crazy loon I'll invariably be called for having said it?
Link to my comment on forum. The responses are directly beneath. Note: Contains some story spoilers.
I'd like to think I sounded sane and reasonably well-written as I felt like I was doing a better-than-average-for-me bit of writing. Particularly the bit with putting Saddam's timeline in perspective with the US timeline and the end bit where I tied the whole thing back to the story comparing Reagan's handling of the AIDs epidemic to the medics' handling of the plague on this world and at the same time, driving home my counter to his rather irrelevant comment.
The entire point of the story was considering moral relativism. I was commenting on how we consider one form of religious intolerance 'acceptable' and another 'unacceptable' though both were founded on people doing harm to themselves. That's the very meat of the story. I was trying not to pass judgement on any religion or government (for a change) but I feel that in trying to discuss moral relativism, I am expected to chose a side, and in responding most people will say I have.
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
(no subject)
Date: 2007-08-07 07:51 pm (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2007-08-07 07:52 pm (UTC)