Old writings...

This is something I wrote in January of 2003, ancient history... I can't even remember writing it -- at all. But when I read my past writing, I am always impressed with my ability. I don't know why I can't use this skill to my advangtage in a very great way. Am I so afraid of failure that I can't even try? Why don't I apply for more positions where I can use my writing skill to my advantage?

In fact, in my current position, my writing gives me the greatest sense of satisfaction, whether it's a simple letter or a report, or even if I'm editing someone else's work. I've got to explore this, even if I do it as a hobby to hone my skills and get something done that's productive with the talent I have.

Anyway, here's the passage:

In many debates there is a hearty faction of people who, when presented with facts, data and analysis supporting freedom of choice, interject with the argument "it's just not right".

What does this mean, "it's just not right"? Why is this in itself a valid argument? And why should this argument supersede common sense and statistical analysis?

We all have a sense of right and wrong. But we have the responsibility not to impose our own values on others. Doing so by legal means would take away the right of others to choose for themselves.

We can always teach others our values, and explain to them why a certain action should be considered harmful to themselves or to others, but we cannot make their choice for them. When presented with a debate about moral choices, freedom should be paramount. No one can expect everyone else to think the same way they do, even after we make our argument clear. To do so would clearly exhibit a certain level of conceit.

But to present the argument "it's just not right" and expect everyone to agree with you is simply arrogant. Explain to us why it's not right. And be open to arguments which explain "yes, it's not right, but there are reasons why we need to accept/tolerate/allow it."

Don't be closed minded based on your own sense of moral values. Ofttimes intolerance leads to much more harm than acceptance. Humankind will never, ever agree on every point. Only by allowing for a difference in opinion will we ever learn to get along, to mature as a society and to make efficient progress toward peaceful solutions.

If you're going to argue "it's just not right", back up that argument with facts, not opinion.

This essay is a simple non-specific study on logical reasoning vs. social conditioning. I first posted this on an online forum and the responses were amazing. All the conservatives immediately jumped in with a knee-jerk reaction accusing me of talking about abortion, and other sensitive political issues for which subjective "morality" may be a major argument, without the support of logical reasoning. Yeah, they knew what I was talking about, basically, but it was still amusing to see that they immediately recognized that they do in fact make such unfounded arguments. Meanwhile, the Liberals, and advocates of tolerance realized that this statement transcended specific issues and meant things such as tolerance for conservative beliefs as well.

On one occasion, when being interviewed about my hunger strike in front of the HK Central Government Offices protesting the Education and Manpower Bureau's decision to hire the Society for Truth and Light, a local anti-gay hate group, to teach human rights issues to Hong Kong's educators, I made an important distinction. I was not protesting the Society for Truth and Light. I was protesting the EMB. While I may not agree with Truth and Light's views, I fully support their right to express such views. But in an official context, no group whose views are radical, either ultraconservative, or ultraliberal, should be in a position to teach about rights issues, so the EMB's appointment of T&L was inapporpriate.

I would not close down the Society for Truth and Light, or pass a law prohibiting them from expressing their views. I would choose logical reasoning and social education to teach people why their views might be harmful to society, in the hope that they will naturally be dismissed as extreme, and their impact would therefore be minimized. That is a strong part of what this essay says. We should all be tolerant, and realize that our "it's just not right" may be as wrong as theirs.