Friday, June 01, 2007

Two is better than one? Not if you are talking about standards.

Double Standard 1. a rule or principle applied more strictly to some people than to others (or to oneself).
– The Concise Oxford English Dictionary.

I'm not entirely sure I agree. The basis for this definition of double standards seems to be the belief that the validity of a principle is the same for all people and hence its (the principle) application with varying intensity on different people (or classes of people) constitutes double standards (as the term is oft used).

I intend to question the validity of the assumption that a principle is uniformly applicable in all circumstances and to all people. The only principle that I surely know to be applicable to all human beings is that death is a neccessary follow-up to life. I would not propose to suggest that death is caused by life. I'm merely making an observation. All other principles I have heard are made with certain assumptions. When the assumptions are not valid (because they do not represent an accurate portrayal of the situation that is being described), it hardly makes any sense to justify the applicability of the inference.

I have multiple standards: Different standards for different people.
I dont judge people by what they do and how it affects me. I simply judge them by whether they believe in what they do. Ofcourse not everyone gets judged the same. Which is why I'm not horrified when someone steps out of line. I know how to handle them. I am a deviant from society. I know how to handle other deviants. I dont care how you judge me. As long as you dont threaten my life or sanity you are safe. Your opinion of me does not matter to me. What does matter to me is my opinion of you. and that is purely judged by your adherence to your own principles and not because of any differences (percieved or otherwise) between your beliefs and mine.

"Responsible adult", "Mature Professional", "Male Chauvinist", "Overgrown child":

Keep your labels, I have no need for them. I have no use for them. I have no regard for them. I do my work. In the manner I think is right. If you disagree, feel free to continue doing it. But don't do it in my presence unless you can present it a manner where you can list your axioms, your logic and your conclusions. I do not wish to challenge my axioms. I do not wish you to challenge my axioms. I do not wish to challenge your axioms. I do not wish you to challenge yours. On those conditions if we can argue the logic out, please mail me.

If you dont think you have the obligation to explain yourself, please remember that I didnt beg you for it. I merely place it as a precondition. You want to talk with me, you need to explain the rational basis for your conclusions. You want to judge my axioms, you better have your own axioms ready to questioned.

p.s. I know this (or a similar) argument has been used by others before to justify their involvement in what you consider especially disgusting behaviour. If my behaviour comes close to mirrorring that, please feel free to disparage, discredit or even annihilate me. Let my actions be the cause for your anger, hurt or mistrust; not my thoughts or beliefs.