Obligation to Justify What You Label Your Beliefs (or Lack Thereof)

[SalixIncendium]

If you apply a popular label to your beliefs (or lack thereof), should you be required to justify applying said label to those who hold different beliefs? Furthermore, should you have to validate the definition of that label to that same group of people?

Why or why not?

Alternately, if you apply such a label to your beliefs (or lack thereof), should you have to justify this application to those who hold different views of the same belief and challenge your label application?

Again, why or why not?

Is it justified for @Sunstone to label my fashion sense 'deplorable' or 'atrocious?'

Again, why or why not?

 

[Audie]

If someone wants to try to convince me of their
views, but cannot provide any basis for it,
well, dont bother.

 

[SalixIncendium]

If someone wants to try to convince me of their
views, but cannot provide any basis for it,
well, dont bother.

Indeed.

But what if someone just tells you, "I'm a(n) _________." Do you reserve the right to challenge their application of that label to their beliefs or what they believe or disbelieve with your definition of or interpretation of that label?

Are they obligated to substantiate their application of that label to you?

 

[Windwalker]

If you apply a popular label to your beliefs (or lack thereof), should you be required to justify applying said label to those who hold different beliefs?

No. Who appointed them the standard bearers of the meaning of the label?

Furthermore, should you have to validate the definition of that label to that same group of people?

Only if you imagine they hold the truth of what that label means. Only if you give the power of the meaning of the term over to them.

Alternately, if you apply such a label to your beliefs (or lack thereof), should you have to justify this application to those who hold different views of the same belief and challenge your label application?

If you feel you have to justify it to them, then you assume they have the power of decision over you. Why you would do that, is a question between yourself and your psychotherapist.

Is it justified for @Sunstone to label my fashion sense 'deplorable' or 'atrocious?'

Again, why or why not?

He has been known to be the standard-bearer of good fashion sense, so yes. Bow to his keen eyes and reference to his complementary color charts.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

If you apply a popular label to your beliefs (or lack thereof), should you be required to justify applying said label to those who hold different beliefs? Furthermore, should you have to validate the definition of that label to that same group of people?

Why or why not?

Alternately, if you apply such a label to your beliefs (or lack thereof), should you have to justify this application to those who hold different views of the same belief and challenge your label application?

Again, why or why not?

On the one hand ...

'Would you tell me please,' said Alice, 'what that means?'

'Now you talk like a reasonable child,' said Humpty Dumpty, looking very much pleased. 'I meant by "impenetrability" that we've had enough of that subject, and it would be just as well if you'd mention what you mean to do next, as I suppose you don't mean to stop here all the rest of your life.'

'That's a great deal to make one word mean,' Alice said in a thoughtful tone.

'When I make a word do a lot of work like that,' said Humpty Dumpty, 'I always pay it extra.'

'Oh!' said Alice. She was too much puzzled to make any other remark.

- Through the Looking Glass by Lewis Carroll​

On the other hand ...

If you insist on using a term in a way that is controversial you are obfuscating rather than communicating. And, yes. you have every right to do so.

Is it justified for @Sunstone to label my fashion sense 'deplorable' or 'atrocious?'

Again, why or why not?

Some labels are noncontroversial.

 

[idav]

If you apply a popular label to your beliefs (or lack thereof), should you be required to justify applying said label to those who hold different beliefs? Furthermore, should you have to validate the definition of that label to that same group of people?

Why or why not?

Alternately, if you apply such a label to your beliefs (or lack thereof), should you have to justify this application to those who hold different views of the same belief and challenge your label application?

Again, why or why not?

Is it justified for @Sunstone to label my fashion sense 'deplorable' or 'atrocious?'

Again, why or why not?

Someone could label themselves atheist but if we can’t agree on the term atheist then communicating via a label is not sufficient and needs clarification. We all have seen many endless pages of posts there are when trying to define something as simple as atheism so I’m not sure labels are ever all that sufficient. I think theism labels are more of a gauge.

 

[Sunstone]

I believe people have a right to use words -- including labels -- to mean whatever they want them to mean. However, that right does not superseded their obligation in at least some circumstances to tell the truth, or at least to not mislead.

 

[PureX]

If you apply a popular label to your beliefs (or lack thereof), should you be required to justify applying said label to those who hold different beliefs? Furthermore, should you have to validate the definition of that label to that same group of people?

Why or why not?

Alternately, if you apply such a label to your beliefs (or lack thereof), should you have to justify this application to those who hold different views of the same belief and challenge your label application?

Again, why or why not?

Is it justified for @Sunstone to label my fashion sense 'deplorable' or 'atrocious?'

Again, why or why not?

The function of language depends on our mutual understanding and agreement on the terms being used. So I would say that yes, we should and must be held accountable, by others, for the words we use and what we mean by them.

 

[SalixIncendium]

Someone could label themselves atheist but if we can’t agree on the term atheist then communicating via a label is not sufficient and needs clarification. We all have seen many endless pages of posts there are when trying to define something as simple as atheism so I’m not sure labels are ever all that sufficient. I think theism labels are more of a gauge.

Once someone clarifies, is it the right of another to tell that individual that their definition of that label is incorrect and to go as far as calling that individual a fraud?

 

[SalixIncendium]

The function of language depends on our mutual understanding and agreement on the terms being used. So I would say that yes, we should and must be held accountable, by others, for the words we use and what we mean by them.

What if such an understanding and between two individuals agreement cannot be reached? Should they continue to argue the point until such point one becomes exasperated, throws up his/her hands, and simply walk away?

 

[idav]

Once someone clarifies, is it the right of another to tell that individual that their definition of that label is incorrect and to go as far as calling that individual a fraud?

No I am not a fan of the no true Scotsman fallacy. There are many versions of Hinduism, pantheism, atheism etc but for communications sakes we ought to have some semblance of what certain terms mean.

 

[PureX]

What if such an understanding and between two individuals agreement cannot be reached? Should they continue to argue the point until such point one becomes exasperated, throws up his/her hands, and simply walk away?

Communication with others is optional. Part of wanting to communicate is being willing to open ourselves up to the ideas of others. If all we want to do is 'be right', what is the point of our communicating with others at all? To tell them how right we are? Why should they care?

I think we can be right, or we can be open to others, but we can't be both. Communication requires of us that we be open to the ideas and views of others, and they to us. If we're not willing to do that, then there isn't much point in engaging in it.

 

[stvdv]

13 jun 2018 stvdv 011 15

Once someone clarifies, is it the right of another to tell that individual that their definition of that label is incorrect and to go as far as calling that individual a fraud?

Freedom of Speech means to me freedom "to share personal views about myself". Others use it "to share personal views about others.".

When all share their personal view about themself, the ones listening and smart will pickup themselves what is useful to them
No need to stuff it through their throat. And this more gentle approach works much better most of the time IMO and IME.

 

[George-ananda]

If you apply a popular label to your beliefs (or lack thereof), should you be required to justify applying said label to those who hold different beliefs? Furthermore, should you have to validate the definition of that label to that same group of people?

Why or why not?

Required to?, of course not.

As I claim my beliefs were come to by rational processes, I love to discuss it though. (That's why I'm here every day) And as I am not a fundamentalist, my approach is to bridge the differences.

 

[Nakosis]

Indeed.

But what if someone just tells you, "I'm a(n) _________." Do you reserve the right to challenge their application of that label to their beliefs or what they believe or disbelieve with your definition of or interpretation of that label?

Sure, I reserve the right to question anyone about anything.
Doesn't mean I will, doesn't mean I won't.

Are they obligated to substantiate their application of that label to you?

Nope, I see it more as a courtesy.

 

[PureX]

Once someone clarifies, is it the right of another to tell that individual that their definition of that label is incorrect and to go as far as calling that individual a fraud?

That depends. There are some word definitions that have become very common, but that make little logical sense even in context, like saying "gay" the one means "homosexual".

Some arguments could be made about the logical validity of many of the words that people choose to use, and those words might sometime be used, deliberately, to mislead us. So it's not beyond the realm of reason that one person would reject someone else's usage of a word, and label it deliberately misleading.

 

[Avoice1C]

If you apply a popular label to your beliefs (or lack thereof), should you be required to justify applying said label to those who hold different beliefs? Furthermore, should you have to validate the definition of that label to that same group of people?

Why or why not?

Alternately, if you apply such a label to your beliefs (or lack thereof), should you have to justify this application to those who hold different views of the same belief and challenge your label application?

Again, why or why not?

Is it justified for @Sunstone to label my fashion sense 'deplorable' or 'atrocious?'

Again, why or why not?

If I tell you I am a Christian and you question my assertion, don't you have to have a deep working knowledge of Christianity and grace therein?

 

[SalixIncendium]

Sure, I reserve the right to question anyone about anything.
Doesn't mean I will, doesn't mean I won't.

I intentionally used the word 'challenge' in my query, as I see it to have a different meaning than 'question.'

For me, to challenge some is to claim knowledge to dispute the universal validity one's claim, whereas to question is to interrogate to arrive at a determination validity to one's claim.

Are you viewing these as meaning the same thing?

Using my definitions above, do you still feel it is your right in challenging the application of how one labels oneself?

 

[SalixIncendium]

If I tell you I am a Christian and you question my assertion, don't you have to have a deep working knowledge of Christianity and grace therein?

It would certainly be helpful, yes. Even more so to challenge your assertion. That said, there are many non-Christians that have a deep working knowledge of Christianity and grace therein, so I'm not sure where you question might be leading.

 

[Nakosis]

I intentionally used the word 'challenge' in my query, as I see it to have a different meaning than 'question.'

For me, to challenge some is to claim knowledge to dispute the universal validity one's claim, whereas to question is to interrogate to arrive at a determination validity to one's claim.

Are you viewing these as meaning the same thing?

Using my definitions above, do you still feel it is your right in challenging the application of how one labels oneself?

In some, extreme circumstances, yes. Generally though probably not. Like I wouldn't challenge a Christian or a Muslim, mostly because I feel such labels have very little value.