I believe you, and its not a crime to go a little off-topic.
Thanks.
But the essence of this thread is (correct me if I'm wrong) how it compares to moden-day storytelling.
Your interpretation of reality, based on your own observations, denies the possibility that anything has changed. That's a personal point of view and some forum members reacted to that.
I probably did imply that it's impossible that anything has changed. I could have been more specific and said that there is a biological component that is not subject to change anytime soon. Human evolution has been an incredibly long process. There's also a philosophical component that is absolutely subject to change. Unlike the biological component, that varies from person to person based on their own thinking. That is the aspect subject to volition. I deliberately avoided that as it's highly controversial. Morality isn't fixed. My morality is different from yours,, which is different from the next person's and it goes on and on. Some people get very agitated if they find out that your morals are quite different from their morals.
Had I gotten into the philosophical aspect, I'd be explaining my private opinions on morality in a public forum. Then it's not private anymore. Do you see what I'm getting at? I don't know if that's such a good idea.
On another forum, if other people want to share their beliefs on philosophy and specifically, the branch of philosophy known as ethics or morality, fine. On the Dallas forum, to say this is my philosophy, this is my morality, well are people here for that? It would appear to me, they're not. I don't want to get into the business of preaching to people. Maybe others see it differently. What do you think?
Which kinda parallels Clayton's idea (when he protected his sister from a certain reputation based on certain rules in a particular society supported by himself) that this reality couldn't change.
I believe that he believed he did the right thing, but it also feels a bit cowardly. He could have supported his sister's decision and deal with the problem - should they arise.
It's awfully difficult for one man to change a whole society. Hypothetically, had Clayton said: There is nothing wrong with anything Jessica has been doing and we're going to show the whole community, or the state of Texas, their beliefs need to be changed because there is nothing scandalous about this", well...good luck with that!
His heart might be in the right place, but I think he'd be biting off more than he could chew. One might say, in this hypothetical situation: "What a brave man! He's standing by his convictions for what he believes to be right. He says there is no shame in Jessica sleeping around in an indiscriminate enough manner that the father of her baby is unknown, and he's right"!
I see the courage in that. I don't see practicality in it though. He may, over time, gradually change some people's opinions and in the meantime, Jessica is going to suffer for it by being publicly humiliated. Ideals are great, but to me that would be idealistic to believe he could bring about that kind of change that fast. I also see how other people might tell him that his beliefs are just that - his beliefs and not their beliefs. They also might try just as hard to change his beliefs as he's trying to change their beliefs!
Or is it controversial to disagree with your description of the nature of reality?
You can't nip a discussion in the bud just by saying "it is what it is but it's not my opinion".
There's a very fine line there. If I'm saying "men and women have biological differences which influence their behavior" and some people disagree, they are denying reality. If they say: "Yes, they're different, but they're not as different as you describe them to be" then sure, by all means there's room to discuss that.
It gets complex. One physicist tells another that he's disproved a law of physics. Has he? Maybe, though I'd be skeptical. Just as there are good doctors and bad doctors, there are good physicists and bad physicists. Where is the proof that he has disproved a law of physics? If he can consistently do something that demonstrates what he claims to be true is true, then it becomes accepted as fact. If not, maybe he had a theory he believed to be true, but wasn't because he had based it upon a faulty premise.