regarding Dogma

[xfifthcolumnx]

another issue where dogma came up and got me thinking again about it, and why people have such an issue with the concept, and why i do not. once again it was in relation to being vegan, this time the question revolves around the vegan-ness of eating the eggs of "pet" chickens. which obviously isn't vegan, by definition. it may not be hurting

Comments

[sadiscord]

but veganism, straight-edge, humanitarian - these labels are not dogmatic in my opinion. they can, and should be diverged from, disputed, IF the evidence is there to do so. that's the whole point of secular humanism (one of my preferred labels), that the rationalist must go where the evidence leads. and there is, in turn, evidence for that view too as it seems that evidence typically leads to factual results as opposed to merely believed ones, or faith-based ones. I don't think dogma is present in our lives - we apply labels based on the beliefs and knowledge we have because they are what we have chosen to run our lives the best (i.e, not eating meat, smoking, etc.).

[xfifthcolumnx]

i think its fairly that both veganism and straight edge are dogmas:

another definition of dogma:
"a settled or established opinion, belief, or principle.

i think you're stretching the evidence here a little. there is no real argument against drinking alcoholic beverages on occasion if it does not result in an extreme change in mental state or cognition for example. yet being straight edge i choose to never drink alcohol.

dogmatic is commonly used as a perjorative, and assumes arrogance and unprovable claims - which i would agree doesn't necessarily fit.