I wouldn't tell the N.G. he's wrong, but I could say it wouldn't be the same for me.
I have no problem with this -- your example, the N.G. person tells you about it, and then you decide it isn't FOR YOU.
My problem would be if the N.G. person told you about it, you decided to not do it because it's just not for you, and then you tell other people what the N.G. hunting experience is like, based on your conclusion that it's not for you.
So, if someone who has never given birth thinks childbirth can't be beautiful, despite being described as such by women who actually gave birth, then I'm going to have a problem with that.
A scientist might interpret that as an hallucination due to a temporary shortage of oxygen in the brain. Is that arrogant for the scientist to think this? What if the scientist conducts research that shows oxygen deprivation to the brain can cause similar hallucinations? Is that arrogant?
But a competent neurologist would not try to argue that the NDE didn't happen, or that the rapture felt by most people who have NDEs is false. There's no contradiction between saying "I saw a bright light and my grandmother and felt a sense of peace" and agreeing that it was caused by chemistry.
In the context of childbirth, I'd also add finding a way to interpret the process for others who may make a choice on whether to go through it some day.
If someone chooses adoption rather than pregnancy based on a worry that giving birth is painful, I would strongly advise them to think long and hard about whether they want to be raising a child at all.
I can't type and phrase myself as fast as you people, so I'm at least a step behind.
I would find it arrogant for the scientist to tell the person who almost died that they could not possibly have experienced what they claim to have experienced.
Would you find it arrogant of the supports of the Muslim culture center next to Ground Zero to tell those who oppose it that they're wrong in their views? Or the ones who think that Obama is Muslim? Again, these are the dangers of taking things at face value. I'd prefer to question some convenient truths than to sit and smile in dankness.
So, if someone who has never given birth thinks childbirth can't be beautiful, despite being described as such by women who actually gave birth, then I'm going to have a problem with that.
We agree on that. But it seems to me like you're sticking to the point where my views contradicting others' experiences. Which is not what it's about. It's about settling A and B, which seem contradicting to me, taking in to account their experiences. It's not that They're Wrong and That's It. It's the Why They Think/Act So? I Think I Have An Explanation. And any analysis which will ignore that this experience isn't beautiful due to personal view will be flawed. It'll just try to explain why it seem at beautiful, from another angle.
Again, I'd ask the woman who gave birth instead of someone who had never gone through it.
I've heard from several women who've given birth. I don't think asking, say, an obstetrician who can tell me how often s/he's had to perform an episiotomy, what kind of pain medications have been asked for, how much blood loss can be expected, and how many new mothers report symptoms of post-partum depression, is unreasonable. Whether or not the obstetrician has given birth. One mom--mine for example--may report that having children ruined her life. Others report rather different experiences. I think getting the perspective of objective observers can be valuable in this area.
If someone chooses adoption rather than pregnancy based on a worry that giving birth is painful, I would strongly advise them to think long and hard about whether they want to be raising a child at all.
Someone may also be choosing whether or not to have an abortion, and the level of pain during childbirth may be a non-trivial part of that decision.
And {{Seska}}. Listen to The Girl.
Would you find it arrogant of the supports of the Muslim culture center next to Ground Zero to tell those who oppose it that they're wrong in their views? Or the ones who think that Obama is Muslim?
How is either of these examples comparable to what we're discussing?
Would you find it arrogant of the supports of the Muslim culture center next to Ground Zero to tell those who oppose it that they're wrong in their views? Or the ones who think that Obama is Muslim?
I would want to know if the person's lived experience is that a Muslim cultural center has in fact caused strife and chaos in their own personal life. I would want to know if Obama's religion has caused strife and chaos to them personally.
If, however, as I strongly suspect is true in 99.9% of the cases, Muslim cultural centers and/or Obama's faith life has not affected their very own personal lived experience, then I'm going to discount their rantings, yeah.
