User Tag List

First 910111213 Last

Results 101 to 110 of 139

  1. #101
    LL P. Stewie Beorn's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Posts
    4,804

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by 93JC View Post
    Nobody has responded because it's a dodge that's not worth responding to.
    I've given you the benefit of the doubt several times, but I'm done.

    It's funny because my whole point was that the original argument was a dodge to avoid argumentation. If we can label something as intolerant then we don't have to engage it intellectually.

    The difference between you and I is that I used my words to illustrate and explain my point. That's something you seem incapable of doing as you only have an interest in posting emoticons and making short pedantic points. I'm not even sure you're even capable of engaging in a substantive conversation on any intellectual level as I've seen little proof.

    So, please go away unless you care to demonstrate an intelligence above and beyond that of a spell checker.

    Quote Originally Posted by Magic Poriferan View Post
    This has already been logically addressed by me. I said that I do not accept everything, but that if I choose to accept something it does not make sense to also accept that which does not accept it. So, I choose to accept homosexuality and therefore cannot accept the non-acceptance of homosexuality. It also works the other way. I do not accept murder (generally) so I cannot accept the acceptance of murder. Thus, this point raises no serious logical problem.
    That's fine the way you state it there, but that's because it seems your basis of judgement is not on whether or not you're being accepting, but inherent in what you do or do nor accept. However, that's not the way the argument above was framed originally. It specifically used x and y as variables, but used the constant of "hurting" to determine the outcome. So as long as something can be determined to "hurt" someone or some group then intolerance is justified without even determining whether the "hurt" can be justified.

    Ultimately, the disagreement comes to whether or not we should count homosexuality as a thing that is accepted. This comes back to the point where the burden is on you and Lark to show why it should not be accepted, which I phrased more specifically as showing how it is harmful. This is a request I feel neither of you have met.
    You're playing rhetorical games.

    The burden of proof is on the group trying to change public policy. If I was trying to reintroduce sodomy laws then, yes, the burden would be on me, but in this case you're trying to get the state to promote a behavior.

    It's not a matter that I can't show harm it's that you don't care about the harm I care about. You don't value marriage in the same way I do. You don't value having a mother and father in the same way I do. I think it's pretty harmful for any child to not grow up without a father or mother and the state shouldn't promote behavior that guarantees that and only endorse such behavior with good reason like divorce in the case of abuse.
    Take the weakest thing in you
    And then beat the bastards with it
    And always hold on when you get love
    So you can let go when you give it

  2. #102
    RDF
    Guest

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by LevelZeroHero View Post
    This is not the topic of the thread, but merely a common example I will use to explain the topic: homosexuality.

    Why are we as a culture so accepting of one person's choice to be homosexual and not another person's choice to merely have values against homosexuality when one is far more unnatural and taboo? This makes no sense. What's more, society has taken an anti-anti-homosexuality stance, which is acceptable to society, of course, so apparently it's okay to be against someone else's stance.

    Topic: How has our society become so hypocritical that it literally embraces anything in the name of acceptance, except only the first degree of nonacceptance? That seems very rigid, legalistic, and non-accepting.
    I’m coming in late on this, so...

    “Acceptance” isn’t a mental mindset that works according to pre-set laws. If I accept X, it doesn’t mean that I’m obliged to accept anything else. There are lots of things that I accept and lots of things that I don’t accept. And frankly there’s not much rhyme or reason to it.

    Compare various contexts for killing people: war, abortion, capital punishment, self-defense, etc. People routinely accept killing in one setting but not another. People are all over the board on those things. They have their rationalizations for why they believe as they do, naturally. But the point is that acceptance of one idea doesn’t automatically mean acceptance or rejection of some other idea in the same person, even when the ideas are closely related.

    You have to look elsewhere for answers:

    When it comes to acceptance of a controversial subject, these things are more of a process than a mindset. For 10,000 years humans accepted slavery as the natural order of things. Then over a period of 150 years or so humanity flip-flopped and suddenly didn’t accept it anymore. Blame the change on Enlightenment and then Romanticism (equal rights is a particularly Romantic-era notion). From those origins, it was just a question of how long it would take for those new ideas of equal rights of men to filter through society and hit critical mass.

    More or less the same thing is happening with homosexuality. Prior to 1975, homosexuality was officially declared to be a mental illness in the US. Then in 1975 the American Psychological Association reversed itself and declared that homosexuality was not a mental illness. The idea of the “normalcy” of homosexuality has been filtering through society for 40 years, and it’s just starting to hit critical mass: laws restricting the rights of homosexuals have been falling one by one.

    To sum up: It’s kind of a red herring to insist that “acceptance” is a mindset that has to work according to logical laws. “Acceptance” is a process. For answers, look instead at things like memes and the process of how ideas filter down through society and reach critical mass.

  3. #103

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Beorn View Post
    You're playing rhetorical games.

    The burden of proof is on the group trying to change public policy. If I was trying to reintroduce sodomy laws then, yes, the burden would be on me, but in this case you're trying to get the state to promote a behavior.

    It's not a matter that I can't show harm it's that you don't care about the harm I care about. You don't value marriage in the same way I do. You don't value having a mother and father in the same way I do. I think it's pretty harmful for any child to not grow up without a father or mother and the state shouldn't promote behavior that guarantees that and only endorse such behavior with good reason like divorce in the case of abuse.
    It is a rhetorical game but its a simple one to beat too.

    I would question why heterosexuality is considered hurtful, which is both implicit and explicit in the campaigns which have been launched by those seeking to propagate homosexuality, otherwise the legal and social exclusivity of institutions such as marriage to heterosexuals would be fine, they'd be accepted, they would be seen by homosexuals and fellow travellers as "they're doing their thing" and whether or not then their community decides to "do their thing" aswell, instead, is another question.

    The objective harm which is threatened by the proposed major cultural and social paradigm shifts within the campaigns for homosexuality is that everyone will experience what was once the preserve of a minority of the populace, homosexuals, if you would deny that there is any harm or any hurt in the proposed shifts then you're really denying that there was ever any harm or hurt visited upon homosexuals by living as a minority alienated by pervasive heterosexual norms and culture. Which is something I'm pretty sure that no one backing the present day campaigns for homosexuality is going to want to do.

    I can understand anyone wanting to try and relieve suffering, particularly any avoidable suffering, its the most legitimate reform objective or goal I ever heard of, although it can sometimes, I believe now, be a good basis for resisting certain bad reforms too.

    However, I think serious, real and searching questions about whether or not being a minority whose sexual attraction sets them apart from the majority who, without any schooling the matter or cultural pressures etc., do not and can not share their attraction involves avoidable suffering is something which hasnt been addressed, certainly not by gay welfare organisations.

    No one has stood up and said, no what, this is how we are, maybe we should change instead of everyone else. I'm not talking orientation, I'm not talking anything what so ever about that, I'm not talking going under cover or anything of that kind either, although I have heard of as many people enjoying pariah status or deviant status within that community as anything else, I'm talking about whether or not wholesale rethinks of organically evolved social institutions is going to change anything or just share out the misery.

    There's a greek myth which is easily applicable to that version of equality and that's the procrustean bed, in useage now it refers to arbitrary measures to ensure conformity, in the myth people who didnt fit the size of the bed either had their head or feet cut off depending on how they lay upon it.

    I hope this is to your satisfaction this time MP, I'm not attempting to persuade you upon the point because I dont believe, despite the window dressing, that you're really logical or rational upon this point, that's fine, everyone has affect driven attachments to ideas when it comes to politics.

    We'll all wait and see how these things pan out, whether the homosexuality campaigners will be satisfied with changes to legalistic definitions of marriage or press for something more or if a few generations down the line there arent as many troubled adolescents or miserable adults seeking help because "they might just be straight after all" as there have been members of the homosexual minority doing so in the past, which'll be a real result, embolden the grievance mongers and conjur conflicts and confuse were once the wasnt any. Still. Avoids talk about the economy, doesnt it?

  4. #104

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by fia View Post
    The great Patriarchy.

    Gay marriage undermines these hierarchical and exploitive structures in society. It overturns some of our deepest immoralities. This is why it has my vote.
    OH SWEET JESUS!

    And you know that same sorts of confusion gave rise to prohibition of alcohol in the US too? A vote for prohibition is a vote for jobs, a dry state respects veterans etc.

    I think it gets really bogus when wilder and wilder hopes, dreams and advents in human affairs are expected to follow on from specific, precise changes they could not possibly arrive from.

    I hear all your text book talk and that's all it sounds like, a lot of text book talk, my parents marriage wasnt based upon the inequality of gender, it was based upon love, no ones personhood was reduced in the process and my mother told me that she took my father's name because my father's family was part of her decision in wether or not to marry him, I know increased individualisation can make it a bit mad to reckon with that particular sort of unawares systemic and holistic approach to decision making but anyhow. There wasnt any domination in my parents marriage and it has lasted, many of the marriages I've known since of supposedly liberated couples desperate to affirm and reaffirm their independence from one another within a single household have not.

    The more I read stuff like that the more and more I'm convinced of even some of the less savoury conservative criticisms of so called enlightenment reasoning, that's abstract and theoretical reasoning, book learning rather than social learning.

  5. #105

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by 93JC View Post
    Nobody has responded because it's a dodge that's not worth responding to.
    Physician heal thyself.

  6. #106

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by pinkgraffiti View Post
    wow seriously

    same-sex marriage is not a political issue. it's a human right's issue. it shouldn't be dependent on opinion nor political propaganda. let me be honest, i'm pretty offended by your reasoning.
    A human right's issue? You're kidding, it wasnt thought of or on the radar until comparatively recently and that sort of reasoning you're offended by is not uncommon, when the actor from the Harry Potter films came out in favour of same sex "marriages" and secularisation of education it wasnt really because he'd considered either to be a positive good but because he is an angry athiest who hates religious authority and tradition as saw the success of either of those ideas as a blow to the very thing he disliked.

    How is it a human right? That term is just slung about like nobody's business and at the moment I think its a euphenism for "this good thing", no one can argue with "this good thing", which I think is awful and the opponents of legitimate uses of human rights dependent upon this to try and despoil the whole idea.

    I would say that non-interference from the state is a human right, which includes the state not interfering with anyone who does not believe there's any legitimacy whatsoever to any Orwellian newspeak revision of what marriage is.

    I'll expect the next idea will be to scrub from memory the fact that marriage ever was exclusively between members of the opposite sex, there's no oppression in failing to recognise something that never was and can not be. Is someones human rights interfered with if they are six foot tall and most other people are five foot?

  7. #107
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Posts
    4,226

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Beorn View Post
    I've given you the benefit of the doubt several times, but I'm done.

    It's funny because my whole point was that the original argument was a dodge to avoid argumentation. If we can label something as intolerant then we don't have to engage it intellectually.

    The difference between you and I is that I used my words to illustrate and explain my point. That's something you seem incapable of doing as you only have an interest in posting emoticons and making short pedantic points. I'm not even sure you're even capable of engaging in a substantive conversation on any intellectual level as I've seen little proof.

    So, please go away unless you care to demonstrate an intelligence above and beyond that of a spell checker.
    Quote Originally Posted by Lark View Post
    Physician heal thyself.

  8. #108

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by 93JC View Post
    About the best you can do. Hope you dont delete it when you think about it.

  9. #109
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Posts
    4,226

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Lark View Post
    About the best you can do. Hope you dont delete it when you think about it.

  10. #110
    Senior Member pinkgraffiti's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    MBTI
    ENFP
    Enneagram
    748 sx/so
    Posts
    1,489

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Lark View Post
    A human right's issue? You're kidding, it wasnt thought of or on the radar until comparatively recently and that sort of reasoning you're offended by is not uncommon, when the actor from the Harry Potter films came out in favour of same sex "marriages" and secularisation of education it wasnt really because he'd considered either to be a positive good but because he is an angry athiest who hates religious authority and tradition as saw the success of either of those ideas as a blow to the very thing he disliked.

    How is it a human right? That term is just slung about like nobody's business and at the moment I think its a euphenism for "this good thing", no one can argue with "this good thing", which I think is awful and the opponents of legitimate uses of human rights dependent upon this to try and despoil the whole idea.

    I would say that non-interference from the state is a human right, which includes the state not interfering with anyone who does not believe there's any legitimacy whatsoever to any Orwellian newspeak revision of what marriage is.

    I'll expect the next idea will be to scrub from memory the fact that marriage ever was exclusively between members of the opposite sex, there's no oppression in failing to recognise something that never was and can not be. Is someones human rights interfered with if they are six foot tall and most other people are five foot?
    1. i wasn't talking to you
    2. i already know how close-minded you are to social diversity, which is tragically ironic for a social worker
    3. i wasn't talking to you

Similar Threads

  1. Replies: 25
    Last Post: 07-01-2017, 02:12 PM
  2. Why is American Culture so against the Martial Arts and Fight Sports
    By DiscoBiscuit in forum Politics, History, and Current Events
    Replies: 85
    Last Post: 11-23-2010, 03:16 AM
  3. Why is 6 afraid of 7?
    By BerberElla in forum The Fluff Zone
    Replies: 13
    Last Post: 01-23-2010, 08:40 PM
  4. Why is your country of type X?
    By UnitOfPopulation in forum General Psychology
    Replies: 19
    Last Post: 10-02-2009, 04:20 AM
  5. How rich is our conception of personality typing?
    By ygolo in forum Myers-Briggs and Jungian Cognitive Functions
    Replies: 2
    Last Post: 06-11-2009, 06:20 PM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
Single Sign On provided by vBSSO