User Tag List

First 21011121314 Last

Results 111 to 120 of 139

  1. #111
    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

  2. #112
    ^He pronks, too! Magic Poriferan's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    MBTI
    Yin
    Enneagram
    One sx/sp
    Posts
    13,908

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Beorn View Post
    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.
    I'm not looking to defend anyone's words but my own. If Orangey wants to further handle that, I'm sure she can take of herself. My stance completely bypasses that issue, making it moot.

    As for trading hurt for hurt, that becomes an issue of cost-benefit analysis. Of course, my assertion is that homosexuality does no harm and oppressing homosexuality does harm, so the decision is a no brainer.


    Quote Originally Posted by Beorn View Post
    You're playing rhetorical games.
    Not at all. I am really trying to be as simple and mechanistic about this as possible.

    Quote Originally Posted by Beorn View Post
    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.
    My point was that I believe I can show that oppressing homosexuality has caused harm, so I'm asking you meet me in showing how accepting homosexuality can cause harm.

    Quote Originally Posted by Beorn View Post
    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.
    I need reasons for something to be considered harm. Otherwise we could get into an absurd game where anyone could call anything harm as an excuse to ban it. In the end you still don't explain the consequences of this. You just say it's a different kind of harm and leave it at that.

    Well, I'm not going to leave it open ended. Answer this instead. Is poverty, sickness, violence, illiteracy, pollution, psychological trauma, or a general development of anti-social mentality, facilitated by accepting homosexuality (or specifically same sex marriage)?
    Go to sleep, iguana.


    _________________________________
    INTP. Type 1>6>5. sx/sp.
    Live and let live will just amount to might makes right

  3. #113

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by pinkgraffiti View Post
    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
    Sorry, you seem to have misunderstood how posting online works. Although thanks for being todays representative for your views, now and again I wonder if I'm unfair in the conclusions I've reached, luckily for me there's always going to be plenty of people to provide the evidence that I'm not.

  4. #114

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Magic Poriferan View Post
    My point was that I believe I can show that oppressing homosexuality has caused harm, so I'm asking you meet me in showing how accepting homosexuality can cause harm.
    What oppression? Where? How? Excluding violence, which we're all agreed shouldnt enter into it, how has homosexuality been oppressed? By there being so many damn straight people being their damn straight selves?

    I need reasons for something to be considered harm. Otherwise we could get into an absurd game where anyone could call anything harm as an excuse to ban it. In the end you still don't explain the consequences of this. You just say it's a different kind of harm and leave it at that.

    Well, I'm not going to leave it open ended. Answer this instead. Is poverty, sickness, violence, illiteracy, pollution, psychological trauma, or a general development of anti-social mentality, facilitated by accepting homosexuality (or specifically same sex marriage)?
    You're going to have to back up there from the ASSumption that burden of proof is really on anyone other than yourself, is accepting same sex marriage gong to prevent poverty, sickness, violence, illiteracy, pollution, psychological trauma or general anti-socila mentality? Are you joking? Do you have any idea how irrational that is to suggest that all those things are going to disappear if a state legislates in favour of propagating same sex marriage and public opinion does change? I mean that's not even a matter of speculation at this juncture because states have legislated and I'm pretty sure they havent experienced the advent of utopia.

    I mean there's getting entrenched and embattled because you cant field good arguments and then there's just turning over all totally and utterly ridiculous.

    I'm even beginning to think at this point that you're engaging in a just slightly more sophisticated bit of trolling than the likes of 93jc.

  5. #115
    ^He pronks, too! Magic Poriferan's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    MBTI
    Yin
    Enneagram
    One sx/sp
    Posts
    13,908

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Lark View Post
    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?
    I'm going to be frank and tell you that I was a little lost by some of the parts in the middle there. I'm not clear on the meaning. However I am responding to the part I put in bold which I think addresses the problem with the entirety of your post.

    Nothing about allowing gays to marry is against strait people. No one here is against strait people or asking for any policy that hurts strait people, not even implicitly. Any idea you build on the premise that there is some kind of anti-heterosexual, pro-homosexual proselytism will accordingly be false.

    And making some kind of privilege or right exclusively for heterosexuals cannot be thought of as letting heterosexuals do their own thing. The only accurate way to think of it is as preventing homosexuals from doing their thing.

    You persist in believe that there is some kind of mutual exclusivity here. That what aids the one orientation must harm the other. You've never made clear why this would be the case. You just keep asserting that there is some non-existent campaign the oppress heterosexuals. It's a straw man and a smoke screen.

    Quote Originally Posted by Lark View Post
    What oppression? Where? How? Excluding violence, which we're all agreed shouldnt enter into it, how has homosexuality been oppressed? By there being so many damn straight people being their damn straight selves?
    It depends on the time and place of course. There are worse places than modern day USA (or most of the EU). However, though you may even choose to call it petty, denying gays the right to marry is discrimination against them. Of course, law aside, there is still a general culture that expresses some hostility toward gays. There is a notion that removing the differences between people in law encourages a reduction of animosity in the general culture.

    Quote Originally Posted by Lark View Post
    You're going to have to back up there from the ASSumption that burden of proof is really on anyone other than yourself, is accepting same sex marriage gong to prevent poverty, sickness, violence, illiteracy, pollution, psychological trauma or general anti-socila mentality? Are you joking? Do you have any idea how irrational that is to suggest that all those things are going to disappear if a state legislates in favour of propagating same sex marriage and public opinion does change? I mean that's not even a matter of speculation at this juncture because states have legislated and I'm pretty sure they havent experienced the advent of utopia.

    I mean there's getting entrenched and embattled because you cant field good arguments and then there's just turning over all totally and utterly ridiculous.

    I'm even beginning to think at this point that you're engaging in a just slightly more sophisticated bit of trolling than the likes of 93jc.
    I didn't even begin to say what you're claiming I said. I did not say that legalizing gay marriage would completely remove any of those things. I did not even say it would somewhat reduce any of those things (though I think it might very slightly). What I said was that unless legalizing gay marriage increases any of those things, there is no reason to be against it.
    Go to sleep, iguana.


    _________________________________
    INTP. Type 1>6>5. sx/sp.
    Live and let live will just amount to might makes right

  6. #116
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Posts
    4,226

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Lark View Post
    I'm even beginning to think at this point that you're engaging in a just slightly more sophisticated bit of trolling than the likes of 93jc.
    Oh, now that's just mean.


    But thanks for thinking of me as sophisticated, dollface.

  7. #117

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Magic Poriferan View Post
    I'm going to be frank and tell you that I was a little lost by some of the parts in the middle there. I'm not clear on the meaning. However I am responding to the part I put in bold which I think addresses the problem with the entirety of your post.

    Nothing about allowing gays to marry is against strait people. No one here is against strait people or asking for any policy that hurts strait people, not even implicitly. Any idea you build on the premise that there is some kind of anti-heterosexual, pro-homosexual proselytism will accordingly be false.

    And making some kind of privilege or right exclusively for heterosexuals cannot be thought of as letting heterosexuals do their own thing. The only accurate way to think of it is as preventing homosexuals from doing their thing.

    You persist in believe that there is some kind of mutual exclusivity here. That what aids the one orientation must harm the other. You've never made clear why this would be the case. You just keep asserting that there is some non-existent campaign the oppress heterosexuals. It's a straw man and a smoke screen.
    I'll try and keep this simple.

    There's no privilege here, civil partnership in the UK confered all the rights of marriage to same sex partners, there was perfect equivolence but rightfully distinction, one is a relationship between people of the same sex and the other is not.

    However the exclusive relationship between heterosexuals was seen as harmful and oppressive per se, that never was explained to me and I never set about oppressing anyone in my life, maybe I should try if I'm going to be accused of it in any case and the institutions I value and generations have took for granted be undermined anyway.

    I'm not asserting there's a non-existent campaign, I'm asserting that what exists is tantamount to a campaign. You made the criteria of harm or hate upon homosexuality an issue in the discussion, as always, you choose to try and frame the discussion as one of "why you hating?", the reality is no ones hating on homosexuals, it seems to be a myth that they or their supporters really and truly need these days to go on, but there's a lot that's going on towards heterosexuals which, if you wherent so blinkered, you'd realise IS hating on heterosexuality.

  8. #118
    Blah Orangey's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    MBTI
    ESTP
    Enneagram
    6w5
    Socionics
    SLE
    Posts
    6,364

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Beorn View Post
    Thanks for the formula as it makes it easier to show how wrong you are.

    I don't know how many times I have to explain this shit, but there's no sense in comparing "acceptance of muderers" to "acceptance of imprisoning murderers" when imprisoning murderers is a viewpoint aimed at hurting murderers. That automatically makes imprisoning murderers worse and less acceptable than murdering even if you don't like murderers very much. And that's especially true if the people uttering acceptance of imprisoning murderers belong to a majority group that holds institutional power over those who espouse murder.

    You're closing off examination of ideas because you presume something that is repressive is not justified when clearly there are plenty of instances when we justify public repression of minority groups. But, you want to label certain ideas as phobia and hate so you can put them outside the category of rational ideas that can be justified.
    Fine. Do you need me to be more explicit?

    Let me rephrase:

    "I don't know how many times I have to explain this shit, but there's no sense in comparing acceptance of X to acceptance of Y when X is a viewpoint aimed at UNJUSTIFIABLY hurting Y. That automatically makes X worse and less acceptable than Y even if you don't personally like Y very much. And that's especially true if the people uttering X belong to a majority group that holds institutional power over those who espouse Y."

    I mean, I thought it would have been implicit, but I guess some people need things spelled out for them. When "repression" (or oppression, as the case may be) is unjustified then it can be relegated to the "hatred" and "phobia" bin.
    Artes, Scientia, Veritasiness

  9. #119
    darkened dreams labyrinthine's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    MBTI
    isfp
    Enneagram
    4w5 sp/sx
    Posts
    8,587

    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.
    The way I worded that post does put the causality backwards, but I said it that way in response to someone who was assuming there could be a large scale negative impact of change resulting from change on the individual level. It is an individual-level human rights issue - I agree with that and no other argument is needed. I do think that society's acceptance of any two individuals choosing to marry is a measure of the value placed on equality of individuals vs. traditional hierarchical structures.

    Quote Originally Posted by Lark View Post
    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.
    I'm happy your grandparents loved each other. Could your grandmother have survived as a single mother and provided for her children in a healthy manner? Many women of her time could not have, and it is wonderful every time women in this context felt sincere love for her partner because she would be in deep shit if she didn't, so that would be good fortune. Edit: I'm not saying that nobody's grandmothers had sincere love for their partners. Children love their parents even though in some ways they don't have a choice. Also when in a position of subjugation, one often doesn't question the validity of that suppression and so the person functions as optimally as possible within that context. This can include loving their partner to their full capacity even if their life choices are limited by gender inequality. /edit

    I have not read this in a book, couldn't refer a single book that talks about it, and my opinions come from a lifetime of observation and experience. I'm older than most posting here and my mother was forced as the result of spousal abuse to be a single mother, and we lived in poverty as a result. She was lucky enough to be in at least the 1970's and with a college degree. If she had not we would have been stuck in poverty for a few generations. Adherence to paternal control is seen on every side at least in the cultures I have been associated with. That includes the sweet Jesus cultures possibly moreso than most. Lark, live your life as the daughter of a single mother in an extremely vulnerable family and you will learn a great deal about relative gender power in a society. I suppose I could write a book.
    Step into my metaphysical room of mirrors.
    Fear of reality creates myopic morality
    So I guess it means there is trouble until the robins come
    (from Blue Velvet)

    I want to be just like my mother, even if she is bat-shit crazy.

  10. #120
    Permabanned
    Join Date
    Aug 2010
    MBTI
    ESTP
    Enneagram
    8w7
    Posts
    2,319

    Default

    Attention whores and bored people with nothing going on in their lives who need something to complain about.

    That is the basis of our country's ethical controversies.

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