User Tag List

First 123412 Last

Results 11 to 20 of 139

  1. #11
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Posts
    4,226

    Default


  2. #12
    Theta Male Julius_Van_Der_Beak's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    MBTI
    PORG
    Enneagram
    5w6 sp/so
    Socionics
    LII None
    Posts
    9,052

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by LevelZeroHero View Post
    It is interesting you bring this up, since it fits the same pattern. It takes an awful lot of illogical legalism to really believe that every way work equally well, and yet that itself would suggest that the mere suggestion that one way works better (and is therefore "natural") is either paradoxically true, or not included in the sense of "everything" and therefore be an inconsistent principle.

    See the similarity to limited unconditional acceptance?

    A better approach would be to say that what is "natural" is prone to question rather than trying to do away with the concept altogether. It's attractive because it should be... and yes, that is itself an appeal to nature. It also happens to be true, though, as soon as we leave the realm of rhetoric and step into real life.


    For me, I would say that universal acceptance doesn't really into enter into it. If individuals have an issue with homosexuality, they have the freedom to not engage in homosexual acts. If they believe that homosexuality is akin to murder, because it's what their religion/upbringing has taught them, and society should not be permitting, they are free to vote against politicians that condone homosexuality. That's the way representative democracy works. Some people are going to be unhappy by the nature of it.


    Very few people on this planet are completely accepting of everyone and everything, so acceptance in this case is probably something that's being used within the context of a specific issue. The people asking for acceptance of homosexuality do not think the government should be enacting more and more regulation of consensual sexuality, and believe all forms of consensual sexuality should be accepted. And animals and children are usually understood as incapable of giving consent.

    I think a criticism of the concept of something being "natural" is valid, because our society does a remarkably shitty job at being "natural", if such a human society ever existed. Airplanes are pretty unnatural. Does this mean they should not exist?
    [Trump's] rhetoric is not an abuse of power. In the same way that it's also not against the law to do a backflip off of the roof of your house onto your concrete driveway. It's just mind-numbingly stupid and, to say the least, counterproductive. - Bush did 9-11


    This is not going to go the way you think....

    Visit my Johari:
    http://kevan.org/johari?name=Birddude78

  3. #13
    Senior Member Survive & Stay Free's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    MBTI
    ESTJ
    Enneagram
    9 so/sx
    Posts
    21,661

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by msg_v2 View Post
    Other people can do this with far more energy than I can, but something that came up in your individual post motivates me to provide the following link:

    Appeal to nature

    It's bunk, and both the right and the left do it (see anarcho-primitivism).

    For me, I wouldn't say acceptance really enters into it. If individuals have an issue with homosexuality, they have the freedom to not engage in homosexual acts. If they believe that homosexuality is akin to murder, because it's what their religion/upbringing has taught them, and society should not be permitting, they are free to vote against politicians that condone homosexuality. That's the way representative democracy works. Some people are going to be unhappy by the nature of it.
    I'm taking a breath and counting to ten here because I know that you either thing what you wrote, and I highlighted, sincerely makes sense, and is for the good, or you're trying to provoke a reaction.

    That's not representative democracy, in fact that's the opposite of representative democracy, a democracy which can not and will not represent the opinions of the populace is not a representative deomcracy. The very meaning of the word should tell you that. This is a big part of why I dont like all the Orwellian tendencies to mess with intrinsic meanings of words in the english language, its only going to create confusion when people clearly dont get what the intrinsic meanings of many of them are already. Not to put too fine a point upon it or play semantics, we're not talking about something subjective like what is the meaning of "conservatism", "socialism", "liberalism" or "capitalism" here, which do have contested meanings.

    Now you could argue that its not responsible democracy or liberal democracy or what you understand by democracy but so far as representation goes if it reflects the opinions or character of the electorate then it IS representative. I couldnt argue that Thatcherism isnt represenative of the south of england, it clearly is. I do think it could be democractically deficient but that's a different question.

    What is society and what gives it the place to override religion/upbringing? Personally I wouldnt have thought it mattered if someone thought that homosexuality was tantamount to murder or not if they werent interfering with anyone or being motivated to do anything on the basis of that belief, JS Mill in On Liberty writes at length about the difference between being free to think a thing and being free to do a thing and maybe modern liberals should look him up.

    Naturalistic fallacy is an interesting thing, the left and right both do do it on a routine basis but I dont think it should deter anyone from thinking seriously about what human nature is, I've read a lot of good books from back in the day when people were prepared to do so and Erich Fromm published a volume of writings called The Nature of Man, probably as biased as any other source, which attempted to comprise a range of perspectives, earliest to latest.

    To seek some basis upon which to discuss things objectively has plagued most disciplines, I've just got through lately reading about Bertrand Russell's attempts to provide a firm logical basis or underpinning to mathematics and even he was repeatedly suggesting that he'd maybe reinvented axioms or first principles which he'd initially sought to refute as a kind of "fable agreed upon". In the social or soft sciences its even more of a nightmare and has given rise to no end of post-modern nonsense, I'm so glad that some fo the responses which exist from within the hard sciences to attempts to permeate that thinking to them exist, although its a shame that they amount to "that may be alright in social science, dont just try to apply it to physics/chemistry/biology etc." instead of being more rigorous.

    Perhaps there's nothing more than a sort of social constructivism or attempted objectivity with caveats but it shouldnt be an obsticle to discussion per se or a means to dismissing things wholesale.

  4. #14
    Senior Member Survive & Stay Free's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    MBTI
    ESTJ
    Enneagram
    9 so/sx
    Posts
    21,661

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by LevelZeroHero View Post
    It is interesting you bring this up, since it fits the same pattern. It takes an awful lot of illogical legalism to really believe that every way work equally well, and yet that itself would suggest that the mere suggestion that one way works better (and is therefore "natural") is either paradoxically true, or not included in the sense of "everything" and therefore be an inconsistent principle.

    See the similarity to limited unconditional acceptance?

    A better approach would be to say that what is "natural" is prone to question rather than trying to do away with the concept altogether. It's attractive because it should be... and yes, that is itself an appeal to nature. It also happens to be true, though, as soon as we leave the realm of rhetoric and step into real life.
    Well put with an economy of words that escaped me.

    Although I dont think that the better or best necessarily is the natural either, that's a topic all by itself.

  5. #15
    Senior Member Survive & Stay Free's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    MBTI
    ESTJ
    Enneagram
    9 so/sx
    Posts
    21,661

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Amargith View Post
    I think of it more as a stamp of approval by society, I guess. Don't get me wrong, I'm not...a big fan of it...but people are by nature xenophobic (it is a good survival instinct). When they are raised with the idea that something is not a threat, even if it aint their cup of tea, they are less likely to a) have a problem with in the first place and b) feel entitled to actually bully, pester or even get violent towards those targets, I think. It's basic socialization.

    So in a way, it is providing those targets with a much needed protection within the group.

    Otoh, it can swing too much the other way where it becomes condemned to actually think about and have your own opinion on that topic as you're instantly labelled as someone who isn't doing their part in society, which in and of itself is definitely oppressive as well.
    Is Otoh an abbreviation or shorthand for something?

    I do think that socialisation has something to do with it and I think your best point is that final line, I think it is unhealthy the extent to which on a range of topics it is considered unsocial or antisocial simply to not care or not have an opinion you're prepared to take action or a stand on, neutrality on some topics, especially personal choices, is being replaced by expectations for approval which could create the very opposite.

  6. #16
    Theta Male Julius_Van_Der_Beak's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    MBTI
    PORG
    Enneagram
    5w6 sp/so
    Socionics
    LII None
    Posts
    9,052

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Lark View Post
    That's not representative democracy, in fact that's the opposite of representative democracy, a democracy which can not and will not represent the opinions of the populace is not a representative democracy.
    Explain to me how it is possible for a government to represent the opinions of an entire population, when there are factions within that population which hold views that are mutually exposed and exclusive to one another. Representative democracy does not represent the opinions of everyone, but simply the electoral majority. (At least, it does if it works as it is supposed to.) It is impossible for representative democracy to represent the opinions of everyone, since people have opinions that are mutually opposed.

    If those who believe that homosexuality should not be condoned cannot form an electoral majority to enact their beliefs into law, how is that the opposite of representative democracy?


    While I have perhaps not read as many books on ethics and human nature as I should, I presently believe that appeals to "human nature" are, if not in every instance, usually reflective of either a given culture, or the ideals of the speaker. "Human nature" usually says little about how people objectively are, but more about how the speaker believes them to be. So long as this understanding is clear, I have little problem with the usage of the phrase. If we're claiming that human nature exists as an iron-clad law along with gravity and thermodynamics, which seems to be asserted here, I'm going to have issues.

    Clearly, we have individuals engaging in homosexual acts. This has happened throughout history. Homosexuality is obviously something that humans have the capability for. How, then, can anyone claim that homosexuality is against human nature? I suspect what people are really claiming here is that it's against some objective source of morality, but that's not the same thing as human nature. Clearly, given that Catholicism believes that humans have an inherent tendency to sin, the Catholic Church is in agreement on this.
    [Trump's] rhetoric is not an abuse of power. In the same way that it's also not against the law to do a backflip off of the roof of your house onto your concrete driveway. It's just mind-numbingly stupid and, to say the least, counterproductive. - Bush did 9-11


    This is not going to go the way you think....

    Visit my Johari:
    http://kevan.org/johari?name=Birddude78

  7. #17
    The High Priestess Amargith's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    MBTI
    Enfp
    Enneagram
    497 sx/so
    Socionics
    IEE Fi
    Posts
    14,657

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Lark View Post
    Is Otoh an abbreviation or shorthand for something?

    I do think that socialisation has something to do with it and I think your best point is that final line, I think it is unhealthy the extent to which on a range of topics it is considered unsocial or antisocial simply to not care or not have an opinion you're prepared to take action or a stand on, neutrality on some topics, especially personal choices, is being replaced by expectations for approval which could create the very opposite.
    Otoh= on the other hand

    And while I agree with you, it is a price I am grudgingly willing to pay to protect people from actual harm. It is one thing to be told by society that your opinion is unpopular and get picked on, or mocked for that; it is quite another to have society people (physically) gang-assault you for who you are and feel entitled to do so coz society/ popular opinion supports them. And dont tell me it wouldnt happen; everyone loves a good scapegoat.

    Like I said. Lesser of two evils.
    ★ڿڰۣ✿ℒoѵℯ✿ڿڰۣ★





    "Harm none, do as ye will”

  8. #18
    Blah Orangey's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    MBTI
    ESTP
    Enneagram
    6w5
    Socionics
    SLE
    Posts
    6,364

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by 93JC View Post
    I'm going to agree with this.

    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 Y is a viewpoint aimed at hurting X. That automatically makes Y worse and less acceptable than X, even if you don't like X very much. And that's especially true if the people uttering Y belong to a majority group that holds institutional power over those who espouse Y.
    Artes, Scientia, Veritasiness

  9. #19
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Posts
    4,226

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Orangey View Post
    I'm going to agree with this.

    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 Y is a viewpoint aimed at hurting X. That automatically makes Y worse and less acceptable than X, even if you don't like X very much. And that's especially true if the people uttering Y belong to a majority group that holds institutional power over those who espouse Y.
    Very succinct, I like it.

    This "if you're intolerant of my intolerance then you yourself are intolerant and therefore a hypocrite!" is a clap-trap diversionary tactic that intolerant people use to undermine their opponents without having addressed the matter at hand (their own intolerance).

  10. #20
    Senior Member Survive & Stay Free's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    MBTI
    ESTJ
    Enneagram
    9 so/sx
    Posts
    21,661

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by msg_v2 View Post
    Explain to me how it is possible for a government to represent the opinions of an entire population, when there are factions within that population which hold views that are mutually exposed and exclusive to one another. Representative democracy does not represent the opinions of everyone, but simply the electoral majority.
    Look, the answer to your query is actually in your response. That is all representative democracy is, if you're talking about anything else its got to be described as something else, perfect representation or something.

    If those who believe that homosexuality should not be condoned cannot form an electoral majority to enact their beliefs into law, how is that the opposite of representative democracy?
    It is representative democracy, whether it will last or a political phase or is truly representative is another question, in theory by the turn of elections America coudl be described as "republican America" or "democratic America" but its not.

    While I have perhaps not read as many books on ethics and human nature as I should, I presently believe that appeals to "human nature" are, if not in every instance, reflective of either a given culture, or the ideals of the speaker. "Human nature" usually says little about how people objectively are, but more about how the speaker believes them to be.
    Its difficult to generalise, that's the liberal or present view, at this time and place perhaps its correct.

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