User Tag List

First 34567 Last

Results 41 to 50 of 139

  1. #41
    & Badger, Ratty and Toad Mole's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Posts
    18,529
    Quote Originally Posted by msg_v2 View Post
    How do the results of a philosophy have any bearing on the roots of a philosophy, and which tradition it sprang from?
    By their fruits shall ye know them.

  2. #42
    Theta Male Julius_Van_Der_Beak's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    MBTI
    CROW
    Enneagram
    5w6 sp/so
    Socionics
    LII None
    Posts
    9,039

    Default

    Forget it. I give up. I'm going to bring in someone who may be able to participate in this argument better.

    [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. #43
    royal member Rasofy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    MBTI
    INTP
    Enneagram
    5w6 sp/sx
    Posts
    5,932

    Default

    Why socially legitimate the right to be against another person's happiness, considering no one is being harmed by what they are doing (e.g. fucking each other in the ass)? Makes no sense.

    Otoh, it makes a lot of ethical sense for people to be anti-anti whatever.

    And that's where people come up with religious arguments - which is a pretty cheap shot, as people are able to use the religion card to legitimate pretty much anything they want. So that's a forbidden card in a rational debate.

    Mention God/Bible/Jesus = you lose. It's that simple.
    -----------------

    A man builds. A parasite asks 'Where is my share?'
    A man creates. A parasite says, 'What will the neighbors think?'
    A man invents. A parasite says, 'Watch out, or you might tread on the toes of God... '


    -----------------

  4. #44
    Blah Orangey's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    MBTI
    ESTP
    Enneagram
    6w5
    Socionics
    SLE
    Posts
    6,364

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by lowtech redneck View Post
    Its a combination of these two things, though on the issue of growing public acceptance of homosexuality, and corresponding social ostracism toward people who disagree (and the OP's embellishments make me suspect that's his real topic of concern, despite protestations to the contrary), I suspect its predominantly the latter. To me, treating people with more traditional notions of morality as the equivalent of racial bigots is about as proportionate as treating people who oppose marijuana legalization or hand-gun ownership as totalitarian assholes.
    "Traditional morality?" More like, let me rationalize my extreme disgust reaction and resulting prejudice with some cockamamie crap about "traditional morality" and the Bible, and don't you dare say a word about it because [insert: freedom of religion, freedom of speech, "you must respect all opinions equally."]
    Artes, Scientia, Veritasiness

  5. #45
    Analytical Dreamer Coriolis's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    MBTI
    INTJ
    Enneagram
    5w6 sp/sx
    Posts
    17,556

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by LevelZeroHero View Post
    However, let's say we agree non-acceptance is okay. We still have faulty logic in the sense that only certain types of non-acceptance are okay,
    Only certain types of nonacceptance ARE ok, because not all types are the same.

    Quote Originally Posted by LevelZeroHero View Post
    and only those which originate in favor of pre-selected viewpoints which we're attributing as normal because the majority accepts them...
    If this were indeed the sorting criterion, it would make for an illogical approach. We sort, however, based on the effect on others. Non-acceptance is OK as long as it limits itself to holding and even voicing an opinion. Once it crosses the line into action that needlessly harms or limits a person, it is no longer OK. This is the difference between thinking or even saying "I hate black people", and refusing to hire someone because he is black, or beating him up for that reason.
    I've been called a criminal, a terrorist, and a threat to the known universe. But everything you were told is a lie. The truth is, they've taken our freedom, our home, and our future. The time has come for all humanity to take a stand...

  6. #46
    movin melodies kiddykat's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    MBTI
    ENFP
    Enneagram
    4, 7
    Socionics
    IEE
    Posts
    1,115

    Default

    I'm kinda bothered by the use of the word "choice" because homosexuality is not a "choice."

    Acceptance means just that, to accept a person's orientation, regardless.

    If we flipped things in reverse, do you think heterosexuality is a choice?

  7. #47
    Senior Member lowtech redneck's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    MBTI
    INTP
    Posts
    3,705

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Orangey View Post
    "Traditional morality?" More like, let me rationalize my extreme disgust reaction and resulting prejudice with some cockamamie crap about "traditional morality" and the Bible, and don't you dare say a word about it because [insert: freedom of religion, freedom of speech, "you must respect all opinions equally."]
    Most moral positions are ultimately founded on irrational or subjective foundations, taken 'on faith' and ingrained through mental habituation and socialization.....I need a lot more than that to hold people in contempt and subject them to vitriol and demonization. I basically need for such beliefs to have an exceptionally detrimental impact on aggregate human liberty, and for that detrimental impact to be have been subject to debate and challenge for decades, if not centuries; opposition to free speech or religious freedom qualifies on both levels, opposition to homosexuality (however lacking in objective justification) does not. That has nothing to do with 'respecting all opinions equally'* or not giving voice to one's convictions, and everything to do with not being a misanthrope who believes that only ignorant, ill-intentioned, or stupid people can disagree with them.

    *I'm remembering a short debate I had with a poster on this forum on this very issue a few years ago; I told him I couldn't respect his opinion in opposition to gay marriage if he couldn't objectively justify it beyond religious dogma or personal intuition. He seemed to think I was conveying a lack of respect toward him in general, rather than just his judgement on that singular issue. At first I was slightly annoyed that he interpreted my post so broadly, but then I realized that most people he was debating with did, in fact, seem to be viewing him as a moral and intellectual cretin.

  8. #48
    Senior Member Nicodemus's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2010
    Posts
    9,130

    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.

  9. #49
    Senior Member Survive & Stay Free's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    MBTI
    ESTJ
    Enneagram
    9 so/sx
    Posts
    21,628

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Amargith View Post
    But your stance is a paradox in and of itself, though Lark. I agree with your sentiment that people should be able to believe in what they want, and for that matter be who they are. But...what I do not understand is how one can want that for themselves, but not extend that same courtesy to others. I mean, what business is it of you who they love or what they believe as long as they do not harm others in the process? And in that respect, I do believe that socialization of tolerance is very important and ironically, will lead ot being 'less tolerant' of those not tolerant themselves.

    So while I may agree with your argument, as it is a very Fi-argument to make...your Fi imho is also not exactly extending the same courtesy to others that you want for yourself. And that is an Fi fallacy in my books

    You cannot have it both ways

    You are entitled to disagree with their lifestyle. But if you are entitled to those views and the space and peace of mind to have those views (aka not be mocked or harassed or pressured for them),then *they* in turn have the right to get that same treatment from you. And I dont see you extending them that courtesy, so why should others extend it to you?

    In an ideal society, we'd all mind our own business and never harm each other while respecting each others individual borders. But that society does not exist as there will always be people who break the pact. And those issues have to addressed. That is reality. So yes, there will be some bias and some imperfect dealing with the mess and a proactive campaign to reduce the damage. In that respect, the very thing you are rebelling against, which I would say is a very Fe thing, is more realistic than our Fi
    I'll leave aside all the type based speculation for the moment because I find, on this forum at least, if someone dislikes an opinion they will describe it as reflecting or originating from feelings and its not something I agree with for a number of reasons. Either the dismissal of opinions which is at its basis or the negative connotations attached to feelings.

    I think there is a job of definition to do here and I dont consider my views to be paradoxical. I dont understand how increased tolerance implies a lack of tolerance for intolerance, I think that at most increasing tolerance would involve neutrality towards intolerance or indifference. That's still not clear.

    I'll begin with what I believe toleration to be, I believe that it means no active interference or proactive discrimination against particular groups, a more perfect impartiality towards that group which involves no strength of feeling as to whether they prosper or perish and definitely no attempt to preserve or support their persistence as a group. Those are my views on the basis of books like Locke's on toleration and the fact that for much of the history of the UK and Ireland and a great part of Europe when people discussed toleration they were talking about Roman Catholicism, of which prohbitions and penalities were formally and legally heaped upon heaped in an attempt to proactively drive it out of existence.

    Now the attitude which exists now appears to me to go beyond that and is actually injurious to that more feasible and practical arrangement, toleration as imparitality is considered insufficient and instead toleration as positive approval has taken its place.

    Now I agree with you that minority or other or alien status does attach to some groups and make them vulnerable to becoming scapegoats or victims of violence, this coule be a result of historical legacies or a bunch of different things, not I think its possible to advocate the toleration as impartial position without actively approving of the group, it seems the more sincere or honest position to take.

    There is confused thinking on this topic and there are strong feelings involved but I would question your definition of key terms and were the strong feelings or emoting is actually emanating from. The same emotional attachment, I'd bet, doesnt exist to discussing the fortune or misfortune of homosexuals as it would to discussing the differences between roman catholics and protestants or between sects of protestantism such as calvinists and methodists or groups within roman catholicism such as janisenists and jesuits. Discussing homosexuals or homosexuality on this forum seems to get people activated and the reasoning goes out the window. I think that's a reflection of a wider phenomenon but no one is going to acknowledge it as such unless its to further valourise homosexuality and villify any nye sayers. Discussing those other intergroup differences and conflicts may be a better way to proceed because I see it as unlikely to cause the same response, although it may appear irrelevent.

  10. #50
    Senior Member Survive & Stay Free's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    MBTI
    ESTJ
    Enneagram
    9 so/sx
    Posts
    21,628

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by lowtech redneck View Post
    Most moral positions are ultimately founded on irrational or subjective foundations, taken 'on faith' and ingrained through mental habituation and socialization.....I need a lot more than that to hold people in contempt and subject them to vitriol and demonization. I basically need for such beliefs to have an exceptionally detrimental impact on aggregate human liberty, and for that detrimental impact to be have been subject to debate and challenge for decades, if not centuries; opposition to free speech or religious freedom qualifies on both levels, opposition to homosexuality (however lacking in objective justification) does not. That has nothing to do with 'respecting all opinions equally'* or not giving voice to one's convictions, and everything to do with not being a misanthrope who believes that only ignorant, ill-intentioned, or stupid people can disagree with them.

    *I'm remembering a short debate I had with a poster on this forum on this very issue a few years ago; I told him I couldn't respect his opinion in opposition to gay marriage if he couldn't objectively justify it beyond religious dogma or personal intuition. He seemed to think I was conveying a lack of respect toward him in general, rather than just his judgement on that singular issue. At first I was slightly annoyed that he interpreted my post so broadly, but then I realized that most people he was debating with did, in fact, seem to be viewing him as a moral and intellectual cretin.
    I agree with that, I really dont like the fact that discussion of that topic has seperated into the dichotomies that it has, if it cant be justified on secular grounds it doesnt deserve that much of an airing because religion should be a matter of private conscience, there are a lot of things in all religions which can only be so.

    What does the final part mean, that because others were treating them as such you changed your opinion about them or because others were treating them like that they had begun to mirror it?

    Your overall point is interesting, could you clarify for me a bit more about how opposition to free speech or religious freedom and opposition to homosexuality differ? I mean is it that the former are older and exceptionally deterimental to aggregate human liberty and the later isnt?

    I would agree that being a misanthrope who attributes terrible qualities to others would make it difficult to participate in any discussion, I'm not sure why anyone like that would seek out discussion though.

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