Subject:
|
Re: Why these news groups were created
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Fri, 24 Sep 2004 13:14:41 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
2119 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Andrew Engstrom wrote:
| |
I see from your post that you have a child. Consider this:
According to your reasoning, parents (you) must hate their (your) children
because they are disobedient, poop in their diapers, write on the walls, and
get the flu at the most inconvenient times.
|
I beg your pardon? Do you actually hate these actions when performed by a
child? That strikes me as a dangerous lack of self-control on the part of a
parent. Wall-writing, diaper-pooping, and flu-getting are parts of being a
child; a person who truly hates these actions should not, in my view, consider
becoming a parent.
So to answer your question, I most certainly do not hate when my son poops in
his diaper. To date, he hasn’t written on any walls, nor has he gotten the flu,
but I won’t hate these actions when they occur, either.
| |
This is a perfect example of hating what someone does, but not hating the
person themselves. (Most) Parents love their children because they are
valuable human beings, and this guy’s point is exactly the same: children may
do bad things at times, but the parent loves the child anyway. Now, don’t go
assume that I’m equating homosexuals with children, because that’s just an
illustration of my point.
|
First of all, homosexuality is not a bad thing, at least not by any objective
standard not beholden to superstition. Secondly, even if the child does do a
“bad” thing, does the parent really hate that thing, in the same way that
homophobes hate gays? I don’t think so.
| |
Hmmm... I think the so-called “homophobes” are simply frustrated with having
a decision made for them and then forced upon them. It is their right as a
human being to decide what they want to believe and what they don’t want to
believe.
|
If a belief is in conflict with a material fact, or if that belief is supported
by no empirical evidence, then the person who holds that belief is not
believing; he’s pretending. I’ll accept that you have a right to pretend
whatever you want to pretend, but that doesn’t give you the right to force other
people to accept what you’ve pretended.
| |
Homosexuality advocates need to learn that they can’t force people
to think as they do, and if they truly practice this “tolerance” they speak
of, they will graciously allow other people to have their say.
|
No such advocates are forcing anyone to think as the advocates do (at least not
in this forum). Instead, the advocates seek to prevent homophobes from from
establishing homophobic policy.
It is not intolerant to reject a philosophy that is itself hostile to tolerance.
| |
I can say
right now that other people in this thread prominently display that they
believe they are the source of infallible truth.
|
Care to name names? Otherwise, I don’t see your point here.
| |
I believe his point can best be articulated like this: It’s a matter of
manners; I don’t blatantly proclaim my sexuality, and I would appreciate it
if you would act in a similar manner.
|
Blatant proclamation of sexuality means different things to different people,
and different people have different levels of comfort. I note that you didn’t
specifically object to my mention of my son, so you clearly didn’t mind this
blatant proclamation of my sexuality. I note also that you signed your name
“Andrew” at the conclusion of your post, in a blatant proclamation of your
likely gender.
And standards of etiquette are different from person to person, too. To me, it
is a sign of trust and good manners not to be overly secretive about oneself. I
certainly don’t force people to reveal anything that they don’t wish to reveal,
but I would take the revelation as a sign of openness and good will.
Besides which, your concept of manners does not trump the nature of a community;
you simply have to accept that aspects of a community might be unpleasant or
objectionable to you.
| |
Many people feel that the request for
a LGBT newsgroup is a request for special attention/blatant proclomation of
sexuality. This is what upsets them, not the fact that people are gay (1).
|
I might accept this (and the footnote that I snipped), except that I have not
heard objections from anyone other than people who by their own assertions
object also to homosexuality. So it’s clear, to me, that we’re not just
discussing politeness or concerns about LUGNET group hierarchy; we’re seeing the
manifestation of deep-seated homophobia and intolerance. These are blights on
society as a whole and should be countered wherever possible.
| |
| |
What if one of your children turns out to be gay? Will you condemn that
child to spend his or her life thinking that he or she is not okay, simply
because of your value system? What kind of parent would inflict this
cruelty on a child?
|
This returns to your fallacy in thinking that hating an action (or lifestyle)
precludes loving a person. Some people find it a hard concept to understand,
but it’s really quite simple.
|
Surely you understand that you’re misstating my argument! You’re claiming that
I do not distinguish between hating an action and hating the person who
undertakes that action. In fact, I am arguing that the hatred of a lifestyle
that is inherent to a person’s identity is no different from hating at least
that aspect of that person.
The fact that you seek to cloister homosexuals suggests to me that you do not
love them, despite your argument. If you truly loved the person, then you would
accept the person as that person is, without equivocations about “not hating the
person, but hating aspects inherent in that person.”
| |
| |
I understand it, and I’d wager that Chris understands it. But you’ve made a
serious logical mistake to compare homosexuality with smoking, and you
seem not to understand it. Smoking is a voluntary action undertaken by a
person who has made the effort to acquire, light, and inhale the smoke of
cigarettes (or pipe, or whatever). Homosexuality is part of a person’s
identity, just as heterosexuality is part of your identity.
|
This may not be entirely true; many, many people believe that homosexuality
is a choice.
|
For many people, it may be a choice. For other people, it appears not to be
a choice. You can’t dismiss the entire group simply because some members of
that group chose to become members of the group.
| |
One of the major arguments for homosexuality is that it’s
simply a lifestyle choice. Who says it’s natural in the first place?
|
If humans do it, then it’s natural. Nothing humans can do or conceive of doing
is unnatural. Certain humans may find objectionable the actions of certain
other humans, but that doesn’t make those actions unnatural. Next question.
| |
Doesn’t the theory of evolution make homosexuality impractical? Supposing
evolution is fact, all homosexual creatures would have died off millions of
years ago because they could never produce offspring.
|
Evolution is a fact, and your disclaimer is very interesting.
Anyway, it’s absurd to think that characteristics are only passed between
generations as fully expressed traits, or that every member of a species must
procreate in order for that species to survive. It is sufficient that the
genetic material necessary to express those traits is propogated by some means,
even if it isn’t passed on directly from one expressor to another. Have you
ever heard of worker bees?
Dave!
|
|
Message has 1 Reply:
 | | Re: Why these news groups were created
|
| (...) Sir, I do hate (or strongly dislike) the results of these actions. Can you honestly tell me that you enjoy (or would enjoy) painting over permanent marks on the walls, changing poopy diapers, and scrubbing vomit out of the carpet, in and of (...) (20 years ago, 25-Sep-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
Message is in Reply To:
| | Re: Why these news groups were created
|
| (...) Sir, I see from your post that you have a child. Consider this: According to your reasoning, parents (you) must hate their (your) children because they are disobedient, poop in their diapers, write on the walls, and get the flu at the most (...) (20 years ago, 24-Sep-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
151 Messages in This Thread:
(Inline display suppressed due to large size. Click Dots below to view.)
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
This Message and its Replies on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
