Subject:
|
Re: Why these news groups were created
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Sat, 25 Sep 2004 01:55:56 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
2207 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, David Laswell wrote:
| |
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Andrew Engstrom wrote:
| |
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.
|
Yes, until they try to dictate the behavior of others based on their own
sense of morality.
|
Agreed, sir, but my point is simply that these people feel this way, whether
they are being oppressed or not, and that is what they are reacting to.
| |
Their freedom to be trumps your
freedom to not see.
|
Again, I agree, but in every case in life (not just this), a judgement call has
to be made somewhere. Everyone, without exception, has an opinion on where the
line must be drawn.
| |
| |
I can say right now that other people in this thread prominently display
that they believe they are the source of infallible truth.
|
Like you? The sword cuts both ways.
|
Sir, I never claimed to be. I’m simply stating my observations of how people
should politely debate this topic. Dave Schuler has demanded that I name names.
I thought I would refrain from this in order to be respectful and unaccusing.
If you want names, these people have made my point for me very clearly in the
following excerpts.
Dave Schuler:
| |
Then you’ve been lucky not to have been exposed to reality, since you have >
been given such an inadequate set of tools for dealing with it.
|
Chris Weeks:
| |
Look Jason, I can’t help it that you’re wrong. (In reference to Jason’s
opinion)
|
as well as...
| |
Jason, we’ll know when you’ve been “bombarded with it” enough when you
accept homosexuality as a perfectly acceptable alternative to the majority
sexual preference. Until that time, you need more exposure...even re-
education.
|
and...
Even Jason is guilty of this at some times:
| |
the homosexual agenda uses the media to force its views on society.
|
These are all people’s opinions, but when they are expressed in such a harsh and
agressive manner, people tend to dislike and/or retaliate against the speaker.
| |
| |
This is what upsets them, not the fact that people are gay.
|
As I’ve said before, the world assumes heterosexuality, so if they don’t
say anything, they’re misidentified.
|
If being misidentified makes a homosexual uncomfortable, then there are deeper,
underlying security issues here, but that’s not my point. I’m merely saying
that this is how some people feel. I make no claims on any other point with
this statement.
| |
| |
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.
|
Hating an individual’s lifestyle makes it much harder to let any underlying
love show through. And even if you’re doing so, it also makes it harder for
the subject of that love to see it as genuine (if they see it at all).
|
Sir, I agree completely. This is something that all human beings need to work
on. I make no excuses for anyone, including myself. Today I found myself
letting my hate for a person’s activity taint my love for the person. Though it
is simple to understand, it is a difficult value to put into practice.
| |
| |
This may not be entirely true; many, many people believe that homosexuality
is a choice.
|
Belief is not proof, and what evidence has been gathered points to it being
physiological in origin, not psychological.
|
Sir, may I remind you that “Belief is not proof” applies to your beliefs as
well as those of others. If you would present proof other than your belief that
homosexuality is not a choice, I’m sure the community would be willing to
examine it in a civil, objective manner.
| |
| |
Supposing evolution is fact,
|
Evolution is fairly well proved by an island that Darwin wasn’t able to visit
during his trip to the Gallapagos.
|
I’m sorry, I should have been clearer. I was referring to macro-evolution
(change from one species to another), not micro-evolution (change within a
species). Micro-evolution has been proved countless times--your illustration is
a prime example. Macro-evolution has never been “proven,” by definition. Now,
a disclaimer. I don’t want to start a tangent discussion on the factuality of
evolution in this thread. I would be happy to see a civil, logical discussion
of it in another, seperate thread.
| |
The other nice thing about that example is that it shows how just because
living beings exhibiting a single genetic characteristic can die out without
ever breeding, the genetic material that results in that characteristic can
survive through other breeding strains.
|
I see your point, sir. I admit that I hadn’t taken that into consideration
before. The debate over whether it is probable is something that should be
reserved for another time, but you have a valid point. Thank you for pointing
this out.
My intention in this follow-up post is simply that of clarifying my position.
As for my original post, I’m satisfied that we’re all now using logic, instead
of posting over-emotional flame posts.
Andrew
|
|
Message has 3 Replies:
 | | Re: Why these news groups were created
|
| (...) "Macro-Evolution" is a term used by pseudo-scientists. Inasmuch as evolution is merely change within a species over a very long time to the point that that species can no longer produce viable offspring with a former member of the same species (...) (20 years ago, 25-Sep-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
| | | Re: Why these news groups were created
|
| (...) The line should always be drawn based on who is attempting to oppress another, not on whose view is "correct". That's the difference between preventing oppression and allowing the majority to oppress the minority. (...) Knowing that you're (...) (20 years ago, 25-Sep-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
| | | Re: Why these news groups were created
|
| (...) A word in defense of this statement; Andrew offers this as an example of me asserting that I have access to infallible truth. At face value, I can see how my statement can be interpreted that way, though it is not an interpretation with which (...) (20 years ago, 27-Sep-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
Message is in Reply To:
| | Re: Why these news groups were created
|
| (...) Yes, until they try to dictate the behavior of others based on their own sense of morality. You can be a homophobe all you want, but the line is crossed when you try to restrict them from having the same freedom to participate that heteros (...) (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
|
|
|
|
