Subject:
|
Re: Why these news groups were created
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Sat, 25 Sep 2004 03:28:07 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
2251 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Dave Schuler wrote:
| |
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.
|
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 themselves? The difference comes when a parent loves his/her child
enough to endure these hardships for them. Please do not deliberately
misinterperet my example in an attempt to shift the subject.
| |
| |
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.
|
Sir, the fallacies of your thinking are unfathomable. You deliberately slur my
example with the facts of real life; I say this because I know that you are an
intelligent human being capable of logical thought. And in case you aren’t, let
me clarify: the term “BAD” was meant to apply only to my illustration of my
point.
Also, it is unfair to equate others’ beliefs with superstition. This puts your
opinion at the level of “infallible truth” and (intolerantly) forces people to
either agree with you or risk your repudiation for any deviance from your
perception of the truth. Please see my reply to David Laswell
(http://news.lugnet.com/off-topic/debate/?n=26047) for a further explanation
of this point.
| |
| |
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.
|
Sir, do you consider your opinion exempt from this? Are you superior to all
other human beings? If you would present these alleged “material facts” without
asserting that your opinion is fact, we should be happy to review it
objectively. Otherwise, stop asserting such preposterous notions! Please
review my reply to David on this subject.
| |
| |
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.
|
Yes, I have encountered homosexuality advocates who think that people need to be
“re-educated” (please see the “naming names” section of my reply to David
(http://news.lugnet.com/off-topic/debate/?n=26047)).
On your other point, there is nothing wrong with lobbying for policies against
“establishing homophobic policy.” The problem arises when the lobby fails, and
the lobby group won’t recognize the fact that at this time the majority of
people doesn’t share their views. America’s foundation is rule by the majority.
Minority groups have every right to have their say, but not the right to have
their way. A harsh view, I know, but as soon as the minority group’s beliefs
become the beliefs of the majority, the system will change itself. Lobbying is
good. Insisting to have one’s way at the expense of the majority is bad.
| |
It is not intolerant to reject a philosophy that is itself hostile to
tolerance.
|
No, sir, but when you limit a person’s right to express it, it is. In line with
my point directly above, you have the right to disagree with a person, but
unless he’s infringing on your rights first, you have no right to make him stop
expressing his opinion.
| |
| |
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.
|
Sir, I believe you do see my point, but refuse to acknowledge it. Please see
the “naming names” section of my reply to David.
| |
| |
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.
|
Exactly. People have different levels of comfort, and these people are
uncomfortable. Let’s give them their own newsgroup to talk about it. That
would be “tolerant,” right?
| |
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.
|
Sir, there is a line between the objective examination of a subject and
nonsensical claims about it. The reason a person wouldn’t object to the mention
of your son is because it came out in the normal progression of a conversation.
And as soon as I get numerous complaints about me signing my letters with a name
indicative of gender, then I’ll re-think how I sign my posts. I would comment
further on your reasoning in that paragraph, but it is apparent that you used
none.
| |
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.
|
Now tell me, whose standards are absolute? Yours, or those of the people who
are uncomfortable with your stand on homosexuality? Until it can be shown that
one person’s opinion is that of the majority, or until someone decides to
compromise a little so there can be civil communication, there will always be
disagreement. If someone is uncomfortable with your openness, he can choose to
go elsewhere, ignore it, voice his opinion, or do whatever he wants that doesn’t
interfere with your rights, and you can do nothing to prevent him from doing so.
It is a governing principle of civilized human beings.
| |
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.
|
You prove my point above. My concept of manners is the nature of a community.
Accept, ignore, or dissent. Three actions that do not violate anyone’s rights
and therefore cannot be abridged.
| |
| |
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.
|
Again, your opinion. People have many different reasons to believe
homosexuality is wrong, many of them legitimate reasons to hold that belief. As
long as they don’t infringe on your rights, you cannot infringe on theirs.
| |
| |
| |
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.
|
Sir, you directly state this in your argument! Have you even read your own
statement in your following paragraph?
| |
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.
|
You, sir, are the one who is being nonsensical.
| |
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.”
|
If I claimed to truly love a person according to your beliefs, this would be
so. However, according to my beliefs, it is not only possible, but
obligatory. Granted, as human beings we will fail at it from time to time, but
a system of values is really the incarnation of a desire to aspire to lofty
goals--a desire present in all (or at least nearly all) humans.
| |
| |
One of the major arguments for homosexuality is that it’s
simply a lifestyle choice.
|
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.
|
Another opinion. Do not make the mistake of stating opinion as fact. State it
as opinion. Until you do, it is very difficult to take seriously any argument
you make.
| |
| |
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.
|
I have already covered this topic in my reply to David Laswell. Please refer to
that post for my views on the subject.
Sir, if you insist upon posting skewed logic and bigoted, assuming opinions as
facts, then I will not dignify them with a response. My only complaint was, and
remains, that you are trying to use fallacies of thinking to prove your point.
Please take it as personal advice to change your method of argument so that you
don’t embarass yourself in the future.
Andrew
...Or, for those of you offended my use of my own name...
A.
|
|
Message has 4 Replies:
 | | Re: Why these news groups were created
|
| (...) hmm..."superstition-N. 1. Belief in the suernatureal;irrational fear of the unknwon. 2. Pracice, belief or religion based on this" "Natural-N 1a. Existing in or caused by nature. (skipped a few) 8.Physically existing." OED Therefore, from a (...) (20 years ago, 25-Sep-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
| | | Re: Why these news groups were created
|
| (...) Insisting to have one's way at the undue expense of even a single person is bad, even if you're part of the majority. Figuring out who is bearing the greater burden is the tricky part, and in this case, preventing a group to speak freely of (...) (20 years ago, 25-Sep-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
| | | Re: Why these news groups were created
|
| (...) That's not how you phrased the point, initially. You presented these actions in the context of a baby's actions, and that's how I addressed them. If you wish to change the question at this time, then you must either address or cede the (...) (20 years ago, 27-Sep-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
| | | Re: Why these news groups were created
|
| (...) **snip** (...) Here's a sweetheart of a quote that I can believe I forgot to mention: "I have recently been examining all the known superstitions of the world, and do not find in our particular superstition (Christianity) one redeeming (...) (20 years ago, 28-Sep-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
Message is in Reply To:
| | Re: Why these news groups were created
|
| (...) 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 (...) (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
|
|
|
|
