Subject:
|
Re: Why these news groups were created
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Mon, 27 Sep 2004 14:25:58 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
2432 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Andrew Engstrom wrote:
| |
| |
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?
|
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
original point.
| |
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.
|
Honestly, I welcome every poopy diaper as a means of determining whether my baby
is processing food properly, just as I welcome every wet accident he has. Sure,
they may be inconvenient or smelly, but I definitely don’t hate them.
And I don’t think of it as “enduring hardship” any more than I think it is
“enduring hardship” to see him smile at me. These are actions fundamental to my
baby son, and I welcome them as part of who he is.
| |
| |
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;
|
Come again? I’m sullying your example with facts? I can see how that might be
inconvenient for you.
| |
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.
|
But I don’t accept that application of the term. If I say “Let’s discuss
Christianity, the greatest pox on the human race,” you’d probably object to my
use of “pox” in this context, wouldn’t you?
| |
Also, it is unfair to equate others’ beliefs with superstition.
|
James has already done a great
job of addressing this, so additional comment by me would be redundant.
Thanks, James!
| |
| |
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.
|
James has likewise ably destroyed this objection. Thanks again, James!
I would add only that if you can provide empirical evidence for the existence of
god and the validity of Christianity as the only correct faith, then I would
happily review it. Lacking such evidence, then I stand by my assertion that
what you call “belief” is in fact “pretending.”
| |
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.
|
If the majority seeks to establish its views as policy (or as law), then the
majority had better darned well back up its views with facts, rather than mere
preferences. If, hypothetically, the majority decides that the Christian
minority should undergo brutal re-education to strip them of their beliefs,
would you support this policy as the “will of the majority?” It’s a harsh view,
I know.
| |
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.
|
Have I limited anyone’s rights in this fashion? I am under no obligation to
accept or defend your views as correct, no matter how strongly you may hold
them. The fact that I disagree with you and declare that you are incorrect is
no infringement upon your rights.
And please indicate specifically how your rights are being curtailed by the open
presence of homosexuals.
| |
| |
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’m afraid you’ve lost me here. Could you rephrase this part, please?
| |
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.
|
So if you’re conversing with a man, and you mention that you’ve been happily
married for 10 years (or whatever), then I gather that you wouldn’t mind if the
man said “my boyfriend and I have been together for eight years,” since that’s a
normal progression of a conversation. Am I reading you correctly?
| |
| |
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?
|
Neither. I’ve asserted all along that there is no absolute standard of good
and evil, and I would equally assert that there is no absolute standard of
etiquette!
You seem to be mistaking my assertion of my own preference for an assertion of
what I believe to be absolutely true. But that is not my position, so I won’t
attempt to defend it.
| |
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.
|
No kidding! This is what I’ve been arguing all along. Glad to have you aboard.
| |
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.
|
Again, I am not attempting to infringe upon anyone’s beliefs. However, if you
want my opinion (which I urge you not to mistake for a declaration of absolute
truth), then I say that it is reasonable to maintain a belief if and only if
that belief is supported by empirical evidence. Otherwise, you are pretending.
| |
| |
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.
|
You seem to be missing the point. Humans are part of nature, are they not? If
you disagree, then please articulate your argument. But if you agree, then you
must cede that anything that humans (who are subsets of the group Nature) do
is natural (i.e., part of nature).
| |
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.
|
And now you resort to direct insult. Please indicate where I have been bigoted;
if you cannot, then I must caution you that your assertion is libelous and
actionable.
Additionally, I am unimpressed with your claims re: my skewed logic. Based on
your posts here I have no reason to conclude that you have even a passing
familiarity with the structure of formal logic or rhetoric, so your critique is
of minimal value to me.
Dave!
|
|
Message has 1 Reply:
 | | Re: Why these news groups were created
|
| (...) This brings up an idea that has been through my head on several occasions - if you use the definition "part of nature" for natural, then what can be defined as unnatural? After all, everything on this earth has been created by nature, either (...) (20 years ago, 28-Sep-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
Message is in Reply To:
| | 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)
|
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
|
|
|
|
