quote:Originally posted by Orincoro: It's Schrodinger's cat. How do you know you've ever won an argument if you're never sure if you've actually changed the other person's mind?
posted
It seems to me that if you respond to what you think someone will say four posts away, then it is less likely that you are responding to what they are saying now.
In practical terms, it made me look over my shoulder to see who you were actually talking to.
Posts: 26077 | Registered: Mar 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:"That's because knowing that somebody gave money toward Prop 8 tells you very very little about who they actually are as a person. "
Actually, it tells you quite a lot. It tells you they actively support making a bigoted measure part of the constitution.
Despite the rhetoric from the pro gay marriage side, bigotry is not inherent in Proposition 8. Bigotry is one possible reason for favoring Prop 8, but it is certainly not the only reason to favor it. Thus, because you don't know WHY they favor voting for it, you can draw very few assumptions about the person just based on the fact that they gave money toward it as a cause.
This is comparable to complaints by the folks who want the Washington Redskins to change their name because they consider it a slur against Native Americans. One could say that anyone who supports keeping the old name is a bigot who hates Native Americans. One could SAY that - but it wouldn't be true. Plenty of (if not most) people support keeping the original name simply for traditions' sake, and hold no bad feelings towards Native Americans. Similarly, I suspect there are plenty of people who supported Prop 8 because they simply wanted to keep the status quo or felt it was important to preserve a tradition of marriage between a man and a women. And there are probably others who did it out of bigotry. You can't assume one or the other. Well, I suppose you can assume it if you want, but it would likely lead you to hate or shun perfectly good and reasonable people.
I'm inclined to think casually hating/shunning people without an extremely compelling reason is an unwise thing to do if you want to live a happy life.
Posts: 8120 | Registered: Jul 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
I'm not the one you're responding to, Tres, but I have (nearly) as much contempt for those who were pro on Prop 8 because of "tradtion" as I do towards those who dislike gays. As I said before, I don't believe that there's one morally good reason to support Prop 8, and I don't think I could be friends with or a customer of anyone who supported it. If you want to call that shunning, fine - that's completely determined by your definition. It's not hatred, though.
Posts: 2409 | Registered: Sep 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
There's a difference between "not be friends with" and not like. I can like people who I'm unwilling to be friends with - but if there's too much of a disconnect between the way they think and the way I think, we'd never make good friends. For instance, I like my mom plenty, but I'd never be friends with her - and it's not just the generational gap.
Maybe what we each consider a friend is different.
Posts: 2409 | Registered: Sep 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:I have (nearly) as much contempt for those who were pro on Prop 8 because of "tradtion" as I do towards those who dislike gays. As I said before, I don't believe that there's one morally good reason to support Prop 8, and I don't think I could be friends with or a customer of anyone who supported it.
Why? What good does that do?
Posts: 8120 | Registered: Jul 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
Jhai, your description back on page one is an operative definition of shunning. I'm not sure anyone has called it hatred, though.
I think that this thread has focused rather narrowly on this particular story about prop 8. This isn't a new problem by any means. This just happens to be a more egregious and recent demonstration.
Modern tools make the cost of collecting, distributing and working with large amounts of data much less than it once was even relatively recently.
In this particular case this is a effective change in what public means. Where as before, yes the data was available but the number of people who were interested enough to request it and then deal with it was much smaller, since this represented at the very least a cost in time. I suspect that all most people ever saw was the shaded newspaper map discussed earlier. Using some free or essentially free tools one person can now make the same data available to all, in an easy to use form, which means my cost to look for my neighbors in this data is essentially zero, and so I'm much more likely to do so for good, bad or out of mere curiosity.
As has been pointed out the data should be public but public doesn't mean cost free (explicitly I'm referring to more than just cash here.)
This same issue comes up with red light cameras, cell phone tracking, super market shopper's card, library records, surveillance cameras and on and on. Essentially anywhere that long term records are kept.
Since we now have these capabilities, they will be used in ways we don't necessarily like simply due to wide availability and relatively (and generally decreasing) costs. Unfortunately I've yet to hear anything effective that you can do about it.
Posts: 1621 | Registered: Oct 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:I have (nearly) as much contempt for those who were pro on Prop 8 because of "tradtion" as I do towards those who dislike gays. As I said before, I don't believe that there's one morally good reason to support Prop 8, and I don't think I could be friends with or a customer of anyone who supported it.
Why? What good does that do?
Because I don't like to hang around people who promote things I strongly dislike - do you? And I don't like to support business that promote things I strongly dislike - do you? I'm just being upfront about it. It's not about "doing good". It's just about my personal preferences. I have a limited amount of time & money, and I don't wish to waste either on things that I don't like. I don't think this is a surprising or unique facet of my personality - most (if not all) people don't like to spend resources on things they don't like. Shocker, I know.
HollowEarth, the wikipeida article on shunning seems to suggest that it's different than what I do. But, like I said, I don't really give a crap what you call it - in the end it's all definitional bickering. I don't think anything I'm doing is less than morally neutral.
Posts: 2409 | Registered: Sep 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
That's fine - it's your choice. I don't desire to spend what little free time I have that way.
Posts: 2409 | Registered: Sep 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
That's fine too. I just wanted to let you know that some of us don't have a problem with that, and are able to be friends without politics or religious differences interfering.
Actually, I kind of feel sad for people who have a problem with that. But it makes some things make much more sense...
Posts: 21182 | Registered: Sep 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Actually, I have friends of pretty much every religion practiced, and all sorts of political types. Obviously you don't understand the distinction I'm making. I guess I feel kind of sad for people who have a problem with that.
Edit: HallowEarth, try reading a bit deeper into the article than that. There's more to something than a one sentence blurb, you know. To be more specific, that exact same sentence could be the definition of "avoidance." Or "disassociation". Unless you think all of these words have the exact same meaning, there's more to shunning than just that.
quote:Because I don't like to hang around people who promote things I strongly dislike - do you? And I don't like to support business that promote things I strongly dislike - do you? I'm just being upfront about it. It's not about "doing good". It's just about my personal preferences. I have a limited amount of time & money, and I don't wish to waste either on things that I don't like. I don't think this is a surprising or unique facet of my personality - most (if not all) people don't like to spend resources on things they don't like. Shocker, I know.
I actually think that everyone I hang around with supports something or another that I strongly dislike. At least I can't think of anyone in particular who doesn't. And I think this is not unusual for most people - because it is possible to like someone, as a person, despite the fact that they support something you don't like.
I'd think that if you limit yourself to liking only people who support only things you support, you are probably really missing out on a lot of excellent and fantastic people. And they're missing out on you.
Posts: 8120 | Registered: Jul 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
I didn't say that I only like "people who support only things I support." Man, you guys are really having difficulty parsing language tonight. And I strongly dislike very few things in this world, so I've found myself at no loss of excellent friends.
Posts: 2409 | Registered: Sep 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Jhai: There's a difference between "not be friends with" and not like. I can like people who I'm unwilling to be friends with - but if there's too much of a disconnect between the way they think and the way I think, we'd never make good friends. For instance, I like my mom plenty, but I'd never be friends with her - and it's not just the generational gap.
Maybe what we each consider a friend is different.
I think you are changing definitions on me.
Posts: 21182 | Registered: Sep 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
I don't dislike you, kq. I think you've been a bit snide on this page, but so have I. I think if we met in person I'd like you - I certainly enjoy reading your blog & most of your posts here on Hatrack. Edit: and now I'm for bed. If I don't respond, it's because I live on the East Coast now (sadly).
Posts: 2409 | Registered: Sep 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
I haven't meant to be snide. I'm reading my remarks and I don't know what you read as "snide" but I assure you it was not intended that way.
Posts: 21182 | Registered: Sep 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
I, at least, get what you're saying Jhai, but I don't know if I agree exactly. I have some friends who are relatively religious, and I find that silly, but that doesn't mean I can't be friends with them. It just means I can't agree with them about things regarding religion. In a case similar to this my friend was planning to vote against the proposal in michigan to allow excess in vitro fertilization eggs to be used for stem cell research. I told him that I respect his right to vote his mind but that he should be well-informed about his vote, and understand my thoughts on the matter.
Anyway, I'm just saying that it's fine to say you hate things people do/feel/believe and not hate the person, but I also recognize that sometimes hating/shunning/avoiding the person is the best solution.
Posts: 655 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Tresopax: I'm inclined to think casually hating/shunning people without an extremely compelling reason is an unwise thing to do if you want to live a happy life.
It's quotes like this that make my head pop when people talk about how it's not cool to judge people just because they want to deny rights to a whole group of people. Posts: 3950 | Registered: Mar 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Orincoro: It's Schrodinger's cat. How do you know you've ever won an argument if you're never sure if you've actually changed the other person's mind?
posted
You may not believe it but I am actually quite good friends with a family who buys Hunts and not just because it is cheaper-- they prefer it to Heinz.
They also like Miracle Whip and say that Best Foods/Hellmans "doesn't taste right" in their tuna salad. Posts: 21182 | Registered: Sep 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
For a minute there, I thought you meant me. But while Miracle Whip is usable for some things, tuna is NOT one of them.
Posts: 32919 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by ketchupqueen: You may not believe it but I am actually quite good friends with a family who buys Hunts and not just because it is cheaper-- they prefer it to Heinz.
They also like Miracle Whip and say that Best Foods/Hellmans "doesn't taste right" in their tuna salad.
I realize that this is a joke, but I do think it's somewhat telling about the weight some people seem to give the same-sex marriage issue, as though deciding whether or not gay people are allowed to get married is just a matter of personal taste.
Posts: 3950 | Registered: Mar 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by rivka: For a minute there, I thought you meant me. But while Miracle Whip is usable for some things, tuna is NOT one of them.
While I, on the other hand, think that tuna is one of the few things Miracle Whip is usable for.
Posts: 1658 | Registered: Sep 2003
| IP: Logged |
I was responding in kind to Orincoro. Give me a break.
Fair enough, break given.
Just ask yourself how a similar quote would sound.
"I know some people who donated money to get an amendment added to the Constitution to prevent black people from being able to be President, but then I have friends who don't like bacon too."
Posts: 3950 | Registered: Mar 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
In defense of the cat (and Scott), the experiment is not about whether you know whether the cat is alive or dead, but the fact that -- if you don't assume the cat to be a valid "observer" -- the cat is simultaneously both.
Not being sure that you've actually convinced somebody of something is, as far as I can tell, nothing like knowing that the person is simultaneously convinced and skeptical.
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
"Despite the rhetoric from the pro gay marriage side, bigotry is not inherent in Proposition 8. Bigotry is one possible reason for favoring Prop 8, but it is certainly not the only reason to favor it. "
While I do not know that everyone who supported proposition 8 is a bigot, the proposition itself was prejudicial without valid reason (that is, there is no reason I've yet seen that I accept as valid for defining marriage between a man and woman within the legal framework of marriage that currently exists), which is essentially the definition of bigotry. Therefore, while someone might vote for proposition 8 without being bigoted against gay people, they voted so as to enact a bigoted constitutional amendment.
Posts: 4112 | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
So offer a valid reason to ban same sex marriage within the current framework of civil marriage. Try to convince me I'm wrong. A lot of people have done so, and all their reasons have boiled down to either been "tradition," or "gay people aren't as good as straight people." Which leaves me with the conclusion that it is indeed a black and white issue.
Posts: 4112 | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Wow, with that graceful, open-minded invitation to a respectful debate, I can't imagine why I wouldn't want to engage in the debate. Besides, you're assuming I have a certain stance on it. You don't know that.
I do know that the world is not as black and white as you think it is.
You're an adult. You should have gotten past being able to see things only from your own perspective and demonizing all those who think differently.
Posts: 26077 | Registered: Mar 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
Kat, I'm with Paul on this one. I have never seen an argument against gay marriage that hasn't boiled down to those two, plus "I believe God doesn't want it."
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
I tried looking at the issue from other people's perspective. I didn't like the pile of turd that they pointed to as to where I would have to stand in order to see the issue the way they did.
Posts: 4112 | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
How can someone offer a "valid" reason when what they consider valid is not valid to you? The reason you vote for or against something is because you find the reasons valid. I find for "traditions sake" and the "slippery slope to other kinds of marriage" and "religious reasons" perfectly valid. That you don't has no bearing on the way I would vote for the measure.
Posts: 2207 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
Even if what you say is true, that in itself proves Paul's thesis wrong. You may (and probably do) disagree with it, but it is a motivation other than the one he claims.
Posts: 26077 | Registered: Mar 2000
| IP: Logged |
"Besides, you're assuming I have a certain stance on it"
That assumption isn't there. If you know a reason why someone supports banning gay marriage that doesn't boil down to the positions I offered (plus tom's), you'd be able to explain it, even if you didn't hold the position.
Posts: 4112 | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
So, a belief that God has declared that all black people are inferior is not bigotry? I just want to be clear about this.
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
Frankly, I believe "god doesn't want it," is in the category of "tradition." If you don't, then fine. I'm willing to go with those three categories.
"I find for "traditions sake" and the "slippery slope to other kinds of marriage" and "religious reasons" perfectly valid. That you don't has no bearing on the way I would vote for the measure. "
And I find all of these reasons to be large turd piles:
a) Tradition is bigoted against gay people. Enforcing that tradition continues to be bigoted against gay people.
b) Don't hurt gay people because something else might come along later. Its not their fault some people are idiots and would justify pedophile marriages using gay marriage
c) "god tells me to kill all the people who say god doesn't want gay people to get married" would HAVE to be accepted as valid if we accept "god doesn't want gay people to get married," as valid.
Posts: 4112 | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by ketchupqueen: This is ridiculous. And I don't intend to indulge it any more. Have fun.
I know you don't intend on "indulging" it, but I must admit I was wondering what awful thing your friends did (yet were forgiven for) that was comparable to advocating for the removal of the existence of your marriage (or your right to marry as it may be).
quote:Originally posted by TomDavidson:
quote:Unfortunately I've yet to hear anything effective that you can do about it.
Why do we think it's unfortunate? What value is there in obfuscation?
Kinda goes back to the other discussion, no? Why do people use anonymous member names on Slashdot or nicknames on forums such as this? Why do people limit access to different sorts of information on Facebook to friends rather than the Internet at large. Its obvious that a really determined hacker could really get to those vacation photos, facebook security or not, but there obviously is some *perceived* value.
Posts: 7593 | Registered: Sep 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
I accept C as perfectly valid for those who believe that. Not saying I see that as acceptable, just valid. I find "its a bigoted law" argument to be a large turd pile. So what?
"So, a belief that God has declared that all black people are inferior is not bigotry?"
No more than Jesus saying you shouldn't teach the Gentiles the gospel. No more than saying Republicans are evil as you implied in another place.
Posts: 2207 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Again, in Paul's defense, he has asked for people to clarify their positions, and has said only that he has never heard an argument which didn't fall into those categories. As I never have, either, I know that I would be profoundly interested in hearing such an argument.
--------
quote:No more than Jesus saying you shouldn't teach the Gentiles the gospel. No more than saying Republicans are evil as you implied in another place.
So we're agreed that it IS bigotry, but is justified bigotry?
Because I think that's really the question: not whether Prop-8 supporters are bigots, but whether their reasons for bigotry are good ones.
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Confused]](confused.gif)
![[Eek!]](eek.gif)
![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
