FacebookTwitter
Hatrack River Forum Post New Topic  Post A Reply
my profile login | register | search | faq | forum home

  next oldest topic   next newest topic
» Hatrack River Forum » Active Forums » Books, Films, Food and Culture » Gay Rights XV: everybody gets gay marriage (Page 11)

  This topic comprises 15 pages: 1  2  3  ...  8  9  10  11  12  13  14  15   
Author Topic: Gay Rights XV: everybody gets gay marriage
Samprimary
Member
Member # 8561

 - posted      Profile for Samprimary   Email Samprimary         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by BlackBlade:
quote:
so then anyone with a prejudiced and bigoted position of advocacy for discrimination that causes harm can then hide behind how unfair it is that people pass judgment on them because of their actions.

Come on dude. I say you have to understand somebody's motivations, and your response is I must also be arguing everybody has good motivations?
No, I'm just extrapolating the realm of inviolable grounds your statements suggest people have against people who aren't going to 'understand them,' which becomes a really tired defense, real fast.

quote:
But we are supposed to show empathy for all people,
this will be a point of massive contention. it also supposes that one of the ways we are 'supposed' to show empathy is to, effectively, be polite even in the face of discrimination, to the discriminators (as has been established in the framework of what you've been saying so far).

quote:
doesn't mean we just wash our hands of what they do and walk away. You try to understand why they act in the manner they do.
Many people here have tried to and are in some way assured themselves of just that.

quote:
He's made some bad choices, including diet and exercise that were involved in his current state. He does some rotten things while in this state in part because he lacks control, but in part because he's stubborn. It would be easy to just write him off as a stupid old cook who can be safely ignored. But that does him a gross indignity, especially in light of the fact he has probably spent more time in the service of others than he has in taking care of himself.
I think it is a gross indignity in part due to issues of medical and mental capacity. Unless someone is going to offer mental incapacity and a compromised mental state as an excuse for card's actions, I am not readily going to be able to find an ability to make the moral equivalency bridge here. Card is a man who ostensibly of sound mind commits a large portion of his life to persecuting gays. This is incredibly different in all ways to figuring out the morality situation of the grandparents here.

quote:
I've never advocated doing "nothing" in response to his stated views. Not one time.
Correct, you are advocating that people not do some things because either it hurts feelings or 'entrenches' people in a position of wrongness.

quote:
quote:
"In a war of ideas, persuasion is the only victory and alienation the bitterest defeat."
I agree with the first half, and I am not sure if the second is saying that to alienate another is to be defeated, or to be alienated is defeat. [/qb]
it's saying that in a war of ideas, you can only win by persuading the other side to yours, and if you instead alienate the other side this is pretty much a total loss.
Posts: 15419 | Registered: Aug 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
FlyingCow
Member
Member # 2150

 - posted      Profile for FlyingCow   Email FlyingCow         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
I mean, Dan Simmons has some odd views on Islam that I don't really agree with. But is he actively campaigning for their deportation or something? Not that I know of. (And I haven't bought anything he's written in a while anyway.)

I wasn't aware of Dan Simmmons' views and did a quick perusal of his website and forums. Definitely an angry political tenor over there - yeesh.
Posts: 3960 | Registered: Jul 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Obama
unregistered


 - posted            Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by FlyingCow:
quote:
I mean, Dan Simmons has some odd views on Islam that I don't really agree with. But is he actively campaigning for their deportation or something? Not that I know of. (And I haven't bought anything he's written in a while anyway.)

I wasn't aware of Dan Simmmons' views and did a quick perusal of his website and forums. Definitely an angry political tenor over there - yeesh.
These posts raise a good point. There are probably lots of authors, producers, script writers, whatever, that hold views I disagree with or see as being abhorrent. But seeing as how I'm a bit lazy, and only have so much free time, I don't do research on every person whose work I enjoy.

However, work like that isn't necessary to know what Orson Scott Card says and does. OCS goes out and gives his money, fame, and time to an organization as vile as NOM. He writes entire columns denigrating gays and declaring that to treat them as equals to straights would destroy America. He, metaphorically, gets in people's faces and lets them know what he thinks, delibrately, because he wants to make a difference.

Well, he has made a difference. People think he's a bigot, and less people will pay to see his movie then would have otherwise, so there's a difference right there. None of that would have happened if he'd been like Simmons and kept his beliefs about gays hidden under metaphors about how important mother-father families are in his books, and how people who don't procreate count less. Instead, he joined the public debate.

Let him eat his just desserts for that. And really, we all know it's not going to be a big serving. Any boycott won't be a blip on the radar.

IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Xavier
Member
Member # 405

 - posted      Profile for Xavier   Email Xavier         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Yeah in Simmons' case, I only know about his views on Islam based on a wacky short story he put on his website a while back. If he's made other statements or written other essays since then, they haven't entered my sphere of attention.

[And really, Card's stance on Islam probably lines up pretty well to Simmons'.]

Posts: 5656 | Registered: Oct 1999  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
FlyingCow
Member
Member # 2150

 - posted      Profile for FlyingCow   Email FlyingCow         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by BlackBlade:
If you have links to a well-reasoned and thoughtful call for a boycott of Ender's Game, I'd be very much obliged.

Because you specifically requested a link.

(Link Removed by JanitorBlade)

[ July 12, 2013, 10:45 AM: Message edited by: JanitorBlade ]

Posts: 3960 | Registered: Jul 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
BlackBlade
Member
Member # 8376

 - posted      Profile for BlackBlade   Email BlackBlade         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Could you PM it to me instead? Sorry I didn't specify.
Posts: 14316 | Registered: Jul 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Samprimary
Member
Member # 8561

 - posted      Profile for Samprimary   Email Samprimary         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
"So, having acted intolerantly and intolerably, Card now has the gall to ask for tolerance. And to suggest that, if he’s held accountable for his actions in any way (even, presumably, through a citizens’ boycott of his work), it would somehow be proof that the forces of fairness and tolerance really aren’t any better than him after all."

yeah the rest of the article ENTIRELY ASIDE, i dare the world to prove that this isn't an accurate predictive lambasting. I DARE YOU, WORLD.

Posts: 15419 | Registered: Aug 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Obama
unregistered


 - posted            Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Very, very rarely, the habit of legislators voting to pass a law without even reading and understanding it can actually be a good thing.

www.mediaite.com/online/costa-rican-legislature-legalizes-gay-marriage-by-accident/

IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Lyrhawn
Member
Member # 7039

 - posted      Profile for Lyrhawn   Email Lyrhawn         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Ohio Official ordered to recognize gay marriage on death certificate

Says the state ban on gay marriage violates the constitution's equal protection clause. I think a full faith and credit argument would be included too, but I haven't read the full opinion yet.

Judicial order came from a federal court judge.

Posts: 21897 | Registered: Nov 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Samprimary
Member
Member # 8561

 - posted      Profile for Samprimary   Email Samprimary         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Obama:
Very, very rarely, the habit of legislators voting to pass a law without even reading and understanding it can actually be a good thing.

www.mediaite.com/online/costa-rican-legislature-legalizes-gay-marriage-by-accident/

i guess it sort of counts in the way costa rica sort of counts as a state?
Posts: 15419 | Registered: Aug 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
BlackBlade
Member
Member # 8376

 - posted      Profile for BlackBlade   Email BlackBlade         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
You are thinking of Puerto Rico. [Smile]
Posts: 14316 | Registered: Jul 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Obama
unregistered


 - posted            Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Samprimary:
quote:
Originally posted by Obama:
Very, very rarely, the habit of legislators voting to pass a law without even reading and understanding it can actually be a good thing.

www.mediaite.com/online/costa-rican-legislature-legalizes-gay-marriage-by-accident/

i guess it sort of counts in the way costa rica sort of counts as a state?
I don't understand; things that happen outside of the United States don't matter? Or they're not what this thread is about? If the latter, the thread title doesn't really make that clear.

Gay people got a victory in Costa Rica at the expense of idiotic legislators. I figured we could be happy with one and laugh at the other. Sorry?

IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Samprimary
Member
Member # 8561

 - posted      Profile for Samprimary   Email Samprimary         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
oh right, I was thinking of puerto rico.


my statement was under the idea that this took place in a u.s. territory and it was kind of a victory in kind of a state

Posts: 15419 | Registered: Aug 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
The Black Pearl
Member
Member # 11788

 - posted      Profile for The Black Pearl   Email The Black Pearl         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
I was youtubing colbert and loved this.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nrAL5hys3lQ

Posts: 1407 | Registered: Oct 2008  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
FlyingCow
Member
Member # 2150

 - posted      Profile for FlyingCow   Email FlyingCow         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
NJ is #14.

http://www.cnn.com/2013/10/21/us/new-jersey-same-sex-marriage/

Posts: 3960 | Registered: Jul 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Lyrhawn
Member
Member # 7039

 - posted      Profile for Lyrhawn   Email Lyrhawn         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Michigan almost became 15 last Wednesday. Judge Friedman was widely expected to overturn the state ban, but instead refused to issue summary judgement and pushed it off to a full hearing in February. I think he's waiting to see what happens in New Jersey.
Posts: 21897 | Registered: Nov 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Anthonie
Member
Member # 884

 - posted      Profile for Anthonie   Email Anthonie         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
As of this past Tuesday, Illinois is #15. ...from the Chicago Tribune.

And Hawaii will be #16, likely as early as today after the House votes on the third reading of the bill.

Posts: 293 | Registered: Apr 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Dogbreath
Member
Member # 11879

 - posted      Profile for Dogbreath           Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Just passed here in Hawaii. [Smile]
Posts: 2222 | Registered: Dec 2008  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Samprimary
Member
Member # 8561

 - posted      Profile for Samprimary   Email Samprimary         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
The Guardian has ended up with some choice words for the LDS.

http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2013/nov/29/mormon-church-gay-marriage-lobbying

quote:
The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints (more commonly known as the Mormon church) recently reneged on its commitment to stay out of the gay marriage fight.

Posts: 15419 | Registered: Aug 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
BlackBlade
Member
Member # 8376

 - posted      Profile for BlackBlade   Email BlackBlade         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
I wasn't aware the LDS church made any sort of commitment to stay out of the gay marriage fight. The Guardian (and the linked Mother Jones article) certainly doesn't actually present one.
Posts: 14316 | Registered: Jul 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Samprimary
Member
Member # 8561

 - posted      Profile for Samprimary   Email Samprimary         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Sure. The way the guardian is putting it is not that the church openly made a statement committing not to fight gay marriage (wouldn't that have been better, though?), but that they committed to holding off on the gay marriage fight for the sake of preventing potential electability concerns for Romney, and have gone back to being an active enemy of marriage equality since then.
Posts: 15419 | Registered: Aug 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
BlackBlade
Member
Member # 8376

 - posted      Profile for BlackBlade   Email BlackBlade         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
"The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints (more commonly known as the Mormon church) recently reneged on its commitment to stay out of the gay marriage fight."

Except nobody in the church actually implied or hinted at this. You might as well argue that if I fail to show up at the gym one day, I have committed to stop exercising.

That's a ludicrous use of the word commitment. The Guardian is clearly trying to present duplicity on the part of the LDS church.

Further, Romney failed to be elected a year ago. What the church spent the last 11 months or so waiting for the election results to be verified?

"The image conscious Mormon church received such a pounding from all it did during the Prop 8 campaign that they decided they better play nice and quit all their gay-bashing....

While the church's image suffered badly, the other reason the Mormon church was sitting out last year's gay marriage debates was so that it would not jeopardize in any way shape or form what was deemed the "Mormon moment"

The church didn't decide to "play nice" it decided its present strategy was not working, and probably reevaluated what it's doing.

Look, I was hoping the church was backpedaling too, and was disappointed by Hawaii but I have no patience for nonsense like that Guardian article.

Posts: 14316 | Registered: Jul 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Rakeesh
Member
Member # 2001

 - posted      Profile for Rakeesh   Email Rakeesh         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
I don't recall, and the article doesn't offer any references to, pledges to abandon a political effort to fight against SSM so I have to agree with BlackBlade unless it turns out I'm wrong about those beliefs.

That said, it's unsurprising that something as hugely important as 'the family' and 'real marriage' (which are sometimes, supposedly, absolutely vital and worthy of almost any struggle) can be set aside for the sake of short-term political expedience. Strange to see God's Prophet behave in a manner that appears so very cynical.

Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
BlackBlade
Member
Member # 8376

 - posted      Profile for BlackBlade   Email BlackBlade         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
That said, it's unsurprising that something as hugely important as 'the family' and 'real marriage' (which are sometimes, supposedly, absolutely vital and worthy of almost any struggle) can be set aside for the sake of short-term political expedience.
I seriously doubt the church put the brakes on its efforts to curtail same-sex marriage purely out of some hope that Mr. Romney being elected president would somehow give them loads of goodies.

For all we know the Romney campaign asked the church to consider moving less aggressively for their sake, and the church decided to do so out of respect for Romney.

But I don't think it lines up, the church continued to not make headlines for almost a year after Romney failed to be elected president.

It'd be nice if we had a list of states that considered the gay marriage question after Nov 2012 until now.

Posts: 14316 | Registered: Jul 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Samprimary
Member
Member # 8561

 - posted      Profile for Samprimary   Email Samprimary         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Individually I am completely unsold on the narrative that their period of pulling back from the fight against marriage equality was for the sake of Romney.
Posts: 15419 | Registered: Aug 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Geraine
Member
Member # 9913

 - posted      Profile for Geraine   Email Geraine         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Samprimary:
Individually I am completely unsold on the narrative that their period of pulling back from the fight against marriage equality was for the sake of Romney.

I don't think the reason the church pulled back had to do with Romney either. I think the church's missionary work suffered in California (I have no data to prove this however) and think they pulled back in order to let things quiet down a bit.
Posts: 1937 | Registered: Nov 2006  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Rakeesh
Member
Member # 2001

 - posted      Profile for Rakeesh   Email Rakeesh         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
I don't think it was only for Romney. I think it was politically linked, though. The Romney campaign brought the Mormon church into the mainstream spotlight in ways that are, to this point, unusual for it.

They were getting enough flak for their anti-SSM efforts before the 2012 election brought them under the focus of a nationwide opposition that might look for ways to expose weaknesses or at least the perception of vulnerabilities and problems.

Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Hobbes
Member
Member # 433

 - posted      Profile for Hobbes   Email Hobbes         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
It's a bit of a cheap tactic, Rakeesh, to guess the motives of the Church and then condemn them for having such poor motives.

Hobbes [Smile]

Posts: 10602 | Registered: Oct 1999  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
kmbboots
Member
Member # 8576

 - posted      Profile for kmbboots   Email kmbboots         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Why? They are educated guesses and not without evidence to support them.
Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Rakeesh
Member
Member # 2001

 - posted      Profile for Rakeesh   Email Rakeesh         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Perhaps Hobbes, but would you be so quick to assign a low value if I were to guess at their motives and praise them? That is essentially what BlackBlade did, after all-suggest the motive or part of it was a respectful gesture to the Romney campaign.
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Hobbes
Member
Member # 433

 - posted      Profile for Hobbes   Email Hobbes         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by kmbboots:
Why? They are educated guesses and not without evidence to support them.

You think it's fine to insult people's motives that you made up, as long as your guess on their motives has some reasoning behind it?

quote:
Originally posted by Rakeesh:
Perhaps Hobbes, but would you be so quick to assign a low value if I were to guess at their motives and praise them? That is essentially what BlackBlade did, after all-suggest the motive or part of it was a respectful gesture to the Romney campaign.

Well generally I think it's better to incorrectly praise someone or something than to castigate them incorrectly. But from a logic perspective: no, it's no more logical. Why is that relevant?

Hobbes [Smile]

Posts: 10602 | Registered: Oct 1999  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Rakeesh
Member
Member # 2001

 - posted      Profile for Rakeesh   Email Rakeesh         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Well, it's relevant because it highlights a bias in your observation. Furthermore it points out that perhaps the relevance isn't that you're as concerned with making up motives and assigning moral judgments to them-but rather the criticism itself.

You've acknowledged that the praise isn't as bad, in your eyes, as the criticism.

On a broader point, I'm afraid I'm simply not going to be able to feel bad at all about speculating on the political motives of an organization that has so thoroughly connected itself to politics as has the LDS church. If it wants that not to happen, perhaps not hire so many frigging lobbyists for a start.

Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Samprimary
Member
Member # 8561

 - posted      Profile for Samprimary   Email Samprimary         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
It's also a cheap tactic to guess at the motives of the Church and praise them for having such virtuous motives, but, eh. The back and forth of this is a good case that the church is being ambiguous about its motives in a way it doesn't have to be. Which is worth paying attention to, because that means something.

The overarching motive of the church in this regard is patently obvious (it is trying to prevent gays from marrying by influencing lawmakers and elections). The guesswork and hypothesis is largely in regards to potential reasons why their actions have played out why they have, over the course of their apparently renewed attempts to fight against marriage equality.

Posts: 15419 | Registered: Aug 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
kmbboots
Member
Member # 8576

 - posted      Profile for kmbboots   Email kmbboots         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Hobbes:
quote:
Originally posted by kmbboots:
Why? They are educated guesses and not without evidence to support them.

You think it's fine to insult people's motives that you made up, as long as your guess on their motives has some reasoning behind it?

First, are you aware of the difference between "made up" and "has some reasoning behind it"? I think that, if there is compelling evidence that, of course, it makes sense to speculate on the motives of people or an organization. More, we do it all the time - we have to in order to make good decisions. If you have evidence to support a different motivation, go ahead and share it.
Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Hobbes
Member
Member # 433

 - posted      Profile for Hobbes   Email Hobbes         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Well, it's relevant because it highlights a bias in your observation. Furthermore it points out that perhaps the relevance isn't that you're as concerned with making up motives and assigning moral judgments to them-but rather the criticism itself.
How come you're now making up motives for me? Of course I'm biased. I mean for one, I hardly post here any more, so by only responding to a select few posts is already a bias. I post about things I care about. What does it matter if it's entirely driven by bias that I made my observation? I posted it because I respect you as someone who, while almost always being on the opposite side of the argument from my position, tends to make honest arguments and respect those who do so even when they disagree. Saying "I bet the church did X for reason Y" and then "reason Y is so cynical, it's transparent the leader isn't God's prophet." is an underhanded trick.

And worrying that the person who pointed it out is a member of the LDS Church seems a bit like sidestepping the Church to me. I mean your response was that you leveled a criticism at me for not liking it when my Church is insulted. It's true: I don't like it. But then you admit that you won't worry about etiquette because of their political involvement. Another bias. Which is fine, I just think you can make that argument without cheap tricks. And I'll do my best to make my argument without cheap tricks.

Hobbes [Smile]

Posts: 10602 | Registered: Oct 1999  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Hobbes
Member
Member # 433

 - posted      Profile for Hobbes   Email Hobbes         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by kmbboots:
quote:
Originally posted by Hobbes:
quote:
Originally posted by kmbboots:
Why? They are educated guesses and not without evidence to support them.

You think it's fine to insult people's motives that you made up, as long as your guess on their motives has some reasoning behind it?

First, are you aware of the difference between "made up" and "has some reasoning behind it"? I think that, if there is compelling evidence that, of course, it makes sense to speculate on the motives of people or an organization. More, we do it all the time - we have to in order to make good decisions. If you have evidence to support a different motivation, go ahead and share it.
This is another misdirection. "We have to make best guesses in order to make good decisions in life" is a perfectly sensible sentence. But hidden in that is the implicit idea that a decision that you (or Rakeesh) really needed to make or your life would not move forward was: can I make an offhanded, sarcastic criticism of a Church leader from a Church I don't believe in or belong to? Was that so important that a guess as to political motivation was sufficient cause to make it? You both seem to have plenty of legitimate criticisms, why make stuff up?

Hobbes [Smile]

Posts: 10602 | Registered: Oct 1999  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
kmbboots
Member
Member # 8576

 - posted      Profile for kmbboots   Email kmbboots         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Again, what do you mean by making stuff up? Are you saying that the evidence doesn't support Rakeesh's conclusion? Is there evidence to support a different conclusion?
Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Hobbes
Member
Member # 433

 - posted      Profile for Hobbes   Email Hobbes         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Why do you have to come to a conclusion at all? Assigning a motive when they haven't declared one is making stuff up. If you want to call it an "educated guess" you can do so, but it won't answer the question of why you needed to make such a guess. And certainly not why you needed to make the guess and then use that guess to insult the head of the Church.

Hobbes [Smile]

Posts: 10602 | Registered: Oct 1999  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Rakeesh
Member
Member # 2001

 - posted      Profile for Rakeesh   Email Rakeesh         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Hobbes,

quote:
How come you're now making up motives for me? Of course I'm biased. I mean for one, I hardly post here any more, so by only responding to a select few posts is already a bias. I post about things I care about. What does it matter if it's entirely driven by bias that I made my observation? I posted it because I respect you as someone who, while almost always being on the opposite side of the argument from my position, tends to make honest arguments and respect those who do so even when they disagree. Saying "I bet the church did X for reason Y" and then "reason Y is so cynical, it's transparent the leader isn't God's prophet." is an underhanded trick.
First, thanks for the kind words. The respect is mutual and I regard it as a thing of value. Now, for all of the reasons you're totes wrong;)

I was criticizing your objection not because I thought you were wrong about my method being a trick (I can't argue with that, though I dispute its cheapness) but because you characterized your objection on the grounds of 'we shouldn't do that'. I was trying to point out that you, too, do just what you were criticizing me of-'make up' motives and assign value to them.

That's not surprising, since neither of us are robots, but doesn't it indicate that perhaps your problem might be-just a little-with the fact that your church is being criticized, rather than the style of the criticism? If it were mine, I don't think I'd be able to divorce my antagonism to such things as capably as you (appear to be) suggest you are.

Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
kmbboots
Member
Member # 8576

 - posted      Profile for kmbboots   Email kmbboots         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
You don't think it is important to try and figure out why people do what they do? I am not sure how one would function without doing that.

If you want to argue that the evidence doesn't support that conclusion or give evidence of your own, that would be welcome. I just don't understand why motive seems to be off limits.

Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Hobbes
Member
Member # 433

 - posted      Profile for Hobbes   Email Hobbes         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Rakeesh, I see a difference because while I may be showing bias in what I was calling out (no arguments there, I like my Church, and it's pretty hard to like something without being biased toward it, however even-handed I like to think of myself as being) but it wasn't bias I was criticizing your comment for. It was for making a flawed argument. "I bet he's thinking of killing me and riding my carcass to safety. He must really be crazy to be thinking that." (Paraphrase from the Simpsons). I admit that this kind of thing gets my ire up, and when it's leveled against something I care about it... Honestly I wouldn't have said anything if you were someone else. But I feel like you pride yourself on having honest and coherent arguments so I said something.

"You don't think it is important to try and figure out why people do what they do? I am not sure how one would function without doing that."

Since I've directly addressed this twice, I'll simply re-state my question: What important functions are you not able to carry out if you didn't guess at the Church's motivations for their political actions and then use that guess to insult them for having such poor motives?

Hobbes [Smile]

[ December 02, 2013, 04:39 PM: Message edited by: Hobbes ]

Posts: 10602 | Registered: Oct 1999  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Rakeesh
Member
Member # 2001

 - posted      Profile for Rakeesh   Email Rakeesh         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Rakeesh, I see a difference because while I may be showing bias in what I was calling out (no arguments there, I like my Church, and it's pretty hard to like something without being biased toward, however even-handed I like to think of myself as being) but it wasn't bias I was criticizing you comment for. It was for making a flawed argument. "I bet he's thinking of killing me and riding my carcass to safety. He must really be crazy to be thinking that." (Paraphrase from the Simpsons). I admit that this kind of thing gets my ire up, and when it's leveled against something I care about it... Honestly I wouldn't have said anything if you were someone else. But I feel like you pride yourself on having honest and coherent arguments so I said something.
Ouch! You turn a compliment like a knife;)

This is beginning to go in circles (and others are making some of the same objections-I don't want to turn it into a dogpile), so I'll just reiterate that while I think you have a case to make for my argument having been flawed, the fact that using exactly the same style argument, but to praise (that is, guessing the motive and praising them for it) didn't strike you as so objectionable...well, that speaks for itself I think. The problem isn't just with the argument.

Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Hobbes
Member
Member # 433

 - posted      Profile for Hobbes   Email Hobbes         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
I will readily admit that guessing someone's motives and then using that guess to praise them is just as flawed as using the guess to criticize.

Hobbes [Smile]

Posts: 10602 | Registered: Oct 1999  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
kmbboots
Member
Member # 8576

 - posted      Profile for kmbboots   Email kmbboots         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Hobbes:
Rakeesh, I see a difference because while I may be showing bias in what I was calling out (no arguments there, I like my Church, and it's pretty hard to like something without being biased toward it, however even-handed I like to think of myself as being) but it wasn't bias I was criticizing your comment for. It was for making a flawed argument. "I bet he's thinking of killing me and riding my carcass to safety. He must really be crazy to be thinking that." (Paraphrase from the Simpsons). I admit that this kind of thing gets my ire up, and when it's leveled against something I care about it... Honestly I wouldn't have said anything if you were someone else. But I feel like you pride yourself on having honest and coherent arguments so I said something.

"You don't think it is important to try and figure out why people do what they do? I am not sure how one would function without doing that."

Since I've directly addressed this twice, I'll simply re-state my question: What important functions are you not able to carry out if you didn't guess at the Church's motivations for their political actions and then use that guess to insult them for having such poor motives?

Hobbes [Smile]

In this specific case? Figuring out how to counter such actions. Figuring out how to change the causes of such motivation. Speculating that someone want to ride a carcass to safety isn't crazy if there is evidence that that is what they want to do. The only reason it would be crazy is if there is no evidence that indicates that. If, for example, the person had ridden carcasses to safety before or, say, had a bunch of books about riding carcasses or something.

I maintain, despite your ridiculous examples that knowing why people do what they do is important and that human beings do it all the time. Why is my child crying? Why is my husband working so hard? Why is the city council giving that company that contract? Those shouldn't be off limit questions.

Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Hobbes
Member
Member # 433

 - posted      Profile for Hobbes   Email Hobbes         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Even if you were actually planning a campaign to change the mind and heart of the leader of the LDS leader, that still wouldn't explain why you think it's reasonable to use your best guess of his motivation to insult him. Unless, I suppose, that was your plan to change his mind.

Hobbes [Smile]

Posts: 10602 | Registered: Oct 1999  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
kmbboots
Member
Member # 8576

 - posted      Profile for kmbboots   Email kmbboots         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
I didn't say it was. My "horse" in this particular conversation is the frankly odd allergy to speculation on motivation. Presumably you don't think that your Church does things randomly. People make decisions and take action for reasons and those reasons are important.
Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Hobbes
Member
Member # 433

 - posted      Profile for Hobbes   Email Hobbes         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Kate, I'll give you what I think is an equivalent example:

"The new Pope sure likes to talk about giving to charity. I bet it's because he just likes being in the spotlight. After all, he's in the news way more than the old pope, and you don't rise to that level of prominence in an organization as big as the Catholic Church without being good at and active in self-promotion. That seems like a really cynical way for God's representative on Earth to behave."

Hobbes [Smile]

Posts: 10602 | Registered: Oct 1999  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
kmbboots
Member
Member # 8576

 - posted      Profile for kmbboots   Email kmbboots         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
That is legitimate. And entirely possible. What is your evidence? Did he do a lot of spotlight seeking as a bishop? Is it consistent with his other actions? Are there other motivations that seem more likely? Could that be one motivation among many? Go ahead and argue your point.
Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Hobbes
Member
Member # 433

 - posted      Profile for Hobbes   Email Hobbes         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Correct, the question is: "Can I prove that's his motivation?" not "Is he, thus, too cynical to be God's representative and whatever the fact that he is too cynical does to the legitimacy of the Catholic Church." And if I hide the link between the two (put some sentences between the assertion of his motivations and the conclusion that he's no good because of those motivations) then it's a question that can really only be answered after you tell me if you've stopped beating your wife.

Hobbes [Smile]

Posts: 10602 | Registered: Oct 1999  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
kmbboots
Member
Member # 8576

 - posted      Profile for kmbboots   Email kmbboots         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
I wouldn't say prove; I would say, make a strong, reasonable case. But you didn't argue the case. Instead of presenting reasons why that wasn't the Church's motivation or how the evidence isn't sufficient, you condemned speculation on that motivation. If you don't like the conclusions Rakeesh has drawn, give some evidence to the contrary.

In your example, for instance, I would point out that while the bad press the Catholic Church has been getting on hot button issues (birth control, SSM) and the attitude of the laity on such issues could well be a motivating factor in Pope Francis's focus on social justice issues, he has not been a publicity hog in the past. (Unlike, say, Cardinal Dolan!) I might also point out that his experience with the poor in South America is another likely motivating factor.

I would not say that it was illegitimate to discuss his motives.

Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
  This topic comprises 15 pages: 1  2  3  ...  8  9  10  11  12  13  14  15   

Quick Reply
Message:

HTML is not enabled.
UBB Code™ is enabled.
UBB Code™ Images not permitted.
Instant Graemlins
   


Post New Topic  Post A Reply Close Topic   Feature Topic   Move Topic   Delete Topic next oldest topic   next newest topic
 - Printer-friendly view of this topic
Hop To:


Contact Us | Hatrack River Home Page

Copyright © 2008 Hatrack River Enterprises Inc. All rights reserved.
Reproduction in whole or in part without permission is prohibited.


Powered by Infopop Corporation
UBB.classic™ 6.7.2