FacebookTwitter
Hatrack River Forum   
my profile login | search | faq | forum home

  next oldest topic   next newest topic
» Hatrack River Forum » Active Forums » Books, Films, Food and Culture » The Death of an Idol (Page 4)

  This topic comprises 7 pages: 1  2  3  4  5  6  7   
Author Topic: The Death of an Idol
Synesthesia
Member
Member # 4774

 - posted      Profile for Synesthesia   Email Synesthesia         Edit/Delete Post 
Uh, why am I closed minded for feeling frustrated over him putting out inaccurate information about gays, the left, the sort of rights gays have and the whole nine yards?
The problem is his "opinions" make it difficult for a group of people. Gay folks are being tormented, disowned by their parents, beat up, driven to suicide and he's not really helping with this. He's just adding to the hate, and who needs more of that?
He really should educate himself on this issue before writing these articles. You can't even blame people for being mad about them. If you are all nasty, rude and offensive about a group of people, well, folks will respond to that.

Posts: 9942 | Registered: Mar 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
BlackBlade
Member
Member # 8376

 - posted      Profile for BlackBlade   Email BlackBlade         Edit/Delete Post 
Loving the sinner and hating the sin interestingly enough includes loving those who hate you and your 'sins'.

Whether that hate is real or perceived is beside the point.

I experienced an interesting phenomenon while I was a missionary in Taiwan. A person would initially laugh or scorn me for the message I was sharing, but the attitude, especially the humility behind the message would give them pause, and they might listen. Upon being converted they would rejoice, and eagerly throw themselves into their new religion. Now here's the interesting part. Some people would eagerly go forth and share the message as I had tried to share it, others would go out and laugh at their friends and family who still shared their old beliefs. They'd look for opportunities to bring it up and mock those who still held to the old beliefs. Seriously, people who had been worshiping at those temples and praying to those same idols not two weeks ago, talking about the idiocy of idol worship.

I call that phenomenon persecuted persecutors. From the phrase "How fast the persecuted become the persecutors". We can kid ourselves into thinking our persecuting is OK because really the victims are the people we are aligned with. The other side are a bunch of stupid bullies who don't need to be taken seriously much less loved. In doing that, we become the very thing we are fighting against, intolerance.

We gnash our teeth when our opponents bully us. We scream when they go to the ballot box. We mock when they engage us in conversation or speak their minds. We don't tolerate them anywhere, we certainly don't want to understand them or love them. We are intolerant.

Posts: 14316 | Registered: Jul 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Synesthesia
Member
Member # 4774

 - posted      Profile for Synesthesia   Email Synesthesia         Edit/Delete Post 
I... I am not really sure if these folks who are tormenting a minority based on a few mistranslated scriptures can say they are being persecuted anymore than folks who were OK with segregation were being persecuted.
I'm sorry, but there are bigger issues out there than two consenting adults getting married and having the same benefits straight people get to have. I think these folks should really take care of the holes in their own fences rather than rail about gay marriage. Why not try to push for HEALTHY marriages if they are so concerned with the state of marriage in this country? Why not do something else? It seems illogical to me. Many churches have their problems but rather than fix them, they want to focus on fixing the larger society when they could be focusing on how to help THEIR communities and their flock. It makes no sense. Homosexuality is a NON ISSUE.

Posts: 9942 | Registered: Mar 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Rakeesh
Member
Member # 2001

 - posted      Profile for Rakeesh   Email Rakeesh         Edit/Delete Post 
quote:
Rakeesh that is your opinion, not a fact. There are many people who BELIEVE it is an attack on the traditional family. That doesn't make him a liar, it makes him opinionated and no more so than you. I am always so surprised at the people calling others close-minded when many times they are just as close-minded as the people they are accusing. Can't you see that you are not looking at something from a different perspective?

No. It's not just a matter of the actions of 'the left' and homosexuals being an attack in fact if not intent. That's not the way things are because while anyone is perfectly entitled to believe that (though personally I think it's silly), Card goes quite a lot further in much of his rhetoric on the subject: the left hates traditional values, traditional families, and people who defend them. This is an accusation he's leveled more than once, and so when he calls it an attack he's not just referring to the sort of attack that occurs when well-meaning people who disagree take action to attempt to effect a change.

As for opinionated...well, yes. I have no problem with him being opinionated, or anyone. If you look back, you'll find nothing I said or even suggested otherwise. I'm not sure why you felt that was a gotcha, aretee.

Now as for being closed-minded...well, we're likely not going to agree on this, but I'll say it anyway: being 'closed-minded' towards being closed-minded isn't some sort of "Ahhh-ha!" paradox. It doesn't make one a hypocrite or anything, anymore than disliking open racists is some sort of subtle hypocrisy either. Card is absolutely entitled, as is anyone, to believe what he believes and I've no problem with it. He and the rest of NOM can, if it pleases them, cram their children's heads full of this anti-left, anti-homosexual nonsense to their heart's content and while I'll disagree, I won't disagree like this.

But when he takes to the public forum and attempts to make sure his religious values are kept crammed into our laws, then yeah, I've got a beef. And it's not one anyone is going to scare me off of having by pointing out the 'contradiction' in being intolerant of intolerance. I'm thoroughly tolerant of intolerance, but try and sneak it into law, and that's a problem.

quote:
He speaks the truth as HE sees it. That doesn't make anyone a liar, though you may disagree. His opinion is more popular than many want admit and that really makes people angry and upset. That still doesn't make him a hate-filled fear monger. It makes him an opinionated man with an audience. I think the last statement is what pisses people off, too.

You don't actually know this anymore than I do, aretee. That he speaks the truth as HE sees it. I suspect he does, but there is more than one way to be a liar, and not specifically intending to tell a lie doesn't preclude one from being a liar.

Now...heh. As for being angry he's got an audience, well. It's a bit funny you'd mention that. I think a big part of the reason Card's rhetoric towards 'the left' and homosexuals has steadily grown in vitriol and hostility over the past ten years is that he is aware of what pollsters know: opposition to SSM and intolerance of homosexuals in general has been, for the past decade, steadily eroding.

In terms of social issues, the pace of this public opinion change has been meteoric. You, and I, and Card, and the rest of NOM are perfectly aware, even if they don't wish to admit it, that in another decade much less a generation, this sort of amendment will be impossible. It won't even be possible to be a member of NOM as it currently exists and be respected, even among conservatives. It will simply be a toxic position politically speaking, with not enough people to make it viable. For someone who believes, as Card believes, that 'the left' and homosexuals hate and are attacking traditional values, do you imagine it's possible that doesn't make him angry?

quote:
Addendum: I work in the public school system. I've seen the nature and content of material that was to be taught change over the past 10 years. It is sliding more liberal. Whether or not you believe that is a good thing or not can be debated, but Mr. Card is not wrong in his assertion. He just likes to swing the fact like a big bat that makes a big mark when it finds contact with something.
Note: as a human beings in a Western, post-industrial society, our culture and our politics will inexorably over time swing more to the liberal. He can whine about it all he likes-and goodness knows, he does, but it doesn't make it especially, hatefully noteworthy.

quote:
How is the fisrt statement not true? Are opinions that a person agrees with fact and all others opinions? He even addresses that the left does not have evidence to support their assertions. He's trying to show that his opinion is more valid than another OPINION. Again, you can argue whether or not you agree with that, but it dosn't suddenly make one side fact and the other opinion.
It's not true because Card assigns motives. If he were to point out that liberals and homosexuals, though with honorable and virtuous intentions, were trying to enact political changes that would harm 'the family' (whatever the hell that means, and among social conservatives it's certainly a conveniently shifting term), I would think he was being silly and foolish, but I wouldn't for a second question whether he was being hateful. I also wouldn't start to wonder if he was just a liar.

But aside from that, Card can have the opinion that homosexuality and SSM would be somehow detrimental to traditional, hetero marriage (which as everyone knows has been the way things always were!) if he likes, but the evidence in support of that opinion are poor. You simply cannot arrive at that conclusion without some serious problems. Questions of what the 'traditional' family actually has been, for example. Questions of, if it is actually under threat, what really threatens it. Questions of whether two homosexuals marrying in the eyes of the law and living together in peaceful love somehow hurts their neighbors, the traditional white Christian Mr. and Mrs. Jones with 2.3 kids and a puppy and a picket fence.

Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Synesthesia
Member
Member # 4774

 - posted      Profile for Synesthesia   Email Synesthesia         Edit/Delete Post 
Some conservatives support gay marriage. And churches... In fact, they have children who somehow choose to be born to folks whose have been traditionally anti-gay. Somehow these parents decide NOT to abandon their gay child but to love and support them instead.
Posts: 9942 | Registered: Mar 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Blayne Bradley
unregistered


 - posted            Edit/Delete Post 
The other issue with Card's articles is that it is spreading misinformation by passing off unsubstantiated opinion as fact. It's propaganda, the kind that used to be banned under FCC radio regulations.
IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Dan_Frank
Member
Member # 8488

 - posted      Profile for Dan_Frank   Email Dan_Frank         Edit/Delete Post 
quote:
Originally posted by Destineer:
The way the distinction between "fact" and "opinion" is drawn in a lot of internet discussion isn't very illuminating. The way the words are actually defined, like in a dictionary, a fact is just an opinion (belief) that happens to actually be true. The things Rakeesh listed, that Card says about gays and gay-rights activists, are false. Therefore it's a fact that they're false.

Sometimes (on the internet) the word "fact" is used to mean something that's not just true, but that every reasonable person who's seen the evidence can agree is true. When students bring this definition into my classroom, it makes me sad. But even by this definition, it's a "fact" that there are laws that discriminate against gays.

ETA: and it's also a "fact" that gay rights advocates don't want to undermine the traditional family.

I agree with everything in your post pre-edit.

But this one seems pretty false to me.

Certainly, I think it's a fact that many gay rights advocates don't want to do that. But I think it's just as much a fact that a few of them really do. Did you mean that the majority don't want to, or have you just never encountered such people?

Posts: 3580 | Registered: Aug 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Dan_Frank
Member
Member # 8488

 - posted      Profile for Dan_Frank   Email Dan_Frank         Edit/Delete Post 
quote:
Originally posted by Blayne Bradley:
The other issue with Card's articles is that it is spreading misinformation by passing off unsubstantiated opinion as fact. It's propaganda, the kind that used to be banned under FCC radio regulations.

Ah, the good old days, when we could ban people for saying stuff we didn't like. [Roll Eyes]
Posts: 3580 | Registered: Aug 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Orincoro
Member
Member # 8854

 - posted      Profile for Orincoro   Email Orincoro         Edit/Delete Post 
I believe in Canada there is still a seldom used law against intentional public misinformation. But I think it has been historically difficult to prove.
Posts: 9912 | Registered: Nov 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Orincoro
Member
Member # 8854

 - posted      Profile for Orincoro   Email Orincoro         Edit/Delete Post 
quote:
Originally posted by Dan_Frank:

Certainly, I think it's a fact that many gay rights advocates don't want to do that. But I think it's just as much a fact that a few of them really do. Did you mean that the majority don't want to, or have you just never encountered such people?

That's just an association fallacy: "some gay rights activists are bears" (no joke intended), has no effect on the veracity of the statement: "gay rights activists are bears." Because the implicit aim of the latter statement is to establish a positive rather than casual correlation, where one may or may not exist.

That is, some of them being of a certain disposition or opinion does not *necessarily* correlate that opinion with the movement being examined. Instead, you should examine the avowed aims of the movement, and see whether those do or do not, to your satisfaction, jell with the actions of that movement.

But, in terms of your possible objections to the statement: "gay rights activists don't want to... x" I think you have to take the statement entirely in context. "It is not the immediate aim or the ultimate goal of most gay rights activists, nor of the gay rights movement as a whole, to undermine the traditional family." I find that statement to be relatively concordant with the evidence. It is not, generally, of interest or particular advantage to gay rights activists to attack traditional family structures, beyond the repression of homosexuality as a common problem in traditionalist cultures and households.

The rebel iconoclast culture of previous generations of gays, especially in the 90's, has changed in recent years. Many gay people, including gay activists, seek to present themselves and live as relatively traditional, non-reactionary types, with nuclear families and ordinary lifestyles. This is just based on my own anecdotal experience, but I think gay culture in America is changing now that there are gay people starting families who grew up in communities that accepted them at early ages. If you don't have to be a rebel to be openly gay, and you don't have to fight off repression and self-hatred, then you're as likely to live a traditional life as anyone else. 9-5 jobs, and stay-at-home parenting arrangements come as naturally to gays as to straights. Just as political conservatism and economic liberalism do, if you are raised in an environment where being gay doesn't dictate every other aspect of your life for you.

Posts: 9912 | Registered: Nov 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Dan_Frank
Member
Member # 8488

 - posted      Profile for Dan_Frank   Email Dan_Frank         Edit/Delete Post 
Yeah, I agree with all of what you said there Orincoro.

The only objection I was raising came from the statement taken on its own, without applying the subtext you've pointed out.

Your rephrase of Destineer's statement seems to me like something he'd agree with, and I agree it's pretty much a fact.

Posts: 3580 | Registered: Aug 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Rakeesh
Member
Member # 2001

 - posted      Profile for Rakeesh   Email Rakeesh         Edit/Delete Post 
The only way one could say SSM advocates are intentionally attempting to undermine 'the traditional family' (which as it's used in the US by social conservatives has more to do with 1950s television and films than any real examination of the history of American family structures) is if you also believe that they don't want to undermine it but rather expand it to embrace romantic committed love between same-sex couples.

But it only takes a few minutes of actually interacting with serious SSM supporters to discover that they're fine with 'traditional families'. What they're not fine with is that being the only legal and cultural game in town-with the usually unspoken but in this case quite explicitly spoken claim that the only way to be 'family' must be either straight marriage or in the ballpark of straight marriage (common law, that sort of thing).

Anyone is entitled to believe that if they like, and they can believe it with all the fervor in their hearts, but there are some beliefs that are simply untrue or unsupported by evidence. While I believe the belief that SSM is bad for families falls in the untrue category, it cannot be argued rationally or honestly that it fits the unsupported category...

Unless we start allowing religious faith to begin informing the discussion. That is the only foundation for the oft-claimed idea that SSM is bad and harmful to society. It's past time we compelled the debate to accept that, instead of all of this hazy BS about how dangerous SSM is and how much liberals hate families, because the fact is if it is and they do, it can't be proven. It can only be believed.

Which, to bring things back around, is fine, aretee. It really is. But say so. If Card (and you?) believe SSM is bad for reasons of religious faith, if that is the real basis for opposition-and it is-then do your faith the honor of flying under your true flag. And if you're going to put forward non-religious reasons to oppose it, be prepared to have those reasons challenged. And if they fail to measure up, then if the opposition to SSM is honest they'll be discarded.

Of course that's not what happens. Always there is the fundamental religious angle that for some reason is supposed to not be challenged after the secular reasons are thwarted. Because we're not quite the sort of country anymore where on this issue opponents can say, "Because God says so," and that'll do it. Thank goodness.

Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Orincoro
Member
Member # 8854

 - posted      Profile for Orincoro   Email Orincoro         Edit/Delete Post 
I always saw Card's hedging about that latter issue to be a sign of something like weakness. He has said in the past, for example, that he wouldn't support creating laws against homosexual behaviors, but doesn't support repealing those laws. That's a bloodless, cowardly position in my estimation, based more on the convenience of having such laws on the books, than on any real principle. If your principles dictate that you not support such laws, then I think your principles should probably dictate support for their repeal.

But this fence sitting; this defensive posture of a preferred, exclusive status for Christian values that have little to do with even the conservative conception of how government is supposed to work, is the worst of all worlds for me. And the really horrible part of it is that in itself- very much of the Christian conservative agenda is *diametrically* opposed to the accepted, oft-cited values of modern American conservatism. But the GOP still wants it both ways, and ultimately, the same people who want evolution out of their schools and gays shunned and ostracized also want lower taxes, hawkish foreign policy, a strong military, and fear government regulation. Most of these people, all said and done, are accepting of the deeply inconsistent nature of their respective views. "I want it the way I want it," is something you are prone to hear from anyone, and to see in the actions of anyone who pays little mind to the big picture.

In a sense, it's not terribly different from those liberals who want the material advantages of a consumer-driven economy, *and* heavy regulation of trade to support local job creation, and higher taxes to support higher government spending. You have to fix in your mind that your avowed goals, as a member of a changing society, demand concomitant sacrifices that you may not actually be prepared to make, nor would you make voluntarily. Now, I'm not one to point a finger and say: "you use these products, therefore you are philosophically bankrupt," just as I wouldn't say: "you take government money, and are against government spending, therefore you are a hypocrite." That doesn't make you inconsistent, but it *would* make you inconsistent if your avowed aims resulted in the loss of something you wanted, and you cried foul at that result. And that is exactly what this issue represents to me: religious conservatives cry foul at the results of their own political philosophies, and their natural ends.

It reminds me of a Czech film about the onset of communist reforms in Soviet Czechoslovakia mid-century: Three Seasons in Hell. An idealistic young poet waxes utopian about the benefits of communism and universal brotherhood, and soon he finds himself and his artist collective on the wrong end of a serious beating by the Cheka, because their homes are being taken away from them. The kind of heartache that people are capable of causing themselves, even for believing too deeply and too blindly in anything, can be profound.

[ May 20, 2012, 08:26 PM: Message edited by: Orincoro ]

Posts: 9912 | Registered: Nov 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
odouls268
Member
Member # 2145

 - posted      Profile for odouls268   Email odouls268         Edit/Delete Post 
quote:
That he speaks the truth as HE sees it. I suspect he does, but there is more than one way to be a liar, and not specifically intending to tell a lie doesn't preclude one from being a liar.
I disagree. I believe that the intention to mislead is exactly what makes the distinction between telling a lie or not. Whether it be a lie of commission or omission doesn't matter, but the intention is what matters.

Misleading without intention is called being wrong, not a liar.

[ May 21, 2012, 06:31 PM: Message edited by: odouls268 ]

Posts: 2532 | Registered: Jul 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Stone_Wolf_
Member
Member # 8299

 - posted      Profile for Stone_Wolf_           Edit/Delete Post 
quote:
Originally posted by BlackBlade:
We can kid ourselves into thinking our persecuting is OK because really the victims are the people we are aligned with. The other side are a bunch of stupid bullies who don't need to be taken seriously much less loved. In doing that, we become the very thing we are fighting against, intolerant.

Well said!
Posts: 6683 | Registered: Jun 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Mucus
Member
Member # 9735

 - posted      Profile for Mucus           Edit/Delete Post 
quote:
Originally posted by Rakeesh:
... being 'closed-minded' towards being closed-minded isn't some sort of "Ahhh-ha!" paradox. It doesn't make one a hypocrite or anything, anymore than disliking open racists is some sort of subtle hypocrisy either ...

+1
Posts: 7593 | Registered: Sep 2006  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Stone_Wolf_
Member
Member # 8299

 - posted      Profile for Stone_Wolf_           Edit/Delete Post 
There is a difference between being intolerant of the concept of intolerance and feeling you have license to be a rude jerk to those you feel are intolerant.
Posts: 6683 | Registered: Jun 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Mucus
Member
Member # 9735

 - posted      Profile for Mucus           Edit/Delete Post 
quote:
Originally posted by Rakeesh:
It doesn't make one a hypocrite or anything, anymore than disliking open racists is some sort of subtle hypocrisy either.

+1
Posts: 7593 | Registered: Sep 2006  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Stone_Wolf_
Member
Member # 8299

 - posted      Profile for Stone_Wolf_           Edit/Delete Post 
quote:
Originally posted by Mucus:
quote:
Originally posted by Rakeesh:
It doesn't make one a hypocrite or anything, anymore than disliking open racists is some sort of subtle hypocrisy either.

+1
-1
Posts: 6683 | Registered: Jun 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Rakeesh
Member
Member # 2001

 - posted      Profile for Rakeesh   Email Rakeesh         Edit/Delete Post 
quote:
There is a difference between being intolerant of the concept of intolerance and feeling you have license to be a rude jerk to those you feel are intolerant.
You're not listening. The issue isn't that I think opponents of SSM are intolerant (though they are, it's really not a question of opinion as the word is used), my problem with them lies almost entirely when they won't be straightforward with their reasons for opposition to SSM. When they try to prevent SSM from being recognized, they're not simply being intolerant, they're trying to inject their religious beliefs directly into our system of laws-in some cases right into our bloody constitutions. I don't care if they don't feel like that's what they're doing, because it simply is-there aren't any reliable secular justifications for doing so. If you dispute that, by all means share some.

I don't think, for example, that we need to send in SWAT teams followed by CPS to rescue, say, children in a congregation that preaches against marrying outside one's race or religion. As much as I personally disagree vehemently with the one and substantially with the other, that's their business. But when they try and enact laws that make it illegal to do so, even if it's only for their own faith, then things change.

Then, speaking for myself, I'm hostile to the idea, which some mistake for rudeness. We've got a system in our country hinging, among other things, on the idea that there must be something besides the religious belief of however many of its citizens before we'll start legislating. My tone and attitude changes radically if I were trying to for example change someone's mind about it being a sin to be homosexual, versus trying to relegate homosexuals to second class secular citizenship. Someone wants to excommunicate a homosexual? Well, I'll probably think it's horrid, and I'll probably be angry, but in the end, I won't feel (very) violated. But keep that crap out of our laws. I don't care how many religious conservatives there are, the laws don't belong to them, and when they behave so, they're abusing their citizenship, and I'll continue to say so. It's a practice that merits hostility...at the very least after the sixteenth or seventieth time we've asked for non-religious justifications and been met with junk science, painted over religion, or silence.

Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Synesthesia
Member
Member # 4774

 - posted      Profile for Synesthesia   Email Synesthesia         Edit/Delete Post 
Pretty much. You can have your religion all day long, but your religion needs to STAY out of POLITICS.
Posts: 9942 | Registered: Mar 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Rakeesh
Member
Member # 2001

 - posted      Profile for Rakeesh   Email Rakeesh         Edit/Delete Post 
No, not even that, for me. Religion informing one's politics? Fine with me. Not just for practical reasons-it can hardly be stopped-but because I simply see no problem with it.

But that can't be the only step. I simply will not respect that position, as it applies to lawmaking. The obvious example being murder, barred by all religions everywhere. But the reason it's in the lawbooks ain't because there's a picture of murder somewhere on a stone tablet with a slash through it. One must find the secular reason a religious restriction is on the books, else it runs contrary to our principles. Find a reason why a sin is bad in secular terms, and go nuts! But nobody should be allowed to skip that step.

Unless they're willing to let other people skip that step, which of course nobody is.

Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Stone_Wolf_
Member
Member # 8299

 - posted      Profile for Stone_Wolf_           Edit/Delete Post 
While all that is great (really, not sarcastic, I've voiced nearly that exact opinion in the past here) it is unrelated to how you treat people who hold contrary positions to your own.

I have not ever flinched away from saying OSC is calling for the oppression of the gays. That it is wrong, evil and immoral. But I do my darnedest to say it politely.

My point, which you didn't address (and possibly BBs) is that when we treat people who think differently, even dangerously, without the regard that all humans deserve, then in trying to kill monsters we have become monsters our selves.

Two wrongs do not equal a right, no matter how much math you try and throw at the equation.

Posts: 6683 | Registered: Jun 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Orincoro
Member
Member # 8854

 - posted      Profile for Orincoro   Email Orincoro         Edit/Delete Post 
Douglas Adams used to write about this phenomenon. That the referencing of religion over secular ethical bases of belief is so engrained in our social DNA, that we regard, or will accept the depiction of, any challenge to a religiously held belief as an offense approaching rudeness and intolerance.

This is of course where you get christians saying that they are "oppressed" in America, and *believing* it, because the rules for dealing with christians are supposed to be different. We find ourselves, often without realizing it, treating a religion based belief with the kind of kid gloves we would not wear, were we having an actual argument with someone dealing with us on equal terms. But because religious arguments do not deal on equal terms, a person espousing a religiously inspired belief needs not vigorously or soundly defend this belief, only offer the appearance of doing so. At the same time, this person can frustrate and tacitly offend others by refusing to deal honestly, and on equal terms. So people do get aggressive, and of course, they are called intolerant, when really they *are* intolerant, but usually only of the way they are being treated.

OSC offers the offense of not dealing honestly with others in his "essays," on this subject. And I don't just refer to out-and-out lying on his part, though that does happen. But the approach- the assumption, and implication, that any challenge to his thinking is based on the lowest of all motives, is deeply insulting, and is meant to be. Just because he's wrong, doesn't mean he's stupid. He knows how to get the upper hand, and he is not above this type of manipulation to get it. If you make out the opposition to be unreasonable and unapproachable and downright evil, then you will reap these kinds of reactions.

Posts: 9912 | Registered: Nov 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Stone_Wolf_
Member
Member # 8299

 - posted      Profile for Stone_Wolf_           Edit/Delete Post 
Part of the difficulty of debating a mix of religion and secular topics is that religion by definition involves believing something beyond proof. I can understand how it could be frustrating when faith is used as a catch all for any logic deficiency in a conversation. But I have also had many fulfilling and honest discussions with people of faith where they did not use their beliefs as a crutch or a club, and I try very hard to give someone's views the benefit of the doubt until proven to be sinister or manipulative. I don't always succeed, but I do try.

When it comes to OSC, some his stated views about the obvious motivation of his opposition do baffle me. I can see why someone would find them to be manipulative, considering we all know how intelligent a man he is, so I do not cry foul, but I still hold a hope in my heart that my childhood personal hero would not knowingly stoop to such tactics and that he is instead being pulled off kilter by the sheer weight of his individual convictions.

Either way it still makes me sad.

Posts: 6683 | Registered: Jun 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Orincoro
Member
Member # 8854

 - posted      Profile for Orincoro   Email Orincoro         Edit/Delete Post 
I wouldn't share my personal views on his motivations on this forum. Not things I have a right to say anywhere, but nevertheless, I have them.
Posts: 9912 | Registered: Nov 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Stone_Wolf_
Member
Member # 8299

 - posted      Profile for Stone_Wolf_           Edit/Delete Post 
I'm not trying to be difficult or to start another melee, but I thought that that was exactly what you did two posts ago.

And of course you have them, everyone who has an opinion on the matter has them including myself.

I guess I just don't understand the post above this one, would you please clarify?

Posts: 6683 | Registered: Jun 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
kmbboots
Member
Member # 8576

 - posted      Profile for kmbboots   Email kmbboots         Edit/Delete Post 
quote:
Originally posted by Stone_Wolf_:

I still hold a hope in my heart that my childhood personal hero would not knowingly stoop to such tactics and that he is instead being pulled off kilter by the sheer weight of his individual convictions.


Clearly, it is not only religious people who take things on faith.
Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Stone_Wolf_
Member
Member # 8299

 - posted      Profile for Stone_Wolf_           Edit/Delete Post 
The sad thing boots is that it isn't faith, it only hope, quite a bit lower on the scale really.
Posts: 6683 | Registered: Jun 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Rakeesh
Member
Member # 2001

 - posted      Profile for Rakeesh   Email Rakeesh         Edit/Delete Post 
quote:
While all that is great (really, not sarcastic, I've voiced nearly that exact opinion in the past here) it is unrelated to how you treat people who hold contrary positions to your own.
It's not unrelated-because it's not simply a matter of 'someone with a contrary position'. Whatever your personal opinion is on the subject, Stone_Wolf, I don't actually mind being disagreed with at all. Why I am disagreed with, and why I disagree with a given 'them', is very pertinent to the tone of conversation. Also the matter on which we disagree.

In any case, Stone_Wolf, when it comes to how we treat people we disagree with, do you really think you're the person who ought to be lecturing me on courteous interpersonal communication? Note: this is not an attempt to assign blame. It's only pointing out that you've been very open with your personal antagonism and dislike, so, y'know...bear that in mind. I'm sure there are lots of people who can lecture me if I'm being unkind or rude to someone who don't have an openly stated flagrant bias.

quote:
I have not ever flinched away from saying OSC is calling for the oppression of the gays. That it is wrong, evil and immoral. But I do my darnedest to say it politely.
There isn't actually a way to say that 'politely'.

quote:
My point, which you didn't address (and possibly BBs) is that when we treat people who think differently, even dangerously, without the regard that all humans deserve, then in trying to kill monsters we have become monsters our selves.

Two wrongs do not equal a right, no matter how much math you try and throw at the equation.

Except that I did address it by pointing out how it wasn't entirely relevant. And 'monsters'? Really?

As for two wrongs not making a right...well that's a very nice bit of pithy wisdom, and it is indeed very useful as a guideline, but as reality is somewhat more complicated than a simple one plus one arithmetic problem. It's not normally right to punch someone in the face. If they punch you in the face, though, and you punch back in an attempt to defend yourself, then suddenly a wrong done in response to a wrong can be considered right.

Likewise here: it's not normally right to point out someone has arrived at a belief in a lazy and dishonest fashion, or that their behavior raises questions about whether or not they hate a given group.

...except when that is actually what's happening. Anybody can, at any time, describe a series of ideas that lead to opposition of SSM on anything but religious grounds. In fact many have tried. If this were the first stage of this discussion, then sure, I wouldn't be as confrontational about the matter.

But it's not. In fact it's been going on for decades. We're now at the umpteenth stage of opponents of SSM blocking or attempting to block equal citizenship for consenting adult homosexuals, and at every stage we ask what is supposed to be the old American question, "Can you give us a reason besides 'it's in the Bible'?" and at every stage, failure. The only way anyone can arrive at the notion that homosexuality ought to be relegated to second class status in terms of sexual relationships between adults is if they start out thinking it's a second class relationship between adults.

Which is fine, for anyone who thinks so! I think it's wrong, but fine. But they have to say so. There isn't any sort of moral or etiquette requirement to greet repeated evasions or deceptions with the usual amount of courtesy or scrutiny.

But even if there was, Stone_Wolf, you're in a poor position to lecture me about it. I'm not insisting you stop, or attempting to mock you for it, or even saying if you don't stop, we'll go around and around the merry go round again. I'm just pointing out what you're doing.

Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Stone_Wolf_
Member
Member # 8299

 - posted      Profile for Stone_Wolf_           Edit/Delete Post 
First off, thank you for speaking to me so civilly, I truly appreciate it.

quote:
quote:
I have not ever flinched away from saying OSC is calling for the oppression of the gays. That it is wrong, evil and immoral. But I do my darnedest to say it politely.
There isn't actually a way to say that 'politely'.
This I feel is the crux of our disagreement. I believe there really is a way to let someone know that you feel their actions or beliefs are wrong or personally detestable or even dangerous, without saying "I think YOU ARE wrong or personally detestable or dangerous. And I did it poorly with you, when I said "I really don't like you." I should have said, "I really don't like when your posts are...etc" or "I really do not like when you speak to people this particular way..." It wasn't just wrong of me per this point, it was just plain inaccurate. At time the things you say make me very angry, and it can be very frustrating to try and discussing things with you for me, but as a human being I wish you no ill will or any harm. I feel a big part of showing respect while disagreeing (which no doubt I did poorly during our fist fight) is giving people the benefit of the doubt about their motivations or insist that they are saying things that were not said in the current conversation. This could easily turn into me lecturing you, so I'm going to stop there, hopefully before any lecturing has occurred.

quote:
Except that I did address it by pointing out how it wasn't entirely relevant.
People who disagree are at one end of the scale, people who are actively trying to oppress others are at the other. But it's the same scale, and the same point. Intolerance of their beliefs/actions does not entitle us to be intolerant of them as human beings.

quote:
And 'monsters'? Really?
That's a quote from the film 8mm...though they might have pulled it from something else. The point is: Be careful when trying to stamp out intolerance that one does not become intolerant themselves.

quote:
I'm sure there are lots of people who can lecture me if I'm being unkind or rude to someone who don't have an openly stated flagrant bias.
While I don't feel I have a flagrant bias, your main point is fair enough. I'm not trying to antagonize you, and given our history, I will keep in mind that that particular criticism should really come from someone else.
Posts: 6683 | Registered: Jun 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Orincoro
Member
Member # 8854

 - posted      Profile for Orincoro   Email Orincoro         Edit/Delete Post 
quote:
Originally posted by Stone_Wolf_:

I guess I just don't understand the post above this one, would you please clarify?

No.
Posts: 9912 | Registered: Nov 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Stone_Wolf_
Member
Member # 8299

 - posted      Profile for Stone_Wolf_           Edit/Delete Post 
Okay.
Posts: 6683 | Registered: Jun 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
kmbboots
Member
Member # 8576

 - posted      Profile for kmbboots   Email kmbboots         Edit/Delete Post 
How much consideration and respect must we afford this guy?

http://dailycaller.com/2012/05/22/nc-pastor-lock-up-gays-inside-electric-fence-until-they-die-video/

quote:
“I had a way … I figured a way out — a way to get rid of all the lesbians and queers — but I couldn’t get it past the Congress,” he said.

“Build a great big, large fence — 50- or a 100-miles long — and put all the lesbians in there. Fly over and drop some food. Do the same thing with the queers and the homosexuals. And have that fence electrified so they can’t get out, feed them. And you know what, in a few years, they’ll die out. You know why? They can’t reproduce.”

How sweet and polite must we be to people who want to round up our friends behind an electrified fence?* If you insist that we must be polite and considerate of those who merely want to keep them second-class citizens, how far does that go?

This is the kind of person influencing votes in NC.

This is the kind of person who is fighting on Mr. Card's side of this battle.

*Beyond the sheer horrific evil of this, does he really think that little gay babies come from gays and lesbians mating? Talk about your unclear on the concept(ion).

Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Stone_Wolf_
Member
Member # 8299

 - posted      Profile for Stone_Wolf_           Edit/Delete Post 
You can say that his ideas are monstrous and lack all human compassion and that you will do everything in your power to oppose them...politely.

Or you could yell and scream at him about how much of a monster he is and deserves to be tortured to death by having rats sown into his stomach so they eat their way out.

And everything in between. He isn't listening to you anyway. Saying the first thing means -you- get to keep your cool and humanity intact.

ETA: Also being polite increases your chances of getting through and changing his mind...likely not a large increase, but a very small chance is greater then none whatsoever.

[ May 22, 2012, 07:13 PM: Message edited by: Stone_Wolf_ ]

Posts: 6683 | Registered: Jun 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Anthonie
Member
Member # 884

 - posted      Profile for Anthonie   Email Anthonie         Edit/Delete Post 
That "fence-in-the-lesbians-and-gays-and-electrify-their-cage" pastor may not be listening to impolite messages coming his way, but nonetheless I hope he is affected by public backlash at the moment. I suppose that's why his church website removed his contact email. I bet hundreds of (or more?) people have hurled angry emails at him, including me. I hope the sheer weight of a national furor toward him has some effect.
Posts: 293 | Registered: Apr 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Synesthesia
Member
Member # 4774

 - posted      Profile for Synesthesia   Email Synesthesia         Edit/Delete Post 
It's just, if these folks aren't being polite as they call peopel children playing dress up because they want to be honest about their sexuality rather than lie, then... it's so HARD to be polite to them.
Now, I'm not calling anyone names, or at least trying not to. Possibly failing, but I don't know if these folks CAN change their minds. They are just so fixated on gays . So entrenched in the belief that they are right and gays are bad for society. How can you change that?
Does it take having a gay son or daughter to realize that you are hurting them?

Posts: 9942 | Registered: Mar 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Anthonie
Member
Member # 884

 - posted      Profile for Anthonie   Email Anthonie         Edit/Delete Post 
Sadly, even having a gay son or daughter does not always work, as I know from personal experience.
Posts: 293 | Registered: Apr 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Stone_Wolf_
Member
Member # 8299

 - posted      Profile for Stone_Wolf_           Edit/Delete Post 
I think for true systemic change to occur what is necessary is the old generation to die off, and the next generation who was raised in a different commonly accepted world view to "take the reigns".

For those who have changed personal views on major issues like that that I've seen it took bumping their (my) nose into the people who are truly affected by their theoretical views, and having to adjust accordingly.

Other people's anger rarely changes hearts, although if enough people are pissed off, it sure works to keep 'em quiet.

Posts: 6683 | Registered: Jun 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Rakeesh
Member
Member # 2001

 - posted      Profile for Rakeesh   Email Rakeesh         Edit/Delete Post 
Seeing otherwise good people in everyday life being angry at a given thing can be a very effective technique to get people to reconsider, actually.

This notion that anger doesn't change minds is simply flawed. Over a single conversation, yes, of course, very little will change one's mind. You're also continually confusing in this context anger with outrage, and in any event when someone is being victimized the appropriate response IS to be angry about it. What matters is what is done with that.

In this case, it is peaceful, heated words and a repeated blunt insistence that a given set of beliefs must account for itself, rather than having the things necessary to believe it go unchallenged. A little anger to raise the bread is useful.

Of course, what would be most useful is if we as a society would stop hemming and hawing about how people who wish to oppress others are having their feelings hurt, and rather insisted if they don't want their feelings hurt, they need to illustrate how they're not actually oppressing anyone. And all of this would've been neatly avoided-I don't just mean this conversation, but the turmoil of the entire debate-if there wasn't an unspoken but nonetheless very real attitude in this country that the religious position is the default correct one in social issues-that religious dogma is where we should turn when we look at 'family values'.

But, if opponents won't step up and give us a reason besides 'God says so', then yeah, I'll settle for keeping them quiet, at least in matters of public policy. I don't barge into their churches on Sunday and demand they make their sermons more secular, either.

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 
quote:
But, if opponents won't step up and give us a reason besides 'God says so', then yeah, I'll settle for keeping them quiet, at least in matters of public policy. I don't barge into their churches on Sunday and demand they make their sermons more secular, either.
Are you saying government is to a secularist as Church is to a believer? Or that the two are replacable by each other?

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 
quote:
How sweet and polite must we be to people who want to round up our friends behind an electrified fence?* If you insist that we must be polite and considerate of those who merely want to keep them second-class citizens, how far does that go?
A little bit ago, I stopped posting on a forum that was significantly more liberal than Hatrack. I also greatly reduced my posting time here. No longer feeling attacked by those who disagreed with me I was free to make up my mind without worrying about the verbal consequences. The result was I came to significantly more liberal positions on several different issues. That never happened when I felt I, or those things I believed, were being ridiculed, attacked, sneered at or found in contempt by the people I was talking to or just reading. Not that I’m having a deluge of posts now, but since I’ve been reading Hatrack a lot more, I once again see my positions lock-up or even go in the other direction. I have found that, for me at least, when I feel I or my beliefs are under attack I will not change them.

The point being it’s not about if you should grant some absurd extremist the courtesy of polite conversation, it’s that for many of us: when you’re rude, insulting, contemptuous, smug or just plain condescending it’s going to have the exact opposite effect of what I presume you want to have. Unless you just want to feel awesome about yourself for being so much more correct that others in which case I guess whatever makes you feel better.

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 
Maybe that tendency to "lock-up" when faced with truth is something you should examine in yourself.

I am not saying that it is an uncommon response, but it isn't a useful or reasonable one and it is part of the equation that you can control now you aware of 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 
Yes, I'm very flawed, but that's not relevant to the point I'm making.

Ohh, and "when faced with truth" is an example of something I find incredibly smug.

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 
You said that you changed your opinion. I assumed that was because you found the new opinion to be true. I am not sure what is smug about that. I am not saying that every difference of opinion is true.

What you wrote may not have been relevant to the point you were making. I was making a point of my own. [Wink]

I don't expect that God Himself is going to change the opinion of people like the pastor I referenced above. I do think that there is value in being quite clear that some opinions are not just "different" but unacceptable.

Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Stone_Wolf_
Member
Member # 8299

 - posted      Profile for Stone_Wolf_           Edit/Delete Post 
My interpretation of what Hobbes said isn't "locking up when faced with truth" but "defensive when faced with antagonism, and therefore not open minded".
Posts: 6683 | Registered: Jun 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
kmbboots
Member
Member # 8576

 - posted      Profile for kmbboots   Email kmbboots         Edit/Delete Post 
Yes. I understand that. His lack of open-mindedness in certain situations is something he can change.
Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Stone_Wolf_
Member
Member # 8299

 - posted      Profile for Stone_Wolf_           Edit/Delete Post 
Why should he? I mean it, why should it be on the person who is having scorn heaped on them to get over being crapped on instead of the person doing the crapping?
Posts: 6683 | Registered: Jun 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Blayne Bradley
unregistered


 - posted            Edit/Delete Post 
quote:
Originally posted by Stone_Wolf_:
Part of the difficulty of debating a mix of religion and secular topics is that religion by definition involves believing something beyond proof.

This is very very wrong under any reasonable standard, at least if argued fairly against anyone with a strong philosophical and theological background.

Here: http://thirdmillennialtemplar.wordpress.com/2011/08/21/the-best-of-all-possible-worlds/

e: My friend's blog, I would like to make a dare for you to argue your case in the comments sections of say the latest post; let me know how it goes [Smile]

IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
kmbboots
Member
Member # 8576

 - posted      Profile for kmbboots   Email kmbboots         Edit/Delete Post 
quote:
Originally posted by Stone_Wolf_:
Why should he? I mean it, why should it be on the person who is having scorn heaped on them to get over being crapped on instead of the person doing the crapping?

Because he is the one who, at least by his own statement, was holding defensively to wrong positions.
Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
  This topic comprises 7 pages: 1  2  3  4  5  6  7   

   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