Parable of the Brown-Eyed Son

[Darth Executor]

Considering that you have the temerity to compare disability or child support with a violation of the 14th amendment,

Yes, I have the temerity to take your reading of the 14th amendment to its logical conclusion and expose it for the absurdity it really is. I'm sure you'd rather I cower before you but alas, this is life. What of it? Pretending the comparison is absurd and dismissing it outright without a shred of argument is pretty much acknowledging that I am right, that you have given up on the fight and are now just trying to save face. Being a sore loser is a lose-lose for you. I get to derive extra satisfaction from knowing you are a sore loser, and enjoy my victory a lot more than I would have otherwise. Thanks, loser.

[technomage]

Pretending the comparison is absurd and dismissing it outright without a shred of argument is pretty much acknowledging that I am right,

No, it's admitting that you have no interest in honest discourse. I refuse to waste any more of my time answering a fool according to his folly.

Have a nice life, Darth. Oh, and as an official request from the thread originator--please leave this thread. If you want to start your own thread on the topic, please feel free to do so--rest assured, I'll not waste my time reading your "deathless prose".

[Cerebrum123]

No, it's admitting that you have no interest in honest discourse. I refuse to waste any more of my time answering a fool according to his folly.

Have a nice life, Darth. Oh, and as an official request from the thread originator--please leave this thread. If you want to start your own thread on the topic, please feel free to do so--rest assured, I'll not waste my time reading your "deathless prose".

Answering a fool according to his folly, is more of a "darned if you do darned if you don't" kind of thing. It's lose lose either way.

ETA: Proverbs 26:3-5
New International Version (NIV)
3 A whip for the horse, a bridle for the donkey,
and a rod for the backs of fools!
4 Do not answer a fool according to his folly,
or you yourself will be just like him.
5 Answer a fool according to his folly,
or he will be wise in his own eyes.

[Whag]

Yes, I have the temerity to take your reading of the 14th amendment to its logical conclusion and expose it for the absurdity it really is. I'm sure you'd rather I cower before you but alas, this is life. What of it? Pretending the comparison is absurd and dismissing it outright without a shred of argument is pretty much acknowledging that I am right, that you have given up on the fight and are now just trying to save face. Being a sore loser is a lose-lose for you. I get to derive extra satisfaction from knowing you are a sore loser, and enjoy my victory a lot more than I would have otherwise. Thanks, loser

Seek help, Darth.

[technomage]

Answering a fool according to his folly, is more of a "darned if you do darned if you don't" kind of thing. It's lose lose either way.

ETA: Proverbs 26:3-5
New International Version (NIV)
3 A whip for the horse, a bridle for the donkey,
and a rod for the backs of fools!
4 Do not answer a fool according to his folly,
or you yourself will be just like him.
5 Answer a fool according to his folly,
or he will be wise in his own eyes.

Oh, I know--the passage you quote is only one example of that wisdom, but it is truly a classic example.

[technomage]

Seek help, Darth.

Darth is not sick. Cynical and willing to go to any steps to "win," at least in his own mind, but he is as sane as I am.

But enough. This thread isn't about Darth.

[Soyeong]

It's your responsibility to provide a more parallel example, since you're arguing the position.

I really couldn't care less that you don't like analogy. I said I would happily use another analogy to lao tzu to show him that I have no ill will in using it. If you are intelligent enough to understand alcoholism and how certain aspects of it are like certain aspects of homosexuality, then the analogy has served it's purpose, and there is no more need to dwell on it.

You didn't think of the analogy. It's the same analogy that evangelicals have used since it became obvious that sexual orientation might be programmed in the womb. I can provide examples of where you might have "borrowed" the analogy if you like.

I said I needed to learn to stop using analogies because people (this means you) always miss the point and nitpick them to death. In response, you brought up something to complain about that has nothing to do with what I said, so you didn't disappoint. The telling part, and why I am no longer choosing to respond to you in this thread, is that you see why the genetic factor is an obvious connection for someone to make, but instead of interacting with my point, such as explaining how homosexuality being genetic is relevant, you would rather nitpick stuff that's completely irrelevant.

[Whag]

Darth is not sick. Cynical and willing to go to any steps to "win," at least in his own mind, but he is as sane as I am.

But enough. This thread isn't about Darth.

It's a metaphor.

[Whag]

I really couldn't care less that you don't like analogy. I said I would happily use another analogy to lao tzu to show him that I have no ill will in using it. If you are intelligent enough to understand alcoholism and how certain aspects of it are like certain aspects of homosexuality, then the analogy has served it's purpose, and there is no more need to dwell on it.


I said I needed to learn to stop using analogies because people (this means you) always miss the point and nitpick them to death. In response, you brought up something to complain about that has nothing to do with what I said, so you didn't disappoint. The telling part, and why I am no longer choosing to respond to you in this thread, is that you see why the genetic factor is an obvious connection for someone to make, but instead of interacting with my point, such as explaining how homosexuality being genetic is relevant, you would rather nitpick stuff that's completely irrelevant.

It's been explained to you why the comparison is offensive. It's a common apologia of fundamentalist apologists. As you didn't invent it but simply relied on it as a convenient argument against genetic homosexuality, it's no big deal. At least you inside not to use it any more.

[technomage]

It's a metaphor.

I know. But I like my analysis, too.

[Whag]

I know. But I like my analysis, too.

I thought he didn't need analysis. *snare, cymbal*

[technomage]

I thought he didn't need analysis. *snare, cymbal*

I walked into that one....

[Chrawnus]

It's been explained to you why the comparison is offensive. It's a common apologia of fundamentalist apologists. As you didn't invent it but simply relied on it as a convenient argument against genetic homosexuality, it's no big deal. At least you inside not to use it any more.

Are you really that thick? It's not an argument against genetic homosexuality, it's a comparison intended to show that if you consider that it's ok to act upon your homosexuality just because it is genetical then by the same logic it should also be considered ok to act upon your genetical predisposition towards alcoholism, or even (now I'm going to be even more offensive, but you'll just have to live with it) pedophilia. It could be that acting upon your homosexuality is not wrong, but it being genetical or not has nothing to do with it.

And it matters not one whit that you, or anyone else find the comparison offensive or not, what matters is if the comparison is appropriate in regards to the point that is being made, which it is.

[technomage]

Are you really that thick? It's not an argument against genetic homosexuality, it's a comparison intended to show that if you consider that it's ok to act upon your homosexuality just because it is genetical then by the same logic it should also be considered ok to act upon your genetical predisposition towards alcoholism, or even (now I'm going to be even more offensive, but you'll just have to live with it) pedophilia. It could be that acting upon your homosexuality is not wrong, but it being genetical or not has nothing to do with it.

And it matters not one whit that you, or anyone else find the comparison offensive or not, what matters is if the comparison is appropriate in regards to the point that is being made, which it is.

Would you agree that an analogy equating homosexuality (a biological cause which a person can choose to act on or not) with, say, a preference for the soapy taste of cilantro (the ablity to taste the "soapy" flavor is also genetic) would be just as effective in getting the point across, while being a morally neutral issue?

Yes, I too have a severe problem with an analogy that associates homosexuality with alcoholism, because of the moral factors involved. I especially have a problem with an analogy that associates homosexuality with pedophilia, as this has been a common accusation against homosexuals. I object to these analogies ... but I also recognize that my objections are my responsibility.

[Soyeong]

Yes, I can see that used as a justification for hate crimes legislation. In fact, I'd agree it's a logical consequence. I haven't seen anyone proposing it in this conversation, though. I think it's entry is more likely a pre-emptive response to the common argument that gays are gay by choice, not that I've seen much of that here, either.

Again, I don't see why people would bother to argue that gays are gays by choice. The point to argue is that gays have homosexual sex by choice.

Yeah, analogies are ripe for misrepresentation. Good ones are hard to pick. And admittedly, alcoholism has far less stigma than other analogies I've seen applied. You could have a go with eating bacon, if you think you can withstand the firestorm.

That's a good idea, but I'm not sure that the factors are clearly accepted enough to work for my point.

I hear you. But still, with exceptions, as in Good Samaritan laws, we don't allow an actor's intent to determine whether a crime has been committed. People who were just trying to text a friend are still charged with manslaughter when they run down a pedestrian. People can justify nearly all of their actions, and do. We judge based on the consequences to the victims, often enough even when the victims choose to forgive their transgressors.

We also judge more harshly when crimes are premeditated, and hate can be a factor in that. However, people saying homosexual sex is wrong or refusing to acting against their conscious (such as photographing a gay wedding) are not hateful.

And please do understand that the harm here is far from hypothetical. It's not just a question of marriage rights, or even some amorphous social stigma. Gay teens commit suicide at a rate far above that of their peer group. There is a host of other, less critical, but quite onerous damages, financial and social. I teach at an art school. I'm surrounded, all day long, by students whose families have disowned them because of their orientation, almost always because of religious traditions. We can say that's a bad thing, and even call it an un-Christian thing, but at the end of the day all that matters is that's it's a real thing

It's a real thing, it is an un-Christian thing, and it is unfortunate. However, I think the majority of their mistreatment comes from bullies being bullies. For the most part they don't really care whether the person they are calling a fag happens to actually be gay. It's more about making fun of what's different.