Homophobic Trump...

[Sparko]

Context, Sparko. Pay attention to context.

That is the context. You are full of double standards.

[carpedm9587]

That is the context.

No

[carpedm9587]

See Carp, you asked me if I thought you were evil, if you go down this road then yes you would be.

And the specific road I would be going down is...?

So if Christians or Muslims or orthodox Jew publicly proclaim that homosexuality is immoral or sin, that in your mind equals hate?

Yes.

Even if we do nothing to cause physical harm?

One does not have to physically harm someone to do harm.

So if I went around saying that adultery or fornication was immoral and sin, that would equal hate for adulterers and fornicators?

No.

Actually if it is a public university they don't have the right to prevent certain speakers based on content.

That's a very gray line. A school, public or private, can accept and reject speakers on the basis of any number of criteria. And a publicly funded university is not a public forum like a city street or park. The circuit courts have ruled that they are "limited public fora." After all, they are in the business of education - not becoming an auditorium for anyone/everyone who wants to speak. SCOTUS has not weighed in on this issue, AFAIK.

So right now - it's pretty much "feel our way along the issue."

[Sparko]

So if Christians or Muslims or orthodox Jew publicly proclaim that homosexuality is immoral or sin, that in your mind equals hate?

Yes.

But if they publicly proclaim something is immoral or a sin that you agree is immoral, then it wouldn't be hate, right?

[carpedm9587]

But if they publicly proclaim something is immoral or a sin that you agree is immoral, then it wouldn't be hate, right?

If my position is about an action that I consider immoral for all people - then we are talking about morality, not hate.

When my position is about an action I consider immoral by one group of people, but not by another, simply by virtue of their membership in a group - then we cross into hate and prejudice and bigotry. I can think of no circumstance when that is warranted.

The danger here is that we can so narrowly define an action to make it specific to a group. That is how I find many on the right approach the homosexuality issue, in an attempt to avoid the accusation of "hate." I tend to reject such narrow definitions.

[Sparko]

If my position is about an action that I consider immoral for all people - then we are talking about morality, not hate.

When my position is about an action I consider immoral by one group of people, but not by another, simply by virtue of their membership in a group - then we cross into hate and prejudice and bigotry. I can think of no circumstance when that is warranted.

The danger here is that we can so narrowly define an action to make it specific to a group. That is how I find many on the right approach the homosexuality issue, in an attempt to avoid the accusation of "hate." I tend to reject such narrow definitions.

so what's your take on Christians proclaiming pedophilia is immoral and a sin?

[carpedm9587]

so what's your take on Christians proclaiming pedophilia is immoral and a sin?

Any abuse of a child is an immoral act - so I have no problem with it. The fact that it is a disease does not change that. It might change how we treat those so accused, but it does not change the harm done or the morality of the act, in my moral framework or that of most people.

[Sparko]

Any abuse of a child is an immoral act - so I have no problem with it. The fact that it is a disease does not change that. It might change how we treat those so accused, but it does not change the harm done or the morality of the act, in my moral framework or that of most people.

Nice wiggle.

We are speaking about the actions of people who have sex with children.

We find that to be immoral and sinful.

Similarly we find the action of people who have sex with other people of the same sex to be immoral.

In the first example you agree with us so it is not hate. But in the second you disagree with us so it is hate.

I can easily use incest as an example instead if you wish.

[seer]

Yes.


No.

This doesn't make sense Carp, if calling adultery or fornication sin does not equal hate why would calling homosexuality sin equal hate?

And the specific road I would be going down is...?

The road to totalitarianism, making speech a crime.

That's a very gray line. A school, public or private, can accept and reject speakers on the basis of any number of criteria. And a publicly funded university is not a public forum like a city street or park. The circuit courts have ruled that they are "limited public fora." After all, they are in the business of education - not becoming an auditorium for anyone/everyone who wants to speak. SCOTUS has not weighed in on this issue, AFAIK.

According to the ACLU this has been adjudicated in the courts, they reference the cases: https://www.aclu.org/other/speech-campus

[carpedm9587]

We are speaking about the actions of people who have sex with children.

Yes, we are.

We find that to be immoral and sinful.

I don't personally use "sinful," but I agree it is immoral. I suspect most people do.

Similarly we find the action of people who have sex with other people of the same sex to be immoral.

I know.

In the first example you agree with us so it is not hate. But in the second you disagree with us so it is hate.

The second one is not like the first. The first is an act in which an adult is abusing a child. The second is an act in which two consenting adults engage in an act of intimacy. You approve of the act if the two people happen to have opposing genitalia, and disapprove if their genitalia match. Ergo, you are telling people who are homosexual, and attracted to a member of the same gender, that their action is immoral when the action of any two other people who have opposing genitalia is perfectly permissible.

Calling an action that is moral for one group (being intimate with a loved one) immoral for another group for no other reason than a physical attribute of the participants is an act of bigotry and prejudice, so it falls under the category of hate.

I can easily use incest as an example instead if you wish.

We've had this discussion. Do you really think it is going to come out differently this time? While incest is repulsive to me, that is largely a cultural norm. One can make the case that progeny have an increased risk of deformity, making it a questionable moral practice. Outside of that - I don't find the act to have moral content unless it is abusing a child/minor. Indeed, the only incestuous relationship that is universally banned (as far as we know) is between a mother and a son. Almost every other form of incest is permitted/accepted in at least one culture in the world. And where the line is drawn various widely (1st cousins, second cousins, half brothers/sisters, etc.)

[carpedm9587]

This doesn't make sense Carp, if calling adultery or fornication sin does not equal hate why would calling homosexuality sin equal hate?

Because the first applies to all people, and the second applies only to people in a restricted group.

The road to totalitarianism, making speech a crime.

And where exactly did I suggest speech should be a crime?

According to the ACLU this has been adjudicated in the courts, they reference the cases: https://www.aclu.org/other/speech-campus

As I noted in my earlier posts, the circuits courts have ruled that a college/university, even a publicly funded one, is not a "public space" in the same sense as a park or plaza - and as such is not a place where just anyone at anytime can elect to take a stand and make a speech. AFAIK, no case has not made it all the way to SCOTUS, so SCOTUS has not ruled on this issue. IMO, any college has the right to place restrictions on where and when lectures and speeches are going to be given on their campus - because their priority is to provide an educational environment. So if someone wants to interrupt a lesson, or grandstand in the middle of the campus during class hours, the school has the right to say "no." If there are security concerns, the school has the right to say "no" or "not at this time."

So long as those things are invoked for the stated reasons, and not because "X wants to say Y and we don't like it," there is no reason a public school cannot control and structure who is speaking on campus and when. Most schools have publishes processes and policies for how a member of the staff or student body can request a particular speaker.

[seer]

Because the first applies to all people, and the second applies only to people in a restricted group.

That doesn't follow since that doesn't tell us why that distinction leads to one being hate, beside the fact that you happen to prefer that distinction. And I'm not sure what you mean by all people, not all people practice adultery any more that all gays practice homosexual behavior.

And where exactly did I suggest speech should be a crime?

Well I gave you the example from England and you seemed very open to doing something legal about such "hate speech." Are you saying that you are not?

As I noted in my earlier posts, the circuits courts have ruled that a college/university, even a publicly funded one, is not a "public space" in the same sense as a park or plaza - and as such is not a place where just anyone at anytime can elect to take a stand and make a speech. AFAIK, no case has not made it all the way to SCOTUS, so SCOTUS has not ruled on this issue. IMO, any college has the right to place restrictions on where and when lectures and speeches are going to be given on their campus - because their priority is to provide an educational environment. So if someone wants to interrupt a lesson, or grandstand in the middle of the campus during class hours, the school has the right to say "no." If there are security concerns, the school has the right to say "no" or "not at this time."

So long as those things are invoked for the stated reasons, and not because "X wants to say Y and we don't like it," there is no reason a public school cannot control and structure who is speaking on campus and when. Most schools have publishes processes and policies for how a member of the staff or student body can request a particular speaker.

I'm not saying they can't control the time and place, but they can't prevent a speech or talk based on content.

[carpedm9587]

That doesn't follow since that doesn't tell us why that distinction leads to one being hate, beside the fact that you happen to prefer that distinction. And I'm not sure what you mean by all people, not all people practice adultery any more that all gays practice homosexual behavior.

Again, in my moral framework, morality is highly affected by two things: 1) are we uniformly applying the principle, and 2) is there a presence of unnecessary harm. If the answer to the first is no, it is an indicator to me that we are engaging in an act of prejudice. If the answer to the second is no, then it is an indicator that we may have a cultural issue, not a moral one.

Well I gave you the example from England and you seemed very open to doing something legal about such "hate speech." Are you saying that you are not?

I believe what I said (or implied) was that it leaves me ambivalent. I understand the desire to end persecution of people on the basis of their identity in a particular group that is not of their choosing, or the wholesale persecution of these groups. I also understand the importance of free speech. I also don't think people should be permitted to hide their bigotry and prejudice behind their religion. I think society has a right to say, "there are some things we simply will not tolerate." The question is, where to draw the line. In the case of the religious slogan for which the man was fined, the hateful elements could have been omitted with no loss of the message attributed to Jesus of Nazareth. The rest was simply hateful. Part of me cheers that the heater had to pay. Part of me is concerned about how and where that line is drawn. My best response is ambivalence.

I'm not saying they can't control the time and place, but they can't prevent a speech or talk based on content.

If they are publicly funded - agreed. That gets into government restrictions on speech. I have many times listed the ways I think the young people who do not want to let these messages be conveyed should respond. It would be refreshing to see one of those strategies used at some point.

[seer]

Again, in my moral framework, morality is highly affected by two things: 1) are we uniformly applying the principle, and 2) is there a presence of unnecessary harm. If the answer to the first is no, it is an indicator to me that we are engaging in an act of prejudice. If the answer to the second is no, then it is an indicator that we may have a cultural issue, not a moral one.

Carp, I'm speaking of behaviors so your distinction does not make sense. Adultery is immoral for all, homosexual behavior is immoral for all, completely uniformed. You are making an illogical leap based on your bias.

I believe what I said (or implied) was that it leaves me ambivalent. I understand the desire to end persecution of people on the basis of their identity in a particular group that is not of their choosing, or the wholesale persecution of these groups. I also understand the importance of free speech. I also don't think people should be permitted to hide their bigotry and prejudice behind their religion. I think society has a right to say, "there are some things we simply will not tolerate." The question is, where to draw the line. In the case of the religious slogan for which the man was fined, the hateful elements could have been omitted with no loss of the message attributed to Jesus of Nazareth. The rest was simply hateful. Part of me cheers that the heater had to pay. Part of me is concerned about how and where that line is drawn. My best response is ambivalence.

Right you cheer, that is all I need to know. You are totalitarian at heart, willing to cheer the squelching of speech by law because it happens to support your arbitrary, relative moral notions.

[Sparko]

Yes, we are.



I don't personally use "sinful," but I agree it is immoral. I suspect most people do.



I know.



The second one is not like the first. The first is an act in which an adult is abusing a child. The second is an act in which two consenting adults engage in an act of intimacy. You approve of the act if the two people happen to have opposing genitalia, and disapprove if their genitalia match. Ergo, you are telling people who are homosexual, and attracted to a member of the same gender, that their action is immoral when the action of any two other people who have opposing genitalia is perfectly permissible.

Calling an action that is moral for one group (being intimate with a loved one) immoral for another group for no other reason than a physical attribute of the participants is an act of bigotry and prejudice, so it falls under the category of hate.



We've had this discussion. Do you really think it is going to come out differently this time? While incest is repulsive to me, that is largely a cultural norm. One can make the case that progeny have an increased risk of deformity, making it a questionable moral practice. Outside of that - I don't find the act to have moral content unless it is abusing a child/minor. Indeed, the only incestuous relationship that is universally banned (as far as we know) is between a mother and a son. Almost every other form of incest is permitted/accepted in at least one culture in the world. And where the line is drawn various widely (1st cousins, second cousins, half brothers/sisters, etc.)

OK using pedophilia might not have been a good example to use. because most people DO hate pedophiles. But not because what they are doing is merely immoral but because it is harming children. But it does illustrate that just because someone thinks something is immoral it doesn't equate to "hate" -- the hate would be a separate issue, such as "abusing children". A person can think of something people do is immoral and not hate them for it. Like adultery, or robbing banks, or marrying their sibling, or homosexuality.

That was the point I was trying to make, but with a poor example. If we feel having sex with someone of the same sex is immoral, it doesn't automatically equate to hate. There are many things I consider immoral but don't hate the people who do it.