Mayor Pete Attacks Trump's Faith...

[carpedm9587]

Of course you do. Buttigieg can use his "faith" to declare that God created him as a homosexual and attack Pence, but Pence can not, because of his faith, express his sincerely held religious beliefs.

Religious beliefs are not an excuse for discrimination, CP. They never will be, except to those who keep trying to defend their discrimination in those terms. The rest of us won't accept it. And calling out bigotry/discrimination is not bigotry/discrimination, and is not an "attack," no matter how many times people on the right try to make that claim.

[seer]

Religious beliefs are not an excuse for discrimination, CP. They never will be, except to those who keep trying to defend their discrimination in those terms. The rest of us won't accept it. And calling out bigotry/discrimination is not bigotry/discrimination, and is not an "attack," no matter how many times people on the right try to make that claim.

Well since your moral sense reflects nothing more than a relative personal or cultural consideration, we can rationally discount it.

[carpedm9587]

Well since your moral sense reflects nothing more than a relative personal or cultural consideration, we can rationally discount it.

You can discount it if you wish, Seer.

Any moral agent can discount any other moral agent's preferences. That's essentially what I am doing related to yours. I see no value in your preferences (for this topic) and so reject them. You see no value in mine, so reject them. That's how it works.

However, thankfully, that rejection won't change the shifts society is making towards inclusion and acceptance.

[seer]

However, thankfully, that rejection won't change the shifts society is making towards inclusion and acceptance.

Right, back to appealing to the majority. So unoriginal...And where is the inclusion and acceptance for the religious baker, photographer or florist who do not want to participate in a Homosexual wedding? Or religious parents who can't opt-out LGBT sex ed? https://www.lifesitenews.com/news/ca...ew-lgbt-sex-ed

Your inclusion and acceptance Carp is a one way street and hypocritical.

[Sparko]

...says the atheist who doesn't even believe Jesus existed.

[Sparko]

So you all believe that god commanded homosexuals be stoned to death, right?

I can honestly say that in the bible God never commanded them to be stoned to death.

[carpedm9587]

Right, back to appealing to the majority. So unoriginal...

Noting what is happening in society is not "appealing to the majority," Seer. At no point did I say, "it's good because everyone is doing it." THAT is appealing to the majority. Simply noting what the majority are doing is not. In other words, I am gratified that the majority is moving in a direction my moral framework says is "moral." I do not hold my moral stance because the majority is moving in that direction. You make this mistake pretty frequently.

And where is the inclusion and acceptance for the religious baker, photographer or florist who do not want to participate in a Homosexual wedding? Or religious parents who can't opt-out LGBT sex ed? https://www.lifesitenews.com/news/ca...ew-lgbt-sex-ed

Your inclusion and acceptance Carp is a one way street and hypocritical.

I make no bones about not being "inclusive" of bigotry, prejudice, and discrimination, Seer. Your question here is akin to "where is your inclusion for the klansman and the neo-nazi, Carpe?" Taking a stand against an unjust and harm mindset and philosophy is just that: standing against injustice and harm. I'm sure the klansman and neo-nazi likewise feel "excluded." They can stop being "excluded" as soon as they stop promulgating a discriminatory and harmful philosophy. So too with those who reject, and discriminate against, the LGBTQ community.

There is no hypocrisy here, no matter how upset you might be to find yourself on the receiving end of the rejection. I will always reject philosophies rooted in discrimination and harm.

[tabibito]

You can discount it if you wish, Seer.

Any moral agent can discount any other moral agent's preferences. That's essentially what I am doing related to yours. I see no value in your preferences (for this topic) and so reject them. You see no value in mine, so reject them. That's how it works.

However, thankfully, that rejection won't change the shifts society is making towards inclusion and acceptance.

I used to think that it would be a few decades before inclusiveness and acceptance extended to people who choose to dissent. Now - I wouldn't be surprised if we see it happen within one decade. But then - my definition of inclusion and acceptance embraces somewhat more than the elite, aka the politically correct.

[seer]

Noting what is happening in society is not "appealing to the majority," Seer. At no point did I say, "it's good because everyone is doing it." THAT is appealing to the majority. Simply noting what the majority are doing is not. In other words, I am gratified that the majority is moving in a direction my moral framework says is "moral." I do not hold my moral stance because the majority is moving in that direction. You make this mistake pretty frequently.

Right so we are back to a majority of one, it is good because it conforms to what you happen to prefer today.

I make no bones about not being "inclusive" of bigotry, prejudice, and discrimination, Seer. Your question here is akin to "where is your inclusion for the klansman and the neo-nazi, Carpe?" Taking a stand against an unjust and harm mindset and philosophy is just that: standing against injustice and harm. I'm sure the klansman and neo-nazi likewise feel "excluded." They can stop being "excluded" as soon as they stop promulgating a discriminatory and harmful philosophy. So too with those who reject, and discriminate against, the LGBTQ community.

There is no hypocrisy here, no matter how upset you might be to find yourself on the receiving end of the rejection. I will always reject philosophies rooted in discrimination and harm.

Right, so that makes your principles of inclusion and acceptance with out depth, reactionary, and relative. It doesn't bother you in the least to use the state to force a religious person to violate his deeply held convictions, or force LGBT sex ed on kids and parents that don't want it. This is leftist fascism, which you applaud. And a violation Constitutional principles.

[carpedm9587]

Right so we are back to a majority of one, it is good because it conforms to what you happen to prefer today.

Majority of one?

Right, so that makes your principles of inclusion and acceptance with out depth, reactionary, and relative.

No. Of course. Yes.

It doesn't bother you in the least to use the state to force a religious person to violate his deeply held convictions, or force LGBT sex ed on kids and parents that don't want it. This is leftist fascism, which you applaud. And a violation Constitutional principles.

It doesn't bother me at all to take a stand against prejudice and bigotry and insist my government do so as well. I didn't defend the white supremacist when they objected that their kids were "forced" to be with those nasty black children, and didn't object when the government instituted laws to protect black people from discrimination. I'm not going to object when the government takes the same approach to the LGBTQ community.

I am sorry, for you, Seer, that you have elected to adopt the stance you have adopted. But, as you note, there is little I can do about it until you decide to root your morality in something other than an ancient collection of books. Until then - you will follow them blindly and they will take you to places that I (and society, increasingly) no longer find acceptable. I'm not going to stay silent because it offends you. I would not do that for the white supremacist or antisemite, and I certainly won't do it for someone taking a stance against the LGBTQ community.

Although our Constitution contains many bigoted components, history has followed an arc towards eliminating those components, and rejecting them as a matter of public policy. I endorse that arc - and support it continuing in that direction.

[carpedm9587]

At the rate we are going I wouldn't be in the least bit surprised that in less than a decade's time someone is saying the same thing about pedophilia, incest or bestiality.

Yea us

That old chestnut! I had a side bet that it would be Sparko, MM, or Seer that would toss it in. I completely forgot about you - but it fits.

Sorry, Rogue - the argument really doesn't say anything. White supremacists also bemoaned (and still bemoan) the slippery slope that would introduce all sorts of social ills. I don't subscribe to the premise that taking a stand against bigotry and prejudice is "a social ill."

[carpedm9587]

I used to think that it would be a few decades before inclusiveness and acceptance extended to people who choose to dissent. Now - I wouldn't be surprised if we see it happen within one decade. But then - my definition of inclusion and acceptance embraces somewhat more than the elite, aka the politically correct.

I'm not sure what this means...

[tabibito]

That old chestnut! I had a side bet that it would be Sparko, MM, or Seer that would toss it in. I completely forgot about you - but it fits.

Sorry, Rogue - the argument really doesn't say anything. White supremacists also bemoaned (and still bemoan) the slippery slope that would introduce all sorts of social ills. I don't subscribe to the premise that taking a stand against bigotry and prejudice is "a social ill."

Are you sure that is what you are doing? To me, that would mean a adopting a live and let live attitude.

[rogue06]

That old chestnut! I had a side bet that it would be Sparko, MM, or Seer that would toss it in. I completely forgot about you - but it fits.

Sorry, Rogue - the argument really doesn't say anything. White supremacists also bemoaned (and still bemoan) the slippery slope that would introduce all sorts of social ills. I don't subscribe to the premise that taking a stand against bigotry and prejudice is "a social ill."

You seem to be laboring under the assumption that anybody who is not in favor of this or that societal change is not any different than a white supremacist.

[carpedm9587]

Are you sure that is what you are doing? To me, that would mean a adopting a live and let live attitude.

I would never adopt a "live and let live" attitude to a person expressing white supremacy as a philosophy. Why would I do it for someone denigrating the LGBTQ community?