The other thread was closed at the request of the original poster. Since it was not a subject issue in general, I'm going out on a limb and assuming it is OK to simply open a new thread for those who want to continue the discussion. I have responded to Jim, Seer, Tab, and Sparko in this one OP.
--------------------------------------------------------------
The discussion with Jim was basically about the balance between religious freedom and civil rights. I had posed two questions of Jim:
1) Would you defend the right the members of a religion who own a business (e.g., a diner on the town's main street) to have a "white's only" policy because they believe "god saves only the white person; it is sinful to have any interactions with a black person." This is what their holy book tells them.
2) Would you defend the right the members of a religion who own a business (e.g., a diner located in a private commune accessible only to the members of the community) to have a "white's only" policy because they believe "god saves only the white person; it is sinful to have any interactions with a black person." This is what their holy book tells them.
Jim - I hope you see this!
-------------------------------------------------------------
I'll also take a moment and respond to Seer's post.
SEER: Well I'm glad you agree that my position based on gender was logical. Whether you subjectively think it is sexist has no bearing except for you, and that can be dismissed - has no rational weight...
Michel: My argument was never that the argument was irrational. Indeed, it is rational (though not as you structured it). Rational things, however, can still be rooted in bigotry.
P1) I find black people repulsive
P2) That person is a black person
C) I find that person repulsive
Perfectly rational - and totally bigoted. The measure of bigotry is not whether or not it is rational/irrational.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
To Tab's post:
TAB: You got it wrong by a full 180 degrees. I was saying the opposite. Attitudes are not bigoted just because you consider them bigoted.
Michel: Then we are in agreement. Thanks for clarifying.
TAB: There are clear differences between the groups that you nominated. Trying to foist off differences of life-style choices as equivalent to genetic characteristics is - to put it mildly - bulldust.
Michel: Since I have never claimed homosexuality is genetically-based, I have no further response.
TAB: I'm sure that there are any number of paederasts who would consider opposition to their choices equally bigoted. Same goes for thieves or gossips, come to that. Or people who think they have the right to accuse others of things without knowing that the accusations are valid.
Michel: I am sure that is true. However, as you noted, labeling something bigoted does not make it so. Bigotry based on the nature of the position/statement, not what someone labels it.
TAB: To the best of my knowledge, no-one here has been advocating prohibition of a person's choice to engage in homosexual partnerships - the argument has centred on being forced to endorse things that are considered inappropriate.
Michel: I have never advocated "forcing" anyone to do anything. Indeed, I am advocating preventing them from doing something: engaging in bogotry in the public marketplace. As noted several times now, it's the equivalent of telling the owner of the diner: "you may not enforce your 'white's only' policy."
TAB:So you're saying that Sparko calling it idiotic doesn't make it idiotic?
Michel:While the bold part of that statement is true, no - that is not what I was saying. What I was saying is that no one has actually addressed the core points of the argument. Sparko is the only one that even acknowledged their existence - but limited his response to labeling the argument idiotic. I have to wonder why it is the basic argument, which has now been repeated multiple times, is being so studiously avoided.
ETA: Actually, Seer did jump in and add a comment, but again did not address the core of the argument. He simply tried to show it was rational. Though his approach failed, the argument is not about rationality. It is about the nature of bigotry and morality.
TAB: Maybe you should set us all a good example and stop using insulting terms when you address the issues.
Michel:I've addressed this as well already. There is no way that I can think of to say, "your position has you engaging in a form of bigotry" that won't be received as "insulting." If you have a suggestion, I would love to hear it.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
And finally to Sparko's posts.
SPARKO: Here is your problem Carp. What YOU think constitutes "accepting their views" doesn't matter. What matters is how the Christian views it, since it it THEIR religious convictions on the line, not yours. You are wrong. And again you think that your OPINION is the only one that matters. It doesn't. The only thing that matters is the Christian Baker/Florists Religious Views and the Constitution of the USA.
Michel: Sparko, it doesn't really concern me if you think my views don't matter. I wasn't expecting your agreement. But I cannot let an injustice slide by without calling it out. "The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing." (Edmund Burke). I find it a god way to live. I do not assess the morality of a thing by the other person's moral framework - I assess it by mine. When and where possible, I try to appeal to common language, common beliefs, and common moral views. In this case, I am hoping that we all share the moral position "bigotry is wrong." So far no one has suggested otherwise. Therefore, if bigotry is accepted as wrong by all of us, and anti-gay positions can be shown to be a form of bigotry, the hope is people will review their beliefs. Some may. I suspect most here will not. The fact that few opinions are likely to be swayed does not mean we stop trying. Ask Thomas Moore or any other number of people who gave their lives for a principle. Would that I could even begin to approximate that kind of courage. Posting on a website doesn't even come close.
SPARKO: I don't see any such thing?
Michel: Here you go.
And this one.
SPARKO:Now it is "class" instead of "genetics?" Make up your mind and stick to it.
Michel: There is no disconnect. A class (or group) of people can be defined by their genetics: men, women, black people, caucasions, red heads, etc.
SPARKO:Adult+Child=Immoral
Man+sheep=Immoral
Brother+Sister=Immoral
Look, sometimes "class" can be a perfectly good reason to determine something is immoral
Michel: I have addressed all of these in previous posts. Adult + child is about age and cognitive capability, not genetic coding. Man + Sheep and Brother + Sister are socially repugnant to us because that's what our society has said for a long time. I see no reason to assign a moral value to the first (for exactly the reasons I have previously cited) and a possible reason for the second (see below). Morality is greatly impacted by whether or not there is harm. If you can show intentional harm that can be avoided, then we have a moral issue. Otherwise, disgusting is not equal to immoral.
SPARKO:And I don't care if YOU think incest or bestiality is not immoral, others do, and there you are not calling them bigots because of "class" discrimination.
Michel: I would argue that any moral position that isolates one group of people for different treatment solely on the basis of their membership in a particular genetic group is a form of bigotry. It needs to be called out. It needed to be called out for women and their right to vote, for minorities and their rights to just about anything, and now for the LGBTQ community. Should we reverse incest laws? There is some science to suggest incest causes harm down the line on future generations. Until that is better understood, I will not be advocating for reversing incest laws.
--------------------------------------------------------------
The discussion with Jim was basically about the balance between religious freedom and civil rights. I had posed two questions of Jim:
1) Would you defend the right the members of a religion who own a business (e.g., a diner on the town's main street) to have a "white's only" policy because they believe "god saves only the white person; it is sinful to have any interactions with a black person." This is what their holy book tells them.
2) Would you defend the right the members of a religion who own a business (e.g., a diner located in a private commune accessible only to the members of the community) to have a "white's only" policy because they believe "god saves only the white person; it is sinful to have any interactions with a black person." This is what their holy book tells them.
Jim - I hope you see this!
-------------------------------------------------------------
I'll also take a moment and respond to Seer's post.
SEER: Well I'm glad you agree that my position based on gender was logical. Whether you subjectively think it is sexist has no bearing except for you, and that can be dismissed - has no rational weight...
Michel: My argument was never that the argument was irrational. Indeed, it is rational (though not as you structured it). Rational things, however, can still be rooted in bigotry.
P1) I find black people repulsive
P2) That person is a black person
C) I find that person repulsive
Perfectly rational - and totally bigoted. The measure of bigotry is not whether or not it is rational/irrational.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
To Tab's post:
TAB: You got it wrong by a full 180 degrees. I was saying the opposite. Attitudes are not bigoted just because you consider them bigoted.
Michel: Then we are in agreement. Thanks for clarifying.
TAB: There are clear differences between the groups that you nominated. Trying to foist off differences of life-style choices as equivalent to genetic characteristics is - to put it mildly - bulldust.
Michel: Since I have never claimed homosexuality is genetically-based, I have no further response.
TAB: I'm sure that there are any number of paederasts who would consider opposition to their choices equally bigoted. Same goes for thieves or gossips, come to that. Or people who think they have the right to accuse others of things without knowing that the accusations are valid.
Michel: I am sure that is true. However, as you noted, labeling something bigoted does not make it so. Bigotry based on the nature of the position/statement, not what someone labels it.
TAB: To the best of my knowledge, no-one here has been advocating prohibition of a person's choice to engage in homosexual partnerships - the argument has centred on being forced to endorse things that are considered inappropriate.
Michel: I have never advocated "forcing" anyone to do anything. Indeed, I am advocating preventing them from doing something: engaging in bogotry in the public marketplace. As noted several times now, it's the equivalent of telling the owner of the diner: "you may not enforce your 'white's only' policy."
TAB:So you're saying that Sparko calling it idiotic doesn't make it idiotic?
Michel:While the bold part of that statement is true, no - that is not what I was saying. What I was saying is that no one has actually addressed the core points of the argument. Sparko is the only one that even acknowledged their existence - but limited his response to labeling the argument idiotic. I have to wonder why it is the basic argument, which has now been repeated multiple times, is being so studiously avoided.
ETA: Actually, Seer did jump in and add a comment, but again did not address the core of the argument. He simply tried to show it was rational. Though his approach failed, the argument is not about rationality. It is about the nature of bigotry and morality.
TAB: Maybe you should set us all a good example and stop using insulting terms when you address the issues.
Michel:I've addressed this as well already. There is no way that I can think of to say, "your position has you engaging in a form of bigotry" that won't be received as "insulting." If you have a suggestion, I would love to hear it.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
And finally to Sparko's posts.
SPARKO: Here is your problem Carp. What YOU think constitutes "accepting their views" doesn't matter. What matters is how the Christian views it, since it it THEIR religious convictions on the line, not yours. You are wrong. And again you think that your OPINION is the only one that matters. It doesn't. The only thing that matters is the Christian Baker/Florists Religious Views and the Constitution of the USA.
Michel: Sparko, it doesn't really concern me if you think my views don't matter. I wasn't expecting your agreement. But I cannot let an injustice slide by without calling it out. "The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing." (Edmund Burke). I find it a god way to live. I do not assess the morality of a thing by the other person's moral framework - I assess it by mine. When and where possible, I try to appeal to common language, common beliefs, and common moral views. In this case, I am hoping that we all share the moral position "bigotry is wrong." So far no one has suggested otherwise. Therefore, if bigotry is accepted as wrong by all of us, and anti-gay positions can be shown to be a form of bigotry, the hope is people will review their beliefs. Some may. I suspect most here will not. The fact that few opinions are likely to be swayed does not mean we stop trying. Ask Thomas Moore or any other number of people who gave their lives for a principle. Would that I could even begin to approximate that kind of courage. Posting on a website doesn't even come close.
SPARKO: I don't see any such thing?
Michel: Here you go.
And this one.
SPARKO:Now it is "class" instead of "genetics?" Make up your mind and stick to it.
Michel: There is no disconnect. A class (or group) of people can be defined by their genetics: men, women, black people, caucasions, red heads, etc.
SPARKO:Adult+Child=Immoral
Man+sheep=Immoral
Brother+Sister=Immoral
Look, sometimes "class" can be a perfectly good reason to determine something is immoral
Michel: I have addressed all of these in previous posts. Adult + child is about age and cognitive capability, not genetic coding. Man + Sheep and Brother + Sister are socially repugnant to us because that's what our society has said for a long time. I see no reason to assign a moral value to the first (for exactly the reasons I have previously cited) and a possible reason for the second (see below). Morality is greatly impacted by whether or not there is harm. If you can show intentional harm that can be avoided, then we have a moral issue. Otherwise, disgusting is not equal to immoral.
SPARKO:And I don't care if YOU think incest or bestiality is not immoral, others do, and there you are not calling them bigots because of "class" discrimination.
Michel: I would argue that any moral position that isolates one group of people for different treatment solely on the basis of their membership in a particular genetic group is a form of bigotry. It needs to be called out. It needed to be called out for women and their right to vote, for minorities and their rights to just about anything, and now for the LGBTQ community. Should we reverse incest laws? There is some science to suggest incest causes harm down the line on future generations. Until that is better understood, I will not be advocating for reversing incest laws.
Comment