Saw this on FB the other day, and it has set off my "Bullshit Detector":
And before I get ranting, let me just say that I've got nothing against gay people. I think they should be allowed to marry, I have gay family members, gay friends, I'd hire a gay person, etc. I have zero bias for gay people.
Bullshit, however, is a different story.
So gays don't try and convert straight people, huh? We're just going to pretend that's true?
Sorry, but lesbians converting straight women is what white women are to black guys. Straight women are the ultimate taboo/status symbol for lesbians, and I've known too many to think the examples I know of are isolated incidents. Hell, I've seen lesbians bragging publicly about "turning" a woman.
If I were a lesbian (the female version), I'd be ALL about turning a straight woman. If you don't like your sex to be plain old vanilla all the time, then as a lesbian, that's got to be your "threesome".
And let's not exclude gay men! Get on Craigslist, pick a city, go into the personals, and you'll find ads posted by gay men willing to pay straight men for the ability to blow them. Although, this is less of a turning thing, and more of a increasing your odds, and catering to your target audience sort of thing. (However, wouldn't you be turned if you let a guy suck your dick even if it was for cash? Is the old punchline, "suck one little dick..." true?)
Anyway, I'm not suggesting that "All the gays want to turn the straights and destroy the world!". Nothing even remotely close. I'm saying keep your propaganda based on reality, please.
And yes, I'm well aware that straights DO try to turn gay people. I wasn't arguing that message, just the lie that gay people don't do the same thing.
And while I'm ranting on my gay friends, this sort of thing has been pissing me off too:
-Orson Scott Card controversy at DC. (The better example here is that people are saying DC should simply fire Card just because of his beliefs, and they want a boycott of this book.)
-Carly Rae skips event
I'm going to stop with those two, but the list goes on for fucking miles (Chick-Fil-A, etc.)
Can someone PLEASE explain to me how this isn't forcing your will onto other people? How is this different from the Willy Wonka propaganda picture above? How is this different from any group of people that forces other people to change their beliefs, not through educated, but through coercion, threats, blackmail, etc.?
Look, I'm all for equality across the board, but people are allowed to have their own fucking opinions!!! If a guy who owns a laundromat doesn't like the idea of a male-male couple, do we really need to boycott his business? Why? What purpose does that serve? That isn't education.
Forcing your belief system upon someone, particularly through shame or threats to their well being or livelihood, do NOT create a person who is educated and more enlightened. It creates a person who is more resentful. More unwilling to change his/her beliefs. More likely to pass said beliefs onto other people, and anyone affected by the first individual's shame or loss of wages is bound to agree more with him/her.
Affirmative Action didn't create a nation full of white people understanding the plight of black people. It didn't eventually go away because it wasn't needed anymore. It created resentment among white people AND black people who felt like they were being looked upon as worthless unless the government forced people to hire them.
In summary, I do my bit to try and raise awareness that you shouldn't automatically judge someone because of who they like to fuck, but that doesn't mean I need to blanket approve the bullshit that comes out of the other side of the argument too.
"Happy slaves are the worst enemies of freedom." - Marie Von Ebner
"It was always the women, and above all the young ones, who were the most bigoted adherents of the Party, the swallowers of slogans, the amateur spies..." - Orwell
What's interesting is that the pic up there doesn't say gays DONT try to convert people... and goes on to suggest that if they do, they are horrible....
"Be bold, and mighty forces will come to your aid."
The news that Card, best known for the Ender's Game series of sci-fi novels...
Should read, "Card, known for the halfway decent novel Ender's Game and not publishing jack shit worth reading in nearly three decades..."
Pop star Carly Rae Jepsen has joined Train by pulling out of a performance at the upcoming Boy Scouts of America Jamboree as part of a protest against the organization's ban on gay members.
That's an act of mercy, particularly given that they dodged the Train bullet, too.
Edited By Malcolm on 1362600722
Diogenes of Sinope: "It is not that I am mad, it is only that my head is different from yours."
Arnold Judas Rimmer, BSC, SSC: "Better dead than smeg."
Look, I'm all for equality across the board, but people are allowed to have their own fucking opinions!!! If a guy who owns a laundromat doesn't like the idea of a male-male couple, do we really need to boycott his business? Why? What purpose does that serve? That isn't education.
Purpose? No specific purpose, really, except maybe to let some people get worked up about it and make some noise. But I wanted to point out that just as it is in the business owner's rights to do as he wishes, so it is just as much in the customer's rights to do the same. Condemning them for making a fuss about that sort is exactly the same as the condemning they are doing in making said fuss.
The Chick-Fil-A one is slightly different in that paying Chick-Fil-A money allows them to have enough profits to be able to spend a minuscule percentage on such foul projects. So if a penny or two of the money you pay them on each chicken sandwich goes an evil cause, one way to slow that down is to buy less of them. Or in my case do offsetting donations to an opposing organization that more than make up the difference (which I think is a better solution than a boycott anyway).
As to this being forcing your will on someone, I call bullshit. Expressing an opinion whether through words or deeds is not in itself "force". Except if enough people were to boycott Chick-Fil-A to make a difference to the bottom line, then perhaps it would be force, but so what if it comes to that? Would you prefer to force customers to spend money in ways they don't want to? How is that less forceful? And when it comes down to it, we aren't talking about forcing the CEO of Chick-Fil-A to get gay married, we are talking about stopping him from working to force gay people not to be able to. I see a big difference there. He's welcome to stop dicking around in the lives of gay people any time and that fight would end. Gays don't have that luxury, because it's their lives being dicked around with.
And finally on the point of the image, I will say I see a distinct difference. When a gay person falls for a straight person and tries to get them into bed, that's not a political agenda. That's just normal human sexual urges and floods of hormones being expressed in an ancient dance. When straight people try to convert gay people it is that same thing sometimes, but more often it's some sort of religious anti-homo concentration camp. That's very much a political message. I see a difference there.
Edited By TPRJones on 1362601420
"ATTENTION: Customers browsing porn must hold magazines with both hands at all times!"
Expressing an opinion whether through words or deeds is not in itself "force".
In an ideal world, sure, but I still defer to the universal rule of, "If you're going to talk shit, expect pain." What is and isn't "force" is largely subjective because everyone gets threatened in slightly different ways. It's easy to measure physical force and figure out when you've got a non-zero value. Psychological force is much more difficult to define but just as effective.
Diogenes of Sinope: "It is not that I am mad, it is only that my head is different from yours."
Arnold Judas Rimmer, BSC, SSC: "Better dead than smeg."
(Sorry for the delay. I wrote this two days ago and got sidetracked. It's been sitting in a forgotten tab, but I figure since I put the work into it I might as well post it.)
Purpose? No specific purpose, really, except maybe to let some people get worked up about it and make some noise. But I wanted to point out that just as it is in the business owner's rights to do as he wishes, so it is just as much in the customer's rights to do the same. Condemning them for making a fuss about that sort is exactly the same as the condemning they are doing in making said fuss.
I disagree, and perhaps I didn't make myself clear about what exactly has me riled up.
Yes, the protester has the right to boycott the person that has a different view, but as a society we should not be accepting of said protester trying to put the person out of business simply for a difference of opinion. That is literally one step away from exiling them or sticking them in ovens.
That's where my anger lies. You don't like the fact that your local McDonald's owner is a Democrat? Go to another McDonald's or go to BK. Who gives a fuck? However, trying to use public shaming to hurt this individual's business, his employees, his family, etc? That's completely unacceptable.
How is that different than shaming them for their lifestyle?
Once the owner crosses the line and publicly and actively supports the opposing viewpoint to your own, then I think they put themselves into a position where you have a right to then hurt that flow of money/support.
I believe in free speech so much I put my life on the line for it. However, I do not believe an individual should have the "right" to try and destroy someone else's life, career, family, etc. just because they have a difference of opinion.
That, to me, is the biggest thing here. Orson Scott Card doesn't believe in a homosexual lifestyle, but he's currently doing NOTHING to actively prevent homosexuals from getting married or whatever, so in return society should make it so he can no longer earn a living?
Condemning them for making a fuss about that sort is exactly the same as the condemning they are doing in making said fuss.
Quoting this again just so I can say:
So you're basically doing to me what you're saying I shouldn't do to them?
(I know there's a better joke there, but I'm tired. So that's the best I've got.)
The Chick-Fil-A one is slightly different in that paying Chick-Fil-A money allows them to have enough profits to be able to spend a minuscule percentage on such foul projects. So if a penny or two of the money you pay them on each chicken sandwich goes an evil cause, one way to slow that down is to buy less of them. Or in my case do offsetting donations to an opposing organization that more than make up the difference (which I think is a better solution than a boycott anyway).
C-F-A is indeed different because they were active supporters of "the opposition".
The BSA is a bit different, and I allow them more leway than most. Is it ridiculous to think a gay guy is going to molest everyone in sight? Yes. However, do I understand them moving slowly IF it's due to concerns about legalities or anything that might expose them to lawsuits? Yes.
As to this being forcing your will on someone, I call bullshit. Expressing an opinion whether through words or deeds is not in itself "force".
We agree to disagree on "force". Webster might not define force to encompass social pressure, but it should. If you create an atmosphere that does not allow differing opinion other than your own without fear or serious backlash...well, it may not be called "force", but the effect is the same.
Except if enough people were to boycott Chick-Fil-A to make a difference to the bottom line, then perhaps it would be force, but so what if it comes to that? Would you prefer to force customers to spend money in ways they don't want to? How is that less forceful?
What? You lost me there. How are customers being forced to spend their money in ways they don't want to? Who is making them buy delicious chicken sandwiches?
I assume you mean where their spent money goes? And again, Chick-Fil-A is a different example. As stated earlier, once someone puts themselves out there, game on. It's no longer a private opinion, they are actively opposing you, which C-F-A was doing, so you have a right to defend yourself.
I don't think we're in disagreement on this...?
And finally on the point of the image, I will say I see a distinct difference. When a gay person falls for a straight person and tries to get them into bed, that's not a political agenda. That's just normal human sexual urges and floods of hormones being expressed in an ancient dance. When straight people try to convert gay people it is that same thing sometimes, but more often it's some sort of religious anti-homo concentration camp. That's very much a political message. I see a difference there.
This is the part I disagree with the most. First of all, you made some HUGE assumptions and jumps to justify your case. Paying someone to let them suck your dick is a LONG way away from love. Purposely cruising bars for drunk straight women to get them to try something new for a night is a long way away from love. Are they direct attempts to turn someone gay? Mostly no, and some yes.
Also, I don't know that I believe anti-homo religious camps are political statements. Are they completely misguided attempts at "helping people" instead of accepting them? Yes. However, I'm not seeing the political statement. AA is essentially the same thing (using God to "fix" people), and I don't know what the political statement there would be either. Recruitment for religion, yes. Political statement? I'm not sure.
I guess we know what Leisher does when traveling.
$300 is $300.
"Happy slaves are the worst enemies of freedom." - Marie Von Ebner
"It was always the women, and above all the young ones, who were the most bigoted adherents of the Party, the swallowers of slogans, the amateur spies..." - Orwell
Leisher wrote:Yes, the protester has the right to boycott the person that has a different view, but as a society we should not be accepting of said protester trying to put the person out of business simply for a difference of opinion. That is literally one step away from exiling them or sticking them in ovens.
So, they have the right to boycott personally but they aren't allowed to talk to anyone about it and encourage others to join them? How is that free speech? Besides, they are specifically using this freedom of speech because they don't like what the other guy is saying, so why condemn this speech but not the other guy's speech?
I guess I don't understand how you can justify telling one group to shut up but not the other.
We agree to disagree on "force". Webster might not define force to encompass social pressure, but it should. If you create an atmosphere that does not allow differing opinion other than your own without fear or serious backlash...well, it may not be called "force", but the effect is the same.
You would rather create an atmosphere where there are no consequences for bad behavior? All because people have freedom to speak, that does not also provide freedom from consequence based on the nature of what they decide to say. Nor, in my opinion, should it.
EDIT: Although, to go in the other extreme of protesting every little thing - leading to rampant political correctness - would admittedly be just as bad. All things in moderation is the ideal. Pulling out the big guns of societal shaming should be reserved for only those few topics that one feels the most strongly on and would do anything to fight for. For me, this is one of those issues. I feel just as strongly about this as I would have had I been around at the end of the Jim Crow era, marching with MLK. I see the situations as essentially morally identical, if different in their finer points. (end EDIT)
I also would once again point out that those like the CEO of Chick-Fil-A are taking steps to directly interfere in egregious ways with the lives of homosexuals across the country. The other side of that battle just wants to be left alone to live their lives the way they see fit. No one wants to force heterosexuals to get gay married. I don't see how anyone that understands the importance of liberty to the foundation of our nation could possibly come down on the side of the bigots on this issue, even if they themselves find homosexuality distasteful.
(EDIT: I should probably point out that I'm not saying you are on the wrong side of this, btw. As far as I know, you get it on scale of the big picture, even if we are arguing over the finer details of the situation. I figured I should specify that, just to be safe.)
As to the BSA, I haven't been keeping up enough with that news to comment. Last I heard they were reconsidering their stance after so many of their own alumni were sending back their badges in shame, or something like that.
Edited By TPRJones on 1362782708
"ATTENTION: Customers browsing porn must hold magazines with both hands at all times!"
Paying someone to let them suck your dick is a LONG way away from love.
Bah. Romantic love is crap. It's all just hormones of one sort or another, with the particular mix of chemicals flooding the brain being the only real difference between "lust" and "love".
You've been watching too many Hallmark Channel Original Movies.
"ATTENTION: Customers browsing porn must hold magazines with both hands at all times!"
It's all just hormones of one sort or another, with the particular mix of chemicals flooding the brain being the only real difference between "lust" and "love".
That'd be a far more trivial statement if the human brain didn't act like a drug pusher and its own best customer.
You don't like the fact that your local McDonald's owner is a Democrat? Go to another McDonald's or go to BK. Who gives a fuck? However, trying to use public shaming to hurt this individual's business, his employees, his family, etc? That's completely unacceptable.
What if the dude's just a straight up asshole? What if you equate "Democrat" and "asshole?"
Orson Scott Card doesn't believe in a homosexual lifestyle, but he's currently doing NOTHING to actively prevent homosexuals from getting married or whatever, so in return society should make it so he can no longer earn a living?
Webster might not define force to encompass social pressure, but it should. If you create an atmosphere that does not allow differing opinion other than your own without fear or serious backlash...well, it may not be called "force", but the effect is the same.
Very fucking different. Guilt and shame is how you beat people into line when being overtly tyrannical would just out you as a tyrant. In the same way physical force has degrees of gravity, so does psychological. Most people's bodies tend to heal way better than their grey matter. Bu come the fuck on, this is how law every law enforcement branch operates. Their job is to scare you into being law abiding, and they have lots of firepower to back them up. Differences of opinions get assault vehicles driven on to your lawn.
Recruitment for religion, yes. Political statement? I'm not sure.
Politics is religion minus divine beings. Or you can flip it and say that religion is politics dictated from the almighty in various random ways that make no fucking sense now but probably did a few centuries or millennia ago.
Edited By Malcolm on 1362788705
Diogenes of Sinope: "It is not that I am mad, it is only that my head is different from yours."
Arnold Judas Rimmer, BSC, SSC: "Better dead than smeg."
So, they have the right to boycott personally but they aren't allowed to talk to anyone about it and encourage others to join them? How is that free speech? Besides, they are specifically using this freedom of speech because they don't like what the other guy is saying, so why condemn this speech but not the other guy's speech?
I guess I don't understand how you can justify telling one group to shut up but not the other.
Because that's not what I'm saying?
I'm saying that Card has the right to his beliefs. For folks to try and remove his ability to earn a living due to those beliefs is bullshit and wrong.
I'm not suggesting they shouldn't be allowed to show dissent, but there's a line that shouldn't be crossed. Once that line is crossed, it's not longer speech, it's force.
You would rather create an atmosphere where there are no consequences for bad behavior? All because people have freedom to speak, that does not also provide freedom from consequence based on the nature of what they decide to say. Nor, in my opinion, should it.
People should face consequences, but as you point out, there's got to be moderation. Card shouldn't lose his career because he doesn't believe gay people should be married. Debate him. Discuss the issue with him. Etc. However, trying to destroy a man's life simply because he has a different viewpoint is insanity.
Plus, it doesn't solve the issue, it actually makes it worse. Educate Card. Change his mind through experience. He'll then pass on what he has learned.
Or destroy his life through your own hatred and intolerance, and watch as he teaches others to hate you.
Tolerance cannot be taught through intolerance.
Pulling out the big guns of societal shaming should be reserved for only those few topics that one feels the most strongly on and would do anything to fight for.
I agree that sometimes that tactic is needed, but I stand by my "Tolerance cannot be taught through intolerance."
Affirmative Action didn't create a color blind nation. It caused more problems.
I also would once again point out that those like the CEO of Chick-Fil-A are taking steps to directly interfere in egregious ways with the lives of homosexuals across the country. The other side of that battle just wants to be left alone to live their lives the way they see fit. No one wants to force heterosexuals to get gay married. I don't see how anyone that understands the importance of liberty to the foundation of our nation could possibly come down on the side of the bigots on this issue, even if they themselves find homosexuality distasteful.
Again, I think we go back to the "forced" angle.
If we found a society that had been living underground for years, the last thing we'd do is kick them out into the sunlight without warning. It'd do more damage than good.
In fact, some of them would never want to leave what they know. Very understandable behavior. It's human nature.
That's where I have a problem, and it's not just with this issue, but any issue where force (or pressure/blackmail/threats to one's livelihood/etc., if you're stuck on the Webster's definition of force) is used to "change attitudes". It doesn't change anyone's attitude, and actually makes them more of an enemy. The worst part is that they go from publicly being opposed to subversively being opposed, which is far more dangerous.
My original post was inspired by the fact that "public shaming" has become the meta, and that is NOT a good thing for anyone involved.
An environment where anyone with a dissenting view is immediately shamed, put down, stamped as ignorant, and had his/her life ruined is about as far from free speech as one gets. Should there be consequences if you say something stupid? Sure, but you've got to allow for stupid things to be said alongside the smart things so that both sides are heard and people can make informed decisions.
I was thinking of an analogy for the public shaming meta, and the best one I came up with in the 10 seconds I thought about it is a truck driving onto ice. If the truck goes to fast, it creates a wave under the ice. The truck driver won't be able to see it, but it's there. The faster he goes, the bigger the wave. The danger comes from the fact that the wave can build momentum, and break the ice swallowing the truck.
(EDIT: I should probably point out that I'm not saying you are on the wrong side of this, btw. As far as I know, you get it on scale of the big picture, even if we are arguing over the finer details of the situation. I figured I should specify that, just to be safe.)
And yeah, I know we're not arguing the actual issue because we both are on the same side of that. This is just a disagreement about how to change the minds of others.
Romantic love is crap. It's all just hormones of one sort or another, with the particular mix of chemicals flooding the brain being the only real difference between "lust" and "love".
Initial attractions and whatnot, yeah. However, there's a lot more to it once you get out of the bedroom and develop a life involving the other person.
Best chemicals ever.
You've been watching too many Hallmark Channel Original Movies.
What else am I supposed to masturbate to?
What if you equate "Democrat" and "asshole?"
Kind of aligns with my point. There's no discussion anymore. What good is freedom of speech if we can't talk about our differences and find common ground?
He's a member of the Nat'l Organization for Marriage.
I didn't know he was that heavily into it. He deserves public protesting, but I still think trying to destroy his ability to earn a living is wrong, and the wrong way to get him to change his mind.
They need to have Robin Williams and Nathan Lane invite him to dinner.
Very fucking different. Guilt and shame is how you beat people into line when being overtly tyrannical would just out you as a tyrant.
Again, this is not bringing people to your side. It's creating enemies and teaching those enemies how to pretend to be your friends.
Politics is religion minus divine beings.
You mean except Obama?
"Happy slaves are the worst enemies of freedom." - Marie Von Ebner
"It was always the women, and above all the young ones, who were the most bigoted adherents of the Party, the swallowers of slogans, the amateur spies..." - Orwell
An environment where anyone with a dissenting view is immediately shamed, put down, stamped as ignorant, and had his/her life ruined is about as far from free speech as one gets.
That's protected speech. As in, "It doesn't matter what you say, I can't consequently do anything to you because of it." This is what happens when you testify in court. There are laws prohibiting people from fucking with you because of what you'll say there. Legally, the dude you're testifying against can't intimidate you into being quiet. Whether that reflects reality is another matter.
On the street corner, your speech is protected in that someone can't legally punch you in the balls for talking (again, may or may not reflect reality), but they can rally a mob and generally make it clear you're not wanted on that particular corner. Provided the mob doesn't resort to physical violence while exercising their freedoms of speech and assembly, the dude on the corner has little recourse because his speech is free, not protected.
Article 19 of the ICCPR (International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights) states that "everyone shall have the right to hold opinions without interference" and "everyone shall have the right to freedom of expression; this right shall include freedom to seek, receive and impart information and ideas of all kinds, regardless of frontiers, either orally, in writing or in print, in the form of art, or through any other media of his choice". Article 19 goes on to say that the exercise of these rights carries "special duties and responsibilities" and may "therefore be subject to certain restrictions" when necessary "[f]or respect of the rights or reputation of others" or "[f]or the protection of national security or of public order (order public), or of public health or morals".
As for fostering an environment where learning happens, debate is only worthwhile when both sides might have their opinions changed by the other. Opinions based on facts can be argued. Opinions based on beliefs and feelings, where logic has no place, make debating moot. I'll take time and effort to argue with people whose minds are open, just as it's worth the time to try to rehabilitate a criminal that's not a complete ethical psycho.
However, certain people are either more stubborn or hopeless; no facts will pierce their thick skulls, actions might work if they're lucky. Their opinions are stupid enough to warrant immediate and total rejection. Completely gutting someone's life is a course of action that should only be reserved for the most adamant of assholes, but it should always be the nuclear option. Society has kept it that way for a long time. If you don't believe me, try to get an abortion in Mississippi.
Restrictions on Abortion
In Mississippi, the following restrictions on abortion were in effect as of March 2013:
- Abortion would be banned if Roe v. Wade were to be overturned.
- A woman must receive state-directed counseling that includes information designed to discourage her from having an abortion and then wait 24 hours before the procedure is provided. Counseling must be provided in person and must take place before the waiting period begins, thereby necessitating two separate trips to the facility.
Health plans that will be offered in the state’s health exchange that will be established under the federal health care reform law can only cover abortion in cases when the woman's life is endangered, rape or incest.
Abortion is covered in insurance policies for public employees only in cases of life endangerment, rape or incest or fetal abnormality.
The parents of a minor must consent before an abortion is provided.
Public funding is available for abortion only in cases of life endangerment, rape, incest or fetal impairment A woman must undergo an ultrasound before obtaining an abortion; the provider must offer her the option to view the image.
I'll just call out the two bold items there. How the fuck can they be construed as anything except psychological pressure? And that shit is the law, goddamnit.
Diogenes of Sinope: "It is not that I am mad, it is only that my head is different from yours."
Arnold Judas Rimmer, BSC, SSC: "Better dead than smeg."
That's protected speech. As in, "It doesn't matter what you say, I can't consequently do anything to you because of it."
But see, they are...
That's what I'm getting at. My concern isn't about freedom of speech or the laws governing it. They're related, absolutely, but I feel they're being skirted. This issue sits in the gray area between legal and illegal.
I mean, how do you prove it, and who do you sue, when social pressures shut down your life?
As for fostering an environment where learning happens, debate is only worthwhile when both sides might have their opinions changed by the other.
I disagree. Yes, it can seem pointless and frustrating, and there will be people who just cannot be swayed, but many people will seem that way, but can be swayed. How do you know which ones can and which ones can't? You don't. You're simply stereotyping and grouping them all together.
Are you saying we can't educate the ignorant?
Completely gutting someone's life is a course of action that should only be reserved for the most adamant of assholes, but it should always be the nuclear option.
And while that might be a legit tactic in extreme cases, as I have said, my biggest issue is that this has become common practice. THAT'S my main concern here and why I started this thread.
Again, I'm not on Card's side at all or anyone against gay marriage, however I do not agree with the tactics being taken against people who speak a different opinion. Show me one case where someone said something anti-gay marriage that wasn't immediately met with public shame and revulsion.
That's a problem.
I'm not saying we need to allow the WBC to protest gay weddings or have the BSA maintain their ban or anything of the sort. However, we must allow people with opposing viewpoints (on ANY subject) to not be afraid to come forward and present them. If we allow that, we can then discuss facts, find common ground, etc.
Take gay marriage completely out of the equation and you'll find the exact same attitudes in politics. There are people who immediately HATE you and think you're ignorant if you identify yourself as Democrat or Republican.
Oh, and the blacklisting over political beliefs in Hollywood is very well known, yet all our laws don't seem to mean shit there.
Discussion/Education > public shaming/forced opinions
"Happy slaves are the worst enemies of freedom." - Marie Von Ebner
"It was always the women, and above all the young ones, who were the most bigoted adherents of the Party, the swallowers of slogans, the amateur spies..." - Orwell
Those who are ignorant by circumstance, yes. Those who are ignorant by choice, no.
I mean, how do you prove it, and who do you sue, when social pressures shut down your life?
How: Everyone in town gives you a "get the fuck out of here vibe" like in the beginning of Rambo.
Proof: Who the fuck cares? This isn't a legal issue, it's almost tribal or clannish or whatever else you'd like to call it.
Recourse: Ultimately, wasn't this country founded by people who believed as long as you had a community of like-minded folk willing to give it a shot, you could try damn near any crazy-ass lifestyle you wanted? You can do that or fight social pressure with other social pressure, known as "public relations."
Oh, and the blacklisting over political beliefs in Hollywood is very well known, yet all our laws don't seem to mean shit there.
In this country, 1950s + commie accusations = insanity just like WWII + Japanese heritage = forcible removal from your home and relocation to an internment camp. See how effective social pressure is? It is something that gives momentum to those who shit upon objectivity in the name of a higher truth, secular or otherwise. All those feelings and beliefs look like they trump facts.
Show me one case where someone said something anti-gay marriage that wasn't immediately met with public shame and revulsion.
Show me one case where someone said something anti-gay marriage that is based on a proper, verifiable, scientific, objective, factual evidence versus beliefs, feelings, and your own personal interpretation of what is "right" in existence. Although, by denying that opportunity to those who would seize it, I suppose I'm just imposing my rules on the universe, too. But I have a shitload of other species that back me up.
Edited By Malcolm on 1363050265
Diogenes of Sinope: "It is not that I am mad, it is only that my head is different from yours."
Arnold Judas Rimmer, BSC, SSC: "Better dead than smeg."
Isn't it ignorant to think you can't educate someone to not be ignorant by choice?
Not for nothing, but there's about 6 billion examples of people changing their their beliefs based on actual experience.
Granted, there are folks who will refuse to change, but that number is MUCH smaller than those who can and will. Thus, discussing them is pointless.
How: Everyone in town gives you a "get the fuck out of here vibe" like in the beginning of Rambo.
I'm glad we're staying in reality.
Proof: Who the fuck cares? This isn't a legal issue, it's almost tribal or clannish or whatever else you'd like to call it.
No. You don't get to use laws and the Constitution as defenses to your argument and then pretend they don't matter when they've been nullified. And this issue certainly isn't tribal or clannish.
Recourse: Ultimately, wasn't this country founded by people who believed as long as you had a community of like-minded folk willing to give it a shot, you could try damn near any crazy-ass lifestyle you wanted? You can do that or fight social pressure with other social pressure, known as "public relations."
Personal freedom, yes. However, there's also the matter of "majority rules", if you want to get technical.
None of this relates to having the right to destroy someone's life simply because they have a difference of opinion.
But then again, by your statement, should I assume you think Affirmative Action to be a fair and just program to end racism in the workplace? Because your logic is saying that...
In this country, 1950s + commie accusations = insanity just like WWII + Japanese heritage = forcible removal from your home and relocation to an internment camp. See how effective social pressure is? It is something that gives momentum to those who shit upon objectivity in the name of a higher truth, secular or otherwise. All those feelings and beliefs look like they trump facts.
I honestly have no idea what you're talking about anymore. You've lost me. That entire statement reinforces my position. What exactly are you debating?
Show me one case where someone said something anti-gay marriage that is based on a proper, verifiable, scientific, objective, factual evidence versus beliefs, feelings, and your own personal interpretation of what is "right" in existence. Although, by denying that opportunity to those who would seize it, I suppose I'm just imposing my rules on the universe, too.
What exactly are you trying to assign to me here? That statement paints it like I'm anti-gay and you're pro-gay?
That's not my position at all. I'm pro-gay marriage, and have stated it several times. What I'm debating is someone's right to have an opinion without having their life destroyed. I'm debating that such tactics are no longer "nuke from orbit" options, but standard warfare. It's bullshit and creates more enemies than allies. ANYONE with an IQ above 50 should know that you catch more flies with honey than you do with shit.
You can't browbeat someone into submission and then proclaim them educated and think they won't pass on their hatred to others.
And just to be a smart ass, here's some "anti-gay science" for you: If everyone went gay overnight (not that there's anything wrong with that), the human race would be extinct in a little over 100 years.
To sum up, I think I'm done with this thread. It feels like the conversation has completely shifted from where it started, and I feel like I'm being assigned a position I do not have. Sorry, but I'm not anti-gay marriage nor am I anti-gay. I simply believe people should have a right to an opinion without having their life destroyed, and I keep hearing about how they're ignorant (true) and the people who they disagree with should have the right to protest, and the original person with the opinion shouldn't have recourse, and yada yada yada.
Great. You hang onto that attitude. Keep violently lashing out at people with opposing viewpoints because that's what logical, educated, not at all ignorant people do to resolve differences of opinion. Hell, it's worked out VERY well for the Democrats over the better part of the last decade...(a tactic everyone on these forums has bitched about, but apparently, it's legit and ok in this case...)
"Happy slaves are the worst enemies of freedom." - Marie Von Ebner
"It was always the women, and above all the young ones, who were the most bigoted adherents of the Party, the swallowers of slogans, the amateur spies..." - Orwell
Tolerance cannot be taught <s>through intolerance.</s>
Fixed.
Are you saying we can't educate the ignorant?
No, not where religion is involved you can't. Sometimes the ignorant stumble into circumstances that will allow them to educate themselves, but never in a million years can you actually do it to someone on purpose. It just doesn't happen.
I agree with Malcolm that essentially there is nothing to debate on the issue of gay marriage because one side's entire reasoning is based on religion and icky feelings from their own antiquated cultural biases. You can't debate that, because it can never be changed with facts and information.
As to the rest of all this, this is (almost) nothing new. Societal pressures have been a way for people to moderate each other's bad behavior since the first tribes formed. The only factor that is new is that thanks to the internet people can do their stupid shit to a big enough audience to have nowhere to run away to when they are attacked for their bullshit. I see no reason to abridge the first amendment to no longer allow people to speak out against speech they disagree with just so Orson Scott Card can keep selling books. I know you didn't specifically suggest such a thing, but I can't see any way to keep it from happening that doesn't involve cutting back our freedom of speech. Can you?
Besides, I have about as much sympathy for Card as I would any racist/bigoted asshole. I have no problem with his own speech and actions resulting in his life being destroyed. But then I'm severely biased on this issue.
Edited By TPRJones on 1363626744
"ATTENTION: Customers browsing porn must hold magazines with both hands at all times!"
