| Author | Thread |
|
|
04/21/2009 12:04:37 PM · #2451 |
Originally posted by scalvert:
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
So in terms of X=gay marriage and Y=discrimination I should have understood your disagreement with my position as just being your point of view. So I can evaluation what you say, decide whether I think it makes sense, and accept it or reject it and we all go on our way? |
Socially, that's pretty much how it worked with attitudes on religious persecution, slavery, women's suffrage, equal rights, and everything else. As society changes, so too will its ideals of acceptability. The trend in this society is [slowly] toward tolerance. It's not a simple as a democratic majority, but still requires a loud enough voice to recognize discrimination for what it is. |
Sometimes it's inspite of a democratic majority. |
|
|
|
04/21/2009 12:05:31 PM · #2452 |
Originally posted by scalvert:
...to recognize discrimination for what it is. |
uh uh uh. And what is it Shannon? Something you personally view as wrong? Don't make your statement stronger than it really is. I think discrimination is wrong too, but not always (a view echoed by Matthew for example although I understand he and I disagree on exactly what's what).
Message edited by author 2009-04-21 12:06:09. |
|
|
|
04/21/2009 12:08:20 PM · #2453 |
Originally posted by NikonJeb:
I have an interesting thought......religion is a choice, being gay is not.
Like it or not, a belief system is pretty much cultural/environmental, whereas a gay person, though some mannerisms may be environmental, doesn't have the luxury of changing their sexual orientation.
Who's more in a position to be compassionate and accepting?
Flame suit SECURELY fastened!......8>) |
We are not compassionate and accepting of pedophilia which is also likely out of the individual's control. Whether you choose to be a way or not doesn't seem to be the important factor in deciding whether we should be accepting of it. The action seems to be weighed on its own merits. |
|
|
|
04/21/2009 12:08:45 PM · #2454 |
Originally posted by scarbrd:
Sometimes it's inspite of a democratic majority. |
Even many, many years ago when I was in high school, there were public opinion surveys asking whether people would vote for or against the Amendments which constitute the Bill of Rights without identifying them as such,* and found most would fail a popular vote.
*That a significant number of adults could be found who would not recognize the Amendments for what they were is a separate, sad story ... |
|
|
|
04/21/2009 12:12:53 PM · #2455 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Originally posted by NikonJeb:
I have an interesting thought......religion is a choice, being gay is not.
Like it or not, a belief system is pretty much cultural/environmental, whereas a gay person, though some mannerisms may be environmental, doesn't have the luxury of changing their sexual orientation.
Who's more in a position to be compassionate and accepting?
Flame suit SECURELY fastened!......8>) |
We are not compassionate and accepting of pedophilia which is also likely out of the individual's control. |
Because it harms others unable to be responsible for themselves. We don't tolerate theft in kleptomaniacs either. C'mon, show some common sense here.
Question: if you'd been born in Mongolia, a Palestinian refugee camp, or Islamabad, do you really think you'd be a Christian right now? |
|
|
|
04/21/2009 12:20:15 PM · #2456 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Originally posted by scalvert:
...to recognize discrimination for what it is. |
uh uh uh. And what is it Shannon? Something you personally view as wrong? |
After so many posts in so many Rant threads, you can't possibly be that clueless...? |
|
|
|
04/21/2009 12:20:56 PM · #2457 |
Originally posted by GeneralE:
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Originally posted by NikonJeb:
I have an interesting thought......religion is a choice, being gay is not.
Like it or not, a belief system is pretty much cultural/environmental, whereas a gay person, though some mannerisms may be environmental, doesn't have the luxury of changing their sexual orientation.
Who's more in a position to be compassionate and accepting?
Flame suit SECURELY fastened!......8>) |
We are not compassionate and accepting of pedophilia which is also likely out of the individual's control. |
Because it harms others unable to be responsible for themselves. We don't tolerate theft in kleptomaniacs either. C'mon, show some common sense here. |
I agree with you Paul. You miss my point. Jeb was asking if the Christian, who presumably chose to be a Christian, should go a little further in accepting the homsexual who didn't choose to be that way. I pointed out that choice doesn't seem to be a key consideration so I don't necessarily think it's a productive line of thinking. Did you not see my last sentence? "The action seems to be weighed on its own merits." That 100% agrees with what you are saying.
Message edited by author 2009-04-21 12:22:03. |
|
|
|
04/21/2009 12:21:20 PM · #2458 |
Originally posted by scalvert:
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Originally posted by scalvert:
...to recognize discrimination for what it is. |
uh uh uh. And what is it Shannon? Something you personally view as wrong? |
After so many posts in so many Rant threads, you can't possibly be that clueless...? |
Whatever Shannon. You can't have it both ways bub. |
|
|
|
04/21/2009 12:29:29 PM · #2459 |
Originally posted by Melethia:
And I still suck at debating. So I'm not a good person to answer your question, I guess. |
Do you know the whole purpose of Rant Deb? The REAL purpose is to judge whether you can sit in a room of people who totally disagree with you, take everything they throw your way, assess what they have to say, adjust your position where necessary, stay steadfast to your convictions where allowed, and remain civil and courteous throughout.
It's practice for real life. |
|
|
|
04/21/2009 12:40:32 PM · #2460 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Originally posted by scalvert:
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Originally posted by scalvert:
...to recognize discrimination for what it is. |
uh uh uh. And what is it Shannon? Something you personally view as wrong? |
After so many posts in so many Rant threads, you can't possibly be that clueless...? |
Whatever Shannon. You can't have it both ways bub. |
I stand corrected. You're that clueless. |
|
|
|
04/21/2009 12:43:00 PM · #2461 |
Originally posted by scalvert:
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Originally posted by scalvert:
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Originally posted by scalvert:
...to recognize discrimination for what it is. |
uh uh uh. And what is it Shannon? Something you personally view as wrong? |
After so many posts in so many Rant threads, you can't possibly be that clueless...? |
Whatever Shannon. You can't have it both ways bub. |
I stand corrected. You're that clueless. |
O-key... |
|
|
|
04/21/2009 12:59:46 PM · #2462 |
More of what I see as wrong.
You can read the article here on CBS News about the fallout of the Miss USA pageant. I think the responses of Perez are quite revealing.
"I am so disappointed in Miss California representing my country," he said. "Not because I believe in gay marriage, but she doesn't inspire and she doesn't unite."
So now the problem was not that she's against gay marriage. The problem is because she's not a "uniter". I view this as quite disingenuous because were Miss California to have answered the question, "I do not agree with Proposition 8 and I think other states should advance the cause of gay marriage." I suspect he would not feel the same way. She's no more of a "uniter" with that answer, but I'm guessing it would have been fine.
How does Perez think she SHOULD have answered the question? By not answering it at all...
"A very simple way she could have answered it is, 'as a future Miss USA, it is my job not to be a politician, but to be someone who represents and inspires the women and the troops, and I think it's great that the states get to decide for themselves.'"
In other words, you can go along with us or you can keep your convictions to yourself.
I think what Prejean did was admirable in the sense she held to her convictions and attempted to convey them in a way that didn't discount others. "no offense to anybody out there" seems like it could be a throw-away phrase, but I think it conveys that she understands other people don't agree with her. I'm also quite sure she was smart enough to instantly know she was completely f'ed with that question. She could have said what she knew the judge wanted to hear or she could have said what she believed. It's admirable that she chose to say what she believed even though it could have cost her something she obviously wanted very much (and who knows whether it REALLY cost her the crown).
Message edited by author 2009-04-21 13:00:11. |
|
|
|
04/21/2009 01:01:13 PM · #2463 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
\ and remain civil and courteous throughout.
|
Hey! That may be your personal requirement, but Rant doesn't demand that. :)
Message edited by author 2009-04-21 13:03:15. |
|
|
|
04/21/2009 01:05:18 PM · #2464 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Originally posted by scalvert:
...to recognize discrimination for what it is. |
uh uh uh. And what is it Shannon? Something you personally view as wrong?...You can't have it both ways bub. |
Ah, I see where the disconnect is. You leapt ahead (as usual) from that sentence to a black and white assignment of right or wrong. The statement was intended as neither, merely pointing out that it takes time and understanding to recognize discrimination for what it is: discrimination. Right or wrong remains relative to cultural norms and personal opinions, as I've been saying all along. In THIS culture, discrimination itself is "defined" as wrong by our constitution, but our society didn't comprehend restrictions against women, blacks, and now gays as discrimination. It's apparently a tough pill to swallow for those raised on rationalizations of these groups as less worthy people.
Yer still clueless, though. ;-P |
|
|
|
04/21/2009 01:14:46 PM · #2465 |
Originally posted by scalvert:
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Originally posted by scalvert:
...to recognize discrimination for what it is. |
uh uh uh. And what is it Shannon? Something you personally view as wrong?...You can't have it both ways bub. |
Ah, I see where the disconnect is. You leapt ahead (as usual) from that sentence to a black and white assignment of right or wrong. The statement was intended as neither, merely pointing out that it takes time and understanding to recognize discrimination for what it is: discrimination. Right or wrong remains relative to cultural norms and personal opinions, as I've been saying all along. In THIS culture, discrimination itself is "defined" as wrong by our constitution, but our society didn't comprehend restrictions against women, blacks, and now gays as discrimination. It's apparently a tough pill to swallow for those raised on rationalizations of these groups as less worthy people.
Yer still clueless, though. ;-P |
Well, it's quite possible I'm clueless. A few quick thoughts:
1) Discrimination is not defined as always wrong. We discriminate against felons (no vote). That's in the constitution too. Same with legal aliens.
2) We've been through that we all belong to many societies. In fact, at the end of the day, we are all a society of individuals.
Message edited by author 2009-04-21 13:16:35. |
|
|
|
04/21/2009 01:17:53 PM · #2466 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
So now the problem was not that she's against gay marriage. The problem is because she's not a "uniter". I view this as quite disingenuous because were Miss California to have answered the question, "I do not agree with Proposition 8 and I think other states should advance the cause of gay marriage." I suspect he would not feel the same way. She's no more of a "uniter" with that answer, but I'm guessing it would have been fine. |
NO, Doc. Denying rights to one group is not a matter of unity. It's naked discrimination. Had she been against interracial unions because marriage should be only between two white or two blacks, it would be the exact same situation. Why is this so difficult for you to grasp? Allowing others to make their own choices allows more people to enjoy the same rights you have vs. dividing them into certain groups that are "allowed" to participate. Agreeing with fellow KKK members is not unity. |
|
|
|
04/21/2009 01:26:51 PM · #2467 |
Geez, go get a mocha after a bike ride and the whole thread passes you by!
Jason, you asked if I'm an "A" with "A" being as follows: A) I believe X is right/wrong because I believe principle Y applies to the situation. I understand other people or societies may not think principle Y applies to this situation and that is an equally valid opinion.
I suppose I am, but am not sure about the "principle Y" bit. So I'm trying to find an example here... "I believe cutting people off on the freeway is wrong because I believe the principles of common decency and safety applies to the situation. I understand other people or societies may not think common decency or safety apply to the situation and that is an equally valid opinion."
Maybe not a good example, but yeah, I'll go with it. I am responsible for my own behavior, so I must take into account there are idiots who feel they are empowered to own the road and may cut me off as they deem necessary. I drive accordingly and try not to let my stress level increase. (Though I really do dislike it when drivers pass me then immediately turn right, particularly when I'm driving a bicycle. I was slightly less tolerant than usual this afternoon and briefly gave thought to hitting his fine luxury automobile, but I dislike pain and or broken bones or broken bikes.)
Next:
Do you know the whole purpose of Rant Deb? The REAL purpose is to judge whether you can sit in a room of people who totally disagree with you, take everything they throw your way, assess what they have to say, adjust your position where necessary, stay steadfast to your convictions where allowed, and remain civil and courteous throughout.
I generally don't have a problem sitting in a room full of people who totally disagree with me. Probably because I'm a wimp, but mostly because I don't feel the need to persuade them to "see" or accept my side of the issue. This actually happens to me from time to time because the majority of the people I work with do not hold the same political views I do. I can remain steadfast to my convictions without engaging in an argument I'm quite sure I cannot "win". Nor do I see the value in engaging. I do not feel my opinions are superior - just different. I have a lot of respect for some of the folks I know who hold very differing opinions. My parents, for instance.
|
|
|
|
04/21/2009 01:27:34 PM · #2468 |
Ok so I missed a lot of this and I'm now catching up. Doc, as far as the Miss California stuff... I find it pretty irrelevant and a distraction to the real conversation.
So I wanted to answer your question on tolerance. I think this has been expressed by others in different ways but I'll just put it in one sentence: It is not a requirement of the tolerant to tolerate intolerance, discrimination, or the "isms" (racism, sexism, heterosexism, etc).
And I just wanted to add a little something I've been thinking about and I tried to explain before but I think I have a better grasp of now.
There is a misconception that the "isms" only exist with hate. Like if someone is called a racist the immediate defense is "I have black friends!" or "I don't hate black people!"
Just because you don't hate them, doesn't mean you don't think you are inherently better than them because of the color of your skin. The 2 do not have to go hand in hand. Replace "black" with "gay" and we have the same issue.
There need not be tolerance if there is an understanding of equality. In other words, you shouldn't HAVE to tolerate someone simply because they are black, gay, unless you were guilty of one of the isms. You don't "tolerate" straight white people. You might tolerate straight white atheists, but that is based on the fact that you disagree with their atheism. Disagreeing with their whiteness or straightness is a non-issue. As it should be for blacks, gays, etc.
|
|
|
|
04/21/2009 01:27:59 PM · #2469 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
1) Discrimination is not defined as always wrong. We discriminate against felons (no vote). That's in the constitution too. Same with legal aliens. |
Your analogy is flawed. Felons lose some constitutional rights (starting with liberty), and aliens may not have achieved full citizenship. It's not the same as denying constitutional rights to regular citizens.
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
2) We've been through that we all belong to many societies. In fact, at the end of the day, we are all a society of individuals. |
The society in question concerns government, which is obligated to treat regular citizens as equals. |
|
|
|
04/21/2009 01:31:39 PM · #2470 |
Originally posted by Melethia:
I generally don't have a problem sitting in a room full of people who totally disagree with me. Probably because I'm a wimp, but mostly because I don't feel the need to persuade them to "see" or accept my side of the issue. This actually happens to me from time to time because the majority of the people I work with do not hold the same political views I do. I can remain steadfast to my convictions without engaging in an argument I'm quite sure I cannot "win". Nor do I see the value in engaging. I do not feel my opinions are superior - just different. I have a lot of respect for some of the folks I know who hold very differing opinions. My parents, for instance. |
Don't worry Deb. I think you are a great person even if you aren't like the jackals here. ;) You cause some conviction with your statement because I can certainly be guilty of "the need to persuade them to "see" or accept my side of the issue". Whoa. Right between the eyes. ;) That is one of my many shortcomings and it probably stems from pride (not probably, I'm sure it does).
OTOH, I do see value in engaging. It allows for civil discourse and you never know when someone says something that suddenly resonates with you. |
|
|
|
04/21/2009 01:33:16 PM · #2471 |
Originally posted by scalvert:
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
1) Discrimination is not defined as always wrong. We discriminate against felons (no vote). That's in the constitution too. Same with legal aliens. |
Your analogy is flawed. Felons lose some constitutional rights (starting with liberty), and aliens may not have achieved full citizenship. It's not the same as denying constitutional rights to regular citizens. |
I guess my point is you said discrimination was defined as wrong. You didn't add all these qualifiers that it's wrong for "regular citizens" but not wrong for non-regular citizens. |
|
|
|
04/21/2009 01:36:30 PM · #2472 |
Had she not defended her opinions with the soft defensiveness of "thats just the way I was raised" would what she said been more or less offensive. Had Miss Egypt said "all non believers must be put to the sword, thats just the way I was raised", would it have sounded as weak to more ears?
The only point in asking these young women any questions is to see if they will be good spokespersons for the title they are contending for, and this young lady was pitched a tough question, and her answers was lousy. She could have dodged, she could have talked about what a tough question it was, how there were nuances and shadings, but what she did was explain that she held the conviction that there were a group that were not deserving of the right to marry, because her parents held that opinion.
Had there been a rational, she might have softened the abuse later showered down on her, but unquestioning recitation of what she had been taught was all she offered up. If you stand up in public and say that you hold a viewpoint because you were taught with your mother's milk, and have never questioned those assumptions enough to create a logical defense of those opinions, then you should not be a spokesperson. |
|
|
|
04/21/2009 01:36:33 PM · #2473 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
I guess my point is you said discrimination was defined as wrong. You didn't add all these qualifiers that it's wrong for "regular citizens" but not wrong for non-regular citizens. |
"Discrimination" is a very broad term; it can properly be debated only by appending qualifiers or conditionals to it. For an extreme example, I am proud of my discriminating palate. I am proud I taught my children to discriminate between right and wrong. And so forth and so on.
R. |
|
|
|
04/21/2009 01:38:29 PM · #2474 |
Originally posted by escapetooz:
Ok so I missed a lot of this and I'm now catching up. Doc, as far as the Miss California stuff... I find it pretty irrelevant and a distraction to the real conversation. |
Why is that? It was a real world example of the exact conversation we're having here played out on a national stage with responses from all sides for us to see. If that isn't relevant, then what is?
I think your other statements are valid. I do like to think that I can divorce the action from the person. |
|
|
|
04/21/2009 01:42:49 PM · #2475 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
I guess my point is you said discrimination was defined as wrong. You didn't add all these qualifiers that it's wrong for "regular citizens" but not wrong for non-regular citizens. |
I said that discrimination (in the social sense, per Bear's point) is defined as wrong by the constitution. Did I REALLY need to add that it only applies to people covered by that constitution? If the Taliban says discrimination is right, then that's their definition. Say it with me, "R E L A T I V E !"
Message edited by author 2009-04-21 13:43:38. |
|
