[DEFEATED] Commend Christian Democrats

[Christian Democrats]

"Quick! Someone commend this guy!"

Lol. "No one is gay" > Liked by Christian Democrats.

There's nothing wrong with that statement. The essentialist view of homosexuality is of recent vintage.

https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/homosexuality/

Sexuality is much better understood as something a person thinks or does as opposed to something a person is. A heterosexual thinks or does heterosexual things, a homosexual thinks or does homosexual things, and so on.

[Foril]

Lol. "No one is gay" > Liked by Christian Democrats.

There's nothing wrong with that statement. The essentialist view of homosexuality is of recent vintage.

https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/homosexuality/

Sexuality is much better understood as something a person thinks or does as opposed to something a person is. A heterosexual thinks or does heterosexual things, a homosexual thinks or does homosexual things, and so on.

Uhh...no. This is not how this stuff works, CD.

Speaking from personal experience. Do you think I chose to be homosexual?

[Christian Democrats]

There's nothing wrong with that statement. The essentialist view of homosexuality is of recent vintage.

https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/homosexuality/

Sexuality is much better understood as something a person thinks or does as opposed to something a person is. A heterosexual thinks or does heterosexual things, a homosexual thinks or does homosexual things, and so on.

Uhh...no. This is not how this stuff works, CD.

Speaking from personal experience. Do you think I chose to be honosexual?

I don't know you, so I can't comment on your personal experiences. I don't think the 19th-century view of sexuality is correct.

[Mundiferrum]

Lol. "No one is gay" > Liked by Christian Democrats.

There's nothing wrong with that statement. The essentialist view of homosexuality is of recent vintage.

https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/homosexuality/

Sexuality is much better understood as something a person thinks or does as opposed to something a person is. A heterosexual thinks or does heterosexual things, a homosexual thinks or does homosexual things, and so on.

"No one is gay. God did not make men for men or women for women.
"A degenerate educational agenda or even genuine personal struggles cannot change what is unchangeable."

So no one is straight, either? I get wanting to define people as being made for God (although that's incredibly disingenuous, since God also commands us to love one another), but painting this argument as anti-essentialist is kinda disingenuous, dontcha think?

[Christian Democrats]

So no one is straight, either? I get wanting to define people as being made for God (although that's incredibly disingenuous, since God also commands us to love one another), but painting this argument as anti-essentialist is kinda disingenuous, dontcha think?

No, I don't think it's disingenuous. Oire made a non-essentialist argument, and I liked his post. Straight and gay don't tell me anything about what a person is. They tell me what a person thinks or does.

If a person told me he was a barber, he'd be telling me what he does -- i.e., he cuts hair. Barber doesn't say anything about his essence. There's no essence of barberness. Nobody is innately a barber. However, some people might be predisposed to cutting hair, they might enjoy cutting hair, or they might be particularly skilled at cutting hair. Genetic and environmental factors might be at play.

[Mundiferrum]

So no one is straight, either? I get wanting to define people as being made for God (although that's incredibly disingenuous, since God also commands us to love one another), but painting this argument as anti-essentialist is kinda disingenuous, dontcha think?

No, I don't think it's disingenuous. Oire made a non-essentialist argument, and I liked his post. Straight and gay don't tell me anything about what a person is. They tell me what a person thinks or does.

If a person told me he was a barber, he'd be telling me what he does -- i.e., he cuts hair. Barber doesn't say anything about his essence. There's no essence of barberness. Nobody is innately a barber. However, some people might be predisposed to cutting hair, they might enjoy cutting hair, or they might be particularly skilled at cutting hair. Genetic and environmental factors might be at play.

Being attracted to a person of the same sex and, especially, acting on it is comparable to cutting hair?

EDIT: If there's no such thing as an essence to a person, is there then any essential quality to being married that merits its restriction from same-sex couples? Is there anything particularly essential to the choice of keeping one's set of genitalia, or having them changed, at will?

[Christian Democrats]

No, I don't think it's disingenuous. Oire made a non-essentialist argument, and I liked his post. Straight and gay don't tell me anything about what a person is. They tell me what a person thinks or does.

If a person told me he was a barber, he'd be telling me what he does -- i.e., he cuts hair. Barber doesn't say anything about his essence. There's no essence of barberness. Nobody is innately a barber. However, some people might be predisposed to cutting hair, they might enjoy cutting hair, or they might be particularly skilled at cutting hair. Genetic and environmental factors might be at play.

Being attracted to a person of the same sex and, especially, acting on it is comparable to cutting hair?

EDIT: If there's no such thing as an essence to a person, is there then any essential quality to being married that merits its restriction from same-sex couples? Is there anything particularly essential to the choice of keeping one's set of genitalia, or having them changed, at will?

We shouldn't derail this thread, so instead, I'll simply link to an encyclopedia entry on essentialism:

https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/essential-accidental/

If you want to telegram me later, feel free to do so. Although, I might be slow to respond.

There's also an entire region dedicated to philosophy (Philosophy 115), where you might be free to explore these kinds of questions. The founder (Dr. George/BearNation) is a philosophy professor and gay man with whom I've had some interesting conversations in the past.

[Auralia]

If "anti-Catholicism" is defined simply by disagreement with some subset of Church teachings, as you seem to be saying above, then the label is essentially useless.

Obviously there are different kinds of anti-Catholicism, ranging in severity from disagreement with Catholic teachings, to denying a commendation to a recipient on the basis of his Catholicism, to burning down Catholic churches.

That doesn't make the term useless, and I think that would be obvious if we were discussing pretty much anything else. Do all "anti-capitalists" burn down Wall Street banks? Do all "anti-communists" fight guerrilla wars in Nicaragua?

Literally the entire universe of people who are not 100%-doctrinaire, devout Catholics are "anti-Catholic" in this sense...

If they knowingly reject Catholicism, yes. To be polite, one generally doesn't use the term "anti-Catholic" to describe mere disagreement with Catholic teaching, but I would hold it is nonetheless a correct usage.

...and you railing against people for acting accordingly is farcical.

This is a false equivalence. Denying a commendation on the basis of a recipient's Catholicism is a step beyond mere disagreement; otherwise no non-Catholics would be voting for CD's commendation on the merits.

Rather, it is an implicit assertion that the Catholic Church's teachings are not only wrong, but that they are so beyond the bounds of acceptable discourse that a person asserting them deserves to be deprived of some benefit that he would have otherwise received. It should not be surprising that I, a fellow Catholic, finds this offensive.

Again, this is so obvious that I can't imagine having to explain this in any other context.

[Bhang Bhang Duc]

"Commend Christian Democrats" was defeated 13,609 votes to 2,515.

[The New California Republic]

Lol. "No one is gay" > Liked by Christian Democrats.

There's nothing wrong with that statement. The essentialist view of homosexuality is of recent vintage.

https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/homosexuality/

Sexuality is much better understood as something a person thinks or does as opposed to something a person is. A heterosexual thinks or does heterosexual things, a homosexual thinks or does homosexual things, and so on.

Strange, as in your own explanation you are referring to heterosexuals and homosexuals as definite people, something that someone is (a heterosexual, a homosexual), yet you are adamant in your argument that "no one is gay" is a true statement. Bit of a contradiction there. You have trapped yourself in a weird self-defeating paradox because you have tried to squirm out of the controversy you have landed yourself in without fully thinking said squirmings through. The problem is that you are trying to make Oire's argument nonessentialist, but the argument isn't nonessentialist, as shown by this part of their statement: "God did not make men for men or women for women [...] cannot change what is unchangeable." You are making the argument nonessentialist, but you agreed to an essentialist argument.

[The New California Republic]

"Commend Christian Democrats" was defeated 13,609 votes to 2,515.

Good. Hopefully it's been kicked into the long grass for a very long time.

[Marxist Germany]

OOC: Sad to see this fail, alas, the WA community once again proves that it cannot allow people to be commended if their OOC views are not in alignment with the mainstream narrative.

[Honeydewistania]

OOC: Sad to see this fail, alas, the WA community once again proves that it cannot allow people to be commended if their OOC views are not in alignment with the mainstream narrative.

If the mainstream narrative is not being bigoted, by all means.

[Picairn]

OOC: Sad to see this fail, alas, the WA community once again proves that it cannot allow people to be commended if their OOC views are not in alignment with the mainstream narrative.

Not really, I objected on grounds of non-compliance. Whether the target country is secular or religious, liberal or conservative, I would vote just the same if that country flouted non-compliance.

[Great Robertia]

OOC: Sad to see this fail, alas, the WA community once again proves that it cannot allow people to be commended if their OOC views are not in alignment with the mainstream narrative.

If the mainstream narrative is not being bigoted, by all means.

Amen!

[Marxist Germany]

OOC: Sad to see this fail, alas, the WA community once again proves that it cannot allow people to be commended if their OOC views are not in alignment with the mainstream narrative.

If the mainstream narrative is not being bigoted, by all means.

OOC: The definition of bigotry is the zealous opposition to views one disagrees with, which quite hypocritically, is what the WA did here.

[The New California Republic]

OOC: Sad to see this fail, alas, the WA community once again proves that it cannot allow people to be commended if their OOC views are not in alignment with the mainstream narrative.

So you are just ignoring the part about CD's noncompliance being a major factor?

[Honeydewistania]

If the mainstream narrative is not being bigoted, by all means.

OOC: The definition of bigotry is the zealous opposition to views one disagrees with, which quite hypocritically, is what the WA did here.

If we're going the definitions route, try reading: https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/bigot

[Marxist Germany]

OOC: Sad to see this fail, alas, the WA community once again proves that it cannot allow people to be commended if their OOC views are not in alignment with the mainstream narrative.

So you are just ignoring the part about CD's noncompliance being a major factor?

OOC: Initially, it was about his views, but since the WA got a better reason to toy with, they grasped at it and it beat it dead.

OOC: The definition of bigotry is the zealous opposition to views one disagrees with, which quite hypocritically, is what the WA did here.

If we're going the definitions route, try reading: https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/bigot

OOC:

a person who is obstinately or intolerantly devoted to his or her own opinions and prejudices especially : one who regards or treats the members of a group (such as a racial or ethnic group) with hatred and intolerance

I am yet to see any intolerance coming from CD.

[Honeydewistania]

one who regards or treats the members of a group (such as a racial or ethnic group) with hatred and intolerance

"Quick! Someone commend this guy!"

Edit: For posterity's sake.

[Marxist Germany]

one who regards or treats the members of a group (such as a racial or ethnic group) with hatred and intolerance

"Quick! Someone commend this guy!"

Edit: For posterity's sake.

OOC: You should also look into this post which clarifies the nuances of his position:
https://www.nationstates.net/page=rmb/postid=39804840

[Fauxia]

OOC: Sad to see this fail, alas, the WA community once again proves that it cannot allow people to be commended if their OOC views are not in alignment with the mainstream narrative.

So you are just ignoring the part about CD's noncompliance being a major factor?

In the past CD officially complied with everything and the votes still failed.

[The New California Republic]

So you are just ignoring the part about CD's noncompliance being a major factor?

OOC: Initially, it was about his views, but since the WA got a better reason to toy with, they grasped at it and it beat it dead.

That's a blatant lie. Their noncompliance was raised early, page 2 of this thread.

[Honeydewistania]

So you are just ignoring the part about CD's noncompliance being a major factor?

In the past CD officially complied with everything and the votes still failed.

Because of the views, as per: https://www.nationstates.net/page=dispatch/id=864541

[Marxist Germany]

OOC: Initially, it was about his views, but since the WA got a better reason to toy with, they grasped at it and it beat it dead.

That's a blatant lie. Their noncompliance was raised early, page 2 of this thread.

OOC: Which conveniently misses the fact that this occurred after the proposal reached quorum. Furthermore, I was unable to access the internet and respond to this until day 2 of the vote.