[DEFEATED] Commend Christian Democrats

[Fauxia]

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

Right, so I think that backs up the accuracy of MG’s post.

[The New California Republic]

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

Sundiata =/= Christian Democrats...

[Marxist Germany]

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

Sundiata =/= Christian Democrats...

OOC: He liked the post by Sundiata, and considering we are accusing him of bigotry over a post he liked, this should apply too?

[The New California Republic]

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.

So? It was still a matter that was raised early on in the vote, contrary to the way that you are spinning it.

[Marxist Germany]

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.

So? It was still a matter that was raised early on in the vote, conntrary to the way that you are spinning it.

OOC: When referencing "initial views", I was referring to pre-quorum opposition.

[The New California Republic]

Sundiata =/= Christian Democrats...

OOC: He liked the post by Sundiata, and considering we are accusing him of bigotry over a post he liked, this should apply too?

CD doesn't "clarify the nuances of his position" in that post as you say, because CD is not the one speaking. Try again.

[Marxist Germany]

OOC: He liked the post by Sundiata, and considering we are accusing him of bigotry over a post he liked, this should apply too?

CD doesn't "clarify the nuances of his position" in that post as you say, because CD is not the one speaking. Try again.

OOC: CD likes a post that clarifies the nuances of his position. Again, if he can be accused of bigotry over liking posts, would liking this post not mean that he agrees with it?

[Honeydewistania]

So? It was still a matter that was raised early on in the vote, conntrary to the way that you are spinning it.

OOC: When referencing "initial views", I was referring to pre-quorum opposition.

Not sure which thread you're reading. The opposition from IA onwards came after their name was added to the dispatch

[Great Robertia]

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.

You know, this is what seriously rubs me the wrong way. You have no experience being a gay man or woman and yet you presume to tell others what you think reality is like. How can you even begin to grasp what it's like to be a gay man or woman? What their nature is? How their sexuality came to be? You have no idea, absolutely none and you will never have. And no amount of philosophical or religious conviction will be able to give you an image, a true image of what it's like.

As a gay man, I am thoroughly annoyed by the fact that you presume to tell me and others about our nature. Do you have a right to hold your own convictions? You do, but your rights end where mine begin and that applies for every human being. It's not your business to profess to gay people what their nature is, that is absolutely not your domain nor should it be. Just like I won't be marching into an operation chamber to tell a surgeon how to perform a surgery on their patient, because I read a book or two about the topic but have no experience being a surgeon.

[The New California Republic]

So? It was still a matter that was raised early on in the vote, conntrary to the way that you are spinning it.

OOC: When referencing "initial views", I was referring to pre-quorum opposition.

Weird, arbitrarily meaning pre-quorum opposition when it is the post-quorum opposition which saw this fail, when the latter is exactly what we were talking about.

[Marxist Germany]

OOC: When referencing "initial views", I was referring to pre-quorum opposition.

Not sure which thread you're reading. The opposition from IA onwards came after their name was added to the dispatch

OOC: Most of the posters had already voiced their opposition on the WA Discord far before the proposal was even submitted.

[The New California Republic]

CD doesn't "clarify the nuances of his position" in that post as you say, because CD is not the one speaking. Try again.

OOC: CD likes a post that clarifies the nuances of his position. Again, if he can be accused of bigotry over liking posts, would liking this post not mean that he agrees with it?

Again the post doesn't clarify the nuances of his position as he is not the one speaking, the act of liking was never intended to carry out the function that you are assigning to it.

[Marxist Germany]

OOC: CD likes a post that clarifies the nuances of his position. Again, if he can be accused of bigotry over liking posts, would liking this post not mean that he agrees with it?

Again the post doesn't clarify the nuances of his position as he is not the one speaking, the act of liking was never intended to carry out the function that you are assigning to it.

OOC: If that is the case, then why are we using posts he liked as proof that he is intolerant and bigoted?

[The New California Republic]

Again the post doesn't clarify the nuances of his position as he is not the one speaking, the act of liking was never intended to carry out the function that you are assigning to it.

OOC: If that is the case, then why are we using posts he liked as proof that he is intolerant and bigoted?

Agreeing is one thing, saying that the like is intended ex post facto as a counter to what we are saying here is patently absurd.

[The New California Republic]

Not sure which thread you're reading. The opposition from IA onwards came after their name was added to the dispatch

OOC: Most of the posters had already voiced their opposition on the WA Discord far before the proposal was even submitted.

So now you are arbitrarily having it mean opposition on the WA Discord when nobody even mentioned Discord? Wow, look at those goalposts flying around all over the place...

[Bananaistan]

Regarding the WA discord. The entirety of the early opposition there was solely related to homophobia. Many posters pointed out that they would generally have no problem commending someone whose political views differed from there own.

[Tinfect]

OOC:
It was at least nice of CD to crawl out of the woodwork to demonstrate exactly why he shouldn't be commended, though.

[Prydania]

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.

You know, this is what seriously rubs me the wrong way. You have no experience being a gay man or woman and yet you presume to tell others what you think reality is like. How can you even begin to grasp what it's like to be a gay man or woman? What their nature is? How their sexuality came to be? You have no idea, absolutely none and you will never have. And no amount of philosophical or religious conviction will be able to give you an image, a true image of what it's like.

As a gay man, I am thoroughly annoyed by the fact that you presume to tell me and others about our nature. Do you have a right to hold your own convictions? You do, but your rights end where mine begin and that applies for every human being. It's not your business to profess to gay people what their nature is, that is absolutely not your domain nor should it be. Just like I won't be marching into an operation chamber to tell a surgeon how to perform a surgery on their patient, because I read a book or two about the topic but have no experience being a surgeon.

Preach it.

[Christian Democrats]

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

Interesting quote:

On merit alone, most will probably view this as sufficient to warrant a commendation, while a few may not be as impressed and expect more unique contributions. However, Christian Democrats's politicial [sic] and religious views are likely to swing voters in a specific direction based on their own views.

OOC: He liked the post by Sundiata, and considering we are accusing him of bigotry over a post he liked, this should apply too?

CD doesn't "clarify the nuances of his position" in that post as you say, because CD is not the one speaking. Try again.

If you want me to clarify my position, I agree with the Church that "every sign of unjust discrimination" against people who identify as gay or bisexual should be eliminated, including discrimination in employment and housing.

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.

You know, this is what seriously rubs me the wrong way. You have no experience being a gay man or woman and yet you presume to tell others what you think reality is like. How can you even begin to grasp what it's like to be a gay man or woman? What their nature is? How their sexuality came to be? You have no idea, absolutely none and you will never have. And no amount of philosophical or religious conviction will be able to give you an image, a true image of what it's like.

As a gay man, I am thoroughly annoyed by the fact that you presume to tell me and others about our nature. Do you have a right to hold your own convictions? You do, but your rights end where mine begin and that applies for every human being. It's not your business to profess to gay people what their nature is, that is absolutely not your domain nor should it be. Just like I won't be marching into an operation chamber to tell a surgeon how to perform a surgery on their patient, because I read a book or two about the topic but have no experience being a surgeon.

In the post you quote, I say that I hold the same views on heterosexual and homosexual desires. I say that heterosexual and homosexual desires are shaped by genetic and environmental factors and that they are not essentialist.

https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/essentialism (see definition 3)

The essentialist view derives from a 19th-century sexology that I reject. You're free to disagree with my view, but the idea that I have to have homosexual "experience" to comment on sexual desire in general is narrow-minded. If one were to adopt your criterion, then nobody could comment on sexual desire unless he "experienced" every sexual desire imaginable. There would be no objective truth about the matter, and everyone's opinion would be just as good as any other.

[Imperium Anglorum]

I agree with the Church that "every sign of unjust discrimination" against people who identify as gay or bisexual should be eliminated, including discrimination in employment and housing.

So ought I take away from this that your position against marriage equality is just? And if it is, would you explain that perplexing conundrum?

[Yokiria]

Not a fan of how the author and the target are arguing with people after the defeat. Move on.

[The Reformed American 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.

I'm not a Republican nor am I a Trump supporter, but the WA has always struck me as very left-wing, so this is not surprising.

[Attempted Socialism]

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.

I'm not a Republican nor am I a Trump supporter, but the WA has always struck me as very left-wing, so this is not surprising.

Funny given how the Left Wing^TM considers the WA right-wing on some issues. I know it's a few years ago, but I once argued that the GA tried to ban Marxism as an ideology because it mandated private ownership over the means of production.

I guess from our respective analogies, we can conclude that the WA collectively is a raging schizophrenic; massively right- and left-wing at the same time?
Or, alternatively, it tends largely centrist (Sozialliberal for any fellow Continentals) except for a few areas where radical policies have been pushed through.
It's a toss-up!

[Wallenburg]

I'm not a Republican nor am I a Trump supporter, but the WA has always struck me as very left-wing, so this is not surprising.

Funny given how the Left Wing^TM considers the WA right-wing on some issues. I know it's a few years ago, but I once argued that the GA tried to ban Marxism as an ideology because it mandated private ownership over the means of production.

I guess from our respective analogies, we can conclude that the WA collectively is a raging schizophrenic; massively right- and left-wing at the same time?
Or, alternatively, it tends largely centrist (Sozialliberal for any fellow Continentals) except for a few areas where radical policies have been pushed through.
It's a toss-up!

As a leftist, the WA is unmistakably left-of-center. This is a good thing, and ought to be capitalized on to the fullest possible extent.

[Prydania]

You know a lot of people have been commended by the WA. I would bet that a good amount of those people are Christian.

So no. The WA does not hate Christians. Or Catholics. Stop trying to use that as a shield to deflect criticism of your own sub-par behaviour that's cost you support.