Page 2 of 15

PostPosted: Fri Nov 15, 2013 12:40 pm
by Ragnarum
The Tovian Way wrote:
The Tovian Way wrote:
I'd leave the country and go elsewhere if I didn't like their policies or way of governance.


No doubt, in that situation that would be only rational. But would the actions of that person in power be, in your view, legitimate? That is to say, do you believe it is always a legitimate exercise of political power to deny free speech protections to those who disagree with the views of those in power?


Pretty much, yes they would be legitimate, except I wouldn't agree with them, and If I came into power (which wont happen anyway) I would just stop them existing as well.

I dont care whether its a democracy or dictatorship, so long as It supports my other beliefs.

PostPosted: Fri Nov 15, 2013 12:41 pm
by Blasveck
Totalise wrote:
Blasveck wrote:Because the people who oppose them are harming members of society for no logical reason.

Granted, they can spread hate all they want. They're in their full right to do so.

But they shouldn't act suprised when they get shit for it.

how is it harm? i see no harm in being against something i find moraly wrong.
prove that they spread hate. i believe that homosexuality is wrong, that dosen't mean i hate homosexuals.

I'm sure you're well aware of the violence that LGBT members have experienced, nevermind that attitudes expressed by groups mentioned in the OP only help to perpetuate that violence.

PostPosted: Fri Nov 15, 2013 12:41 pm
by Jormengand
Totalise wrote:
Jormengand wrote:Sexuality? No. When did you choose to be straight? Could you (for experimental purposes, of course) choose to be gay?

No. No you couldn't.

That said, I'd let you have every right to say what you want. Your right to swing your fist ends where my nose begins, and all that.

so its genetic then?

Uh, kind of. Also to do with conditions in the womb and such, but we think it's fixed at birth - in any case, no attempt at changing people's sexuality has ever succeeded.

Ever.

PostPosted: Fri Nov 15, 2013 12:41 pm
by Liriena
Totalise wrote:
Blasveck wrote:Because the people who oppose them are harming members of society for no logical reason.

Granted, they can spread hate all they want. They're in their full right to do so.

But they shouldn't act suprised when they get shit for it.

how is it harm? i see no harm in being against something i find moraly wrong.
prove that they spread hate. i believe that homosexuality is wrong, that dosen't mean i hate homosexuals.

"Love the sinner, hate the sin" is a pretty cowardly cop-out. That being said, denying LGBT people their human rights is most certainly harmful. It harms their mental health, their economic stability, their emotional development and that of their children, and can even lead to severe, widespread physical health problems.

PostPosted: Fri Nov 15, 2013 12:42 pm
by The Tovian Way
Ragnarum wrote:
The Tovian Way wrote:
No doubt, in that situation that would be only rational. But would the actions of that person in power be, in your view, legitimate? That is to say, do you believe it is always a legitimate exercise of political power to deny free speech protections to those who disagree with the views of those in power?


Pretty much, yes they would be legitimate, except I wouldn't agree with them, and If I came into power (which wont happen anyway) I would just stop them existing completely.


Fascinating. I apologize for all the questions, I've just honestly never heard someone defend that position before.
I disagree with you, but I do give you credit for your consistency, it's an uncommon trait.

PostPosted: Fri Nov 15, 2013 12:43 pm
by The Tovian Way
Liriena wrote:"Love the sinner, hate the sin" is a pretty cowardly cop-out.


Not so at all, it is rather an accurate expression of Christian teaching as regards to those who commit sin (i.e. everyone, with only a couple exceptions).

PostPosted: Fri Nov 15, 2013 12:43 pm
by Avenio
Liriena wrote:
Avenio wrote:
To quote Karl Popper;

"Less well known is the paradox of tolerance: Unlimited tolerance must lead to the disappearance of tolerance. If we extend unlimited tolerance even to those who are intolerant, if we are not prepared to defend a tolerant society against the onslaught of the intolerant, then the tolerant will be destroyed, and tolerance with them. — In this formulation, I do not imply, for instance, that we should always suppress the utterance of intolerant philosophies; as long as we can counter them by rational argument and keep them in check by public opinion, suppression would certainly be unwise. But we should claim the right to suppress them if necessary even by force; for it may easily turn out that they are not prepared to meet us on the level of rational argument, but begin by denouncing all argument; they may forbid their followers to listen to rational argument, because it is deceptive, and teach them to answer arguments by the use of their fists or pistols. We should therefore claim, in the name of tolerance, the right not to tolerate the intolerant. We should claim that any movement preaching intolerance places itself outside the law, and we should consider incitement to intolerance and persecution as criminal, in the same way as we should consider incitement to murder, or to kidnapping, or to the revival of the slave trade, as criminal."

Thanks for reminding me why I love Popper. :3


I'll take any chance I get to pop out the Popper. :p

PostPosted: Fri Nov 15, 2013 12:43 pm
by The Treorai
Ragnarum wrote:
The Tovian Way wrote:
No doubt, in that situation that would be only rational. But would the actions of that person in power be, in your view, legitimate? That is to say, do you believe it is always a legitimate exercise of political power to deny free speech protections to those who disagree with the views of those in power?


Pretty much, yes they would be legitimate, except I wouldn't agree with them, and If I came into power (which wont happen anyway) I would just stop them existing as well.

I dont care whether its a democracy or dictatorship, so long as It supports my other beliefs.

"To stop you from suppressing the rights of others I will suppress your rights!"
Doubleplus good use of Doubletink, comrade.

PostPosted: Fri Nov 15, 2013 12:44 pm
by Totalise
Blasveck wrote:
Totalise wrote:how is it harm? i see no harm in being against something i find moraly wrong.
prove that they spread hate. i believe that homosexuality is wrong, that dosen't mean i hate homosexuals.

I'm sure you're well aware of the violence that LGBT members have experienced, nevermind that attitudes expressed by groups mentioned in the OP only help to perpetuate that violence.

and the LGBT dosen't have a violant side? where i live its the other way around. in my high school a group of homosexual kids tried to beat me for disaggreeing with them and their life style choices.

PostPosted: Fri Nov 15, 2013 12:44 pm
by Ragnarum
The Treorai wrote:
Ragnarum wrote:
Pretty much, yes they would be legitimate, except I wouldn't agree with them, and If I came into power (which wont happen anyway) I would just stop them existing as well.

I dont care whether its a democracy or dictatorship, so long as It supports my other beliefs.

"To stop you from suppressing the rights of others I will suppress your rights!"
Doubleplus good use of Doubletink, comrade.


Yes.

Thats actually my point.

Funny, I know.

PostPosted: Fri Nov 15, 2013 12:45 pm
by The Treorai
Ragnarum wrote:
The Treorai wrote:"To stop you from suppressing the rights of others I will suppress your rights!"
Doubleplus good use of Doubletink, comrade.


Yes.

Thats actually my point.

And the point whistles right over your head.

PostPosted: Fri Nov 15, 2013 12:46 pm
by Blasveck
Totalise wrote:
Blasveck wrote:I'm sure you're well aware of the violence that LGBT members have experienced, nevermind that attitudes expressed by groups mentioned in the OP only help to perpetuate that violence.

and the LGBT dosen't have a violant side? where i live its the other way around. in my high school a group of homosexual kids tried to beat me for disaggreeing with them and their life style choices.

Anecdotes aren't evidence son, and you completely miss the point.

PostPosted: Fri Nov 15, 2013 12:46 pm
by Ragnarum
The Treorai wrote:
Ragnarum wrote:
Yes.

Thats actually my point.

And the point whistles right over your head.


Except not? :roll:

Your posts are pretty understandable.

PostPosted: Fri Nov 15, 2013 12:46 pm
by Liriena
The Tovian Way wrote:
Liriena wrote:"Love the sinner, hate the sin" is a pretty cowardly cop-out.


Not so at all, it is rather an accurate expression of Christian teaching as regards to those who commit sin (i.e. everyone, with only a couple exceptions).

Accurate or not, it is quite the shift from the earlier passion for "hang, disembowel and burn the sodomites", which is still pretty much the norm for certain Christians, such as the always delightful Scott Lively. Taking into account just how vitriolic anti-LGBT sentiments used to be, and how sugar-coatedly dehumanizing they are now, it's quite clear that there's an element of fear of criticism in most anti-LGBT christians.

PostPosted: Fri Nov 15, 2013 12:46 pm
by Totalise
Jormengand wrote:
Totalise wrote:so its genetic then?

Uh, kind of. Also to do with conditions in the womb and such, but we think it's fixed at birth - in any case, no attempt at changing people's sexuality has ever succeeded.

Ever.

i think homosexuality being genetic would have been big news. i was always under the impression that it was choice, you know since i have yet to read an artical about it being genetic

PostPosted: Fri Nov 15, 2013 12:47 pm
by Menassa
“How long shall I bear with this evil congregation?”

PostPosted: Fri Nov 15, 2013 12:48 pm
by Blasveck
Totalise wrote:
Jormengand wrote:Uh, kind of. Also to do with conditions in the womb and such, but we think it's fixed at birth - in any case, no attempt at changing people's sexuality has ever succeeded.

Ever.

i think homosexuality being genetic would have been big news. i was always under the impression that it was choice, you know since i have yet to read an artical about it being genetic

We're not quite sure yet. What we are sure of is that it is not a choce.

PostPosted: Fri Nov 15, 2013 12:48 pm
by Inruptus
Why can't these douches realize that they lost the fight over gay rights?

PostPosted: Fri Nov 15, 2013 12:48 pm
by Liriena
Totalise wrote:i was always under the impression that it was choice, you know since i have yet to read an artical about it being genetic

That's a very poor logical structure right there.

PostPosted: Fri Nov 15, 2013 12:49 pm
by Arcadonisia
Totalise wrote:
Jormengand wrote:Uh, kind of. Also to do with conditions in the womb and such, but we think it's fixed at birth - in any case, no attempt at changing people's sexuality has ever succeeded.

Ever.

i think homosexuality being genetic would have been big news. i was always under the impression that it was choice, you know since i have yet to read an artical about it being genetic


Why would it be a choice?

PostPosted: Fri Nov 15, 2013 12:49 pm
by The Treorai
Ragnarum wrote:
The Treorai wrote:And the point whistles right over your head.


Except not? :roll:

Your posts are pretty understandable.

If you had understood it, you would know I was comparing your statement to that of something in George Orwell's 1984.

PostPosted: Fri Nov 15, 2013 12:50 pm
by Ragnarum
The Treorai wrote:
Ragnarum wrote:
Except not? :roll:

Your posts are pretty understandable.

If you had understood it, you would know I was comparing your statement to that of something in George Orwell's 1984.


Never read it.

Most people haven't.

PostPosted: Fri Nov 15, 2013 12:53 pm
by Totalise
Liriena wrote:
Totalise wrote:i was always under the impression that it was choice, you know since i have yet to read an artical about it being genetic

That's a very poor logical structure right there.

as i am not an expert in the feild of human psychology nor genetics i can only go off of what Experts in those feilds have written on the subject, and all of the articals i had read suggested that it was a choice as there is no data supporting it as genetic and few if any genetisists have wanted to take up the manttle of such a task.

PostPosted: Fri Nov 15, 2013 12:53 pm
by The Tovian Way
Liriena wrote:
The Tovian Way wrote:
Not so at all, it is rather an accurate expression of Christian teaching as regards to those who commit sin (i.e. everyone, with only a couple exceptions).

Accurate or not, it is quite the shift from the earlier passion for "hang, disembowel and burn the sodomites", which is still pretty much the norm for certain Christians, such as the always delightful Scott Lively. Taking into account just how vitriolic anti-LGBT sentiments used to be, and how sugar-coatedly dehumanizing they are now, it's quite clear that there's an element of fear of criticism in most anti-LGBT christians.


Those who call for hanging, disemboweling and burning sodomites are acting outside the teachings of Christianity. They themselves might be Christians, but insofar as they call for such actions, they are not doing so as Christians, even if they claim otherwise.
Sexual orientation is largely outside of our control, and thus cannot result in moral culpability.
Our actions are within our control, and thus can result in moral culpability.
Those with a tendency toward sinful actions, such as those born with a homosexual orientation, are never morally culpable for this tendency, but are morally culpable for actually engaging in these actions. One with a homosexual orientation who did not ever engage in homosexual sexual activity would be completely blameless as regards this particular sin.

PostPosted: Fri Nov 15, 2013 12:53 pm
by Menassa
The Tovian Way wrote:
Liriena wrote:"Love the sinner, hate the sin" is a pretty cowardly cop-out.


Not so at all, it is rather an accurate expression of Christian teaching as regards to those who commit sin (i.e. everyone, with only a couple exceptions).

Everyone is 'in sin' so it really doesn't matter if they 'commit' sin.