|
Source: (consider it)
|
Thread: I call all homophobes to Hell - especially Russ
|
orfeo
Ship's Musical Counterpoint
# 13878
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by IngoB:
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
[qb]Given your ability to describe all kinds of things as "natural law", ranging from elements of physics to elements of morality, this challenge is completely pointless.
That's just wilful misunderstanding of the point I was making. Anyway, name a law from physics, chemistry or biology then.
Why? What's that got to do with the topic at hand? Do you have any evidence whatsoever of a law from the disciplines of physics, chemistry or biology that has a problem with homosexuality?
Nope. That's exactly why we're here, dancing around in circles. You want to go back to pre-1739 thinking to avoid modern physics, chemistry or biology, and yet now you're trying to suggest that we need to talk about laws from it? Why? I'm not the one suggesting that everything is neat and cut and dried in a pre-1739 fashion. You're the one trying to invalidate the last few centuries.
You can have one or the other, Ingo. Not both. We can either talk like modern human beings, in which case you have to acknowledge that life (including in the biological sense) is rather complicated, or you can retreat into a pre-1739 world of neat Platonic forms and the rest of us can happily leave you there.
--------------------
Technology has brought us all closer together. Turns out a lot of the people you meet as a result are complete idiots.
Posts: 18173 | From: Under | Registered: Jul 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
orfeo
Ship's Musical Counterpoint
# 13878
|
Posted
Besides, the very idea of laws of biology is quite problematic so you really should be careful when treating biology as if it's the same as physics or chemistry.
[ 28. August 2015, 16:13: Message edited by: orfeo ]
--------------------
Technology has brought us all closer together. Turns out a lot of the people you meet as a result are complete idiots.
Posts: 18173 | From: Under | Registered: Jul 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
lilBuddha
Shipmate
# 14333
|
Posted
Originally posted by orfeo:
quote:
you can retreat into a pre-1739 world of neat Platonic forms and the rest of us can happily leave you there.
Well, IngoB hasn't been doing the homophobic tango all by himself. And it isn't if you didn't know the tune before stepping onto the dance floor.
Of course, I've been doing the hamster dance with Russ, so...
--------------------
I put on my rockin' shoes in the morning
Hallellou, hallellou
Posts: 17627 | From: the round earth's imagined corners | Registered: Dec 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
orfeo
Ship's Musical Counterpoint
# 13878
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
Originally posted by orfeo:
quote:
you can retreat into a pre-1739 world of neat Platonic forms and the rest of us can happily leave you there.
Well, IngoB hasn't been doing the homophobic tango all by himself. And it isn't if you didn't know the tune before stepping onto the dance floor.
Of course, I've been doing the hamster dance with Russ, so...
Yes, but as I've said, it's exactly this aspect of Ingo that shits me so much. He doesn't actually come to the dance floor declaring "I'm a Middle Ages kind of guy and I don't hold with all this new-fangled thinking of the last three centuries". No, instead he acts as if he's trying to argue from a position of science.
Because he knows that if he just started talking about plagues as God's judgement and Latin as the one true Godly language* and burning witches and whatever else, we'd all dismiss him as a loon.
And really, it's the same thing that shits me about most attempts at arguing against same-sex marriage: the opponents know that their only SOLID argument, a religious one of "the Bible says it's bad", is going to get nowhere with people who either interpret the Bible differently or just don't believe the Bible is any kind of divine revelation. And so they try to dress up their objections in "rational" language.
That's Ingo in a nutshell: a Middle Ages theologian dressing himself up as a rationalist. If he just stopped lying about it I'd hate him less.
This man was born several centuries too late, and I think we'd all be a lot happier if this mistake hadn't been made because (1) he wouldn't have access to the internet, and (2) he'd be dead by now, having happily lived his life in a time more in keeping with his philosophy.
*His views on the Vulgate are as freaking bizarre as his views on everything else.
[ 28. August 2015, 16:46: Message edited by: orfeo ]
--------------------
Technology has brought us all closer together. Turns out a lot of the people you meet as a result are complete idiots.
Posts: 18173 | From: Under | Registered: Jul 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
lilBuddha
Shipmate
# 14333
|
Posted
Originally posted by orfeo:
quote:
we'd all dismiss him as a loon.
heh I'm way ahead of y'all there.
I understand the frustration, I feel it myself. His pseudo-scientific blathering is harmful in that it allows people to pretend their position isn't harmful or contrary to Jesus' message.
Russ' position* is at least more honest, though more simple-minded.
*Assuming he is actually not a troll.
--------------------
I put on my rockin' shoes in the morning
Hallellou, hallellou
Posts: 17627 | From: the round earth's imagined corners | Registered: Dec 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Ariston
Insane Unicorn
# 10894
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by IngoB:
quote:
Originally posted by Ariston:
Where in Plato? I'm assuming you're referencing the Timaeus, as Symposium seems to argue, through the example of Socrates (and the Aristophanes section, but reading from that is problematic), a direct refutation of this view.
I was indeed referring to Aristophanes's Speech from Plato's Symposium.
Okay, so wait. You're citing as evidence what may be one of the most problematic passages of the Symposium, one put in the mouth of a comic poet, as evidence that Plato thought there was a natural male/female complimentarity? While I'm pretty sure that every position that could be taken on that well-known passage has been taken over the last 2500 years, there are two pretty big honkin' facts about that passage you have to recognize: 1) an author known for his use of irony is putting words in the mouth of a comic poet known, through the Apology and the Clouds, to have done no great amount of good to Socrates, who 2) later in the dialogue gives what's often/generally thought to be the orthodox position of the dialogue, which has nothing to do with a male/female complimentary relationship.
Oh, and one other little thing. You noticed how not all the hermaphrodidic creatures were composed of both male and female parts? That discussion of how some were two male halves, other both female halves, and the ones that were both male tended to produce the most "manly" individuals? In other words, explicitly denying that male and female were necessarily and naturally complimentary? That's kind of important. Also important: the scene later in the dialogue where Alcibiades bursts in while Socrates is reclining on a couch with a young boy and raves about how much he loves Socrates. Or the part where Plato can be read as showing Socrates to be the ideal of chaste, transcendent love, having moved beyond the love of boys.
That dialogue. I do not think it says what you think it says.
quote:
quote:
Originally posted by Ariston:
Why pick gender? Why reduce it to a duality, then enshrine it above all other differences? What's so absolutely special about it that makes "female" more foreign to me than "not me?"
It's not really a choice, it's just a fact of life. And I don't think that male-female is more profound than me-other per se. But of course, the me-other divide is necessarily self-centred. Whereas the male-female divide is not. You are a man, but so are about 4.5 billion others. Whereas another 4.5 billion people or so are not a man, but a woman. Hence you belong to being a man in a way that you do not belong to being you: for you are you alone, but there are many others that are a man, like you. An many others again that are a woman, unlike you. It is the most fundamental category of human belonging, not just being. Maybe a set of one is mathematically no different to a set of 4.5 billion, but psychologically it is.
"It just is?" Really? Here in the States, we're talking quite a bit about race. Is my membership in the majority race, the one considered "default" here, less significant than my membership in the class "male?" Is identifying in class "male" any different than picking a feature I share, identifying it with other people like me, than othering everybody else? In other words, how is saying "there are other people like me, and then everybody else" less self-centered? I'm just identifying myself with others, or identifying them with myself, before classifying another group as alien and other. Why say that the male/female divide is The Big One? What real and rational basis can you give for it?
And to all of you knocking the Middle Ages as being irrational, or Platonic, or whatever: seriously, quit it. Thomistic natural law theory has, as I mentioned, absolutely nothing in common with whatever pseudo-scientific nonsense IngoB and Russ are trying to argue, Roger Bacon, Albert the Great, and Robert Grosseteste were developing inductive experimental methods in the 1200's, and John Duns Scotus, William of Ockham, and Albert of Saxony were doing work on topics in quantified modal, deontic, and paraconsistant logic that we moderns are finally rediscovering.
--------------------
“Therefore, let it be explained that nowhere are the proprieties quite so strictly enforced as in men’s colleges that invite young women guests, especially over-night visitors in the fraternity houses.” Emily Post, 1937.
Posts: 6849 | From: The People's Republic of Balcones | Registered: Jan 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
orfeo
Ship's Musical Counterpoint
# 13878
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Ariston:
And to all of you knocking the Middle Ages as being irrational, or Platonic, or whatever: seriously, quit it. Thomistic natural law theory has, as I mentioned, absolutely nothing in common with whatever pseudo-scientific nonsense IngoB and Russ are trying to argue, Roger Bacon, Albert the Great, and Robert Grosseteste were developing inductive experimental methods in the 1200's, and John Duns Scotus, William of Ockham, and Albert of Saxony were doing work on topics in quantified modal, deontic, and paraconsistant logic that we moderns are finally rediscovering.
*takes notes* Ingo...loon...in any...era.
Got it.
--------------------
Technology has brought us all closer together. Turns out a lot of the people you meet as a result are complete idiots.
Posts: 18173 | From: Under | Registered: Jul 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
LeRoc
Famous Dutch pirate
# 3216
|
Posted
I thought there were only around 7.3 billion people in the world?
--------------------
I know why God made the rhinoceros, it's because He couldn't see the rhinoceros, so He made the rhinoceros to be able to see it. (Clarice Lispector)
Posts: 9474 | From: Brazil / Africa | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
IngoB
Sentire cum Ecclesia
# 8700
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
Why? What's that got to do with the topic at hand? Do you have any evidence whatsoever of a law from the disciplines of physics, chemistry or biology that has a problem with homosexuality?
Obviously not, these disciplines do not deal in evaluations of human behaviour. However, that side discussion was about your mischaracterisation of (modern natural) science as somehow being beyond grasping for "universals" in a dataset like my imagined "two clouds of points".
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
We can either talk like modern human beings, in which case you have to acknowledge that life (including in the biological sense) is rather complicated, or you can retreat into a pre-1739 world of neat Platonic forms and the rest of us can happily leave you there.
Are your proposing a seamless garment of modernity here? We have reached a golden age of perfection, where all is as it should be? Well, I reject that notion. I think parts of modernity are good, even very good, and others are not. And furthermore, I reject the notion that the past is somehow disqualified just because it is the past. As if it were strictly impossible that we actually lost the plot somewhere, or made things worse than they used to be. I do not believe that history is just progress through and through, far from it.
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
That's Ingo in a nutshell: a Middle Ages theologian dressing himself up as a rationalist. If he just stopped lying about it I'd hate him less.
There is no "dressing up" going on here. I think the middle ages, and indeed antiquity, had a much better grasp on many metaphysical, religious and moral issues than we do. Thus the rational thing to do is to recover their thinking, with some mild adjustments as necessitated by our growth of knowledge in other areas. That does not mean that somehow I have to deny that in other areas we have progressed far beyond the state of knowledge and know-how available back then. It really is complete bullshit to claim that one has to be either "all medieval" or "all modern", or what have you. It is simply not the case that one cannot for example do modern theoretical physics and believe that Aristotelian metaphysics is largely correct. They are not actually in contradiction. The evaluation of what modern theoretical physics is doing is different in Aristotelian metaphysics than in whatever one might say most moderns hold as their metaphysics, but so what?
quote:
Originally posted by Ariston:
You're citing as evidence what may be one of the most problematic passages of the Symposium, one put in the mouth of a comic poet, as evidence that Plato thought there was a natural male/female complimentarity?
What I actually said is just this: "This understanding of a fundamental complementarity of male and female is Christian, but extends far beyond it. We find the idea in Plato as much as among the Daoists." And that's of course factually correct. We find the idea in Plato. I have said where and linked to the full text. But you are right in saying that the text also justifies homosexuality on similar grounds (splitting an original being into two). I truly didn't remember that when I made the comment, it's been a while since I last read this. It remains formally true that the idea I am proposing is found in Plato, but it is also true that the way Plato (or at least the speaker in Plato) is using this idea compromises the way I'm using it entirely. So it is in fact not a good reference to make, because I have to select essentially a third of Plato's idea as right and dismiss two-thirds as wrong, which is kind of pointless.
quote:
Originally posted by Ariston:
Why say that the male/female divide is The Big One? What real and rational basis can you give for it?
I have already given you one rational reason, which you have simply ignored: it is the biggest systematic split, and importantly, it always has been. There just is no other group characteristic that sorts roughly one half of humanity into one group and the other half into the other. And importantly, has always done so and will do so for the foreseeable future. (It could be that at some point half of the world's population is Chinese, or half of the world's population is Christian, or whatever. But these are transient and contingent splits. The male-female divide has been there since time immemorial, and isn't going anywhere anytime soon.)
quote:
Originally posted by Ariston:
And to all of you knocking the Middle Ages as being irrational, or Platonic, or whatever: seriously, quit it. Thomistic natural law theory has, as I mentioned, absolutely nothing in common with whatever pseudo-scientific nonsense IngoB and Russ are trying to argue
If you could snap out of your crusade mode just for a second, and actually assess what I've been writing here and elsewhere, then I think you will have to agree that where I actually discuss natural moral law theory, I'm not so easily shown to be at odds with Thomistic thinking. On this thread, of course, I have mostly not been talking "natural moral law" at all. I have talked biology, and visions, and all manner of things. However, I have clearly said so, and even made explicit that these thoughts are not natural moral law arguments. I think you are being unfair to me here, and unlike orfeo, I think you know and care. If however you feel that where I actually have made natural moral law arguments I have strayed from Thomistic principles, I look forward to hearing more. You do tend to have a clue, and I appreciate that, even if we disagree.
--------------------
They’ll have me whipp’d for speaking true; thou’lt have me whipp’d for lying; and sometimes I am whipp’d for holding my peace. - The Fool in King Lear
Posts: 12010 | From: Gone fishing | Registered: Oct 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
lilBuddha
Shipmate
# 14333
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by LeRoc:
I thought there were only around 7.3 billion people in the world?
Maybe he is counting the bisexuals twice?
--------------------
I put on my rockin' shoes in the morning
Hallellou, hallellou
Posts: 17627 | From: the round earth's imagined corners | Registered: Dec 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
IngoB
Sentire cum Ecclesia
# 8700
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
quote:
Originally posted by LeRoc:
I thought there were only around 7.3 billion people in the world?
Maybe he is counting the bisexuals twice?
Naw. It's probably some recent population projection number I read that stuck in my mind and came up in false recall. Perhaps because 9 is easier to divide in half than 7.3.
--------------------
They’ll have me whipp’d for speaking true; thou’lt have me whipp’d for lying; and sometimes I am whipp’d for holding my peace. - The Fool in King Lear
Posts: 12010 | From: Gone fishing | Registered: Oct 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
lilBuddha
Shipmate
# 14333
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by IngoB:
There is no "dressing up" going on here. I think the middle ages, and indeed antiquity, had a much better grasp on many metaphysical, religious and moral issues than we do.
AKA "They agree with me, therefor they are correct"
quote:
Originally posted by IngoB:
If you could snap out of your crusade mode just for a second, and actually assess what I've been writing here and elsewhere,
switches mirror from Russ to IngoB
not with any real hope, but some of you belive in miracles, right?
--------------------
I put on my rockin' shoes in the morning
Hallellou, hallellou
Posts: 17627 | From: the round earth's imagined corners | Registered: Dec 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
no prophet's flag is set so...
Proceed to see sea
# 15560
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by IngoB:
quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
quote:
Originally posted by LeRoc:
I thought there were only around 7.3 billion people in the world?
Maybe he is counting the bisexuals twice?
Naw. It's probably some recent population projection number I read that stuck in my mind and came up in false recall. Perhaps because 9 is easier to divide in half than 7.3.
Pope Igbo has admitted an error!
--------------------
Out of this nettle, danger, we pluck this flower, safety.
\_(ツ)_/
Posts: 11498 | From: Treaty 6 territory in the nonexistant Province of Buffalo, Canada ↄ⃝' | Registered: Mar 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
orfeo
Ship's Musical Counterpoint
# 13878
|
Posted
Ingo, I don't actually believe that the ancients were stupid.
I do believe, however, that you are very stupid.
--------------------
Technology has brought us all closer together. Turns out a lot of the people you meet as a result are complete idiots.
Posts: 18173 | From: Under | Registered: Jul 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
no prophet's flag is set so...
Proceed to see sea
# 15560
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
Ingo, I don't actually believe that the ancients were stupid.
I do believe, however, that you are very stupid.
He's not stupid, rather he's an intellectual pervert.
--------------------
Out of this nettle, danger, we pluck this flower, safety.
\_(ツ)_/
Posts: 11498 | From: Treaty 6 territory in the nonexistant Province of Buffalo, Canada ↄ⃝' | Registered: Mar 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
Russ
Old salt
# 120
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Boogie:
If you were well meaning I would not have called you to hell.
More precisely, if you thought I was well-meaning, or were prepared to give me the benefit of the doubt, you would not have called me to hell.
Half of the issue here is your inability to believe that what is self-evidently right to you is not self-evident to others. Other people move in different circles, read different things, have different experience, think differently.
You post patronising stuff like
quote:
3. Don't presume to know what their life is like.
when I haven't claimed any such thing. But you think you know what's in my head and how full of hate and fear I must be in order to think as I do.
Lilbuddha has a mirror handy...
quote:
7. Care about people, not labels.
I don't of course know what is in your head, but I rather suspect you would be behaving a little differently if you thought I had the label "Disadvantaged Minority" around my neck. Any truth in that suspicion ?
The people to care about are the real individuals who you meet each day, whether in person or online. Treat the people as people and the abstractions like minorities and social classes will take care of themselves.
You want a more tolerant society ? Then try tolerating the varied individuals you meet, instead of foisting your trendy-progressive views on them as the only thing you'll allow that well-meaning people could possibly think.
As a matter of empirical fact it just ain't so. You've been around on the Ship long enough to know that, to have some basic grasp of the wide range of views that people hold.
How do we start to mend this rift ? Without compromising our own commitment to what we believe to be true ?
You say your views are based on experience. If you want to tell the details of that experience, it's possible that I might come to appreciate the logic that leads you to think as you do. If you don't want to tell, that's fine; no pressure; don't share anything you're not comfortable with people posting snarky comments about.
(They know who they are ![[Smile]](smile.gif) )
Disagreement doesn't have to mean hate. I respect IngoB even though I've disagreed with him on quite a number of threads. Shouldn't we be aiming to divorce our feelings about the issue from our feelings about the person ? Isn't there something rather childish in thinking others are cruel and unkind and obnoxious and offensive and horrible because they don't share one's own politics ?
I'm told that many MPs have mastered the art of speeches that slag off the other side of the House, whilst outside the chamber they're respectful and admiring and even friendly with some of the members from the opposite benches...
So many people are so much more than the party they belong to.
--------------------
Wish everyone well; the enemy is not people, the enemy is wrong ideas
Posts: 3169 | From: rural Ireland | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Russ
Old salt
# 120
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
Russ' position* is at least more honest, though more simple-minded.
*Assuming he is actually not a troll.
I am not a troll. I have never knowingly trolled. Not sure I'd know where to start.
But having seen some of the over-reactions on this thread, for the first time I begin to see the attraction ![[Devil]](graemlins/devil.gif)
As for simple, Scott Peck has a line about seeking the simplicity that is beyond complexity and out the other side...
--------------------
Wish everyone well; the enemy is not people, the enemy is wrong ideas
Posts: 3169 | From: rural Ireland | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
mousethief
Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
quote:
Originally posted by LeRoc:
I thought there were only around 7.3 billion people in the world?
Maybe he is counting the bisexuals twice?
That's actually quite funny. ![[Overused]](graemlins/notworthy.gif)
--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
orfeo
Ship's Musical Counterpoint
# 13878
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by no prophet's flag is set so...:
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
Ingo, I don't actually believe that the ancients were stupid.
I do believe, however, that you are very stupid.
He's not stupid, rather he's an intellectual pervert.
See, I think he's the very particular kind of stupid that thinks that lengthy sentences and large words will impress people and stop them from noticing the stupidity.
--------------------
Technology has brought us all closer together. Turns out a lot of the people you meet as a result are complete idiots.
Posts: 18173 | From: Under | Registered: Jul 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
lilBuddha
Shipmate
# 14333
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Russ:
But you think you know what's in my head and how full of hate and fear I must be in order to think as I do.
When you are nailing someone's hand to the wall, what matter if your heart is filled with love, hate or indifference?
quote:
Originally posted by Russ:
The people to care about are the real individuals who you meet each day, whether in person or online.
Hmmm, seems your Jesus had a more expansive view, but I am sure you know better.
quote:
Originally posted by Russ:
Treat the people as people and the abstractions like minorities and social classes will take care of themselves.
Oh, this is ever so precious! But it doesn't work, is a tangent and is not the philosophy you have espoused thus far.
Refresh my memory, what exactly, is the basis for your belief that homosexuality is wrong?
--------------------
I put on my rockin' shoes in the morning
Hallellou, hallellou
Posts: 17627 | From: the round earth's imagined corners | Registered: Dec 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
no prophet's flag is set so...
Proceed to see sea
# 15560
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
quote:
Originally posted by no prophet's flag is set so...:
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
Ingo, I don't actually believe that the ancients were stupid.
I do believe, however, that you are very stupid.
He's not stupid, rather he's an intellectual pervert.
See, I think he's the very particular kind of stupid that thinks that lengthy sentences and large words will impress people and stop them from noticing the stupidity.
I defer to your analysis, I am convinced: Lengthy and large, wants to impress with size. But still perverse.
--------------------
Out of this nettle, danger, we pluck this flower, safety.
\_(ツ)_/
Posts: 11498 | From: Treaty 6 territory in the nonexistant Province of Buffalo, Canada ↄ⃝' | Registered: Mar 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
Boogie
Boogie on down!
# 13538
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Russ:
The people to care about are the real individuals who you meet each day, whether in person or online. Treat the people as people and the abstractions like minorities and social classes will take care of themselves.
You want a more tolerant society ? Then try tolerating the varied individuals you meet, instead of foisting your trendy-progressive views on them as the only thing you'll allow that well-meaning people could possibly think.
As a matter of empirical fact it just ain't so. You've been around on the Ship long enough to know that, to have some basic grasp of the wide range of views that people hold.
You may not have met any real life people who are homosexuals, so maybe you speak from ignorance?
I am not talking about people's varied views. I am talking about a basic, deep, essential human quality - our sexuality - and how it affects us. Some people are homosexual. They are every day people like you and me, they happen not to be heterosexual. Their views differ as widely as any other folks would.
But you have met plenty of homosexuals online here on the Ship. Do you not see them as everyday people just as yourself?
Tolerance? I am not tolerant of many things.
I don't tolerate violence, racism, sexism or homophobia and I challenge them wherever I meet them. I don't tolerate bullying and have challenged it many, many times in children and a few times in adults.
I don't tolerate litter bugging or people allowing their dogs to poo in the street - and I challenge those whenever I see them happening.
I don't tolerate a certain member of my family cutting his toenails and leaving them on the carpet (!)
But I do believe strongly in equality and will speak up for it wherever I am.
[ 29. August 2015, 06:15: Message edited by: Boogie ]
--------------------
Garden. Room. Walk
Posts: 13030 | From: Boogie Wonderland | Registered: Mar 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Golden Key
Shipmate
# 1468
|
Posted
LC--
The first one you mention looks more Greek than Latin, IMHO.
--------------------
Blessed Gator, pray for us!
--"Oh bat bladders, do you have to bring common sense into this?" (Dragon, "Jane & the Dragon")
--"Oh, Peace Train, save this country!" (Yusuf/Cat Stevens, "Peace Train")
Posts: 18601 | From: Chilling out in an undisclosed, sincere pumpkin patch. | Registered: Oct 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Soror Magna
Shipmate
# 9881
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by IngoB:
... I have already given you one rational reason, which you have simply ignored: it is the biggest systematic split, and importantly, it always has been. There just is no other group characteristic that sorts roughly one half of humanity into one group and the other half into the other. ...
That's an observation, not an imperative. You still haven't explained why is it essential to divide humanity into two groups, and only two groups, unless it is to justify treating the two groups differently. It's also a chicken-and-egg argument. If a society is sexist, then of course men and women will have different experiences.
I've never heard anyone say, "There are two fundamentally different ways of being a dog." If you were asked to sort the millions of dogs on the planet with no other instructions, would you really just sort them into male and female and say you're done? Because I think everyone else would sort the dogs into more than two groups by e.g. breed or the type of work or environment they are suited to.
But, hey, Bingo, thanks for demonstrating so clearly yet again that homophobia is all about keeping women in their place.
--------------------
"You come with me to room 1013 over at the hospital, I'll show you America. Terminal, crazy and mean." -- Tony Kushner, "Angels in America"
Posts: 5430 | From: Caprica City | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Russ
Old salt
# 120
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Liopleurodon:
You're damn right this is about pride. And you've got no right to tell aspies like me that we've got less right to be proud than other people..
Wouldn't dream of it.
Given that Christianity teaches that pride is a sin, I have problems with the notion of a right to be proud.
But I don't think you have any greater or lesser moral duty to be humble than anyone else does...
What sort of thing do you think it appropriate to be proud about ? Your achievements ? Your virtues ? Your skills and talents ? Your efforts in the service of goodness and truth ?
--------------------
Wish everyone well; the enemy is not people, the enemy is wrong ideas
Posts: 3169 | From: rural Ireland | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
lilBuddha
Shipmate
# 14333
|
Posted
Pride, when speaking of the downtrodden, is not the pride the bible rails against.
It is, rather, not being ashamed of who you are even though the majority would have you feel so.
--------------------
I put on my rockin' shoes in the morning
Hallellou, hallellou
Posts: 17627 | From: the round earth's imagined corners | Registered: Dec 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Leorning Cniht
Shipmate
# 17564
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Golden Key:
LC--
The first one you mention looks more Greek than Latin, IMHO.
Yes, indeed, and the word in question entered Latin from Greek. Rather like chrysalis.
Of course, one can argue that latinate plurals are pretentious, but I might suspect that, were you to have occasion to use the plural, you might find latin on the tip of your tongue.
[ 29. August 2015, 17:36: Message edited by: Leorning Cniht ]
Posts: 5026 | From: USA | Registered: Feb 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
LeRoc
Famous Dutch pirate
# 3216
|
Posted
Clitores sounds much more logical to me.
(But when I have it on the tip on my tongue, I tend to circle around it a bit.)
[ 29. August 2015, 18:19: Message edited by: LeRoc ]
--------------------
I know why God made the rhinoceros, it's because He couldn't see the rhinoceros, so He made the rhinoceros to be able to see it. (Clarice Lispector)
Posts: 9474 | From: Brazil / Africa | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
quetzalcoatl
Shipmate
# 16740
|
Posted
Homophobes work backwards, don't they? Instead of looking at sex, gender and sexual orientation empirically, and arriving at a description, and possible explanations, they begin with a description of gay as defective.
Then they work backwards, looking for confirming evidence to back this up, thus, the traditional ideas that gay sex causes disease, doesn't produce kids, leads to promiscuity, and so on.
Working backwards enables you to start with your conclusion, always a useful thing to do! Of course, the table/wheel is rigged (dishonest).
[ 29. August 2015, 19:04: Message edited by: quetzalcoatl ]
--------------------
I can't talk to you today; I talked to two people yesterday.
Posts: 9878 | From: UK | Registered: Oct 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Russ
Old salt
# 120
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
Pride, when speaking of the downtrodden, is not the pride the bible rails against.
It is, rather, not being ashamed of who you are even though the majority would have you feel so.
Thanks for the clarification.
There is of course a middle ground between "proud of" and "ashamed of", just as there is a middle ground between condemnation and approval.
To say you're unashamed of being left-handed sounds perfectly reasonable. Whereas ISTM that to say you're proud of it is to make the equal-and-opposite philosophical error as someone saying you should be ashamed of it. It's just not that kind of thing.
Whereas my experience is that someone who asserts that they are proud of their shortcomings (e.g short temper, ignorance) can be pretty obnoxious.
(Still asserting nothing about homosexuality).
--------------------
Wish everyone well; the enemy is not people, the enemy is wrong ideas
Posts: 3169 | From: rural Ireland | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Russ
Old salt
# 120
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
Working backwards enables you to start with your conclusion, always a useful thing to do! Of course, the table/wheel is rigged (dishonest).
Exactly my feeling about Boogie's approach which seems to start with the political conclusion as a self-evident truth that is totally impervious to evidence or argument about what homosexuality actually is.
--------------------
Wish everyone well; the enemy is not people, the enemy is wrong ideas
Posts: 3169 | From: rural Ireland | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
orfeo
Ship's Musical Counterpoint
# 13878
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Russ:
quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
Working backwards enables you to start with your conclusion, always a useful thing to do! Of course, the table/wheel is rigged (dishonest).
Exactly my feeling about Boogie's approach which seems to start with the political conclusion as a self-evident truth that is totally impervious to evidence or argument about what homosexuality actually is.
The difference is that you seem to think there's an onus to prove there's something right with homosexuality.
There isn't. There's an onus to prove that there's something wrong with it.
I can understand WHY you think the onus is the other way. You think that this is about a proposal to shift from the established moral position.
But everybody else is treating this as a challenge to positively DERIVE that moral position, from a rational base rather than from a religious base.
That's what happens when you start from a clean slate. You're not starting from a clean slate, you're starting from "show me why we should change".
--------------------
Technology has brought us all closer together. Turns out a lot of the people you meet as a result are complete idiots.
Posts: 18173 | From: Under | Registered: Jul 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
mousethief
Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
We're having a bit of difficulty here with the logical fallacy of believing any word has exactly one meaning. "Pride" can be the opposite of "humble" and that pride is a sin. It can also be the opposite of "ashamed" or even "indifferent."
If I am proud of my young child for working hard and getting an A on her report card, that's not the sinful kind of pride. If I brag about it to my neighbor, it is.
--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Russ
Old salt
# 120
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
I can understand WHY you think the onus is the other way. You think that this is about a proposal to shift from the established moral position.
But everybody else is treating this as a challenge to positively DERIVE that moral position, from a rational base rather than from a religious base.
Some day I may have the time and energy to take you up on that challenge. But it's probably beyond my limited skill in philosophy.
The starting point for this discussion, you remember, was Mudfrog objecting to the idea that opposition to gay marriage is an extremist position[*]. The accusation in the title of this thread is that I am a homophobe, which Dictionary.com defines as someone who hates or fears homosexuals and homosexuality.
Thus my much more modest aim here is to show that it is entirely possible for a reasonable and rational person to not buy into the progressive orthodoxy that homosexuality should be promoted as having equal value with heterosexuality.
If you go away from this thinking that actually not everyone who disagrees with you on this issue is a hate-fuelled religious extremist, then I'll count that as a success.
Like a defence lawyer who doesn't need to prove their client innocent, but merely demonstrate reasonable doubt.
I think you're right in referring to an established moral position. The words "modern" and "traditional" keep on creeping in.
I don't hold the view that tradition is sacred and authoritative. Nor the view that tradition is the self-serving thoughts of Dead White Males that needs to be chucked in the bin as soon as possible in order to build an inclusive society. I hold the wet centrist view that tradition is a starting point from which to improve where we can. Isaac Newton said it better.
-------------------------
[*] the vote in rural Ireland was 58 to 42 in favour of gay marriage here, after a campaign in which the media was biased in favour, no political party campaigned against, and the bishops showed themselves to be badly out of touch. This issue has nothing to do with extremism; it splits the society I live in pretty much down the middle.
--------------------
Wish everyone well; the enemy is not people, the enemy is wrong ideas
Posts: 3169 | From: rural Ireland | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Jack o' the Green
Shipmate
# 11091
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by LeRoc:
Clitores sounds much more logical to me.
(But when I have it on the tip on my tongue, I tend to circle around it a bit.)
I was drinking coffee when I read this. You very nearly owed me a new keyboard!
Posts: 3121 | From: Lancashire, England | Registered: Feb 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Russ
Old salt
# 120
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Boogie:
I don't tolerate... ...racism, sexism or homophobia and I challenge them wherever I meet them.
Does that mean you don't think freedom of speech extends to disagreeing with you on these issues ?
[QUOTE]Some people are homosexual. They are every day people like you and me, they happen not to be heterosexual.[QB]
This is one of those true statements that would remain true if you substitute for "homosexual" that word you don't want me to mention.
I suggest that you are mistaken in drawing from your experience - which of course I share - that homosexuals are people, the conclusion that therefore their every desire has some sort of right to be validated and accommodated by others.
For avoidance of misunderstanding, I am not drawing a moral equivalence between anyone and the people you don't want me to mention. I am saying that you're begging the question of homo/hetero moral equivalence. And that therefore those who hold views of morality which relate it to the purposes of a Deity or to purpose more generally as it may perceived by individuals in an agnostic world can legitimately disagree with you.
Where do you stand on the question of blasphemy laws ?
--------------------
Wish everyone well; the enemy is not people, the enemy is wrong ideas
Posts: 3169 | From: rural Ireland | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Net Spinster
Shipmate
# 16058
|
Posted
Freedom of speech does not mean freedom from challenge to that speech. My understanding is that Purgatory exists to challenge ideas and Hell to express our judgement of people (on the negative side, on the positive side, does Heaven exist to praise people or is that All Saints?)
--------------------
spinner of webs
Posts: 1093 | From: San Francisco Bay area | Registered: Dec 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
Boogie
Boogie on down!
# 13538
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Russ:
quote:
Originally posted by Boogie:
I don't tolerate... ...racism, sexism or homophobia and I challenge them wherever I meet them.
Does that mean you don't think freedom of speech extends to disagreeing with you on these issues ?
Not in the least!
In my early days of teaching I met a lot of racism in staff rooms. Knowing a great deal about racism I always challenged racist comments, it made for some arguments. But, if those teachers were stopped from saying what they thought I would never have had the chance to argue with them and hope to change their minds.
--------------------
Garden. Room. Walk
Posts: 13030 | From: Boogie Wonderland | Registered: Mar 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Boogie
Boogie on down!
# 13538
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Russ:
I suggest that you are mistaken in drawing from your experience - which of course I share - that homosexuals are people, the conclusion that therefore their every desire has some sort of right to be validated and accommodated by others.
When will you get it that we are not talking about people's desires here?
We are talking about who they are. Like skin colour, left handedness, blonde hair, excellent musician, naturally gifted at xxx, heterosexual, asexual - name any other. It's not about their desires it's about validating them as people. People who have a full range of everything you and me have. They just happen to have same sex partners when they have partners.
They will have many and varied desires - and, just like you and me, some of those desires will be more wholesome and good than others. Marmite anyone?
Why don't you get that it's not about what they do, it's about who they are ? That's why skin colour is such a good analogy.
[ 30. August 2015, 13:00: Message edited by: Boogie ]
--------------------
Garden. Room. Walk
Posts: 13030 | From: Boogie Wonderland | Registered: Mar 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Boogie
Boogie on down!
# 13538
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Russ:
Where do you stand on the question of blasphemy laws ?
What's the question?
--------------------
Garden. Room. Walk
Posts: 13030 | From: Boogie Wonderland | Registered: Mar 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
orfeo
Ship's Musical Counterpoint
# 13878
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Russ:
The starting point for this discussion, you remember, was Mudfrog objecting to the idea that opposition to gay marriage is an extremist position.
The starting point was Mudfrog getting hysterical over the suggestions of one backbench MP. That doesn't, however, have very much to do with why you were called to Hell.
And you're still doing it. Saying "that word you don't want me to mention" is a bloody ridiculous tactic because we all know by now which word it is, and it just demonstrates you being a jerk for the umpteenth time by bringing it up while pretending that you're not bringing it up.
Why is it that you can't grasp the obvious difference between a pedophile abusing children and sex between two consensual adults? Why is it you can't tell the difference between suggesting that it's morally acceptable to act on your innate desires when it doesn't harm anyone, and NOT suggesting that it's morally acceptable to act on your innate desires when it causes demonstrable harm?
Is your thinking really so simplistic that you can't understand that no-one is saying innate desire is sufficient without consent?? Do you really feel the need to read Boogie's statements so literally, so as to suggest she's saying "innate desires" are the be all and end all?
We go around and around in circles because you seem to act as if people have to repeat each and every point in each and every post, or you'll forget them again. If we don't mention "consent" every single time, apparently it'll just drop out of your head.
It's incredibly jerkish of you, Russ, and you've done it a ridiculous number of times in the one thread. That, far more than anything else, is causing a considerable number of Shipmates to lose all respect for you.
[ 30. August 2015, 13:52: Message edited by: orfeo ]
--------------------
Technology has brought us all closer together. Turns out a lot of the people you meet as a result are complete idiots.
Posts: 18173 | From: Under | Registered: Jul 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Curiosity killed ...
Ship's Mug
# 11770
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Russ:
I suggest that you are mistaken in drawing from your experience - which of course I share - that homosexuals are people, the conclusion that therefore their every desire has some sort of right to be validated and accommodated by others.
Russ, I have emboldened a phrase in your response to Boogie and wanted to question you on this phrase. This particular phrase is one I've heard before from others who would not accept equality for homosexual relationships in exactly this context. It is also a very emotive and hyperbolic expression.
Historically, people in same sex relationships have had no legal standing. They may have been in the same relationship for 30 years, but the partner has had no automatic rights to their shared property, to visit their partner in hospital as next of kin, to even take part in their partner's funeral if the legal next of kin did not invite them. (And these relationships did still exist even if they were illegal until the 1960s, Benjamin Britten and Peter Pears, for example). Our current changes are to address some of those injustices. Personally I wouldn't describe this as "every desire" having "some sort of right" but righting some wrongs.
Now, as part of the same realisation that many homosexual relationships are as loving and monogamous as model heterosexual relationships there is a desire to recognise this in same sex marriage. Is this really "validation and accommodation" of "every desire"?
quote:
Where do you stand on the question of blasphemy laws?
How are you defining blasphemy? There is no universally agreed definition, which has made the legal position unenforceable in recent times. In addition, there is no blasphemy law in England and Wales now, pretty much. The last successful prosecution was 1977, a couple of arrests since, but nothing else. This has led to some debate around blasphemy as it only applied to Christianity, so there were questions as to whether it should be applied wider, particularly in the context of the 1988 attempt to ban The Satanic Verses under blasphemy laws, which was disallowed.
A big blasphemy debate that I was very much aware of was Life of Brian which I saw twice while it was being edited, much to my parents' disapproval, students were invited free as a live audience during the editing process. At the time it was the source of a lot of censure, although more recent comments have been less convinced of the blasphemous intent.
On the Dead Horses thread on different kinds of churches, I described the warm up for Any Questions? for 14 and 21 August at the BBC Radio Theatre. The warm up is led by a member of the BBC production team, and both times religious output on the BBC was discussed because someone in the audience suggested religious output should end. If middle-aged, middle-class, middle-Englanders think that religious output is offensive and should end, Christianity has lost its place in English culture, so a case for blasphemy laws becomes even more tenuous.
--------------------
Mugs - Keep the Ship afloat
Posts: 13794 | From: outiside the outer ring road | Registered: Aug 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
ThunderBunk
Stone cold idiot
# 15579
|
Posted
To me, the fundamental point is this.
Human sexuality does not have to have a purpose beyond itself in order for sexual activity to be licit. This is the point that religious conservatives can't get their heads around.
To the fastidious, neo-Platonist mindset and its Calvinist Protestant equivalent, human sexuality is messy and unpleasant. It only becomes tolerable when it has the ulterior purpose of making babies, since this is the surest way of making new conservatives - grow your own, and raise them within your own frame of reference.
So, what belongs in hell is the constant utterly pathetic attempts of conservatives to make out that their position is anything other than an extension of a kind of pre-adolescent "eurgh" factor. Human sexuality is not unnecessary messiness that needs a purpose beyond itself to make it tolerable; it is a central gift of God in creation, and to be celebrated as such in all its variety.
--------------------
Currently mostly furious, and occasionally foolish. Normal service may resume eventually. Or it may not. And remember children, "feiern ist wichtig".
Foolish, potentially deranged witterings
Posts: 2208 | From: Norwich | Registered: Apr 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
quetzalcoatl
Shipmate
# 16740
|
Posted
Yes, you have to suspect that conservatives are covertly (or overtly) thinking of anal sex, when they condemn gay sex. Do they worry about people playing with a woman's clitoris, purely for pleasure, or with a man's penis, ditto, or someone's anus, ditto? Do they worry about female orgasms? I don't know.
It seems quite mad today to say that all of this is OK, as long as you have a baby in mind! How utterly bizarre.
--------------------
I can't talk to you today; I talked to two people yesterday.
Posts: 9878 | From: UK | Registered: Oct 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Jemima the 9th
Shipmate
# 15106
|
Posted
I may have misread, but I think this has broadly been the thrust of IngoB's argument in the past. It doesn't matter too much what one does in the sack (assuming m/f and married) as long as there is a penis in vagina moment(presumably including ejaculation if possible) and therefore the possibility of conception at some point.
And - LeRoc - you owe me a cup of tea too, since that one was sprayed over the kitchen counter. You dirty bugger.
Posts: 801 | From: UK | Registered: Sep 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
LeRoc
Famous Dutch pirate
# 3216
|
Posted
(Leorning Cniht started this.)
--------------------
I know why God made the rhinoceros, it's because He couldn't see the rhinoceros, so He made the rhinoceros to be able to see it. (Clarice Lispector)
Posts: 9474 | From: Brazil / Africa | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Jack o' the Green
Shipmate
# 11091
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by LeRoc:
(Leorning Cniht started this.)
I'm forever misreading it. My brain has to do a double take.
Posts: 3121 | From: Lancashire, England | Registered: Feb 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
quetzalcoatl
Shipmate
# 16740
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Jemima the 9th:
I may have misread, but I think this has broadly been the thrust of IngoB's argument in the past. It doesn't matter too much what one does in the sack (assuming m/f and married) as long as there is a penis in vagina moment(presumably including ejaculation if possible) and therefore the possibility of conception at some point.
And - LeRoc - you owe me a cup of tea too, since that one was sprayed over the kitchen counter. You dirty bugger.
Well, I should have emphasized 'purely for pleasure'. If you make a woman come via the shores of the clitoridae, or whatever term we are using, that is as non-reproductive as two men banging each other up the jacksie. But don't conservatives condemn the latter, but ignore the former? Well, maybe not. Maybe there are sermons against cunning linguists. (When I taught linguistics, my students had a football team with that name, and very desirable team-shirts with it printed on them).
--------------------
I can't talk to you today; I talked to two people yesterday.
Posts: 9878 | From: UK | Registered: Oct 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Jack o' the Green
Shipmate
# 11091
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
If you make a woman come via the shores of the clitoridae, or whatever term we are using, that is as non-reproductive as two men banging each other up the jacksie. But don't conservatives condemn the latter, but ignore the former? Well, maybe not. Maybe there are sermons against cunning linguists. (When I taught linguistics, my students had a football team with that name, and very desirable team-shirts with it printed on them).
I think natural law theorists (or at least some of them) would say that while it is perfectly acceptable for a married man to make love with his wife knowing full well that she is unable to conceive (for whatever reason), if the reason is due to a biological reason on her part, it would be immoral for him to have married her because she couldn't conceive.
While I can understand the latter part of this, I do think the former creates an inconsistency with condemning homosexual sexual acts, since there is an implicit acknowledgment that sex is about more than procreation, and as individuals, an infertile couple are no more likely to create life than a homosexual couple are.
Posts: 3121 | From: Lancashire, England | Registered: Feb 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
mousethief
Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
It seems equivalent to saying, "Ability to reproduce is important when we say it is, and not when we say it isn't." It smacks of after-the-fact rationalization. "We don't like gays. Let's think up a reason why."
[ 30. August 2015, 15:40: Message edited by: mousethief ]
--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
Thread closed
Printer-friendly view
