|
Source: (consider it)
|
Thread: And there's another gay bakery case
|
mousethief
Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Russ:
Yes there's a distinction between objecting to something being said at all and not wanting to be the one who says it.
Cake makers don't "say" what's on their cakes. Printers don't "say" what's in their books.
When you quote an author, you say "Tolkien said thus-and-such" not "Tolkien and George Unwin, his publisher, joined in saying thus-and-such." The words belong to the author, not to the bookbinder. Nobody looks at a book and says, "The opinions expressed in this book must perforce be the opinions of everybody who worked on it -- the editors, the publishers, the people at the print factory -- they all believe exactly what this book says. It's not just the author. They all believe exactly this, or they wouldn't have published it or worked on it." It's just dumb to say that. It's just as dumb to say that a cake decorator believes the words he or she squirts onto the cake.
--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
lilBuddha
Shipmate
# 14333
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Russ:
Or presumably done to anyone once a month, regardless of skin colour ? I assume you're not asserting that black skin is thinner than white?
This argument is stupid beyond all credit. It isn't about the thinness of the skin, but the sharpness of the knife. There is a weight to racism against black people that lands a heavier blow than any against white people, be it once a month, once a year or only once.
Anyone who cannot work that one out has a thickness issue to overcome.
--------------------
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 mousethief:
quote:
Originally posted by Russ:
Yes there's a distinction between objecting to something being said at all and not wanting to be the one who says it.
Cake makers don't "say" what's on their cakes. Printers don't "say" what's in their books.
When you quote an author, you say "Tolkien said thus-and-such" not "Tolkien and George Unwin, his publisher, joined in saying thus-and-such." The words belong to the author, not to the bookbinder. Nobody looks at a book and says, "The opinions expressed in this book must perforce be the opinions of everybody who worked on it -- the editors, the publishers, the people at the print factory -- they all believe exactly what this book says. It's not just the author. They all believe exactly this, or they wouldn't have published it or worked on it." It's just dumb to say that. It's just as dumb to say that a cake decorator believes the words he or she squirts onto the cake.
Even the Northern Ireland decision we are theoretically discussing says this. It points out that no one believes that a baker putting the logo of a sports team on a cake Is endorsing the sports team. It's the customer who chose it.
And heck, it's not just bakers. In plenty of shops, you can find the paraphernalia of rival sports teams being sold side by side.
--------------------
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
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
In plenty of shops, you can find the paraphernalia of rival sports teams being sold side by side.
Showing that what they promote is making money off suckers.
--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Net Spinster
Shipmate
# 16058
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
When you quote an author, you say "Tolkien said thus-and-such" not "Tolkien and George Unwin, his publisher, joined in saying thus-and-such." The words belong to the author, not to the bookbinder.
I'll note there is usually a difference between a publisher and a bookbinder. The former does make a choice about which books to publish (they have to make a profit or at least break even or at least keep the right reputation). In addition in the case of an academic publisher they are vouching that the book is peer reviewed and meets certain other academic standards (e.g., no plagiarism, properly documented, etc.). They will withdraw books that are found to violate the standards. Note plagiarism is not a legal crime (unless the plagiarist has also violated copyright).
--------------------
spinner of webs
Posts: 1093 | From: San Francisco Bay area | Registered: Dec 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
Leorning Cniht
Shipmate
# 17564
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
When you quote an author, you say "Tolkien said thus-and-such" not "Tolkien and George Unwin, his publisher, joined in saying thus-and-such."
Although publishers have been known to reject books that they find offensive, which I guess is Russ's point. It's the same as the bookstore's stock argument, though. Publishers cultivate a particular market niche. Bookstores stock things they think will sell, sometimes in a particular niche. Neither can stock or publish all possible books.
Posts: 5026 | From: USA | Registered: Feb 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
Dafyd
Shipmate
# 5549
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
Nobody looks at a book and says, "The opinions expressed in this book must perforce be the opinions of everybody who worked on it -- the editors, the publishers, the people at the print factory -- they all believe exactly what this book says.
I am not a lawyer but AIUI under UK libel law the publisher is as liable as the author.
--------------------
we remain, thanks to original sin, much in love with talking about, rather than with, one another. Rowan Williams
Posts: 10567 | From: Edinburgh | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
lilBuddha
Shipmate
# 14333
|
Posted
libel is besides the point.
--------------------
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
|
|
Eliab
Shipmate
# 9153
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Russ:
quote:
isn't your whole argument based on the premise that it is unjust to give one group of people "more rights" than another. So opposing gay marriage is, presumably, unjust.
If the civil partnership legislation that existed previously denied civil partners any of the legal rights that traditionally married people have then yes that is unjust and is a good reason to act to remove the discrepancy.
The "right" is, quite obviously, "the right to marry a (consenting, adult) partner of your choice". Do you agree with me that this is a right which at least some reasonable people hold to be important, and the denial of which at least some reasonable people would experience as injustice? Because if you do, I don't see how you can avoid the conclusion that according to the premises on which you base your whole case, allowing that right to straights but not gays in unjust.
I'm going to pay you the compliment of assuming that you can find for yourself the glaring inconsistency in the argument that marriage is so important a concept that it is vital to deny it to the gays, while simultaneously being so trivial that they should be content with civil partnerships.
quote:
Or presumably done to anyone once a month, regardless of skin colour ?
No. Because reasons matter. To give an example that at least alludes to real actual history - along with millions of other commuters, at least once a month I would like to get on a train or bus, but can't, because it's already too crowded. This can be annoying.
But if I wasn't white, and lived in a country where the law gave white people automatic priority on public transport, even if I almost never actually lost my place on a bus because of this rule, I imagine that I would experience that mere possibility as oppression. It's not just about how often misfortunes happen. People can be quite stoic about even very frequent and avoidable misfortunes. It is about being treated unfairly because of who you are.
quote:
But do you really believe that every black person in the country is in the "happens once a month" category and every white person in the country is in the "once a decade" category ? All the people who don't fit your neat black-and-white generalisation are misclassified - taken too seriously or not seriously enough.
Two points: My illustration was a rebuttal of a specific point that you made. You responded without appearing to realise that (not sure how you missed it, but never mind) so I explained again. The essential element in my rebuttal was that people's experience varies. You can't look at a particular act (such as refusing service in a restaurant) and say that it is or is not "individually damaging", as you had suggested was possible, because how damaging it is depends largely on who the person is within a wider social context, and the reasons why it is done.
Do you want to respond to my illustration as an attempted rebuttal of your argument or not? Because you have now twice replied with (misconceived) tangential points, and not tried to defend your original position.
Second, the only white person's experience I said anything about was my own. And because I am white and straight, and conscious that there are non-white and gay people in this discussion who know more than I do, I was very careful to make clear that when I commented on how discrimination might be perceived by others, I was guessing. Why? Because while I am trying to explain, with a degree of empathy, why I think discrimination expressed through acts which in themselves might be trivial is much more damaging than those same acts experienced as misfortunes, I am, in fact, white, I don't personally have to deal with discrimination, and if I start telling non-white and gay people how they feel about it, I will look like a colossal tool. I'm sufficiently vain as to want to avoid that.
So I don't know how often a black or gay person encounters direct prejudice, or what the range of variation is. What I do know is that if I were to tell you that as a straight white guy in England, I encountered discrimination against me because of race, sex or sexuality at least once a month, absolutely everyone on this thread would conclude that I was either very unusual, or (more likely) that I was lying. But if a black, gay or female person were to say it, we would find that so obviously plausible that no one would think to question it.
I think that indicates that there is still a social problem with discrimination, and that abolishing discrimination law (thereby announcing that treating people less favourably on the grounds of race, sex and sexuality will henceforth no longer be considered legally wrong) would be a bad idea.
--------------------
"Perhaps there is poetic beauty in the abstract ideas of justice or fairness, but I doubt if many lawyers are moved by it"
Richard Dawkins
Posts: 4619 | From: Hampton, Middlesex, UK | Registered: Mar 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Steve Langton
Shipmate
# 17601
|
Posted
by Eliab;
quote:
I'm going to pay you the compliment of assuming that you can find for yourself the glaring inconsistency in the argument that marriage is so important a concept that it is vital to deny it to the gays, while simultaneously being so trivial that they should be content with civil partnerships.
In a plural society, 'gay' people can of course have a civil, secular marriage within which they can, on a consensual basis, do whatever they want sexually (as indeed they basically can, in secular legal terms, without the formality of marriage).
But precisely because it is a plural society, there is the possibility, which should also be lawful, that some people will not agree that it is right to do 'gay sex', and therefore they will not practice it among themselves, and ipso facto will regard 'same-sex marriage' as wrong, though they might agree to a form of non-sexual 'civil partnership'. And in a plural society they should have every right to be critical of these practices they disagree with. And, which is the nub of the bakery case, it should not be possible to force them to produce propaganda for the position they disagree with.
I'm very much in favour of 'treating people decently' even or perhaps especially when I disagree with them. But for people to be legally in effect put on a pedestal with their conduct above and beyond criticism, and it being legally dangerous to criticise them - and that does seem to be where we're currently going - is way beyond treating them decently and is looking like not 'equality' but a decidedly privileged position which may not treat others 'decently'; and with questionable justification.
Posts: 2245 | From: Stockport UK | Registered: Mar 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
Hiro's Leap
Shipmate
# 12470
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Eliab:
What I do know is that if I were to tell you that as a straight white guy in England, I encountered discrimination against me because of race, sex or sexuality at least once a month, absolutely everyone on this thread would conclude that I was either very unusual, or (more likely) that I was lying.
I wouldn't conclude either of those things. I'd wait to hear what he said.
For me, one of the problems with the debate on discrimination/privilege is that it focuses on effects at a macro level. As a white person living in a majority white area in the UK, I suffer effectively zero racism. If a white child in an overwhelmingly majority black/Muslim school says they've encountered racism fairly regularly, maybe they have.
More importantly, I think privilege is highly situational. Men as a group certainly have it in some situations (e.g. assumptions about leadership; employment overall) but it's also quite possible for men to suffer serious discrimination because of their gender. For me, the fact that we're so blind (or hostile) to this idea is itself discriminatory.
A third problem IMO is that society's discussion currently focuses heavily on gender/sexuality/race and neglects class/wealth/education, which are MASSIVE and often totally outweigh the other factors.
quote:
abolishing discrimination law [...] would be a bad idea.
Agreed.
[ 24. January 2017, 10:18: Message edited by: Hiro's Leap ]
Posts: 3418 | From: UK, OK | Registered: Mar 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
orfeo
Ship's Musical Counterpoint
# 13878
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Steve Langton:
And, which is the nub of the bakery case, it should not be possible to force them to produce propaganda for the position they disagree with.
That ISN'T the nub of the case. The nub of the case is that no one forced them to offer a service of producing propaganda in the first place, but having freely chosen to offer such a service, they have to offer that service to everybody.
This is the thing that keeps being missed. No bakery is being specifically required to produce gay-favouring propaganda. What they are being required to do is offer the same service to everybody. The entire basis of the decision is a conclusion that the bakery WOULD have produced propaganda for other positions.
A bakery that simply has a policy of not producing any kind of political text won't be in trouble.
Really, there's a whole flavour to this of wanting to make choices free from consequences.
[ 24. January 2017, 10:25: 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
|
|
orfeo
Ship's Musical Counterpoint
# 13878
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Steve Langton:
But for people to be legally in effect put on a pedestal with their conduct above and beyond criticism, and it being legally dangerous to criticise them - and that does seem to be where we're currently going
Where is this pedestal you speak of?
It sure as hell isn't in the bakery case. The bakery is perfectly free to produce cakes expressing support for traditional heterosexual marriage. What YOU want is for them to be able to selectively express support for it.
The whole notion being nonsense because, as has been pointed out, people attribute the opinion to the person who orders the cake, not the person who bakes it.
So where else? Are you suggesting that homosexual sex is beyond criticism? I'm perfectly happy for you to criticise it so long as I get to criticise heterosexual sex in return. I'm sure I can mount a few juicy arguments about overpopulation, thoughtless conceptions, that kind of thing.
The "pedestal" you're complaining about consists of a demand for balance where balance didn't previously exist. It's no different to feminism, which is not a demand for women to have special rights but a demand for women to be treated as equal people when historically they haven't been. The reason that people keep reacting adversely to criticism of historically oppressed groups is because it helps continue the oppression.
Time and time again, a criticism of women, or Muslims, or gays is shown to be biased by the simple experiment of flipping the criticism around and seeing if it still works the same. It's not that women are beyond reproach, it's that women are told to behave in ways that men are never required to behave. It's not that Muslims are perfect, it's that the vast majority of criticisms of Muslims are ones that could equally be made of Christians if Christians actually had a good hard look at themselves.
It's not that gays are on a pedestal. It's that gays expect to be treated on the same basis as heterosexuals are. Don't describe promiscuous club-hopping gay men as living the "gay lifestyle" unless you're willing to equate the "straight lifestyle" with promiscuous club-hopping straight guys and women, who can be found vomiting in the gutters of cities. Don't celebrate decades of a straight relationship and ignore the homosexual relationships that achieve the same milestones.
If you want to make a criticism of a group, make a criticism that validly pertains to that group. Don't single them out for a criticism that could equally be made of others.
--------------------
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
|
|
Eliab
Shipmate
# 9153
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Hiro's Leap:
For me, one of the problems with the debate on discrimination/privilege is that it focuses on effects at a macro level. As a white person living in a majority white area in the UK, I suffer effectively zero racism. If a white child in an overwhelmingly majority black/Muslim school says they've encountered racism fairly regularly, maybe they have.
More importantly, I think privilege is highly situational. Men as a group certainly have it in some situations (e.g. assumptions about leadership; employment overall) but it's also quite possible for men to suffer serious discrimination because of their gender. For me, the fact that we're so blind (or hostile) to this idea is itself discriminatory.
Agreed - a straight white male could find himself in a minority, and the target of discrimination, but even so, I think it's fair to say that that is not the typical experience for this demographic. That's what I meant by "very unusual" (though perhaps "non-typical" would have been better).
The point still stands that for a black person, gay person or woman to report regular discrimination would be utterly unremarkable, though. It surprises no one, and that means that there's still a problem.
--------------------
"Perhaps there is poetic beauty in the abstract ideas of justice or fairness, but I doubt if many lawyers are moved by it"
Richard Dawkins
Posts: 4619 | From: Hampton, Middlesex, UK | Registered: Mar 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Eliab
Shipmate
# 9153
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Steve Langton:
But for people to be legally in effect put on a pedestal with their conduct above and beyond criticism, and it being legally dangerous to criticise them - and that does seem to be where we're currently going - is way beyond treating them decently and is looking like not 'equality' but a decidedly privileged position
I never heard a gay person demand this. Have you?
--------------------
"Perhaps there is poetic beauty in the abstract ideas of justice or fairness, but I doubt if many lawyers are moved by it"
Richard Dawkins
Posts: 4619 | From: Hampton, Middlesex, UK | Registered: Mar 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
mousethief
Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Eliab:
quote:
Originally posted by Steve Langton:
But for people to be legally in effect put on a pedestal with their conduct above and beyond criticism, and it being legally dangerous to criticise them - and that does seem to be where we're currently going - is way beyond treating them decently and is looking like not 'equality' but a decidedly privileged position
I never heard a gay person demand this. Have you?
Half-awake, I read this and thought I had accidentally clicked on the US election thread. This has nothing at all to do with LGBTQ people as far as I can see.
--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Soror Magna
Shipmate
# 9881
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Steve Langton:
... But for people to be legally in effect put on a pedestal with their conduct above and beyond criticism, ...
Would that be the pedestal you've put heterosexuality on?
--------------------
"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
|
|
Siegfried
Ship's ferret
# 29
|
Posted
Classic straw man fallacy.
--------------------
Siegfried
Life is just a bowl of cherries!
Posts: 5592 | From: Tallahassee, FL USA | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Hiro's Leap
Shipmate
# 12470
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Eliab:
Agreed - a straight white male could find himself in a minority, and the target of discrimination, but even so, I think it's fair to say that that is not the typical experience for this demographic.
I'd agree that white people are rarely discriminated against in the UK, and straight people almost never. I've started to think that this isn't true for men though, especially poor men. (Wealthy, powerful men do fine, and it's them we tend to think of.)
quote:
The point still stands that for a black person, gay person or woman to report regular discrimination would be utterly unremarkable, though. It surprises no one, and that means that there's still a problem.
Totally agreed.
Posts: 3418 | From: UK, OK | Registered: Mar 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
lilBuddha
Shipmate
# 14333
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Hiro's Leap:
I've started to think that this isn't true for men though, especially poor men. (Wealthy, powerful men do fine, and it's them we tend to think of.)
Um, what prejudice do men face?
As far as poor men, it is the poor that face disadvantage, not sure how males even more 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
|
|
Hiro's Leap
Shipmate
# 12470
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
Um, what prejudice do men face?
One key area is that there's much less empathy and support for male victims. "The Talk" provided a great example, deemed suitable to broadcast on national TV.
But it's a huge subject, and I know it'd cause a big tangent. If you want to start a separate thread, I'd be happy to try and oblige (although I tend to be a bit slow to be a satisfying sparring partner).
Posts: 3418 | From: UK, OK | Registered: Mar 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
lilBuddha
Shipmate
# 14333
|
Posted
I'll not take this tangent beyond saying that actual treatment of female victims, both social and legal, still is far worse than what men receive. Rape and abuse jokes have been at the expense of females for centuries at least.
Though I do not condone the joking made on that programme, it is more a sign of equilibrium that they can make those jokes than a sign of the poor treatment of men.
--------------------
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
|
|
Russ
Old salt
# 120
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
quote:
Originally posted by Russ:
I harbour no antagonism to gayz, who are human beings just like everybody else. I desire the law to protect them from bullying, to the same extent that it protects everybody, and not to single them out for special treatment whether better or worse. And that includes the right to make a civil contract.
What "right", exactly?
...Either I suffer the consequences of people's prejudices, or prejudiced people are told that they are wrong. CHOOSE.
Apologies, orfeo. I wasn't clear. "civil contract" in that sentence was intended to mean a contract of marriage or civil partnership. To the extent that traditionally married people gain legal benefits from their married status, I'm saying that those benefits should be available to people who, lacking the sexual desire for traditional marriage, shack up with somebody else. As a matter of principle, of equal rights under the law.
As to choice, I choose to defend you from morally wrongful acts (such as unfair dismissal) that are motivated by prejudice. But not to defend you from the consequences of morally legitimate choices (such as choosing whom to invite to one's birthday party or choosing what books to sell in one's shop).
I choose to tell prejudiced people that they are wrong when their beliefs lead them into nontrivial morally wrong acts (such as unfair dismissal). But respect their right to follow their religious convictions within their own personal space, their own activity. (Which is not without impact on others. You can be vegetarian if you want. It's your body, your right. Even though your local butcher is negatively impacted thereby).
Because I want others to protect me from nontrivial morally wrong acts of others. Whilst leaving me as free as possible to live according to my ideas.
I don't choose to side with my gay neighbour against my conservative Christian neighbour or vice versa. But desire both to observe common standards of not imposing their convictions on each other.
--------------------
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:
To the extent that traditionally married people gain legal benefits from their married status, I'm saying that those benefits should be available to people who, lacking the sexual desire for traditional marriage, shack up with somebody else.
There isn't such a thing, in law, as traditional marriage. There isn't a Traditional Marriage Act. There is just a Marriage Act. Which, over, time, has had shifting definitions about what constitutes a marriage.
This is, and has always been, the utterly stupid thing about civil partnership legislation. Marriage is a civil partnership under the law.
Religious groups can have whatever requirements they like. But no-one ever, ever talks about people being "Catholic married" just because they met the criteria of the Roman Catholic church for marriage.
And "lacking the sexual desire for traditional marriage" is just a very strange phrase indeed, buying into the idea that marriage is basically a licence to have sex. I hate to break it to you, but for many decades now people have been openly having sex without a licence. Most of them are heterosexual couples who have the kind of sexual desire that is apparently required. People simply do not believe that that is the primary purpose of marriage.
[ 24. January 2017, 20:43: 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
|
|
Crœsos
Shipmate
# 238
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Steve Langton:
I'm very much in favour of 'treating people decently' even or perhaps especially when I disagree with them.
quote:
Originally posted by Steve Langton:
On that and other threads I have ended up wondering whether the 'harm' done by so-called 'gayness' is that it interferes really badly with the logical faculties....
Feel the decency!
BTW, what's with the constant "so-called"? Usually that's a fairly contemptuous declaration that you're refusing to address people as they prefer to be addressed and will instead be inflicting your own names on them.
--------------------
Humani nil a me alienum puto
Posts: 10706 | From: Sardis, Lydia | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
orfeo
Ship's Musical Counterpoint
# 13878
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Crœsos:
BTW, what's with the constant "so-called"?
I could be wrong, but I think that he is from the school of thought that equates "gay" with the moment when two men are fucking. All the moments in between when no sex is occurring, they are just a couple of straight men who made a foolish mistake.
Alternatively, he's just refusing to accept that sometimes words have more than one meaning, and therefore because "gay" means some kind of happy state it can't possibly be used for anything else.
I'm vaguely tempted to provide a list of other words that possess multiple, completely separate meanings, but I'm not sure the effort would produce a result.
[ 24. January 2017, 20:52: 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
|
|
lilBuddha
Shipmate
# 14333
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
I'm vaguely tempted to provide a list of other words that possess multiple, completely separate meanings, but I'm not sure the effort would produce a result.
I'd place a wager that you are correct, but I doubt I'd find a book to cover it.
--------------------
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
|
|
Steve Langton
Shipmate
# 17601
|
Posted
by Croesos;
quote:
Originally posted by Steve Langton:
quote:
On that and other threads I have ended up wondering whether the 'harm' done by so-called 'gayness' is that it interferes really badly with the logical faculties....
Feel the decency!
My tongue was a little bit in my cheek with that one - but seriously the 'logic' used by some people trying to prove that gay sex is biblically acceptable is pretty feeble at times - well, almost all the time....
by orfeo;
quote:
I could be wrong, but I think that he is from the school of thought that equates "gay" with the moment when two men are fucking. All the moments in between when no sex is occurring, they are just a couple of straight men who made a foolish mistake.
I am not that simplistic. But the NT analysis of the situation is not the same as the way 'gay' people usually portray it and 'gay' is basically not a Christian category. Trouble is you're still not recognising the important distinction here between the 'being' and 'doing' aspects of what's happening, and the difference it makes to the argument.
I'm preparing what I'm afraid is quite a long response related to both these issues. Not sure how long it will take....
Posts: 2245 | From: Stockport UK | Registered: Mar 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
lilBuddha
Shipmate
# 14333
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Steve Langton:
but seriously the 'logic' used by some people trying to prove that gay sex is biblically acceptable is pretty feeble at times - well, almost all the time....
Stoning your children to death for disobedience is biblically acceptable, genocide is biblically acceptable, polygamy is biblically acceptable...
--------------------
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
Steve, I'm well aware of the 'doing' and 'being' distinction. I've been telling you for years that being homosexual is about being. The fact that you refuse to accept that and insist that homosexuality is a doing thing is entirely your own decision. I'm not going to change my testimony just because you disagree with it.
Also, kindly don't treat your analysis of the NT as if it's objectively the NT's own analysis. One of the things that shits me the most is when people tell me I must be ignoring the Bible. I'm not. I simply don't believe the same things that you do about what the text means.
[ 24. January 2017, 22:42: 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
|
|
mousethief
Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Steve Langton:
'gay' is basically not a Christian category.
Nor is "chordata" or "mammal" or "European" or "classic rock." So?
--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
cliffdweller
Shipmate
# 13338
|
Posted
I don't think this has been brought up yet? A very slight tangent will allow us to weave all the various elements of this thread-- cakes, GLBT rights, bakers' rights-- with an oh-so delicious twist at the end that is particularly sweet. I call it:
The Curious Case of the Plagiarized Cake
Be sure to read to the very end to find that sweet happy ending (no double entendre intended! stop that!) we all want.
--------------------
"Here is the world. Beautiful and terrible things will happen. Don't be afraid." -Frederick Buechner
Posts: 11242 | From: a small canyon overlooking the city | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Leorning Cniht
Shipmate
# 17564
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
Steve, I'm well aware of the 'doing' and 'being' distinction. I've been telling you for years that being homosexual is about being. The fact that you refuse to accept that and insist that homosexuality is a doing thing is entirely your own decision. I'm not going to change my testimony just because you disagree with it.
But it's the doing thing that he cares about, right? He doesn't care that you are attracted to men, and would be entirely happy if you shared your life with another man, just so long as you left each other's genitals alone.
Do I have that right, Steve? Are two celibate gay men living together OK in your book? Is it OK if they have a bit of a snog before sharing a bed? How intimate do they have to get before they become not-OK? Are they in trouble at third base?
Posts: 5026 | From: USA | Registered: Feb 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
orfeo
Ship's Musical Counterpoint
# 13878
|
Posted
Well if he defines gays as "same-sex attracted men that DO the wrong thing", that's just circular. That's trying to build the rule into the definition, which one should never do.
A celibate same-sex attracted man is still a gay man.
It's no different to the AA approach, which says that not drinking doesn't stop you from being an alcoholic.
--------------------
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
|
|
Goldfish Stew
Shipmate
# 5512
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Steve Langton:
...but seriously the 'logic' used by some people trying to prove that gay sex is biblically acceptable is pretty feeble at times - well, almost all the time....
As feeble as the defence for eating steak cooked anything less than well done, black pudding and shellfish.
Yet such things are happily accepted in most modern churches, in spite of biblical passages to the contrary (including in the NT in the case of eating blood) to an equal or even greater degree than the biblical passages used to dismiss gay behaviour. That is the intolerable inconsistency of the conservative position. "Petty" or "no longer relevant" statements can be dismissed, but apply the same logic to gay sex and suddenly there's a hue and cry.
One view on why your attitude to black pudding might be relevant if you're using the bible to condemn same sex sexual activity.
--------------------
.
Posts: 2405 | From: Aotearoa/New Zealand | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Crœsos
Shipmate
# 238
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Russ:
As to choice, I choose to defend you from morally wrongful acts (such as unfair dismissal) that are motivated by prejudice.
I think the word "unfair" is doing so much work there it should be paid overtime. Russ has previously argued that an employer can legitimately dictate the conscience of employees as a condition of employment, provided it's done ex ante rather than ex post facto. (e.g. everyone in the accounting department must adhere to the Lutheran Church - Missouri Synod) Thus it's not "unfair" to engage in discrimination, as long as you've got a stated policy of discrimination. (I hear you converted to the Lutheran Church in America. You're fired, heretic!)
--------------------
Humani nil a me alienum puto
Posts: 10706 | From: Sardis, Lydia | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Russ
Old salt
# 120
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Crœsos:
quote:
Originally posted by Russ:
As to choice, I choose to defend you from morally wrongful acts (such as unfair dismissal) that are motivated by prejudice.
I think the word "unfair" is doing so much work there it should be paid overtime. Russ has previously argued that an employer can legitimately dictate the conscience of employees as a condition of employment, provided it's done ex ante rather than ex post facto. (e.g. everyone in the accounting department must adhere to the Lutheran Church - Missouri Synod) Thus it's not "unfair" to engage in discrimination, as long as you've got a stated policy of discrimination.
Rather than refer to previous words, I'll give you what seems to me today to be the right answer. And you can tell me why you disagree.
The employer doesn't dictate the conscience of the employee, but dictates what the job involves. The employee, in signing a contract of employment, waives their right to retain the job whilst making a conscientious objection arising from what the job involves. They're free to resign if an unforeseen issue of conscience crops up.
A business owner is a private individual and may employ whoever he chooses. His nephew. Someone he knows only through the Lutheran church. This may not be a prudent appointment, but he has no moral obligation to give any particular person the job or even the information that there might be a job going.
A manager, on the other hand, has an obligation to the owner(s) - his/her employers - to act in their interests. To make a decent attempt at getting the best person for the job (within resource constraints as to how much time and effort to spend in the recruitment process).
If the job involves nothing but accounting, then the manager should hire the person most likely to perform that job of accounting well. (Which may conceivably not be the person with the most skill at accounting, as over-qualified people may be more likely to quit after a short period of time).
If the job involves standing in for the manager when he/she is sick, then someone who can do that well but is only a barely competent accountant could legitimately be preferred.
If the job involves meeting clients and the important clients happen to be Lutherans, then someone who can make a favourable impression - who conforms to the clients' prejudices - could legitimately be preferred.
The manager's obligation to the job applicants is one of honesty.
But their obligation to the owners would include making reasonable accommodation to the strengths and weaknesses of the applicants and existing staff. If there's a really brilliant accountant who's a militant atheist, it may be advantageous to the business to hire him but rearrange responsibilities so that he doesn't meet the Lutheran clients...
So if the manager doesn't like gayz, he/she should choose not to act on that feeling in the interests of the needs of the business. But if instead of dislike he/she has a prejudice - an unreasonable and groundless but honestly-held belief that gayz are unreliable workers - then how can he/she not act on it ?
--------------------
Wish everyone well; the enemy is not people, the enemy is wrong ideas
Posts: 3169 | From: rural Ireland | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gee D
Shipmate
# 13815
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Russ:
A business owner is a private individual and may employ whoever he chooses. His nephew. Someone he knows only through the Lutheran church. This may not be a prudent appointment, but he has no moral obligation to give any particular person the job or even the information that there might be a job going.
So if the manager doesn't like gayz, he/she should choose not to act on that feeling in the interests of the needs of the business. But if instead of dislike he/she has a prejudice - an unreasonable and groundless but honestly-held belief that gayz are unreliable workers - then how can he/she not act on it ?
As to the first paragraph - that's totally correct. What everyone has been saying is that you can't refuse to employ someone on the basis that they are gay, or Lutheran, or gay and Lutheran, or a man, or a woman and so forth. They can't refuse to employ someone who's one-legged if the job is basically sitting behind a desk all day - but may be able to ask how a one-legged person will be able to work picking grapes in a vineyard. That's the real difference that you seem unable to understand.
And as to the second - no, the manager cannot refuse to employ that gay person on the basis of any prior experience with gay people. The manager must judge the job applicant. The same manager could know from experience that many women lack the physical strength to perform an essential component of the job; in that case, it's perfectly legitimate to make particular enquiries of the applicant, but the manager cannot refuse to employ because she's a woman.
--------------------
Not every Anglican in Sydney is Sydney Anglican
Posts: 7028 | From: Warrawee NSW Australia | Registered: Jun 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Lamb Chopped
Ship's kebab
# 5528
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Crœsos:
quote:
Originally posted by Russ:
As to choice, I choose to defend you from morally wrongful acts (such as unfair dismissal) that are motivated by prejudice.
I think the word "unfair" is doing so much work there it should be paid overtime. Russ has previously argued that an employer can legitimately dictate the conscience of employees as a condition of employment, provided it's done ex ante rather than ex post facto. (e.g. everyone in the accounting department must adhere to the Lutheran Church - Missouri Synod) Thus it's not "unfair" to engage in discrimination, as long as you've got a stated policy of discrimination. (I hear you converted to the Lutheran Church in America. You're fired, heretic!)
Point of fact. The LCMS doesn't give a damn if their accountants are LCMS or not. Not the Synodical office, not the publisher, not the auxiliaries. I'm not at all clear on why the LCMS got dragged into this conversation anyway.
--------------------
Er, this is what I've been up to (book).
Oh, that you would rend the heavens and come down!
Posts: 20059 | From: off in left field somewhere | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
mousethief
Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Russ:
The employer doesn't dictate the conscience of the employee, but dictates what the job involves. The employee, in signing a contract of employment, waives their right to retain the job whilst making a conscientious objection arising from what the job involves. They're free to resign if an unforeseen issue of conscience crops up.
I know this thread is (nominally) about an event that occurred in NI, but I wonder how this particular principle applies to the USA, where 99% of workers don't have individual contracts of employment.
--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Leorning Cniht
Shipmate
# 17564
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
I wonder how this particular principle applies to the USA, where 99% of workers don't have individual contracts of employment.
I would think it would apply in the same way. If you show up to work and start working, you have accepted employment on whatever terms the employer offers, surely? Signing a bit of paper seems like a local detail to me.
Posts: 5026 | From: USA | Registered: Feb 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
Russ
Old salt
# 120
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Gee D:
no, the manager cannot refuse to employ that gay person on the basis of any prior experience with gay people.
I think you're talking law and I'm talking right and wrong, about moral obligation.
I believe you when you tell me what the law is in your country. And maintain that it is meaningful to ask whether that law reflects the moral rights and wrongs of the situation.
I'm suggesting that the manager's primary moral obligation is to their employer(s), to the owner or owners of the business.
--------------------
Wish everyone well; the enemy is not people, the enemy is wrong ideas
Posts: 3169 | From: rural Ireland | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gee D
Shipmate
# 13815
|
Posted
I am talking law and am talking morality. You are talking labels.
--------------------
Not every Anglican in Sydney is Sydney Anglican
Posts: 7028 | From: Warrawee NSW Australia | Registered: Jun 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Russ
Old salt
# 120
|
Posted
Is it that you think it's moral because it's the law ? Or that you think people have made it the law because it's moral?
--------------------
Wish everyone well; the enemy is not people, the enemy is wrong ideas
Posts: 3169 | From: rural Ireland | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Steve Langton
Shipmate
# 17601
|
Posted
By lilBuddha;
quote:
“Stoning your children to death for disobedience is biblically acceptable, genocide is biblically acceptable, polygamy is biblically acceptable....”
Taking the first of the three (in bold) first.
First thing to say is that this is not exclusively 'biblically'; such life-and-death parental power was common in ancient legal systems/customary laws – I recall at school reading about examples from the Roman Republican period.
Second, I can't be absolutely certain, but I think this is a case such as is often found in ancient culture (and in some primitive cultures till quite recently) where the law looks draconian, but the actual carrying out of the penalty is extremely rare – as in 'almost never' – though the deterrent threat may be invoked more often....
Thirdly, your wording rather suggests a situation where Mum tells little (say six-year-old) Johnny to put his toys away, and little Johnny stamps his foot and says “Won't!!” - and Dad carts Johnny out to the back yard and stones him to death.
NO!! Reality here is that we're dealing with 'children' who have attained 'years of discretion' – in UK terms, 'age of criminal responsibility', in Jewish terms 'bar Mitzvah' age at least. And back then in a simpler but harsher world, probably more mature than a child that age in our culture. So think at least young teen to begin with, someone who in our culture would probably be a bit miffed to be described as a 'child'.
And in fact the 'child' here could be even older; in such a culture he could be a grown man with a family of his own, and still come under that parental authority. That was certainly the case in some of those Roman examples. So think even more likely a twenty-something, perhaps a thirty-something 'child'.
Also note that the original text is not about stoning a disobedient child just for the convenience of selfish parents; here's the actual original text....
quote:
18 If a man has a stubborn and rebellious son who does not obey his father and mother and will not listen to them when they discipline him, 19 his father and mother shall take hold of him and bring him to the elders at the gate of his town. 20 They shall say to the elders, "This son of ours is stubborn and rebellious. He will not obey us. He is a profligate and a drunkard." 21 Then all the men of his town shall stone him to death. You must purge the evil from among you. All Israel will hear of it and be afraid.
Deut 21:18-21 (NIV)
In those days 'the gate of the town' was effectively the magistrates' court – that's why the elders would be there, or be summoned there to deal with a 'case'. This isn't about trivial disobedience; it's about major rebellion which will be of concern to the elders and indeed the community at large, such that they will sanction the death penalty. And note that the description as "a profligate and a drunkard" rather confirms my point that this is no junior-school age child....
You should also bear in mind the cultural background generally. This kind of society is extremely mixed and patchy in law enforcement compared to ours – not much police force, few prisons ...and no psychiatric hospitals and such. This is a society in which a disobedient young adult son may be capable of threatening the lives of his family and of the wider community – for instance by involving them in a feud or vendetta, or by wilfully not 'pulling his weight' in farming and wilfully wasting scarce resources.
I would suspect in the rare cases where the sentence was carried out it might well be a case of parents deciding that a formal judicial stoning was kinder than what the son might provocatively bring upon himself from others – or just better than letting the stroppy kid seriously doom the whole family along with himself.....
Whatever, this was a last resort in a bad case of anti-social behaviour in a society that had few other options compared to ours; and our society is not exactly problem-free in such areas....
Posts: 2245 | From: Stockport UK | Registered: Mar 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
lilBuddha
Shipmate
# 14333
|
Posted
![[Killing me]](graemlins/killingme.gif) Look who understands context and culture when it suits him but gets all "This is what it says and we cannot deviate" when it does not. ![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
--------------------
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
|
|
Leaf
Shipmate
# 14169
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Steve Langton:
You should also bear in mind the cultural background generally.
I have had to check Amazon for irony meters, as this post caused mine to overload.
Posts: 2786 | From: the electrical field | Registered: Oct 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Hiro's Leap
Shipmate
# 12470
|
Posted
Steve Langton,
I think you make great points about stoning sons to death. As you say, you need to consider the context of the culture at the time: it was a much harder world, and laws which seem brutal to us now probably made a lot of sense.
But isn't that the whole point? Why look at the context of the culture for stoning people, but not for gay relationships?
[Dammit! Slow cross-post.]
[ 27. January 2017, 22:39: Message edited by: Hiro's Leap ]
Posts: 3418 | From: UK, OK | Registered: Mar 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
Steve Langton
Shipmate
# 17601
|
Posted
Kinda expected something like those three responses... ![[Smile]](smile.gif)
Point is that I am trying to treat the gay issues as carefully as the 'stoning children' issue. And I'm not finding the necessary 'indicators' to make the changes (some of) you want me to make.
Taking an 'Anabaptist' view I'm well aware that the New Testament changes things - or more accurately, develops things, usually in line with ideas you can see starting in the OT anyway; but also that there are things it doesn't change and can't if the overall picture is to remain coherent. And I think there are good reasons why some things change and others shouldn't be. Too late at night for detail now but one obvious principle is where the NT confirms the OT teaching rather than changing it - and it seems to me that that is the case on 'gay issues'
Posts: 2245 | From: Stockport UK | Registered: Mar 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
Crœsos
Shipmate
# 238
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Steve Langton:
By lilBuddha;
quote:
“Stoning your children to death for disobedience is biblically acceptable, genocide is biblically acceptable, polygamy is biblically acceptable....”
Taking the first of the three (in bold) first.
First thing to say is that this is not exclusively 'biblically'; such life-and-death parental power was common in ancient legal systems/customary laws – I recall at school reading about examples from the Roman Republican period.
Which is, at best, a squirming irrelevancy. Stoning your disobedient kids is not just Biblically acceptable, it's Biblically mandated. Whether it's permitted or mandated by other systems is irrelevant to the question.
quote:
Originally posted by Steve Langton:
Second, I can't be absolutely certain, but I think this is a case such as is often found in ancient culture (and in some primitive cultures till quite recently) where the law looks draconian, but the actual carrying out of the penalty is extremely rare – as in 'almost never' – though the deterrent threat may be invoked more often....
"I can't be certain" = "I'm going to make up some plausible sounding crap that supports my preferred position". Plus this assertion is non-Biblical (i.e. not supported by anything in scripture). If Biblicality is your standard, then this assertion fails.
quote:
Originally posted by Steve Langton:
Thirdly, your wording rather suggests a situation where Mum tells little (say six-year-old) Johnny to put his toys away, and little Johnny stamps his foot and says “Won't!!” - and Dad carts Johnny out to the back yard and stones him to death.
NO!! Reality here is that we're dealing with 'children' who have attained 'years of discretion' – in UK terms, 'age of criminal responsibility', in Jewish terms 'bar Mitzvah' age at least. And back then in a simpler but harsher world, probably more mature than a child that age in our culture. So think at least young teen to begin with, someone who in our culture would probably be a bit miffed to be described as a 'child'.
This is another non-Biblical ass-pull. There's nothing in the text to indicate any minimum age is relevant to this command. In fact the Hebrew word used ("ben") is expansive and could refer to a son of any age. Other passages of the Torah use this term to refer to young boys. It can sometimes also mean grandsons or other male descendants.
quote:
Originally posted by Steve Langton:
And in fact the 'child' here could be even older; in such a culture he could be a grown man with a family of his own, and still come under that parental authority. That was certainly the case in some of those Roman examples. So think even more likely a twenty-something, perhaps a thirty-something 'child'.
Yes, he certainly could be older, but the text as written does not require it.
quote:
Originally posted by Steve Langton:
Also note that the original text is not about stoning a disobedient child just for the convenience of selfish parents; here's the actual original text....
quote:
18 If a man has a stubborn and rebellious son who does not obey his father and mother and will not listen to them when they discipline him, 19 his father and mother shall take hold of him and bring him to the elders at the gate of his town. 20 They shall say to the elders, "This son of ours is stubborn and rebellious. He will not obey us. He is a profligate and a drunkard." 21 Then all the men of his town shall stone him to death. You must purge the evil from among you. All Israel will hear of it and be afraid.
Deut 21:18-21 (NIV)
In those days 'the gate of the town' was effectively the magistrates' court – that's why the elders would be there, or be summoned there to deal with a 'case'. This isn't about trivial disobedience; it's about major rebellion which will be of concern to the elders and indeed the community at large, such that they will sanction the death penalty. And note that the description as "a profligate and a drunkard" rather confirms my point that this is no junior-school age child....
Again, not necessarily. The word you translate as "profligate" (zalal) is often translated as "a glutton". Once again, you're taking an unBiblical (i.e. not in the Bible) position based on your own cultural perceptions of the age demographics of gluttons and drunkards.
quote:
Originally posted by Steve Langton:
Whatever, this was a last resort in a bad case of anti-social behaviour in a society that had few other options compared to ours; and our society is not exactly problem-free in such areas....
Perhaps because we've abandoned Biblical morality, like public stonings of disobedient offspring. ![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
--------------------
Humani nil a me alienum puto
Posts: 10706 | From: Sardis, Lydia | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
Thread closed
Printer-friendly view
