Makaze Posted March 4, 2015 Share Posted March 4, 2015 (edited) "Forced" as in "your opinion is absurd and unacceptable!" But it isn't. You simply disagree with it, and you're free to do it too. You should be as free to ostracize her for her position as she should be free to ostracize you for your sexuality. That's how the game works. A strong push generates a strong reaction, though. First bit is a contradiction. I disagree with it so strongly that I will not accept it. But I am not likely to physical coerce them -- unless some consequence of it forces my hand. It's not about "should". If there is no right and no wrong, then neither of us "should" be able to do anything. There is what we can do, and what we can't do. People killing gays is not any more wrong than not liking gays is. It is all arbitrary. There is no way to bridge the is-ought gap. Might makes right. If I kill the homophobes first, I guess those are the rules of the game. Of course, that means you're literally lumping together someone who says gays should be burned, and someone else who says "gay civil marriage is okay, but religious is off-limits". Not exactly. Religious ceremony is irrelevant to whether someone is homophobic or not. I'm equating "gays should be burned" with "I will avoid you more than others because you are gay" -- they are driven by the same bias. Obviously people who kill gays are worse than people who don't given them the benefit of the doubt when an accusation is made. It's just a matter of degrees. The bias itself is bad even at .0000000000001% intensity. It depends. There's nothing wrong in finding white skin more attractive than black skin (or the other way around) - if that's the only difference (highly theoretical scenario), it's natural that a personal preference, however small, would tip the scales. You're only saying that bias is inevitable, not that it isn't harmful. Edited March 4, 2015 by Makaze Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
I'm gay dabadeedabada Posted March 5, 2015 Share Posted March 5, 2015 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TAHeLPNMwEo I went into this thread because I saw a Chen post and was not disappointed ....... chomsky-honk Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chen Posted March 5, 2015 Share Posted March 5, 2015 well, he isn't wrong Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheEnd Posted March 5, 2015 Share Posted March 5, 2015 (edited) First bit is a contradiction. I disagree with it so strongly that I will not accept it. But I am not likely to physical coerce them -- unless some consequence of it forces my hand.There's a difference between a hyperbole and a contradiction. It's not about "should". If there is no right and no wrong, then neither of us "should" be able to do anything. There is what we can do, and what we can't do. People killing gays is not any more wrong than not liking gays is. It is all arbitrary. There is no way to bridge the is-ought gap. Might makes right. If I kill the homophobes first, I guess those are the rules of the game.I disagree entirely. We live in society, which has rules and embraces values. Of course, they're all created my people, and so they change over time. In the past, burning homosexuals as sodomites was considered "right"; nowadays, it's very much "wrong" in the West. The fact our tiny arms cannot reach out to the truth of the universe doesn't deny the transitory answers we find. Not exactly. Religious ceremony is irrelevant to whether someone is homophobic or not. I'm equating "gays should be burned" with "I will avoid you more than others because you are gay" -- they are driven by the same bias. Obviously people who kill gays are worse than people who don't given them the benefit of the doubt when an accusation is made. It's just a matter of degrees. The bias itself is bad even at .0000000000001% intensity.How is it? You're still making a distinction based solely on whether a couple is homo or het. Saying it's just a matter of degree sounds like comparing a torch to an arson, a scratch and losing both arms. You're only saying that bias is inevitable, not that it isn't harmful.If you pay attention, a finger snap actually hurts. Are you going to cry over it, or discard it as a signal simply because it causes a minute local discomfort for a couple seconds? finally marshtomp finally Edited March 5, 2015 by TravelingElder Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Makaze Posted March 5, 2015 Share Posted March 5, 2015 (edited) -snip- Thought experiment to prove the inappropriateness of "should". Suppose there is a species that does not have the capacity to ostracize people based on sexual orientation. Their brains simply don't allow it. Suppose I am able to give them the capacity to do so. Is what you said still true? Should they be able to ostracize people for that? Am I obligated to give them that capacity? If you answer no when they do not already have the capacity to do so but answer yes when they do already have it, you are drawing an ought from an is. Edited March 5, 2015 by Makaze Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Makaze Posted March 5, 2015 Share Posted March 5, 2015 Saying it's just a matter of degree sounds like comparing a torch to an arson, a scratch and losing both arms. Can't speak for the arson example since fire isn't the problem there, but a scratch and losing both arms are both considered assault. The legal sentence varies by degree, but the crime has the same classification (depending; could be torture or murder if more was involved). Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Makaze Posted March 5, 2015 Share Posted March 5, 2015 (edited) How is it? You're still making a distinction based solely on whether a couple is homo or het. To answer this: It's different because it speaks of an external concept. I can argue that changing a religious concept is wrong on all kinds of grounds even if I actively dislike the principles in the religion. Homophobia is a personal bias that individuals have. A religion can contain homophobic statements, but a homophobic religion can exist as a concept, say, a dead religion that is no longer practiced, without anyone supporting the homophobia inside it. It's a bad example. Edited March 5, 2015 by Makaze Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheEnd Posted March 5, 2015 Share Posted March 5, 2015 Thought experiment to prove the inappropriateness of "should".Semantics? Really? Can't speak for the arson example since fire isn't the problem there, but a scratch and losing both arms are both considered assault. The legal sentence varies by degree, but the crime has the same classification (depending; could be torture or murder if more was involved).Except that a scratch would likely fail to have the materiality required to classify the action as crime, especially in the absence of witnesses. Even with them, it could be deemed legally irrelevant. There are (fluid) thresholds for defining what's socially acceptable or not; otherwise, we would be permanently at the State's mercy, Orwell-style. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Makaze Posted March 5, 2015 Share Posted March 5, 2015 (edited) Semantics? Really? Not even close to semantics. The concept itself is inappropriate. Should, ought, that whole spectrum. The notion that we can describe moral rules as a facet of the universe as if it has a set of desires unto itself outside of human prescription. There is no objective observable standard for what ought to be the case. There is what can happen, and what can't happen. That's it. When you come at me saying that I am wrong to force others not to have hetero-normative bias, you are asserting that there is some kind of standard we can all agree on. "If they don't physically hurt you, it's alright," for example. That's wrong, since we can't agree on it. You have your tolerance level that you want to prescribe, where people only get upset at major grievances of bias, and I have mine, where no amount of bias is tolerated and is course corrected in some way. It's completely arbitrary. There is no higher standard for you to appeal to to convince me not to manipulate homophobes out of being homophobic. Similarly, there is no higher standard you can appeal to to convince me that killing homophobes is not a good idea. The only reason why I don't kill them is because I have my own arbitrary standard that says I shouldn't. We happen to have overlapping arbitrary ideas on that bit. That's all it is. Except that a scratch would likely fail to have the materiality required to classify the action as crime, especially in the absence of witnesses. Even with them, it could be deemed legally irrelevant. There are (fluid) thresholds for defining what's socially acceptable or not; otherwise, we would be permanently at the State's mercy, Orwell-style. You're missing the point... Value is decided by much, much more than what you can and can't do legally. I'm an anarchist. I have fairly similar priorities when it comes to the law. For example, I believe that if the enforcement of a law creates more harm than decriminalizing it, I believe it should be decriminalized. What I don't do is say that when someone scratches someone else and there is no real basis for a conviction, the person who scratched the other did nothing wrong. What you can justify using force to stop and what is bad are not the same thing. For a real world example, imagine that someone buys land and builds an apartment complex on it. They refuse to rent to homosexuals. Rationally, you shouldn't force this person to house homosexuals by law. The homosexuals who rented there would be miserable due to environment alone. But does that mean I shouldn't work to get that owner boycotted, give them bad press, and generally force them into not profiting from their harmful views? No. There are other ways to change things. Edited March 5, 2015 by Makaze Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rei Rei Posted March 5, 2015 Share Posted March 5, 2015 http://serenesforest.net/forums/index.php?showtopic=51990&p=3629168 /headslam /headslam /headslam /headslam /headslam nice i was missing inane shit Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Makaze Posted March 5, 2015 Share Posted March 5, 2015 TL;DR - Social problems are just as important to work out as legal problems. Just because you can't justify killing over it doesn't mean it isn't to be discouraged. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dr. Tarrasque Posted March 5, 2015 Share Posted March 5, 2015 http://serenesforest.net/forums/index.php?showtopic=51990&p=3629168 /headslam /headslam /headslam /headslam /headslam Just stop. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rei Rei Posted March 5, 2015 Share Posted March 5, 2015 Kon, we take turns! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kon Posted March 5, 2015 Share Posted March 5, 2015 Just stop. But whatever, Ana has truly proven she's not worth my time I'm done Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dr. Tarrasque Posted March 5, 2015 Share Posted March 5, 2015 You've said that a few times. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lance Masayoshi Posted March 5, 2015 Share Posted March 5, 2015 she can't help it Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fruity Insanity Posted March 5, 2015 Share Posted March 5, 2015 This isn't serious discussion, pls. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Makaze Posted March 5, 2015 Share Posted March 5, 2015 This isn't serious discussion, pls. You can tell because Chiki isn't here. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rei Rei Posted March 5, 2015 Share Posted March 5, 2015 This isn't serious discussion, pls. I didn't find this discussion that heated y'know Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lance Masayoshi Posted March 5, 2015 Share Posted March 5, 2015 This isn't serious discussion, pls. You can tell because Chiki isn't here. scorched Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kon Posted March 5, 2015 Share Posted March 5, 2015 You've said that a few times. I'm honestly done She no longer exists as far as I'm concerned Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Soledai Posted March 5, 2015 Share Posted March 5, 2015 Congrats Kon. ...Maybe, take a good drink of apple/orange juice, whichever >~> I didn't find this discussion that heated y'know Neither did I Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rei Rei Posted March 5, 2015 Share Posted March 5, 2015 Neither did I curiously it was much more interesting than most SERIOUS discussions Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kon Posted March 5, 2015 Share Posted March 5, 2015 Not enough ad hominem to be a SRS DISCUSSION Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tao Posted March 5, 2015 Share Posted March 5, 2015 You're all serious discussion. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.