Respect in Political Discussion

You know, there are some people here who think homosexuality is a choice. They may mean well and may have their reasons why, and they're willing to have a thoughtful and respectful discussion about it. So are you going to be prejudiced towards them because of their beliefs?

Yes. Just because they believe it sincerely doesn't make it okay or any less offensive and there is no legitimate reason for believing as such.

I won't tolerate it.

edited 23rd Jul '11 1:27:12 AM by Capt.Fargle

Like I said, watch the semantics. I would be offended if anyone were to argue that homosexuals can't resist having sex, for the same reason I'm offended when people argue that heterosexuals can't resist having sex. In other words, I would consider homosexuality a "choice," or at the very least consider homosexual activity such. However, from what you've said it sounds like you might agree with my premises, if not my wording.

So if someone just thinks that there is problem with homosexuality and has supporting reasons, you're going to be prejudiced against that person and ignore the debate ethics? Isn't that the same as a homophobic person being prejudiced against someone who is homosexual?

You know, it's important to find a common ground when you debate. From there you can see how your arguments differ and why they diverge. And in cases like that, you may have to dig deeper to see why.

It can be an acquired taste...

No. It's not the same. It's not even fucking close to being the same.

There are no valid reasons for homophobia. NONE Just in the same way that there are absolutely no valid reasons for racism, ever.

There's also no valid reasons for not liking fresh onions in one's salad, but I know some people that won't ever eat that unless under extreme, violent coercion. Some people just dislike some stuff. Intensely. You gonna call them monsters? They're being very human. Idiots? Often that has little to do with anything. Irrational?

Yup, they're being irrational. What you can tell them is that them imposing their tastes on others goes against the rules of a free society.

But then, if no-one could impose one's tastes over others, advertising should be banned, and everyone should wear the same clothes.

Do you see the can of worms we're opening?

No.

There's a hell of a big difference between not being gay and being homophobic. The fact that I'm rather grossed out by the idea of shagging a girl doesn't mean I'm heterophobic. It just means I'm not straight, the same applies in reverse.

Moved the contents to a new thread

edited 23rd Jul '11 5:10:16 AM by GoodGuyGreg

@Fargle: How can you know whether there are any valid reasons for being homophobic or racist if you don't respectfully consider the arguments of those that hold those positions?

There are quite a few topics on which my opinion is "there may be good arguments in favor of position X, I just haven't encountered any yet ... if X becomes important to me someday, I'll research it in more detail".

I find it plausible that homosexuality is a choice for some people.

edited 23rd Jul '11 5:08:43 AM by SlightlyEvilDoctor

@Slightly Evil: I disregard their arguments because I have already scrutinised them. I disrespect homophobia precisely because I have studied it and found every single argument in favour of it entirely lacking.

It is a baseless, and indefensible position.

As for homosexuality being a choice? The answer is simply, no. It is innate, and attempting to forcibly change it is extremely harmful and detrimental to the psyche.

It is not now, nor has it ever been a choice and it is not the position of non-homosexuals to say otherwise. There's a reason Lady Gaga's album is called Born This Way after all.

>citing Lady Gaga as an uthority

No reason it can't be a choice for some people. The practice, that is. Not to mention Bi The Way

@Capt.Fargle

This one does not think that homophobia can ever be justified.

However, if this one was inclined to take offence at Internet post not directed to her, she would. Because you've just said that some of this one's kin do not deserve respect.

Not that it should matter.

yeah, while "homosexuality is a choice" and homophobia are correlated, there are people who believe the former while not being actively homophobic.

I've mentioned this before, but one of my mother's best friends firmly expects her to go to Hell, and is in the process of trying to save her soul. She's not a bad person, she's just devoted to what might as well be called a code of honor (and it's screwed her over more than it's screwed anyone else, since it's why she's now married to a man who verbally abuses her.)

There are plenty of people, here and elsewhere, who believe things I find appalling, but I'm learning that it's not my place to hate them for it. Even if I can't accept them, I'm not going to condemn them, either.

@Capt

First, it doesn't matter if you've scrutinized the arguments, because the person you're talking to has not heard your argument. Therefore, you must present that argument to that person to show why you think he or she is wrong.

Second, your side is "innate" and their is "lacking" to you because the arguments are rooted in different beliefs. If you can't find a common ground where you thought you would find it, you have to look deeper.

Also, there are a number of variables that you have to consider. In this case, there's a difference between believing that there's something wrong with homosexuality itself, and being homophobic. It's like this: there were white people in the prior centuries who tried to reach out to the poorer natives in Africa, as missionaries and philanthropists, which we call the White Man's Burden. Then there were people that just held contempt for blacks, calling them inferior and so they think they should treat them in an inferior manner. It's love vs hate.

That's why we have to be respectful in discussion and keep things on the topic and not the person. It's so that we can determine exactly what we're talking about and talk about the correct things.

edited 23rd Jul '11 4:57:30 PM by abstractematics

From this it appears that your problem is that you need to learn better control over your emotions.

Capt Fargle, speaking as a mod, I feel that it is only fair to you to warn you that you are expected to be civil to the other posters here, no matter how vehemently you disagree. If you aren't, you'll be banned from this site.

I don't know what gave you the idea that we'd put up with deliberate rudeness anymore that IJBM II does, but wherever you got that idea from, you were misinformed.

Is that sufficiently clear?

edited 23rd Jul '11 8:55:35 PM by Madrugada

Generally, I put it this way when talking IRL: I will assume, until proven otherwise, that you will handle any disagreements with me respectfully, if passionately. I will in turn, reciprocate. But if you show that you in fact not interested in respectful disagreement, I will either take the kid gloves off, or, more often, end the conversation - I have better things to do in such cases.

I always looked at this way: I'm almost always going to respect the person, regardless of what they believe. To me, a belief is harmless. My parents are both racists; I see that as a product of upbringing. It bothers me, surely, but I still respect them as people. Now, if they translated that to action, it would be a very different thing, but they don't. I may be heated, but I try to stay civil, and not insult the person. I always attempt to limit myself to the argument presented, not the person themselves.

{Off-topic in spoiler tags is still off-topic. —Madrugada}

edited 31st Jul '11 5:43:57 PM by Madrugada

What if they vote for racists?

I'm pretty sure my parents don't vote. And for that to be bad it would require that that person would then do things that make racism become violence or some other bad action, and since most people today don't like violence, they wouldn't let that happen. Furthermore, my parents are the racists-in-denial type of people; other people's racism is bad, but theirs isn't actually racism. Hypocrisy can do wonders for peoples' worldviews, right?

It can serve to keep their actions in check. In a way, it could be a form of them owning up to their own flaws. Even though someone is racist, by acknowledging it, they are often able to act ways that are NOT racist, and as such it's relatively harmless. Replace racism with...well..anything.

Self-awareness is a hell of a tool.

However, there's that point where beliefs jump to actions. And that's the point where it becomes iffy, especially if you not a moral relativist, and you believe that there are rational answers to the questions or right and wrong. But again, it's a matter of owning up to it.

I fully understand and accept that my political views would make things rougher on the speculation class. If this was something that I accepted as and end result of my views, but I thought that it's too much of a bad thing, I would find a way to mitigate the damage.

A good example of this, would be implementing debt-fighting austerity measures at the same time as economic reforms to make things easier on lower income workers. You recognize a policy you support is going to do A, so you want to do B as well to balance it out. A real-world example of this was Clinton's support of NAFTA, which was supposed to come with job retraining and other such rebalancers, but they never came.

edited 31st Jul '11 9:16:20 PM by Karmakin

Sorry, but I am a moral relativist—albeit an unorthodox one—so, yeah...