LGBTQ+ Rights and Religion

Yeah, I have no understanding whatsover for someone who thinks I belong behind an electrified fence for an idiotic reason like that.

edited 15th Nov '12 1:01:09 PM by kay4today

Well, like I said, you're more forgiving than me. If Worley came in here and said people like me should be behind an electric fence, I wouldn't ask him why. I'd tell him he's a paranoid idiot and he should stay the hell away from me and get professional help for his Gay Derangement Syndrome. And do you really think that puts me in danger of becoming like him? I don't. In my opinion, it would be intellectual laziness to act like he has a valid viewpoint worth debating.

edited 16th Nov '12 2:48:28 PM by Morgikit

Mind explaining how? If anything I'd think it's the opposite, since you're just dismissing him without attempting to understand him.

cum

Why do you think we need to understand him?

So you can better understand how to handle him. There's a possibility that you may be able to win him over, or at least soften his stance. Not to mention the fact that you get a better understanding of where his reasoning went wrong, so you can explain to others why his position doesn't hold up. Dismissing him is the easy way out.

cum

He wants to put gay people in concentration camps. I should think that the reason why this is a bad position is self-evident.

As to why I don't think it's worth the time understand someone like him? It's a matter of efficiency. The effort it would take to convince 1 Worley to change his ways could be used to convince 100 less strident people. The KKK exists, even today, but is almost completely powerless due to the fact that only the Worleys of that movement are left, and they are few in number.

I understand the man just fine, his poor grasp of the English language aside. He wants to round up LGB Ts and put them behind fences like livestock until they die off. And if anyone has to have it explained to them what's wrong with that, they're as much of a lost cause as he is.

edited 16th Nov '12 8:04:25 PM by Morgikit

Well, I meant in general it's a good idea not to just dismiss someone without trying to understand what they're thinking. In this case, though, he's just not thinking. He's acting based on his emotions.

I hadn't watched the video, so I assumed he was making some sort of actual argument. Apparently I was mistaken.

edited 16th Nov '12 10:50:21 PM by Boredman

cum

That's why you should learn the context of things before making arguments. Talking about things you know nothing about tends to make you look silly.

edited 16th Nov '12 11:20:41 PM by shimaspawn

Reality is that, which when you stop believing in it, doesn't go away. -Philip K. Dick

However, that does mean that in some cases it's also important to understand the situation fully and give a chance to change the viewpoints. The more we can change, the better. Just calling them names does not help the cause whatsoever, nor is just dismissing them. It's counterproductive to simple attack them/get revenge/ignore them instead of fighting in a progressive way.

edited 16th Nov '12 11:38:23 PM by Hydronix

Quest 64 thread

@That video: I know that it most likely upset some of the more sensitive tropers who might be the ones round up and sent to the camps, but my god that was funny, what an idiot .

hashtagsarestupid

Not liking that video has nothing to do with being "sensitive". It has to do with not being a fucking facsist.

Let's get some shit straight, even if some dipshit tried to put gays, include our troper pals, in a concentration camp, it wouldn't happen, because we'd STOP THEM.

No that that's cleared up....there are several reasons to understand someone's point.

1) Someone who says things you don't agree with might yet be your ally.

2) As Taoist said, even if they can't be convinced and they are your sworn enemy, knowning their talking points helps you defeat them, especially in an issue like this that's being fought over water-coolers, in bars, and at coffee shops. One thing people do in an argument is that they'll dismiss something that's right just because a small detail is wrong. Notice that on these very threads, we can disagree and still get along precisely because we show respect to our opponents by bothering to know what they said.

3) As I mentioned before, it doesn't require great intelligence to know that putting people who like others of the same sex behind fences is fucking stupid. It takes patience and wisdom to actually bother to know why someone would say such a thing. Thus proving you're better than they.

4) Because you do make mistakes. People in these threads have said I've said things and done things and when I challenge them to show me where they're like "Oh, well...I guess you didn't". I've had to have other tropers show me where I was wrong regarding my OWN posts.

It was an honor

Yeah, you mentioned that.

Allies don't put allies in prison camps.

Well, I did watch the guy's video. All I got from it that I didn't from the news articles is he pronounces "against" wierd.

Maybe I'm impatient and stupid, but I don't give a shit why he said it. I don't see why you do. You admitted at one point the reasoning he gave made no sense.

I don't need to prove I'm better than that asshole.

How does knowing why people say reprehensible things make you better than they are? What if they also know why you take the opposite position? Paradox!

You can plainly tell when someone doesn't care what your reasoning is. The pastor's rant is one of those cases. Generally, it's hard to be a bigot towards someone if you actually understand where they're coming from.

edited 17th Nov '12 2:34:30 PM by Boredman

cum

"Maybe I'm impatient and stupid, but I don't give a shit why he said it. I don't see why you do. You admitted at one point the reasoning he gave made no sense."

You're missing the point. If you don't care why someone thinks the way they do you can't change their viewpoints. Changing someone's mind isn't done by stating facts or calling them an idiot, it's done by empathizing with them. Understanding what makes them tick and how they think. Once you can truly step into someone's shoes you can make them move how you want.

Is using "Julian Assange is a Hillary butt plug" an acceptable signature quote?

At some point, though, you have to consider whether it's worth trying to change this particular person's mind rather than just marginalising them. Fanatics are notoriously resistant to change.

What's precedent ever done for us?

I'd ask why your having a beer with a fanatic and questioning their deeply held beliefs. Normally when you debate a fanatic the rules change as it's a more formal setting. A proper debate is about changing other people's minds which is still best done through liberal application of facts and myth murdering.

Is using "Julian Assange is a Hillary butt plug" an acceptable signature quote?

You forgot the liberal application of food and/or alcohol (use good coffee or tea, if teetotal is the order of the day). Opens people up to new ideas, that... well, usually. At least they'll sit down long enough to have a chance of listening.

edited 18th Nov '12 5:33:33 AM by Euodiachloris

I have to agree. Formal debates make people put up walls. The focus on their arguments more than listening to yours. Talking to someone in a friendly casual relaxed environment and they're more receptive to you.

Reality is that, which when you stop believing in it, doesn't go away. -Philip K. Dick

I wonder why no one's even bothered to mention the Grey-and-Gray Morality of both side. I'm Catholic and I believe that Both Sides Have a Point as well as avoiding a false dichotomy. In fact, almost everyone I've talked to in Texas, where I'm in, agrees that while there shouldn't be gay marriage period, that gives no excuse to descriminate against gay individuals. I've also read that there are some who see "curing" homosexual desires as something that sometimes works, sometimes doesn't work (ie sometimes you just have to accept that some can't go toward bisexual). I've read this article and found something interesting.

Except not allowing gay marriage is discriminating against gay individuals. Why can't we have the right to marry the one we love like you do?

"I don't know how I do it. I'm like the Mr. Bean of sex." -Drunkscriblerian

Unfortunately saying "We don't want to discriminate, but we don't think you should be treated equally" is discriminating. It's just discriminating while feeling good about yourself. Giving someone some rights but not all of them is discrimination.

Reality is that, which when you stop believing in it, doesn't go away. -Philip K. Dick

That argument strikes me as the equivalent of saying "I'm not sexist, honest. I just don't want a woman sitting on the board of directors with me." I don't care if you bear them no ill will. By denying them the rights granted to others you are discriminating whether out of malice or preference. I admit I'm probably prone to things like this as well but I don't like it and I want to change that mentality.