1
   

Are members of the gay community better adjusted, in a moral sense; than homophobes?

 
 
Sturgis
 
  1  
Reply Tue 13 Aug, 2019 11:42 pm
@maxdancona,
Quote:
was Obama a homophobe in 2016 (at that time he opposed gay marriage)?

No, at that time he (as far as anybody knows), he did not oppose gay marriage. He spoke up for it in 2012, even had a sit-down interview on television.
in June of 2015 after The Supreme Court ruled for gay marriage, he called it "a victory for America"
0 Replies
 
Greatest I am
 
  1  
Reply Wed 14 Aug, 2019 02:35 pm
@maxdancona,
maxdancona wrote:

Quote:
I think the point of this thread is that your religion is better than their religion. Of course, this type of moral hierarchy is always subjective and everyone thinks their religion is better than other religions.

I will point out the flaws in your particular judgment.

1) You are using the word "homophobe" without defining it.


Do you not have a dictionary?

I offer no new definition.

Quote:
Was Obama a homophobe in 2016 (at that time he opposed gay marriage)?


One does not necessarily lead to the other and gay marriage has many other arguments against.

I do recall his being asked that and said that he had changed his thinking over time.

That is sure better than the right who invoke a G D god to do their thinking for them.

Quote:
2) You are then reading the minds of these purported "homophobes" telling us with certainly what they think and why. This of course assumes that everyone in this group thinks exactly alike.


Yes. I think all homophobes are close enough in thinking to be grouped.
If you want to start splitting hairs, let do.
Quote:

I get it, the purpose is to show that your religion is morally superior... but still, this is the definition of a strawman.



No it is not, except to the stupid.

My religion is not homophobic and that makes superior to the mainstream religions.

Care to argue the opposite?

Regards
DL
0 Replies
 
Greatest I am
 
  1  
Reply Wed 14 Aug, 2019 02:39 pm
@vikorr,
vikorr wrote:

Quote:
Compare what I said to what religious homophobes use as their guiding light.

To lay with another man is an abomination.
You're engaging in logical fallacy. Just because I point out there's a flaw in your reasoning, does not mean I agree with 'the other side'. Nor does the wrongs of another side justify your making statements that lump all gay people together in placing love above sex - the statement is simply not true, and likely not even close to true (in terms of all).

Quote:
You should also know that I intentionally KIS so homophobes could not deflect all over the map and ignore that this is a moral question.
As I said - your initial premise is seriously flawed. As and I said after that - if you had qualified it by using the word 'many' (as in many gays), then there would be little to disagree with in the title of your post. Slanted maybe, ignoring different areas of morality maybe, but but in the end, minor flaws in perhaps an overall true statement...if you'd qualified your statement.



If I qualified every statement, all I would get in replies are TLDR.

You want perfect, go read a book.

These places are for quick and dirty debates or discussions and I am well equipped for them.

Regards
DL
maxdancona
 
  1  
Reply Wed 14 Aug, 2019 03:44 pm
Greatest I am wrote:
Yes. I think all homophobes are close enough in thinking to be grouped.


Your simplistic thinking puts Orthodox Jewish Rabbis in the same group as Neo-Nazis. You put them along with traditional indigenous African Cultures, Mennonite peace workers, Iranian conservative families and the Pope all together in a group. Their differences, thoughts, beliefs, reasoning, faith and values no longer matter to you. You have set yourself as superior to all of them. It is absolutist "us" vs. "them" thinking.

I don't think you are being reasonable.



0 Replies
 
vikorr
 
  1  
Reply Wed 14 Aug, 2019 03:59 pm
@Greatest I am,
Quote:
If I qualified every statement, all I would get in replies are TLDR.

You want perfect, go read a book.
The main problem is one of hypocrisy, yet again.

You are essentially criticising homophobes (which I quite understand), by:
- your using a language structure that paints all peoples of a group with a negative characteristic, in support of your belief...which structure is just as sloppy as homophobes who:
- use of a language structure that paints all peoples of a group with a negative characteristic, in support of their beliefs

(as a sidenote, the 'negative' characteristic' assigned to groups by discriminators is broad <like the phrase 'moral sense'>, which without discussion then omits any admission of the good side of the broad trait <like moral sense> that the group, or individuals may possess. So the words demonise all, totally, as individuals...which, when enough of these language structures support their beliefs... eventually allows 'believers' to use violence, because of the totallity of the 'wrong/evil' they see)

The fact is, many corrupt ideologies engage in this sloppy thinking structure in support of their beliefs (there are other sloppy structures). You are complaining/criticising their beliefs, but using the same sloppy formats in language that they do, in order to support your beliefs.

I'm not asking for perfection, I'm asking for qualifiers that don't make your behaviour hypocritical, which qualifiers will also add clarity and accuracy to your posts - both traits are necessary for other posters to understand you, and both traits are necessary to avoid engaging in discriminatory, demonising behaviour of the whole of a person, rather than specific beliefs of a person.
vikorr
 
  1  
Reply Wed 14 Aug, 2019 04:31 pm
@vikorr,
One of the battlefields in the fight for tolerance (against intolerant people), starts with understanding and challenging the sloppy language structures that support their discriminatory beliefs. We never gain a true comprehension of this while while we continue to employ the same sloppy structures in support of our beliefs. And we always remain hypocritical while we continue to use such.
vikorr
 
  1  
Reply Thu 15 Aug, 2019 12:11 am
@vikorr,
As a note, in case it's not obvious - the above goes both ways - when the use of sloppily structured language is applied with a negative trait, or a positive trait to all of a group. The use of sloppy language structures with the positive trait applied to all of a group can contribute to a sense of superiority (and in extreme cases, supremacist thinking)
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

 
Copyright © 2019 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.03 seconds on 08/25/2019 at 08:06:32