tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post7252842197537927662..comments2024-03-28T12:34:14.649-07:00Comments on dangerous idea: Speech and service: why the racist comparison doesn't workVictor Repperthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/10962948073162156902noreply@blogger.comBlogger49125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-57828656276905114372015-11-28T16:00:54.129-07:002015-11-28T16:00:54.129-07:00Cal Metzger: Thus, putting that argument forward i...Cal Metzger: <i>Thus, putting that argument forward in favor of your belief (the truthfulness and intellectual validity of Christianity)</i><br /><br />But that is not what it's an argument for, obviously, and of course Victor never claimed or even suggested that it was. It's only part of a different argument, and even if — despite numerous postings of his that clearly disqualify such an interpretation — you assumed that was what he meant, what it actually might amount to would be some sort of fallacy of authority.<br /><br /><i>I have just pointed out that what you think (according to you, not my imagination) is in conflict with what you have done here.</i><br /><br />And again, not only does that not follow from what I said, it doesn't even follow from what you said. To draw such a conclusion you have to ignore the reasons I've given, and ignore the very point I corrected you on in the last post, and invent a premise that I can never do anything that isn't arguing for — oh, you know, instead of getting perplexed at how you can commit such elementary logical errors, I should remember that you seem to think ridicule is more effective than reason, so the more charitable reading is not that you cannot reason logically, but that you aren't trying to. So go ahead and have the last word, you can fill it with as much irrational snark as you like.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-53479551163786496322015-11-23T11:46:02.224-07:002015-11-23T11:46:02.224-07:00Green: "Oh, so I was right: it was an imagina...Green: "Oh, so I was right: it was an imaginary response not to what Victor said, but about what someone somewhere hypothetically could be imagined saying."<br /><br />No. Victor wrote (I did not imagine this, and you can check for yourself above): "The leading figures in these fields have given serious consideration to their beliefs, and have defended them in detail, in print."<br /><br />As I pointed out, Victor's statement can easily be lampooned as one of many cases of special pleading, because people giving serious consideration to a belief (even in print!) is hardly something that we'd all accept as sufficient demonstration. Thus, putting that argument forward in favor of your belief (the truthfulness and intellectual validity of Christianity) is an example of special pleading because Victor et al. wouldn't accept this same argument for Islam, e.g. <br /><br />See? No imagination necessary. No hypothetical required. Simple, old fashioned reading comprehension, based on the discussion following this post and some background knowledge. And yet you appear so eager to pick a fight that you'd rather be shown to be obviously wrong, over and over like this, rather than admit that you just look kind of foolish.<br /><br />Green: "That would only follow if I thought that some mild sarcasm would make you change your mind and that that would be a good thing. So the only thing that has to give is your imagining that I think that."<br /><br />But I don't have to imagine what you think; you already told me what you think. You wrote: "Personally, I prefer to rely on facts and reason to change someone’s mind instead of bullying."<br /><br />I have just pointed out that what you think (according to you, not my imagination) is in conflict with what you have done here.<br /><br />Ball yourself up much?<br /><br />Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09268824070081295206noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-82027131734767312015-11-23T11:10:41.239-07:002015-11-23T11:10:41.239-07:00Cal Metzger:not what I meant to convey -- that the...Cal Metzger:<i>not what I meant to convey -- that the ellipsis could be filled with the usual suspects of special pleading offered by apologists</i><br /><br />Oh, so I was right: it was an imaginary response not to what Victor said, but about what someone somewhere hypothetically could be imagined saying.<br /><br /><i>you have appeared here with a snide and condescending tone at the same time you want to lecture me on the ineffectiveness of using a snide and condescending tone. Um, something's gotta give.</i><br /><br />That would only follow if I thought that some mild sarcasm would make you change your mind and that that would be a good thing. So the only thing that has to give is your imagining that I think that.<br /><br /><i>it appears you would rather feign a superior understanding as a means of diverting attention away from the facts.</i><br /><br />Since I am familiar with the story, I don't know what I'm supposed to be feigning, but trying to ignore the facts is the anti-intellectual position I was disdaining.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-52446185368171756242015-11-16T07:58:50.968-07:002015-11-16T07:58:50.968-07:00Cal Metzger: I think you may be unable to imagine ...Cal Metzger: I think you may be unable to imagine the many ways that ellipsis is often filled in.<br />Green: "Ah, it was an imaginary retort. Gotcha."<br /><br />Close. You said that you didn't think I knew what special pleading meant. In order to think that, you had to fill in the ellipsis with what you imagined (not what I meant to convey -- that the ellipsis could be filled with the usual suspects of special pleading offered by apologists). So, it was your "gotcha" that was imagined. <br /><br />Cal Metzger: "That sounds good. But it's not really true."<br />Green: "I think I have a better idea than you whether I prefer reason to bullying, so yes, it is true. Nobody said people don’t sometimes adopt beliefs for other reasons, but unless you think the ends justify the means that doesn’t defend bullying."<br /><br />I took your earlier comment to mean that you thought ridicule was largely ineffective, and that facts are reasoning are all that is needed to persuade. I pointed out that this is often not true. <br /><br />One thing I think is rather funny about your comment above (et al.) is that you have appeared here with a snide and condescending tone at the same time you want to lecture me on the ineffectiveness of using a snide and condescending tone. Um, something's gotta give. Could it be that you don't really agree with the strict approach you're insisting is all that is needed? <br /><br />Green: "Green: "I think you may be unfamiliar with what [The Emperor's New Clothes] was about."<br />Metzger: "This is quite rich."<br />Green: "No, but it struck me it fit the pattern of those who like to criticise (or bully) without understanding that which they criticise."<br /><br />My retort pointed out that, like the comment of Victor's I parodied, it appears you would rather feign a superior understanding as a means of diverting attention away from the facts. You have done nothing here to make me think otherwise. <br /><br />Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09268824070081295206noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-8631156252399756742015-11-15T00:32:39.881-07:002015-11-15T00:32:39.881-07:00Hugo Pelland: The politeness hides a view that'...Hugo Pelland: <i>The politeness hides a view that's really damaging to gay couples in a real meaningful, and legal, way.</i><br /><br />Interpersonal relationships are more important than you seem to think. I also note that you consider merely holding a <i>view</i> “damaging”, whereas actually <i>imposing</i> the opposite position supposedly no effects (which was already pointed out to be false). <br /><br /><i>yet it is the only argument that opponents to SSM have.</i><br /><br />That’s blatantly false — you yourself have repeatedly given a different argument that you think they use, even though it is just as false. (Nobody ever offered “Because I don’t like it” as the reason.) <br /><br /><i>yes the law needed to be 'fixed' because it included the notion of 'gender' in its definition, for no reason.</i><br /><br />You can’t get “fixing” out of that, and I’ve already pointed out that of course there is a reason: matrimony inherently is related to having children — it’s right there in the name <i>matri</i>mony, from the Latin <i>mater</i>, “mother”. The ancient Greeks and Romans had various legal duties related to raising families. An inability to have children did rule out marriage in the Church, and still does. (On a technicality, a small number of couples only discover after the fact that they may not be able to bear children, but you couldn’t tell that by looking at them. You can tell that two people of the same sex cannot bear children just by looking at them.) And did you ever hear of that little fuss with Henry VIII? “Consummating a marriage” was not only necessary by Church law but by civil law. We’re not talking about whether you like the facts or not, this is just simple history.<br /><br /><i>The legal aspects of marriage, under the law, have nothing to do with culture, even if it is indeed a consequence of the cultural/religious/personal practice known as 'marriage’. Honestly, a lot of issues would have never been raised if the government were to use different words</i><br /><br />Of course law has to do with culture, it is not an arbitrary free-floating imposition of power. Or at least, it didn’t use to be. But despite being so unlike marriage, certain people are for some strange reason dead-set on calling this new thing “marriage” anyway. <br /><br /><i>Their sexual orientation is not normal; just like being left handed is not normal. I don't think 'defective' is the right word in either case, for the same reason. </i><br /><br />You are apparently using “normal” to mean “statistically prevalent”, but infertile couples are not merely a minority, they are broken in some way. They are lacking the ability to do something that healthy adults males and females should be able to do. “Defective” is exactly the right word, from Latin <i>de + facio</i>, “to do”, meaning there’s something they cannot do. Some couples even spend tremendous amounts of money seeking medical help to remedy their lack. It’s a flaw, a deficiency, and you said same-sex couples are “just like” them, so what is their flaw, their deficiency?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-27309671747492945222015-11-15T00:27:50.517-07:002015-11-15T00:27:50.517-07:00Cal Metzger: I think you may be unable to imagine ...Cal Metzger: <i>I think you may be unable to imagine the many ways that ellipsis is often filled in.</i><br /><br />Ah, it was an <i>imaginary</i> retort. Gotcha.<br /><br /><i>That sounds good. But it's not really true.</i><br /><br />I think I have a better idea than you whether I prefer reason to bullying, so yes, it is true. Nobody said people don’t sometimes adopt beliefs for other reasons, but unless you think the ends justify the means that doesn’t defend bullying.<br /><br /><i>This is quite rich.</i><br /><br />No, but it struck me it fit the pattern of those who like to criticise (or bully) without understanding that which they criticise.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-81203611571884440962015-11-11T13:02:17.302-07:002015-11-11T13:02:17.302-07:00" Of course there is an effect, unless you me..."<i> Of course there is an effect, unless you mean to exclude those people from society completely. </i>"<br />What's the effect on heterosexual couples? How are they excluded from anything by including more people under marriage laws?<br /><br />"<i>But it’s really interesting that you say the law was “fixed”, which entails that there is a way it is supposed to be, a certain “natural state” it ought to live up to. This is of course just what traditional advocates claim, whereas you have been defending the view that it should be arbitrarily left up to individuals.</i>"<br />This has nothing to do with my comments so I am not sure if we simply disagree, or if you misunderstood my position. I explained in great details why the law was wrong in another thread on this blog, so it's getting a bit tiring to repeat... but, in short, yes the law needed to be 'fixed' because it included the notion of 'gender' in its definition, for no reason.<br /><br />"<i> Cultural acceptance of a phenomenon has never been perfectly in synch with the law<br />That isn’t the argument.</i>"<br />Exactly my point! It is not an argument, yet it is the only argument that opponents to SSM have. There is no cultural-neutral definition of marriage that would work, under the law, with gender being specified. It's only because of the cultural attachment to man-woman marriage that SSM opponents want their cultural definition to be used instead of a fair gender-neutral, cultural-neutral, definition for 2-people legal contracts.<br /><br />"<i> Er, I can guarantee that any children wherever they are were had in the “traditional” way: a male father who begot the child, and a female mother who bore it. This is consensus-science here, all the biologists agree.</i>"<br />Again, you missed the point I think, and it's another thing we discussed at length recently... heterosexual couples are not asked to produce proof of fertility being getting married, nor do they need to promise to have children. Therefore, including references to children is meaningless. Both hetero and homo-sexual couples can have a family with children through adoption, regardless of them being married.<br /><br />"<i>Perhaps you can finally be the one to tell me: what’s defective about the same-sex couple?</i>"<br />Their sexual orientation is not normal; just like being left handed is not normal. I don't think 'defective' is the right word in either case, for the same reason.World of Factshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11066732051794158264noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-27149527951684270162015-11-11T13:02:05.182-07:002015-11-11T13:02:05.182-07:00Mr. Green,
" Pelland: The law has nothing to ...Mr. Green,<br />"<i> Pelland: The law has nothing to do with the culture in this case.<br />Sure, that’s the problem: the “redefined” law has become unmoored from the culture that gives it meaning in the first place</i>"<br />It's not a problem; it's a fact related to the situation. The legal aspects of marriage, under the law, have nothing to do with culture, even if it is indeed a consequence of the cultural/religious/personal practice known as 'marriage'. Honestly, a lot of issues would have never been raised if the government were to use different words such as 'civil union', or '2-person life-sharing contract', and never mentioned 'marriage' anywhere...<br /><br />"<i> "You are still free to yell 'fags!' at a gay couple [etc.]"<br />Curious that your immediate reaction is to portray anyone who might disagree with you in such a negative way. I hope that you are simply trying to be a smart-aleck and that isn’t how you really view the world</i>"<br />I don't think you got the point; my views are both more positive and more negative than you might think. Let me explain:<br />- In theory, we could have 'Person A' who hates gays and yell 'fags!' at them, but still think their legal rights should be equal. - And most people, let's say 'Person B' group, who disagree with same-sex marriage say that they don't hate them, would never yell 'fags!'; they just don't agree with the government sanctioning their unions.<br /><br />Therefore, my view is that 'Person B' is actually much worse than hypothetical 'Person A'. The politeness hides a view that's really damaging to gay couples in a real meaningful, and legal, way. So yes, I absolutely do portrait anyone who disagrees with me on this legal issue very negatively, more than you probably thought. But I also recognize that, in reality, people who yell 'fags!' are also against same-sex marriage and, thankfully, not a majority of the anti-SSM crowd. Most people are polite and have genuinely good intentions; but I still see their position as completely irrational, damaging to others, and thus much worse than someone who would just yell insults, but without caring about the legal aspects.World of Factshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11066732051794158264noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-65394730420085904132015-11-11T07:23:17.776-07:002015-11-11T07:23:17.776-07:00Cal Metzger: "Demanding that others treat the...Cal Metzger: "Demanding that others treat them not marginalize them because.... is special pleading."<br />Green: "I think you may be unfamiliar with what “special pleading” means."<br /><br />I think you may be unable to imagine the many ways that ellipsis is often filled in.<br /><br />Me: "Ridiculing ideas is highly effective -- it is one of the more efficient ways to get people to abandon harmful and unfounded ideas."<br />Green: "Not really. Sometimes it works, for some people; and it doesn’t distinguish between “unfounded” ideas and good ones. Personally, I prefer to rely on facts and reason to change someone’s mind instead of bullying."<br /><br />That sounds good. But it's not really true. For one, facts and reasons are very often not enough to get someone to abandon false beliefs, and that's because (surprise!) people often adopt beliefs for reasons other than facts and reasoning. They also adopt false beliefs for social reasons. And ridicule can serve a valuable purpose by stripping away the social benefits that are otherwise the only thing supporting a false belief. <br /><br />Me: "The leading fashion designers in their fields have given serious consideration to the emperor's clothes, and have defended them in detail, in print."<br />Green: "I think you may be unfamiliar with what the actual story was about."<br /><br />This is quite rich.<br /><br />Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09268824070081295206noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-83857655028663040692015-11-11T06:09:12.663-07:002015-11-11T06:09:12.663-07:00Cal Metzger: Demanding that others treat them not ...Cal Metzger: <i>Demanding that others treat them not marginalize them because.... is special pleading.</i><br /><br />I think you may be unfamiliar with what “special pleading” means.<br /><br /><i>Ridiculing ideas is highly effective -- it is one of the more efficient ways to get people to abandon harmful and unfounded ideas.</i><br /><br />Not really. Sometimes it works, for some people; and it doesn’t distinguish between “unfounded” ideas and good ones. Personally, I prefer to rely on facts and reason to change someone’s mind instead of bullying.<br /><br /><i>The leading fashion designers in their fields have given serious consideration to the emperor's clothes, and have defended them in detail, in print.</i><br /><br />I think you may be unfamiliar with what the actual story was about.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-66579099145141289242015-11-11T06:02:07.924-07:002015-11-11T06:02:07.924-07:00Pelland: The law has nothing to do with the cultur...Pelland: <i>The law has nothing to do with the culture in this case.</i><br /><br />Sure, that’s the problem: the “redefined” law has become unmoored from the culture that gives it meaning in the first place. A mere fiat of “might makes right”.<br /><br /><i>You are still free to yell 'fags!' at a gay couple [etc.]</i><br /><br />Curious that your immediate reaction is to portray anyone who might disagree with you in such a negative way. I hope that you are simply trying to be a smart-aleck and that isn’t how you really view the world.<br /><br /><i>The law was fixed so that gay couples are not disadvantaged by specifying the gender of the 2 people involved in a legal contract. There is no impact on heterosexual couples who were already equal under the law, regardless of their race, age, religion, intention to have kids, etc…</i><br /><br />Of course there is an effect, unless you mean to exclude those people from society completely. But it’s really interesting that you say the law was “fixed”, which entails that there is a way it is <i>supposed</i> to be, a certain “natural state” it ought to live up to. This is of course just what traditional advocates claim, whereas you have been defending the view that it should be arbitrarily left up to individuals.<br /><br /><i>Cultural acceptance of a phenomenon has never been perfectly in synch with the law</i><br /><br />That isn’t the argument.<br /><br /><br /><i>how each type of couple can have children; but both can, and not all heterosexual couples can have them the traditional way</i><br /><br />Er, I can guarantee that any children wherever they are were had in the “traditional” way: a male father who begot the child, and a female mother who bore it. This is consensus-science here, all the biologists agree.<br /><br /><i>so they are just like gay couples in such case.</i><br /><br />“Just like”? Well, when a man and a woman cannot produce children, it means something is wrong with one or both of them. Some disease or injury or deformity, something that impairs the ability of normal healthy adult humans to engage in reproduction, whatever the cause may be. I’ve heard people make the claim that a same-sex couple is “just like” the dysfunctional two-sex couple, but nobody can ever tell me what’s wrong with the former. If they are “just the same”, then they must also be damaged or disordered in some way too. Perhaps you can finally be the one to tell me: what’s defective about the same-sex couple?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-30550742934975819622015-11-08T13:50:57.322-07:002015-11-08T13:50:57.322-07:00Green said:
"it’s a cultural and societal mat...Green said:<br />"<i>it’s a cultural and societal matter, so by its very nature it affects everyone who is part of society. (Here’s a hint: you don’t need to make a federal case, literally, over something that “has no effect on anyone else”. We don’t pass (or arbitrarily “redefine”) laws for things that have no effect on anyone.)"</i><br /><br />The law has nothing to do with the culture in this case. You are still free to yell 'fags!' at a gay couple holding hands, or stop talking to a relative you used to like but found out was gay. Others are free to throw insults back at you for your ignorant intolerant views.<br /><br />The law was fixed so that gay couples are not disadvantaged by specifying the gender of the 2 people involved in a legal contract. There is no impact on heterosexual couples who were already equal under the law, regardless of their race, age, religion, intention to have kids, etc...<br /><br />Cultural acceptance of a phenomenon has never been perfectly in synch with the law, be it women's rights, gay rights, civil (race) rights, animal rights, children'a rights, etc... so the SCOTUS decidinin this case is no different. And again, any wrongful persecution of homophobic Christians is outside of the law.World of Factshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11066732051794158264noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-60241228045516634632015-11-08T09:45:18.948-07:002015-11-08T09:45:18.948-07:00Victor Reppert: But the traditional view says that...Victor Reppert: <i>But the traditional view says that same-sex couples violate a divine command. </i><br /><br />No, the traditional view says that it violates a <i><b>natural</b></i> “command”. Crude already said that, but it’s worth repeating because this is a fundamental misunderstanding in what marriage is all about. The idea that’s been foisted on us that somehow marriage is something floating free of human <b>nature</b> of course undermines any possibility of defending it. And leads to the anti-science nonsense about two men or two women being “just like” the pairing of a man and a woman. <br /><br /><br />Crude: <i>The idea that 'same-sex marriage only affects the married couple' was never true.</i><br /><br />Of course; and we don’t even need to go as far as the persecution to see that. As you just pointed out, it’s a cultural and societal matter, so by its very nature it affects everyone who is part of society. (Here’s a hint: you don’t need to make a federal case, literally, over something that “has no effect on anyone else”. We don’t pass (or arbitrarily “redefine”) laws for things that have no effect on anyone.)Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-64720738272078988672015-11-08T07:24:34.218-07:002015-11-08T07:24:34.218-07:00Reppert; "I don't see anything wrong with...Reppert; "I don't see anything wrong with criticizing my religious views. Trying to marginalize them, that's another matter."<br /><br />But your religious beliefs are ridiculous. Demanding that others treat them not marginalize them because.... is special pleading. No thank you.<br /><br />Reppert: "I think Dawkins has the right to ridicule my belief if he wants to."<br /><br />I agree.<br /><br />Reppert: "If Phil Robertson wants to ridicule gays, he has the right to."<br /><br />I think people are worthy of respect. Ideas are fair game. Do you disagree?<br /><br />Reppert: "It doesn't mean that either action is socially productive."<br /><br />Ridiculing ideas is highly effective -- it is one of the more efficient ways to get people to abandon harmful and unfounded ideas. Ridiculing people just makes you look like an asshat.<br /><br /> Reppert: "The leading figures in these fields have given serious consideration to their beliefs, and have defended them in detail, in print."<br /><br />The leading fashion designers in their fields have given serious consideration to the emperor's clothes, and have defended them in detail, in print.<br /><br /><br /><br /><br />Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09268824070081295206noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-38062753324536053222015-11-07T23:53:00.336-07:002015-11-07T23:53:00.336-07:00The leading figures in these fields have given ser...The leading figures in these fields have given serious consideration to their beliefs, and have defended them in detail, in print. Victor Repperthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10962948073162156902noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-83664565270604321312015-11-07T23:51:36.936-07:002015-11-07T23:51:36.936-07:00I think Dawkins has the right to ridicule my belie...I think Dawkins has the right to ridicule my belief if he wants to. If Phil Robertson wants to ridicule gays, he has the right to. It doesn't mean that either action is socially productive. Victor Repperthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10962948073162156902noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-77456293029991798222015-11-07T20:10:38.813-07:002015-11-07T20:10:38.813-07:00Well, they are marginalized, and should be. Your r...Well, they are marginalized, and should be. Your religious views are completely insignificant when it comes to addressing the real world we live in. If I am in front of a Hindu, a Jew, a Christian, a Muslim and an Atheist, why on Earth would I care about any specifics of their religion, or lack thereof, if we were to discus something, anything actually, except the religion itself or some specific demand because of the religion?World of Factshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11066732051794158264noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-43944686607692516612015-11-07T20:01:54.178-07:002015-11-07T20:01:54.178-07:00I don't see anything wrong with criticizing my...I don't see anything wrong with criticizing my religious views. Trying to marginalize them, that's another matter. Victor Repperthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10962948073162156902noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-39980712793147688752015-11-07T20:01:42.846-07:002015-11-07T20:01:42.846-07:00Reppert: "You can tell me that the deity I wo...Reppert: "You can tell me that the deity I worship is "the most unpleasant character in all fiction: jealous and proud of it; a petty, unjust, unforgiving control-freak; a vindictive, bloodthirsty ethnic cleanser; a misogynistic, homophobic, racist, infanticidal, genocidal, filicidal, pestilential, megalomaniacal, sadomasochistic, capriciously malevolent bully.” and that's not hate speech."<br /><br />Whatever hate speech is, that's not prohibited. Nor should it be. If you think that your religious beliefs need to be protected from (deserved, in this case) ridicule, then you align yourself with totalitarian regimes and the likes of ISIS. Is that the crowd you want to stand with? <br /><br />Reppert: "You can say that biology instructors who teach intelligent design should be fired from their jobs."<br /><br />Um, yeah. Because if your job is to teach biology, intelligent design has no place. Neither does, alchemy, or astrology, or scientology. But you think it does, because, Religion!<br /><br />Reppert: "But we have to punish people who won't do wedding photographers for a gay wedding when the couple can go right across the street and find a photographer who will?"<br /><br />This is like saying, "But we have to punish people who won't pay their taxes when the society can go right across the street and demand taxes from someone who will?"<br /><br />Reppert: "I think we are in trouble if we think that we can infer from the fact that someone holds a view based on a religious conviction, it must therefore be an uncritical and irrational belief, and therefore we have the right to deputize the government to punish you if you try to act on it."<br /><br />Stop being so histrionic. The problem isn't that belief is based on a religious conviction. The problem is beliefs that have no support outside religion. If you want to be taken seriously in our modern society, make your case, but stop whining about your religion needing special privileges, and defend it like the rest of us defend our beliefs. <br /><br /><br /> <br /><br />Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09268824070081295206noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-47783677764268452262015-11-07T19:20:07.960-07:002015-11-07T19:20:07.960-07:00"But, oh, that's not enough. We have to p..."<i>But, oh, that's not enough. We have to protect gay people from anyone expressing openly the idea that they might not be doing the right thing before God</i>"<br />Things are not always 'black or white'. With LGBT rights we have at least 3 categories, probably more: (1) anti-LGBT-rights (always religious?), (2) PC-pro-LGBT and (3) non-PC-pro-LGBT. The 'PC' crowd is what you are having an issue with; they took the next steps after gay marriage rights to try to silence opponents in the name of political correctness, they are the ones who want safe space on campus and cause the "<a href="http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2015/09/the-coddling-of-the-american-mind/399356/" rel="nofollow">coddling of the American mind</a>". Non-PC don't give a fuck about what you think; just don't try to impose your views on others, and if you think you have something that everyone should adhere to, you better have good reasons to defend that idea other than 'my religious doctrine says so'.<br /><br />"<i>You can tell me that the deity I worship is "[...]” and that's not hate speech.</i>"<br />Of course it's not, regardless of the content of the [...] which was too long to quote anyway. Hate speech would be to incite violence against you, personally or as a group, because of your beliefs. Makes me wonder whether you think that this 'could' be seen as hate speech?<br /><br />"<i>You can say that biology instructors who teach intelligent design should be fired from their jobs</i>"<br />Yes, they should; science classes are for science. If they believe in it but don't teach it, different story.<br /><br />"<i>But we have to punish people who won't do wedding photographers for a gay wedding when the couple can go right across the street and find a photographer who will?</i>"<br />It's stupid to punish people for that, yes, but most of us also don't want to live in a society where the majority can constantly bully minorities. There is no perfect way to balance these 2 things. Again, it's not all black and white. Only religions teach that this is how things work...World of Factshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11066732051794158264noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-43606506748870855952015-11-07T19:19:54.437-07:002015-11-07T19:19:54.437-07:00Victor said:
"someone holds a view based on a...Victor said:<br />"<i>someone holds a view based on a religious conviction, it must therefore be an uncritical and irrational belief...</i>"<br />Not always, that's true. Religious convictions range from the most benign to the most serious, and from the undisputable to the easily rejected.<br /><br />"<i>...and therefore we have the right to deputize the government to punish you if you try to act on it.</i>"<br />Again, not always, that's true, but some convictions do lead to actions that should be punish, regardless of the religious connotation.<br /><br />"<i>This kind of "mind-virus" thinking concerning one's opponents is precisely what is going to turn the atheist movement in a totalitarian direction.</i>"<br />No link between these 2 things. There is definitely a form of "mind-virus" that infects the religious crowd, again with different level of implications, from crazy brain-washed sects who commit mass suicide with their children, to benign "mind-virus" beliefs that people hold as true since childhood despite the evidence.<br /><br />"<i>well-intentioned anti-religious philosophies have produced the worst forms of totalitarianism</i>"<br />Absolutely, just like well-intentioned religious philosophies tear families, or entire societies, apart. This has no influence on the truths of the protagonists' beliefs.<br /><br />"<i>...who are serious, orthodox Christians. These are people who think very hard about these issues, and come out where they come out.</i>"<br />It does not mean they think 'very hard' about the religious issues though. Look at people like Ben Carson and his ridiculous views on Evolution, Pyramids, Homosexuality... A great example of a smart brain surgeon being completely stupid on other issues.<br /><br />"<i>They are not going away, and they are not going to go away in response to anti-Christian bullying.</i>"<br />Bullying 'people' is certainly wrong, but we also hear whining about bullying of "ideas", which is a completely different thing. Christians have no intrinsic right to not be criticized for what they believe.World of Factshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11066732051794158264noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-84540569413546764442015-11-07T18:12:19.853-07:002015-11-07T18:12:19.853-07:00I think we are in trouble if we think that we can ...I think we are in trouble if we think that we can infer from the fact that someone holds a view based on a religious conviction, it must therefore be an uncritical and irrational belief, and therefore we have the right to deputize the government to punish you if you try to act on it. This kind of "mind-virus" thinking concerning one's opponents is precisely what is going to turn the atheist movement in a totalitarian direction. I'm not going to argue that atheism always leads to totalitarianism, but well-intentioned anti-religious philosophies have produced the worst forms of totalitarianism the world has ever seen. How does this happen? It happens because people think there is a right answer to the world's problems, and to get us to the end, any means is justified. <br /><br />The simple fact is that there are people at the top of every major academic field, from theoretical physics, to evolutionary biology, to philosophy, who are serious, orthodox Christians. These are people who think very hard about these issues, and come out where they come out. They are not going away, and they are not going to go away in response to anti-Christian bullying. Simplistic ways of explaining them away won't wash. If they are mistaken, the explanation for their error is more complex than the simplistic answers I am used to (and tired of hearing) from atheists.<br /><br />Religious freedom is foundational to our country. People are going to disagree about religion, and we have to find a way to deal with it. Gay marriage? Maybe. But, oh, that's not enough. We have to protect gay people from anyone expressing openly the idea that they might not be doing the right thing before God, and therefore they are unable to produce speech congratulating them for doing what they are doing. <br /><br />You can tell me that the deity I worship is "the most unpleasant character in all fiction: jealous and proud of it; a petty, unjust, unforgiving control-freak; a vindictive, bloodthirsty ethnic cleanser; a misogynistic, homophobic, racist, infanticidal, genocidal, filicidal, pestilential, megalomaniacal, sadomasochistic, capriciously malevolent bully.” and that's not hate speech. You can say that biology instructors who teach intelligent design should be fired from their jobs. But we have to punish people who won't do wedding photographers for a gay wedding when the couple can go right across the street and find a photographer who will? Ohhh, that's discrimination, you're just like George Wallace and Lester Maddox. <br /><br />You're kidding. No? Victor Repperthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10962948073162156902noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-80731437325302447712015-11-07T17:11:51.962-07:002015-11-07T17:11:51.962-07:00Great, I am glad to hear you do adjust your views!...Great, I am glad to hear you do adjust your views! ...even if it's in the wrong direction.<br />I will adjust mine, regarding not questioning your doctrine, and move on.World of Factshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11066732051794158264noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-86687636224386300562015-11-07T17:03:45.731-07:002015-11-07T17:03:45.731-07:00"You [check out your thinking abilities] when..."<i>You [check out your thinking abilities] when you write ridiculous things such as "sanctity of life from conception"</i>"<br /><br />That statement just shows how unquestionably <i>you</i> assume things without investigating them. Crude and other long-time contributors to this site can testify that did not always hold to this view. In fact, for years, far from "unquestionably" adhering to some doctrine, I actively resisted this particular teaching, and even argued against it. (The internet, being eternal, still retains those long-repudiated comments.) It is precisely due to my questioning of the pro-abortion beliefs which I had practically unconsciously absorbed in my youth, and my long and diligent investigation of the issue (listening to and sympathizing with all sides of the debate), that I am now able to affirm the humanity of the pre-born child from the first moments of its existence.<br /><br />Hmm... That seems to me to be the very <i>opposite</i> of "unquestioning". No, you can't pin this one on "existing doctrine".<br /><br /><i>Jezu ufam tobie!</i>B. Prokophttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10548980245078214688noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-47777101864982366102015-11-07T16:34:05.669-07:002015-11-07T16:34:05.669-07:00Right, as if everything was questionable... what a...Right, as if <b>everything</b> was questionable... what a caricature of reality you have in your mind. And yes, they certainly check out their thinking abilities when it comes to certain topics. You do so when you write ridiculous things such as "sanctity of life from conception" which flies in the face of what we know about human reproduction, precisely because of your existing doctrine.World of Factshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11066732051794158264noreply@blogger.com