Unfortunately, your post indicates that you either completely missed my point or simply prefer to dally in sophistry. Best of luck in either case.
That is right,. I don’t care what you think. I thought in a now, 8 page thread, you and others might want to restate your position for clarity since there is a lot of side crap going on for pages and pages.
But you’d rather hold a grudge than do that.
I understand.
Again, it is your belief. Just like various religions believe theirs is the true way, others believe otherwise. No religion is bound on everyone, and no ethics is bound on everyone, despite the internal beliefs of either system.
The answer to the OP is no, despite whatever one or 10,000 ethics systems and their adherents believe about their favored system.
QED.
By what ethical system that she was bound to?
OK so you feel we are all bound by an ethical system that supports beating someone to death because someone is squicked out by what they willingly did sexually. In such a case, a person gets to be judge jury and executioner, and everyone alive ought to know that everyone else can do that if they later feel squickiness and regret? How long does this last after the event in question? for a lifetime? This is your ethics and you think the world agrees with it?
It is only nonsensical if you are close minded. Maybe I was not entirely clear what the sex acts were because I don’t care to describe them in detail here. But let me try to move a little close in case you or others didn’t get it - they did not require intercourse or access to her genitals. This happened on many separate occasions, and presumably the men performed willingly and left, er, satisfied.
Y’know, forget it. No apology, no more dialog.
[/QUOTE]
You might want to double check my gender before calling me “honey”. Either it is patronizing, or ignorant, or both. If you are not sure, than just refer to me by name.
So rather than clarify yourself, you are just going to toss zingers?
I didn’t miss your point.
The thing to remember here is that it’s not about whether the prejudice is common or the majority opinion - that fact can certainly make the transsexual’s life hell, but it’s not really the reason why the transsexual is obliged to ‘reveal or retreat’ prior to engaging in intimacy. (Though it is relevent in wether the transsexual should reasonably be expected to deduce that the issue in question is likely to be a problem issue.)
The real reason is something more akin to why it’s not appropriate to play loud rock music in the middle of some church’s prayer service, despite there being nothing inherently wrong with rock music. The prayer service is a non-public personal non-harmful activity that the religious folk are trying to engage in in their own private space, and they have a right to exert a certain amount of control over the things that happen in their private space. This is true even if it is ignorant, irrational, or even bigoted to want an absence of loud rock music.
Similarly, a person has the right to exert a certain amount of control over the sort of people they have sex with. We don’t force gay people to have sex with members of the opposite gender, we don’t force straight people to have sex with members of the same gender. We don’t force people to have sex with people they deem ugly or unattractive (despite that being a terrifically predjudiced stance for them to take). And, for identical reasons, I don’t feel it’s ethical to force, or trick, people into having sex with transgendered people if they don’t want to.
Now, you state that bigotry against transsexuals is unethical itself. If you’re extending that to defining selectivity in sexual partners as bigotry, I’m not sure I agree - I think it’s unethical to be rude or demeaning to ugly people just because of their appearance, but I don’t think you’re ethically obliged to sleep with them!
But even supposing, for the sake of argument, that it is bigotry to refrain from screwing every transsexual that offers themselves - what is the response you’re proposing? To bypass their right to make informed decisions about those they have sex with? To trick them into coitious? As punishment for meriting your label of ‘bigot’?
That’s kind of like vigilanteism, isn’t it? I mean, one person is deciding that they don’t like the opinions and preferences of another person, and so takes it upon themselves to use deception to subvert the other person’s preferences and play rock music in their church. All by themselves, judge, jury, and executioner.
I’m suddenly reminded of the urban legend of the guy who is willingly led off by an attractive woman and then wakes up in the morning to see “Welcome to the world of AIDS!!” in lipstick on the mirror.
Vigilanteism can be satisfying, sure. But is it ethical?
Why should a jew care if I feed them pork? Why should a christian care if I crank up the death metal in the middle of their sacrament? Why should a person care if their blind date weighs five hundred pounds?
By my reckoning, you’re not the preference police, and don’t really have the right to tell people whether or not they’re allowed to prefer the vaginas they diddle to be to still have their warranty from the original factory. It’s up to the person to decide wether they want to say “no” - or wether they would say no if they weren’t being led in unawares.
You are still of track here.
the issue is that there was a courtship, whatever that entails, by both people. Maybe it is one night in a bar, maybe it is 6 months dating, who knows?
It doesn’t matter though how long. It is all mutually consensual to that point.
You are suggesting that even though it is mutually consensual, one party is deceiving the other.
What you don’t get as being the flaw in your logic is that you assign the deception to one party despite the mutual consent. That party has just as much right to expect that the other party is sincere in their mutual consent as the other party does.
Since the consent is mutual, each party is responsible for watching after their own interests, no more, no less.
And ethics still has nothing to do with it, but that is the flaw in your (and others) logic. Well, one of the flaws anyway, one I don’t think has been addressed yet.
No.
And “kind of like” is not the same as “is”.
You want to see a vigilante? Look at Andrade. Look at Arajo’s killers. They all presented your arguments in courts in their own defense.
You mentioned earlier inthe thread that you didn’t think you have evr met any homosexuals. I was skeptical at the time, but after reading you go on and on about this, I am inclined to believe you when you say that about yourself.
But since you are in Idaho, and you attribute your lack of meeting homosexuals to your agoraphobia, presumably you don’t meet many people at all, and there is a low proportion of “jews” there compared to some other states, have you met many “jews”?
Because if you did, I think you would know that most “jews” eat pork and would welcome any meal you care to share.
Of those who keep kosher, they are well aware that being unaware of the “kosherness” that they couldn’t control is not a violation.
Yeah you are staying on topic here.
Again, talk about Gwen Arajo. Her killers asked for and received sex from her multiple times that did not involve her genitals. They were simply not interested in her genitals, so there was nothing to be unaware of. They were interested in the parts that they used, consensually, multiple times.
Where was the deceit if they got what they were after and enjoyed it sufficiently?
Sorry not_alice, I am not going to be informed by you that I don’t comprehend the words of your posts again, and I am not going to be told by you that I am “interpreting” them dishonestly again. And because I can’t possibly respond to your words without quoting and interpreting them (at least enough to upload them into my cognitive state), it is now impossible for me to respond to the contents of your posts.
Perhaps if any of your points have merit, somebody else will respond with something similar, and I can respond to them.
(Note, any mods that swing by, I am not putting him on an ignore list, and am not saying that I am. I am just not going to play that stupid “I don’t like what you’re saying about my position so you can’t say it” game anymore.)
Kind of exactly, yes.
It depends, doesn’t it? On what you’re being a vigilante about. Or does your ethical standard say something like “always follow the law/social code/orders no matter what?”
As it happens it doesn’t. It’s more like “Follow the law/social code/orders unless either 1) the specific thing you are opposing is egregious enough to merit direct opposition (further considerations later), or 2) You are perfectly happy with the notion of taking the ‘punishment’ if ‘caught’.” Also if you are breaking the rules for reason 1, you should still be prepared and willing to accept any punishment that may occur.
It seems that the punishment here varies, from making somebody flee while you laugh maniacally in their wake, to getting yourself beaten to death. Whether risking that is worth the satisfaction of being mean to innocent homophobes is up to you, of course. Personally I think it’s a stupid risk, but if you hold your head up high and don’t complain when they split your skull, then I’m okay with that.
Second, if you’re really going to be a vigilante to fight for justice, I figure that the only ethical way to do it is to focus on the most egregious offenders. Batman doesn’t spend is time beating the crap out of jaywalkers and litterers, after all. So in this matter you should clearly limit your activities to overt and egregious bigots who are actively hunting and/or litigating against transsexuals, and try to snooker them. If you target the harmless bigots who do nothing more bigoted than any non-bisexual person does in limiting their sexual partners, then one suspects you’re not fighting villany, you’re kicking puppies to sate your hatred and misdirected lust for vengeance.
And also, I have to wonder about the vigilante who doesn’t make sure their vigilanteism is detectable. If your point is to spread a social message of any kind and change the world for the better (that is, if you have an ethical basis for your vigilanteism), then you clearly would make sure that every person you snookered (who, recall, would all be frothing violent-style bigots), knew they’d been punked. And if that got you ripped limb from limb, then, well, you can die happy that you spread your message.
That message being that transsexuals are sneaky evil bastards who want to disgrace god-fearing heterosexual men and undermine society, and thus should be marginalized and opposed, of course.
Well, actually, you are going to be informed precisely that, because I was asking for you to clarify your own positions.
I believe that is what you called “debate” earlier.
But it looks like you didn’t even understand what debate is.
Note the topic of the forum is “Great Debates” not “Great Assertions”.
I guess I didn’t comprehend your post then, because I didn’t see a single request for clarification. I saw rebuttals of various sorts. But not one single request for clarification. Not one.
But then again, I probably have totally misinterpreted the post I am currently responding to, and you probably never actually said that you were “asking for [me] to clarify [my] own positions”. It was probably a dissertation about garden implements or something - I really have no way to know without interpreting it, which I am clearly incapable of doing.
Enough,
Closed.
[ /Moderating ]