wring, I agree that stating a disapproval of something is an action. I contend, however, that it is a pretty harmless action. As opposed to voting to ban the thing one disapproves of, or voting to oppress those who commit the action one disapproves of, and whatnot.
Heck, people state disapproval of things all the time (disapproval of voting for GWB, disapproval of racism, etc etc etc). And that’s a perfectly normal and reasonable thing to do. Surely we aren’t so thin-skinned that it is unthinkable for person A to state his disapproval of person B. No, where the problem lies is if person A uses that disapproval to harm person B in some meaningful sense of the word. And I would suggest that merely stating disapproval does not meet that criterion.
Err - you’re welcome, I guess, although I am not sure what I demonstrated.
Perhaps because I was not particularly offended by whatever you are claiming. Aren’t cheap shots what the Pit is all about?
If you think I could have debated the issues with MrVisible, I disagree, especially based on his most recent contributions to this thread. If you would like to be Pitted, I don’t do that all that often - sorry. If you would like to Pit me, go ahead - I will even play along if you do a good enough job. Simply posting a lot of “fuckity fuck-fuck” probably won’t do it - have a go if you think you can do better.
Too funny.
Seriosuly though, MrVisible, I’m extremely pro-gay(?) and a RABID atheist, and you’re making me side with Jodi. So maybe you need to sit back and take a deep breath before posting, obviously you’re not exactly in your best possible debating mood, which is understandable. I think you’re making your cause a dis-service right now.
Are you saying that my statement of my beliefs, i.e. that Shodan is a complete fuckwit, in a public forum, might have some impact upon the world?
But surely that’s impossible. I mean, that would mean that words are, well, actions, that have consequences in the real world. If my little tirade is enough to get you to side with Jodi, then, gosh, I guess I affected your position on this issue. With words! Imagine.
If my words have consequences, then I should probably assess what I say more carefully, in order to do what I can to make sure nobody gets hurt by them. Take responsibility for my actions, so to speak.
Wow. The repercussions are amazing. If my solitary words here, on this message board, might sway you to change your beliefs about gay people, I’m sure glad that there aren’t more people expressing their opinions like I have. Heck, imagine if, say, there were hundreds of thousands of people, expressing a view which might hurt people. That’d be bad, huh?
So, anyway, I guess I’ll stop insulting Shodan. I wonder if he’ll ever see fit to do the same for millions of gay people.
Given that you’ve said yourself that your moral guideline is that one doesn’t do something if it harms another, can I then take this to mean that you actually believe that calling Shodan a fuckwit harms no one, as Jodi and I have been trying to suggest? Or should I instead conclude that you only apply your moral guideline when it’s convenient?
Jodi, of course, could answer your criticism easily, but if I may presume to speak for her: words can, obviously, change people’s beliefs. So what? Neither words nor beliefs cause real harm. Only when those words and beliefs are used to justify harmful actions is their a problem. And the fault is with those who use the words to justify immoral actions, not with those who express a moral opinion.
Thus, you can call Shodan an evil little fuckwit all day long without doing so immorally. If I decide that Shodan being an evil fuckwit means he should be executed, then we have a problem, but the problem is that I am immoral, not you. At least if you’re willing to ask me to accept the consequences of my own actions and willing to ascribe free will to me. After all, Jodi may hear those same words, decide that Shodan is a fuckwit, and yet magically refrain from having him executed.
Free will is a marvelous thing, and you appear to be under some odd misapprehension that the rest of us aren’t free to choose whether we oppress someone or not.
No, actually, I called Shodan a fuckwit, along with a whole bunch of other things, in order to insult him. To hurt his feelings. To make him realize that the content of his posts is worthy of my scorn. To make him fear my razor wit, lest it come along and shave him off, pube that he is. To have, in other words, an effect.
Of course, I was doing so in the hopes that people out there reading this might, perhaps, realize that their words have impact, and would consider carefully before condemning any group of people ever again. I made a choice, based on my assessment of which would cause the greater harm; trying my best to defend the oppressed gay people of the world and calling Shodan a pus-filled pimple of ignorance on the world’s scrotum, or shutting up and letting him fill the minds of the people of the world with his hateful rhetoric that targets millions. All I have to offer in my defense is that I target individuals, while Shodan and those like him target whole big groups of people. Oh, and of course, the fact that nobody has come along and told me that my insults to Shodan are contributing to the death and despair of millions.
Just a few posts ago, I nearly drove someone to the other side of this debate entirely. Did I beat Stoneburg? Did I threaten his home or his family? Did I infringe upon his rights?
If he had decided to become a straight supremacy advocate, would I be responsible for him doing so? He certainly thinks so:
You’re all going to an awful lot of trouble to defend your right to state beliefs that people tell you are contributing to hurting, even killing people. Let me ask you: if words have no effect on the world, if rhetoric can’t change the course of humanity at all…
What the hell are you doing here?
Why do politicians make speeches? Why do football coaches rev up their players with pep talks? Why do people pay hundreds of dollars to go listen to motivational speakers?
Words have power. Words change lives. Use them responsibly. Consider the consequences of what you say. That’s all I ask.
Maybe I shouldn’t get involved in this again, but -
I am not trying to hurt your feelings by disagreeing with you, MrVisible. But it seems you are trying to hurt mine, and not by simple disagreement either.
Do you see any irony in this statement at all?
As I said, perhaps I shouldn’t get into this again, not least because my feelings are not particularly hurt. This is the Pit, after all. If I took everything seriously that is posted here, including by myself, I would be insane or banned by now.
True statement. And if I have ever failed to live up to it, and I have, I would ask the same forgiveness that I hope to receive in return.
So then does this mean that Slander and Libel are completly without any moral consequences? If I believe that my new drug patent is 10 times more effective than asperine, and I share that belief, I don't think that is going to be without consequence. Yes I do understand the diffeence between fact and opinion but I believe the same principals appy.
I mentioned once before that my grandmother gave me a little speach about how all have sinned and come short of the glory of God, and how she didn't think my being gay was any worse than premarital sex or any of the sins that people commit on a daily basis. The more I have thought abou this, the more I realize that , Yes it is offensive that she said that. I can forgive her because I love her, and she can forgive me because I love her, but she will never look at my boyfiend the same way she would my wife if I werer to marry one, and if I were to mary my boyfiend, she would think even less of him.
I think this situation is about the best one can realisticly expect from someone who says that the love the sinner but hate the sin. Perhaps I am wrong. But I don't think so. As to stating a beleif being or not being and action- how do I say this? If your lips are moving, it is an action. Look up definition of action if you will. Again, if it wasn't an action then we could no have crimes such as libel, sedition, conspiracy, insighting a riot, etc.
Actually I was talking about your arguments and your ‘debate’ with Jodi. I just found the bit with you and Shodan a bit amusing.
And no, you’re not making me “switch sides”, because I don’t have to in order to agree with what Jodi is saying. If you calmed down and tried to understand her posts I think you would see that too.
Basically you make yourself look bad, and by that also making your stance on the issue less attractive. And the “whaa whaaa Shodan sucks whaa whaaa” isn’t really helping either.
It’s very sad to know that you do not believe in the existence of verbal or emotional abuse.
So, do you number yourself among those who blame those who are crippled by it for inflicting it upon themselves, or would you rather posit that the harm is brought about by the machinations of malevolent faeries in a way that’s merely coincidentally coinciding with the abuse?
well, sure stating a judgemental opinion is less onerous than, say drawing and quartering, too, but of course, the point was that an action is being taken, that of judgement.
I agree that some one who is disapproving of homosexuality, yet votes in favor of laws prohibiting discrimination based on homosexuality would be more ‘gay friendly’ than one who disapproved of homosexuality and voted against said laws, but again, I don’t think that’s the issue.
As for people stating their disapproval of others, well. For me, personally, one can have a conversation about the actions of others (“that guy who raped the kittens, he’s a really bad guy”), but I’m of the opinion that unless some one with whom one is having a conversation has asked for my opinion (and by the way, posting the comment on an internet board IMHO is offering up for comment), they’re generally entitled to not hear my opinion.
Right. Which makes you a hypocrite, because earlier, you said hurting people was bad, and here you are trying to hurt him. I fear you managed to miss this point, so I’ll make it explicit.
And what I’m telling you is that Shodan’s view that gay sex is immoral is not by itself doing so. What does so is people who use that view to justify the Defense of Marriage Act, and laws against homosexual sex, and that sort of thing. And those people are the ones who are causing the real harm. That most of them, presumably, share Shodan’s belief is not an indictment of the belief; the problem instead lies in the willingness to use that belief to discriminate against others. You are aiming at the wrong target.
Did he yours? No. In fact, the debate we’re having is whether expressing a moral belief is morally permissible, not over whether it’s okay to beat people, or threaten their homes and families, or infringe on their rights. So the side he went over to isn’t to the side that it’s okay to bludgeon a homosexual until he turns black and blue; it’s the side that says it’s okay to disapprove of an action and to express that disapproval. Which, of course, you are doing yourself in saying that it’s not okay to do so.
Yes, I am. Freedom of speech is worth defending. In addition, I am forced to defend the obvious, namely, that the person guilty for beating the homosexual is the person who beat the homosexual, not the person who says that he believes that sodomy is immoral. The latter may be a fuckwit, but he is not a criminal. Because, you see, trite as it may sound, beliefs do not kill people.
I just said that words can change beliefs; you persist in asuming that I would deny this point, but that just tells me that you’re not reading me carefully. Words do impact beliefs; I’m trying to impact yours. I would have thought that patently obvious.
Since I seem to have a whole raft of critics…
I realize this. In fact, a few posts back, I explicitly stated I agreed with this point. I am trying to use shorthand to differentiate between saying “I think X is wrong” and trying to make X illegal, or advocating the oppression of people who do X. I apologize if in the interests of brevity I confused you.
In light of my clarification immediately above, do slander and libel have anything to do with stating a belief that X is wrong? If not, then I hardly think this is relevant.
Moving on still further…
Almost as sad as it is that you’re willing to assume that I’m that stupid. If I were to write every single possible qualifying remark, no one would read me because my posts would be several hundred pages long. So before you decide what I do and don’t believe, maybe you should consider asking me.
I take it for granted that being told that I disapprove of your actions does not cause harm on anywhere near the scale of me making your actions illegal, or me grabbing you and beating you over the head with a tire iron. In fact, why you should care about my approval of your actions is beyond me; I certainly couldn’t care less whether you approve of mine. So long, that is, as you permit me to do them anyway.
Now this is getting ridiculous. Tell me, Lilairen, have you stopped asking stupid questions?
Oh, and on preview, wring has snuck in as well. trots off to read further
Neither do I, quite. I think the issue is that one who votes in favor of laws prohibiting discrimination against homosexuals and yet disapproves of homosexual sex is entitled to his disapproval, and even is entitled to state that disappoval. Which, apparently, other people would deny.
Oh, I agree. I think it’s gauche to out of the blue mention that you think homosexual sex is a bad bad thing. I think it’s rude, and even did I believe it myself I wouldn’t say it without being asked about my beliefs on the subject.
But whether it’s rude or not, I don’t think it’s immoral to hold and state a moral belief. It may be hideously tacky, but it is not a moral evil.
by the way, is that your question was rather along the lines of the classic “have you stopped beating your wife.” Since I have no idea if you even have a wife, I used a different question which had the same basic problem, and expresses, at the same time, my irritation with even being confronted with such a question.
Lest you descend into further flaming which has nothing to do with the point at issue.
I don’t know, g8rguy, have you stopped making stupid statements?
You said that words do not cause real harm.
Given that verbal and emotional abuse lead to real harm which is caused by words, it is not a terrific stretch to presume that you don’t believe in them.
If you did not mean to suggest that they do not exist, you should not have stated that words do not cause real harm. You would not be appearing to argue that the persistent verbal and emotional abuse that homosexuals, especially gay kids, suffer through isn’t real because it’s not “beating [them] over the head with a tire iron”.
I did explain that I was drawing some distinctions between making a moral statement and using the belief implied by that statement to oppress people. Would not verbal abuse constitute oppression? I take it for granted that saying “I think X is wrong” does not constitute verbal abuse, unless you hammer it at some people. Thus, walking up to a gay couple and yelling at them that they’ll burn in hell for all eternity, and their kind doesn’t deserve to live, and so on, is clearly verbal abuse; it also goes rather beyond expressing a disapproval of homosexual sex, and hence has next to nothing to do with my argument.
Note, of course, that if verbal abuse is a bad thing (it is), and if moral condemnation is the same as verbal abuse (it isn’t), then what you have done in this thread surely amounts to verbal abuse itself. If mere moral condemnation does not constitute verbal abuse (as I would contend), then your point is utterly irrelevant and may be safely ignored.
You miss the point that for a huge number, possibly even the vast majority, of gay folks, “I think being gay/acting on being gay is wrong” is hammered at them. Constantly. All the time. Something that some of them have to face as a default in their existence, the backdrop against which they are constantly forced to be on stage, whether in the closet are out.
I think it’s disingenuous to argue that one person’s “Well, I just happen to disapprove” can be divorced from that context, can be considered as some separate thing from the waves of constant battering and abusiveness, any more than a single cup of water can be legitimately separated from the tsunami.
What’s one more little poke in the death of a thousand cuts, after all? No big deal.
You miss the point that for a huge number, possibly even the vast majority, of gay folks, “I think being gay/acting on being gay is wrong” is hammered at them. Constantly. All the time. Something that some of them have to face as a default in their existence, the backdrop against which they are constantly forced to be on stage, whether in the closet are out.
I think it’s disingenuous to argue that one person’s “Well, I just happen to disapprove” can be divorced from that context, can be considered as some separate thing from the waves of constant battering and abusiveness, any more than a single cup of water can be legitimately separated from the tsunami.
What’s one more little poke in the death of a thousand cuts, after all? No big deal.
