German Gay Marriage Law & Resulting Discussion [split]

What can I say? It doesn't fit above, put it here. Also the location of board rules/info.
User avatar
elemtilas
runic
runic
Posts: 3227
Joined: 22 Nov 2014 04:48

Re: The Majestic 4th Conversation Thread

Post by elemtilas » 02 Jul 2017 04:45

KaiTheHomoSapien wrote:I know you're not interested in what I have to say, but I'm going to keep posting:
I am actually quite interested! How else can we learn from one another?

I know from your words that you do not respect my ideas, and that's fair enough. I am still quite happy and willing to engage in conversation with you!
Only one person here has admitted to blocking you.
This is true. Whether the response is actually blocking or aggressive disrespect or belittling of perspective. It pretty much amounts to the same thing: we on the Left do not want to engage with you in discussion.
The other people responded to the "point" (that is, the "slippery slope" argument against same-sex marriage) condemning it as a bad argument and a disappointing position.
I am sorry they're disappointed. It happens to be spot on. It's human nature to use the victory of one group to advance the cause of its own. We see this in the school yard as well as in broader society. Sometimes, as with sufferage, this led to two key and just victories (the sufferage of blacks followed by the sufferage of women). Other times, as with legalised marijuana use, it's right down the slope. Again, what's next?
Posting your opinion is not going to yield nothing but "yes, that's fair, now let's move on" posts.
Exactly why I posted the satire in the first place. Too frequently, big ideas get posted about without there ever being anything but a warm fuzzy yay that's nice!
Being exposed to a variety of opinions means that you are going to reject some and embrace others. It means that for the ones you reject, you are going to make arguments against them, illustrating why you think they are fallacious or otherwise bad arguments or opinions. You cannot embrace everything. You will necessarily come to the conclusion that some opinions are no good.
Quite so! That's rather the point of coming into a forum like this. To be exposed to the ideas of others, and perhaps be changed by them. I know I have changed my mind on many things due to exposure to ideas proposed here. But this goes both ways. If I can come in here and be open to the relatively Left leaning prevailing opinion of this forum, then I have every expectation that differing opinions will also be aired, respected and be openly welcomed. Perhaps it might be the case that others here will think and moderate their own views.
If that is the case, why is it so wrong that some of us consider the "slippery slope" argument to be a terrible argument?
Because it is a trope that is frequently misused or misapplied. Not everything leads to a "slippery slope". Some things lead us to a wall. Other things to a cliff. [;)]
Is it wrong to make up your mind?
Not at all! It ìs wrong to make up your mind in the absence of considering all points of view. It ìs wrong to make up your mind so tightly that you refuse to even consider the validity of another perspective. It ìs wrong to make up your mind such that you reject all others who do not share your narrow perspective.

This is why, even though you don't respect my opinions and you find them to be verbal vomit, at least we're talking! That's better than being blocked and utterly rejected. What's the point of that? Why come into a public forum and expect to find only people like yourself that share every single one of your opinions? We may disagree on some things and agree other others; the only way to find out, the only way to find common ground, the only way to move forward is to talk.
How do you know that the people here who expressed that they disagreed with it haven't thought about it, haven't done any critical thinking? Do you think that most people here disagree with that opinion because "the left has brainwashed them"? If that's the case, I find that to be rather insulting.
Brain washing? No. Lack of much thought, however, is often expressed by the immediate or knee-jerk reaction. If you look, very many of the original responses were not so much dismay not much critical of an actual viewpoint (because none had actually been expressed as of yet). Rather the initial responses were edging close to personal attack: accusations or insinuations of homophobia for example. While this is not evidence of brain washing, it is evidence of not thinking about what the satirist is getting at. I mean, if one can't even wait until the rest of the story comes through before labelling someone a homophobe, then one really is not engaging the mind so much as letting the tongue do all the thinking.

Whatever you may think of what I've said, I do appreciate the interchange of ideas with you!
Image

If we stuff the whole chicken back into the egg, will all our problems go away? --- Wandalf of Angera

User avatar
elemtilas
runic
runic
Posts: 3227
Joined: 22 Nov 2014 04:48

Re: The Majestic 4th Conversation Thread

Post by elemtilas » 02 Jul 2017 04:51

KaiTheHomoSapien wrote:Well, then, continue to demonstrate how pathetic your input is. Everything you say is brimming with hypocrisy. You portray yourself as some kind of neutral party who acts as arbiter of what is or isn't a good attitude to have toward different opinions, yet you essentially exhibit everything you condemn.

/sarcasm

Or not?
Touché. I'll take it as such; and offer the above as such.

My hope is that you can see how dumb it is for us to actually be talking, but at the same time engaging in aggressive disrespect. That doesn't work! As for "exhibiting what I condemn", I hope you can understand that I am simply playing up to your "I also don't subscribe to the idea that just because something's an opinion, I have to respect it." Clearly, we can not engage in anything like meaningful discussion if we can't even agree to be respectful of each other's opinions! Open forums do work that way.

For what it worths, I do not offer myself as any kind of arbitrator. You would, I think, not want me as Arbitrator. Or even a neutral party. My position is between that of two bigger ideologues (the Left and the Right), but that's not the same thing.
Image

If we stuff the whole chicken back into the egg, will all our problems go away? --- Wandalf of Angera

User avatar
KaiTheHomoSapien
greek
greek
Posts: 585
Joined: 15 Feb 2016 06:10
Location: Stanford, California

Re: The Majestic 4th Conversation Thread

Post by KaiTheHomoSapien » 02 Jul 2017 05:06

elemtilas wrote: I know from your words that you do not respect my ideas, and that's fair enough. I am still quite happy and willing to engage in conversation with you!
I don't respect some of your ideas, but I don't think it's all "verbal vomit". I said that mainly because I found you repeating yourself in that long post and I often come across people who write a lot to mask a lack of a point. Not to say there was nothing valid in there. I generally agree with the idea that it's better to discuss ideas than to shut them down. I generally agree that the way to combat what you see as a bad argument is with a good argument, not with insults, threats, or silencing.

Keep in mind that I think it's possible to respect a person and not respect all their opinions (which is what I mean when I say I don't respect every opinion). I'm sure you could find some examples of egregious opinions you don't respect. People can agree to be civil while fully admitting that they find another opinion to be terrible. This is, after all, just another opinion. One that can be taken with a grain of salt.

I also think we may not necessarily be using "respect an opinion" to mean the exact same thing. I'd be curious to know what it means to you.
elemtilas wrote: I am sorry they're disappointed. It happens to be spot on. It's human nature to use the victory of one group to advance the cause of its own. We see this in the school yard as well as in broader society. Sometimes, as with sufferage, this led to two key and just victories (the sufferage of blacks followed by the sufferage of women). Other times, as with legalised marijuana use, it's right down the slope. Again, what's next?
There may be nothing next, exactly the point. A slope is not a necessary result. But I think you said that also. The point is, when confronted with that argument, I would try to present an argument against it (i.e. citing suffrage, as you said), and citing the fundamental differences between a relationship between consenting adults and pedophiles. Some of the knee-jerk reaction is probably due to the fact that comparing homosexuality with pedophilia is often considered offensive (same goes for, say, comparing God to Santa Claus). It doesn't mean that there isn't some way that it could be valid, but it often is used by hateful people. Since I didn't assume you were hateful, I was surprised that you might have been using that argument seriously (in which case I would rather have debated it than expressed surprise). And as I said before, I truly do have trouble detecting sarcasm. I won't blame everything on my Aspberger's, but it's part of it.
elemtilas wrote: Quite so! That's rather the point of coming into a forum like this. To be exposed to the ideas of others, and perhaps be changed by them. I know I have changed my mind on many things due to exposure to ideas proposed here. But this goes both ways. If I can come in here and be open to the relatively Left leaning prevailing opinion of this forum, then I have every expectation that differing opinions will also be aired, respected and be openly welcomed. Perhaps it might be the case that others here will think and moderate their own views.
Right, and as long as people are not insulting or shutting others down, I think anything goes as far as discussing opinions. Any time I post an opinion online, I know people might not like it, people might debate me, or point out why my argument is fallacious. I welcome the chance to strengthen my arguments.
elemtilas wrote: Not at all! It ìs wrong to make up your mind in the absence of considering all points of view. It ìs wrong to make up your mind so tightly that you refuse to even consider the validity of another perspective. It ìs wrong to make up your mind such that you reject all others who do not share your narrow perspective.
And that's the thing--you can't necessarily tell if someone has considered all points of view. For example, I've argued against the homosexuality/pedophilia connection before several times to the point where I'm fairly tired of it. So sometimes I may react negatively to seeing it brought up again. But it doesn't mean that I haven't engaged in a debate and seen other points of view. But seeing other points of view means that I will necessarily see some as invalid (for me).
elemtilas wrote: Whatever you may think of what I've said, I do appreciate the interchange of ideas with you!
Same. As a young person in Trump's America, I know all too well what becoming extremist and refusing to see other points of view leads to. I do have opinions and an ideology of my own, but it's never completely set in stone.
Don't live to conlang; conlang to live.

My conlang: Image Lihmelinyan

User avatar
elemtilas
runic
runic
Posts: 3227
Joined: 22 Nov 2014 04:48

Re: The Majestic 4th Conversation Thread

Post by elemtilas » 02 Jul 2017 06:10

KaiTheHomoSapien wrote:
elemtilas wrote: I know from your words that you do not respect my ideas, and that's fair enough. I am still quite happy and willing to engage in conversation with you!
I don't respect some of your ideas, but I don't think it's all "verbal vomit". I said that mainly because I found you repeating yourself in that long post and I often come across people who write a lot to mask a lack of a point.
Okay, some ideas. It's an improvement, and I'll take it! As for the repetition, yes, I agree on that point! Not that there's no point, but I do tend to repeat sometims.
Not to say there was nothing valid in there. I generally agree with the idea that it's better to discuss ideas than to shut them down. I generally agree that the way to combat what you see as a bad argument is with a good argument, not with insults, threats, or silencing.
Common ground there!
Keep in mind that I think it's possible to respect a person and not respect all their opinions (which is what I mean when I say I don't respect every opinion).
I see. I tend to respect the person and the opinion. Disagreeing with an opinion doesn't mean I don't respect it; especially when it's well stated or I know it comes through long internal struggle.
I'm sure you could find some examples of egregious opinions you don't respect.
Actually, no, I don't think I honestly can. I have always been one who abide by: "I may despise whát you say, but will always respect your opinion and uphold your right to speak your mind".

This doesn't mean I have never come across egregious opinions!
People can agree to be civil while fully admitting that they find another opinion to be terrible. This is, after all, just another opinion. One that can be taken with a grain of salt.
Of course! When it's done with respect for the other person, real ground can be covered.
I also think we may not necessarily be using "respect an opinion" to mean the exact same thing. I'd be curious to know what it means to you.
That is possible. For me, when I say I "respect your opinion" it derives from the fundamental of total respect for the person: what I am saying to you is that, regardless of what it is you have to say, whether I agree with it or not, I will consider it, think about it, study it, research what you mean, talk with you about it, try to understand what you are saying and the mindset you're in. I will offer my own take on it (and I will try not to be overly-snarky about it); will try to answer each point, will try to explore areas of commonality and difference.

We may or may not ever end up agreeing, but I at least will consider myself the richer for having engaged in the exercise.
elemtilas wrote: I am sorry they're disappointed. It happens to be spot on. It's human nature to use the victory of one group to advance the cause of its own. We see this in the school yard as well as in broader society. Sometimes, as with sufferage, this led to two key and just victories (the sufferage of blacks followed by the sufferage of women). Other times, as with legalised marijuana use, it's right down the slope. Again, what's next?
There may be nothing next, exactly the point.
That is often the hope! Human nature rarely rests comfortable with "nothing next". Following on with sufferage: we're at the point now in many states where the voting age is continually lowered (I know many young people think it's not low enough! When I was that age, I was just aware enough to realise boys my age are nothing like mature enough to be voting on critical social and political issues.) We're also at the point where it's just not a big deal for many folks that illegal aliens are voting. So, what's next? We open up our polls to everyone in the world? (Oh wait, the Russians are already queued up!?)
A slope is not a necessary result. But I think you said that also.
Correct. The "slippery slope" is not the necessary result. I think it is in this case a valid argument, but is not always.
The point is, when confronted with that argument, I would try to present an argument against it (i.e. citing suffrage, as you said), and citing the fundamental differences between a relationship between consenting adults and pedophiles.
This is why I brought in the idea that there áre other valid forms of love & legal relationship, apart from marriage, that can and should be made available to MM / FF couples. The nature of marriage is basically a girl and a guy. This is the foundation of your basic human family. Girl and boy shag each other silly until new human beings are made. Apart from the basic biological function, and this I think Ahzoh may have missed, is that there are legal and social benefits that attach to marriage. As I said, matters of inheritance, speaking for an incapacitated partner, automatic powers of attorney, and the like. These are things that same sex couples MUST be granted admittance to. While they can't be actually "married" --- and no, Micamo, none of us have a basic human right to be married (that's a priviledge granted by the State through the marriage license, or else through the Church) --- there must be some solution to the problem that allows same sex couples access to the social and legal benefits of marriage while not running afoul of matters of natural and Divine law, culture and so forth.

The minority overturning all of culture and society for its own benefit is tyranny and no better than the majority oppressing the minority. It is a solution made in bad faith and will, I think, be ever a point of contention until properly dealt with.
Some of the knee-jerk reaction is probably due to the fact that comparing homosexuality with pedophilia is often considered offensive (same goes for, say, comparing God to Santa Claus).
Oh, I get that! (And believe me, I've written the latter satire as well!) That's part and parcel of engaging in satire. Some will respond by thinking; others by visceral reaction. The point is, will the people who react viscerally eventually begin to engage the mind, or will they continue to engage the knee?
It doesn't mean that there isn't some way that it could be valid, but it often is used by hateful people.
Which is what makes a satire powerful. I mean really, I could have made a satire about brands of mac & cheese. What would be the point?
Since I didn't assume you were hateful,
I appreciate that! I don't get into my personal life here, but I think I may break that general rule in this instance. This is actually a very important topic for me. You're just going to have to take my word for it: hate is the farthest thing from my mind as far as this topic goes!
I was surprised that you might have been using that argument seriously (in which case I would rather have debated it than expressed surprise). And as I said before, I truly do have trouble detecting sarcasm. I won't blame everything on my Aspberger's, but it's part of it.
I get the whole Asperger's thing. I have run afoul of it going both ways --- both in detecting sarcasm and in inflicting sarcasm upon those who have difficulty detecting it.

But no, I am not "using that argument seriously" although the underlying issue is a very serious one and one that I have considered rather deeply for a very long time, and continue to struggle with it. I used that particular line as a deliberately inflammatory introduction. That's the basis of satire! Inflame in order to point out some folly or failing in society. In order to get people thinking and talking. I'm happy that happened! This is the Majestic Conversation Thread, after all!
elemtilas wrote: Quite so! That's rather the point of coming into a forum like this. To be exposed to the ideas of others, and perhaps be changed by them. I know I have changed my mind on many things due to exposure to ideas proposed here. But this goes both ways. If I can come in here and be open to the relatively Left leaning prevailing opinion of this forum, then I have every expectation that differing opinions will also be aired, respected and be openly welcomed. Perhaps it might be the case that others here will think and moderate their own views.
Right, and as long as people are not insulting or shutting others down, I think anything goes as far as discussing opinions. Any time I post an opinion online, I know people might not like it, people might debate me, or point out why my argument is fallacious. I welcome the chance to strengthen my arguments.
Great! The satire worked its magic. Blisters were raised, cockroaches were sent scuttling. And once the dust settles, people can get on with the discussion.
elemtilas wrote: Not at all! It ìs wrong to make up your mind in the absence of considering all points of view. It ìs wrong to make up your mind so tightly that you refuse to even consider the validity of another perspective. It ìs wrong to make up your mind such that you reject all others who do not share your narrow perspective.
And that's the thing--you can't necessarily tell if someone has considered all points of view.
Good point! This is where the proverbial cigarette after comes into play. Once the initial broohaha is blown over, those people still willing to talk can learn about each others' perspectives. They can find out how much consideration went into their ideas and their arguments.
For example, I've argued against the homosexuality/pedophilia connection before several times to the point where I'm fairly tired of it. So sometimes I may react negatively to seeing it brought up again. But it doesn't mean that I haven't engaged in a debate and seen other points of view. But seeing other points of view means that I will necessarily see some as invalid (for me).
I'm happy to lay it to rest here. For me, the connexion is, as I indicated earlier, a biological one. There is no moral or social equivalence (I find that particular line of reasoning to be abhorrent), so I'm not even going to go down that road. The common thread is one of (biological) sterility of the unions listed. That being the case, there is no good reason to entertain the notion of "marriage" in these cases, because they can not do what married couples do.

We therefore need a different solution. One that respects that respects the nature of marriage while also respecting the nature of the same sex couples who desire a similar kind of relationship. Just redefining "marriage" is a poor solution. It is fundamentally insulting to Nature and the Divine. It belittles and ostracises the majority. In short, it does not help the position of people who have been suffering under some kind of oppression. Do two wrongs make a right? No. Are there people on the Right who, generally speaking, are sympathetic with this plight? Yes! Do the Left seriously think they're going to win people over by trampling all over basic cultural, religious and social norms? Obviously, but they're going about it the wrong way.

What we need is an actual mode of relationship --- a new way of thinking about relationship --- that exists morally and legally and also that respects both majority and minority. A truly inclusive situation that respects marriage for what it is but also allows other people "into the club".
elemtilas wrote: Whatever you may think of what I've said, I do appreciate the interchange of ideas with you!
Same. As a young person in Trump's America, I know all too well what becoming extremist and refusing to see other points of view leads to. I do have opinions and an ideology of my own, but it's never completely set in stone.
Awesome! So long as you keep your mind open and the ideology doesn't run us down a slippery slope, or into a brick wall or over a cliff, you might just get my wheelchair bound vote!

Unless by then the radical euthenasia folks decide that I shall have been made redundant...

(I'll mark that one as explicit sarcasm!)

Oh, also: it's OUR America. Not Trump's America. He just gets to sit in the captain's chair for a little while. Do not forget that even the president answers to the People, and the People are sovereign!
Image

If we stuff the whole chicken back into the egg, will all our problems go away? --- Wandalf of Angera

User avatar
Ahzoh
korean
korean
Posts: 6192
Joined: 20 Oct 2013 01:57
Location: Toma-ʾEzra lit Vṛḵaža

Re: The Majestic 4th Conversation Thread

Post by Ahzoh » 02 Jul 2017 07:43

Do not forget that even the president answers to the People, and the People are sovereign!
Hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha...
Image Ӯсцӣ (Onschen) [ CWS ]
Image Šat Vṛḵažaẇ (Vrkhazhian) [ WIKI | CWS ]

User avatar
Micamo
MVP
MVP
Posts: 7186
Joined: 05 Sep 2010 18:48
Contact:

Re: The Majestic 4th Conversation Thread

Post by Micamo » 02 Jul 2017 09:32

I really shouldn't bother but I can't sleep and queerphobes make me angry.

You say you value heterosexual marriages over other types of relationships because they lead to reproduction. You say you value reproduction because it is the will of Nature and the Divine. A few things you probably perfectly well know, but choose to ignore because they do not suit your bigoted worldview:

1. Nature and the Divine aren't real. You can't hurt them. Queer people, however, are very real, and you certainly can hurt us. It is strange that, given the choice, you choose to hurt the real people over the imaginary nebulous forces.

2. If by Nature, you mean Natural Selection, you can't hurt that either. Natural Selection doesn't want anything. It's not a mind. It can't think. It's an optimization process. Now, what it optimizes for is indeed reproduction of genes, but be very careful when you choose to worship natural selection as your god. It is a deity so cruel, humans literally do not have the capacity to imagine the depths of its cruelty without special mathematical training.

3. Even if you choose to worship natural selection as your religion, and I strongly advise you against doing so, what natural selection optimizes for does not matter. It's the problem with choosing any authority figure, real or imagined, as the source of your morality. If an action has net positive consequences, then who cares what the authority thinks? If an action has net negative consequences, then these negative consequences are enough to decide it is immoral, again regardless of what the authority thinks.

4. Marriage already has nothing to do with reproduction. Do you reject heterosexual marriages as invalid if, whether due to choice or medical necessity, the couple adopts instead of reproducing the natural way, or has no children at all? Do you accept homosexual marriages as valid if one of the partners is transgender and still has the necessary biological hardware to reproduce the natural way? Do you accept homosexual marriages as valid in a society where we can induce meiosis through entirely artificial zygotes from both participants, regardless of what genital configurations these partners have, and then grow the fetus in an artificial womb? Do you consider a man and a woman "married" if they have and raise children together, despite having not gone through the ritual to make that marriage "official?"

No? I thought not.

5. You are absolutely correct that marriage is a social construct defined by cultural norms: This is exactly why it's hurtful to deny marriage to queer people. Here's an experiment to try. Go up to any straight married man you know, and refer to his wife exclusively as "your girlfriend." Keep doing this no matter how much he asks you to stop. See how long it takes for you to get punched in the face. In our society there exists a hierarchy, of which relationships are more important, more valued, more respected, and marriages exist at the top. To deny that a heterosexual couple is married, by refusing to use the words "husband", "wife", and "spouse", is to deny that their relationship is important and deserving of respect, by implication.

This is why civil unions fundamentally don't work: No matter how much you insist they are equal to marriages before the law, the very semantics of the words involved ensures that they are not equal in practice. Far as I see it, there are three ways to deal with this.

First, just allow queer people to get married, Jesus fucking Christ, why is this so hard.

Second, change the entire hierarchy of relationships in our society so that marriage is only a thing a man and a woman can have, but it's not important and nobody cares.

Third, accept that queer relationships will always have second-class status.

I imagine you reject the third, because unlike me you're a very tolerant person who believes in the equal and common humanity of all people.

I imagine you reject the second, because you say you don't want to change the social norms around marriages, and this is a much bigger change to those norms than the first, by a factor of a thousand at least.

Yet, you reject the first. Something doesn't add up here. Perhaps your objection isn't really that you want to preserve the social norms. Perhaps you're not really the tolerant and open-minded person you think you are.

6. Social norms have no inherent value. It's the authority problem again. If changing a social norm would be a net positive, then it must be changed. If changing a social norm would be a net negative, it must be maintained. It is only the consequences that matter here. Now, I'll freely admit that changing a social norm has an inherent cost. Reforming the english spelling system, for example, would be such a massive investment that we probably wouldn't being to recuperate on the benefits for centuries.

However, this is not a valid concern here, because the cost is already in the process of being paid. Going backwards and outlawing it again, would actually have much bigger costs than just allowing the process to finish. Why should we do this? So queerphobes don't get their feelings hurt?


Finally, it sure is strange that bigots are always the people who are the loudest about opposing "intolerance," as if my intolerance for queerphobes is somehow equivalent to, or worse than, their intolerance of me. It's almost as if, as I explained before, they're arguing in bad faith and exploiting the mechanisms of our liberal society to shield themselves and drive nails into the cracks of what they claim to support.
My pronouns are <xie> [ʒiː] / <xer> [ʒɚ]

My shitty twitter

User avatar
lsd
roman
roman
Posts: 896
Joined: 11 Mar 2011 21:11
Contact:

Re: The Majestic 4th Conversation Thread

Post by lsd » 02 Jul 2017 10:49

Elswhere I said...
lsd wrote:promotion for non-reproductive sexuality is a good instinctive answer to reduce toxic human impact on nature...
We seem to have reached a malthus-line, which provokes antagonistic instincts...

User avatar
Xonen
moderator
moderator
Posts: 1463
Joined: 15 May 2010 23:25

Re: The Majestic 4th Conversation Thread

Post by Xonen » 02 Jul 2017 13:03

elemtilas wrote:I used that particular line as a deliberately inflammatory introduction.
In other words, you were trolling. It's against the rules. Don't do it.

Yes, good satire often overlaps with trolling. However, 1) this is not the board for it and 2) lazily rehashing talking points from one side of the discussion isn't good satire. Satire needs to be somehow distinguishable from the thing being satirized.

Other than that, what Micamo said. Marriage hasn't been primarily about reproduction for a long time. Nor is this a minority overturning a social norm for their benefit any more than, say, ending segregation was; it's democratically elected governments rewriting laws to agree with the majority's concept of equality and justice.

Micamo wrote:Finally, it sure is strange that bigots are always the people who are the loudest about opposing "intolerance," as if my intolerance for queerphobes is somehow equivalent to, or worse than, their intolerance of me. It's almost as if, as I explained before, they're arguing in bad faith and exploiting the mechanisms of our liberal society to shield themselves and drive nails into the cracks of what they claim to support.
This. "You claim to be so tolerant, yet you won't tolerate my intolerance so nyah" is the kind of meaningless wordgame that would be kind of clever if it came from a six-year-old (and even then my response would be: "We've heard this one a million times, Timmy, try to come up with something original"). It smacks of trying to somehow "win" the debate rather than engaging in an honest exchange of viewpoints.

So yeah, no. People are under no obligation to "tolerate" views when those views themselves won't tolerate their very being. We need to draw the line somewhere or the whole concept of tolerance becomes meaningless.

User avatar
qwed117
mongolian
mongolian
Posts: 4400
Joined: 20 Nov 2014 02:27

Re: The Majestic 4th Conversation Thread

Post by qwed117 » 02 Jul 2017 13:07

This is a disaster. If my personal viewpoint was "Jews should be gassed in a second Shoah", I hope to God literally no one defends my views. People dissenting and saying that that's a stupid view that shouldn't be on the debate floor aren't tyrants, they actually have a goddamn heart.
Spoiler:
My minicity is Zyphrazia and Novland
What is made of man will crumble away.

User avatar
OTʜᴇB
roman
roman
Posts: 960
Joined: 14 May 2016 10:59
Location: SW England

Re: The Majestic 4th Conversation Thread

Post by OTʜᴇB » 02 Jul 2017 13:46

KaiTheHomoSapien wrote:That's the thing: "Consoles are better because they have the most games" is not an opinion I would consider to be very valid after scrutiny. Any opinion should be given a chance to stand up in debate, but some will crumble once they enter it. But there seems to be this idea from some people of "don't disagree with me, don't argue with me, this is my opinion and you should respect it". If someone doesn't want a debate, that's fine, no one has to debate, but if you post your opinion in an open forum, especially one about a controversial and contentious issue, chances are some people are going to disagree and chances are people are voice that disagreement. Pointing out the fallacies and problems with an argument doesn't mean that I'm attacking you or that I hate you or that I think you're pure evil. But you'll always perceive it that way if you see disagreement as attack.
Exactly. All opinions are equal in opportunity. They must all be questioned under the same standards of validity, lest they are no longer equal. It doesn't matter if an opinion is true or not, as long as it is not just dismissed, while other opinions get the luxury of proper scepticism and discussion.
Micamo wrote:It boggles the mind how some people can think "consoles are better than PCs" and "some people don't deserve to have basic human rights" are even slightly comparable.
Really? I find them very easy to compare, as they are both opinions and so both equal. You need to understand that people will hold one or both of these opinions, and one or both of the opposing opinions, and they too are equal with every other opinion. If you disagree a little bit with an opinion then you're more likely to discuss it than ones you really disagree with, because you can't relate to the polar opposite of yourself as well - and I say this about most people as it is human nature. By reducing the categories simply to "This opinion has evidence to support it" and "This opinion does not have evidence to support it", you'll find discussion about things like human rights a lot more productive. You can only change someone's opinion by actually discussing it with them so both parties understand each other's views, and then making a case for you own. If you resort to ad hominem or refuse to treat an opinion with respect, all you do is make holders of that opinion dislike you, and that just makes the situation worse.

If you see an opinion as a statement, and look at it for how well it is supported by evidence and reasoning, rather than looking at how much you agree/disagree with it and hating it and calling it wrong or horrible depending on how much you agree/disagree with it, then not only will you learn a lot about what your opposition thinks (as opposed to the usual "you have a different opinion therefore you are a horrible person!"), but you'll also have a better chance of convincing them to change their opinion to match yours - something I assume you'd want, right?
:con: : Current Project

BTW I use Arch

User avatar
Frislander
runic
runic
Posts: 3127
Joined: 14 May 2016 17:47
Location: The North

Re: The Majestic 4th Conversation Thread

Post by Frislander » 02 Jul 2017 14:52

Bloody hell I've always been told that the ZBB was bad for this but it looks like things have rather changed!

While I don't think it's completely true that heterosexual marriage was never about reproduction, I certainly agree that marriage should be extended. There are also the interesting cases where one or both of the partners in het marriages are infertile: I doubt that has caused very many breakups over the years outside of the landed arsitocracy. And the claim that marriage equality is based on no firm ground falls apart when you remember that the entire point of the movement is so that LGBTQ+ couples can have the same rights and benefits as straight couples.

I do think elemtilas has a good attitude though, and I think it is quite clear that they are playing by the same rules as the rest of us and are not just trolling but actually trying to have an honest debate, though I definitely don't like their idea of "satire". I've seen it before, and what I've said then applies here: if you can't distinguish between satire and the thing satirisd, then it isn't satire, and that proper satire is marked by being sufficiently distinct from the thing satirised to show up its inherent preposterousness.

But fore pity's sake this is getting ridiculous I haven't even read most of the latest posts, can we please talk about something else?

User avatar
Ahzoh
korean
korean
Posts: 6192
Joined: 20 Oct 2013 01:57
Location: Toma-ʾEzra lit Vṛḵaža

Re: The Majestic 4th Conversation Thread

Post by Ahzoh » 02 Jul 2017 15:24

OTʜᴇB wrote:Really? I find them very easy to compare, as they are both opinions and so both equal.
No. That's false. Opinions are not equal because they are opinions and neither are those ones.

:roll: SMH that's something privileged people who haven't faced systemic oppression would say. It's nonsense.
Image Ӯсцӣ (Onschen) [ CWS ]
Image Šat Vṛḵažaẇ (Vrkhazhian) [ WIKI | CWS ]

User avatar
DesEsseintes
cleardarkness
cleardarkness
Posts: 4656
Joined: 31 Mar 2013 12:16

Re: The Majestic 4th Conversation Thread

Post by DesEsseintes » 02 Jul 2017 16:04

Frislander wrote:But for pity's sake this is getting ridiculous I haven't even read most of the latest posts, can we please talk about something else?
[+1]

I also think the way elemtilas went about this was rather odious. First posting sth so hostile and then saying: "Oh look how clever I was at making you all think." No thanks, I won't participate.

Do let's talk about sth else.

User avatar
elemtilas
runic
runic
Posts: 3227
Joined: 22 Nov 2014 04:48

Re: German Gay Marriage Law & Resulting Discussion [split]

Post by elemtilas » 02 Jul 2017 16:09

Xonen wrote:In other words, you were trolling. It's against the rules. Don't do it.
The key point to remember about trolling is that, once delivered, the proper troll never follows up. There is never an intention to engage in any kind of debate or discussion. I don't troll. Of course it can be difficult to tell satire apart from mere trolling. As you said earlier, you granted leeway considering who the response came from. Unless I've developed a brain tumour or something the couple years, that should be the best clue that this is no trolling expedition.
Frislander wrote:Bloody hell I've always been told that the ZBB was bad for this but it looks like things have rather changed!
A flash in the pan, I assure you!
While I don't think it's completely true that heterosexual marriage was never about reproduction, I certainly agree that marriage should be extended.
I think we have some commonality there. At least that a parallel concept needs to be created.

Consider gender for a moment.

Gender is a thing that our (Western) society is currently working on extending. We've got all kinds of trans people, we've got in between genders. For the most part, except for some egregious examples, this extension is just bubbling along in an organic fashion. Ordinary people will, if this process continues, eventually come to accept that situation and it will be seen as entirely normal. The key point here is that in no way were the "traditional notions of gender" (female and male) ever threatened or redefined or done away with at law.

Now back to marriage. The contrary is going on here. I think even if you were to ask the staunchest Conservative, I really don't think he would say "yes, I want to absolutely deny homosexuals their civil rights by denying same couples the legal protections afforded to heterosexual couples through marriage". The key point here is that the process is nòt organic. For want of a better term, the more radical arm of the LGBTQ+ population simply decided to redefine marriage, throw out the accepted cultural norms and completely disrespect everyone else's sensibilities.

It should come as no surprise that there is a very strong backlash against the latter that really doesn't exist against the former.
And the claim that marriage equality is based on no firm ground falls apart when you remember that the entire point of the movement is so that LGBTQ+ couples can have the same rights and benefits as straight couples.
There is no basis for "marriage equality". There is a very strong need for "equality of rights and benefits"! This is why I'd advocate for a more organic process, rather than just pushing legislation and then pressuring everyone else to pass legislation.
I do think elemtilas has a good attitude though, and I think it is quite clear that they are playing by the same rules as the rest of us and are not just trolling but actually trying to have an honest debate,
Thank you for that!
though I definitely don't like their idea of "satire".
Fair enough. I personally love a good satire.
I've seen it before, and what I've said then applies here: if you can't distinguish between satire and the thing satirisd, then it isn't satire, and that proper satire is marked by being sufficiently distinct from the thing satirised to show up its inherent preposterousness.
Perhaps I need more practice...

I had hoped the slightly over-the-top nature of the lines, plus the deadpan delivery would have been sufficient to mark it as inherently preposterous. I mean, personally, I've never actually heard any person on the Right say something quite that foul. "Slippery slope", yeah that's a common enough Rightwing argument, but not the specific lines I used. I think they're more of an anti-Right jab than anything. Which is why, at least for me, it worked well. The whole satire was inherently preposterous. No one on the Right seriously thinks that gay marriage is anything like child marriage or bestial marriage. They don't like the idea of "marriage" being misappropriated; but they don't equate it with frankly very disgusting acts of paedophilia and bestiality.

(And yeah, I'm aware that it wasn't so long ago that homosexuality was considered a mental disorder and homosexual acts were considered on par with bestiality, yada yada. Remember, culture changes. It just doesn't normally change as fast as people might like.)
Image

If we stuff the whole chicken back into the egg, will all our problems go away? --- Wandalf of Angera

User avatar
qwed117
mongolian
mongolian
Posts: 4400
Joined: 20 Nov 2014 02:27

Re: German Gay Marriage Law & Resulting Discussion [split]

Post by qwed117 » 02 Jul 2017 16:15

I still wonder if anyone here actually knows the legal meaning of marriage.
Spoiler:
My minicity is Zyphrazia and Novland
What is made of man will crumble away.

User avatar
elemtilas
runic
runic
Posts: 3227
Joined: 22 Nov 2014 04:48

Re: German Gay Marriage Law & Resulting Discussion [split]

Post by elemtilas » 02 Jul 2017 16:24

qwed117 wrote:I still wonder if anyone here actually knows the legal meaning of marriage.
For the United States of America, US Code Title 7 is your friend:

In determining the meaning of any Act of Congress, or of any ruling, regulation, or interpretation of the various administrative bureaus and agencies of the United States, the word “marriage” means only a legal union between one man and one woman as husband and wife, and the word “spouse” refers only to a person of the opposite sex who is a husband or a wife.

Also check here for more in depth reading.
Image

If we stuff the whole chicken back into the egg, will all our problems go away? --- Wandalf of Angera

User avatar
Xonen
moderator
moderator
Posts: 1463
Joined: 15 May 2010 23:25

Re: German Gay Marriage Law & Resulting Discussion [split]

Post by Xonen » 02 Jul 2017 16:33

elemtilas wrote:
Xonen wrote:In other words, you were trolling. It's against the rules. Don't do it.
The key point to remember about trolling is that, once delivered, the proper troll never follows up.
You seem to be using your own idiosyncratic definitions for words again... But that's not the key issue here, that being: don't compare other board members to pedophiles, please.
Gender is a thing that our (Western) society is currently working on extending. We've got all kinds of trans people, we've got in between genders. For the most part, except for some egregious examples, this extension is just bubbling along in an organic fashion. Ordinary people will, if this process continues, eventually come to accept that situation and it will be seen as entirely normal. The key point here is that in no way were the "traditional notions of gender" (female and male) ever threatened or redefined or done away with at law.

[...]
It should come as no surprise that there is a very strong backlash against the latter that really doesn't exist against the former.
No, traditional notions of gender are being challenged. And from what I've seen, the backlash has been at least as extreme as against gay marriage, probably more so.
There is no basis for "marriage equality".
False. There is no rational basis for not having it, as has already been argued in several posts here. But if you're just going to keep repeating this while ignoring the counterarguments already presented, then I don't really see much point in continuing the discussion.
though I definitely don't like their idea of "satire".
Fair enough. I personally love a good satire.
The point is that yours isn't even really satire, let alone good.
No one on the Right seriously thinks that gay marriage is anything like child marriage or bestial marriage.
Um. Well, this... this just might be the crux of the problem here. Maybe, uh, crawl out from whatever rock you've been living under for the past few years and spend a little time on the internet before trying to comment on serious issues again, okay?

User avatar
OTʜᴇB
roman
roman
Posts: 960
Joined: 14 May 2016 10:59
Location: SW England

Re: The Majestic 4th Conversation Thread

Post by OTʜᴇB » 02 Jul 2017 16:34

Ahzoh wrote:
OTʜᴇB wrote:Really? I find them very easy to compare, as they are both opinions and so both equal.
No. That's false. Opinions are not equal because they are opinions and neither are those ones.

:roll: SMH that's something privileged people who haven't faced systemic oppression would say. It's nonsense.
I'm really struggling to understand where you're coming from; please do explain what you mean and why you think some opinions shouldn't be treated as others are. Personally, I'd describe someone that hasn't experienced systemic oppression as fortunate rather than privileged as privilege implies I am allowed to not be attacked, where I in fact have no choice on the subject, for it is the choice of the attacker as to whom he/she attacks.

Notice here that while I do not agree with your view that opinions are not equal, I am still treating your opinion just as equally as every other opinion. If I were to have your view as I currently understand it, I'd likely brush yours off as equally false and describe it as nonsense too, and nothing would be learned or understood - not very productive if you ask me.
:con: : Current Project

BTW I use Arch

User avatar
KaiTheHomoSapien
greek
greek
Posts: 585
Joined: 15 Feb 2016 06:10
Location: Stanford, California

Re: German Gay Marriage Law & Resulting Discussion [split]

Post by KaiTheHomoSapien » 02 Jul 2017 16:47

Yes, sorry for dragging this out, everyone, but I have a problem with leaving things unresolved, and I felt that if I talked to elemtilas further we could be cordial and it worked out for me, and I'm glad I did, so I don't regret responding to him up there. I don't have much left to say to your most recent post to me, elemtilas, mainly because I agree with most of it. Obviously I don't agree with your position on same-sex marriage, but I'm probably not going to be debating that here much, though I can list my reasons (viz. that marriage is not exclusively the domain of religion, marriage itself is a social construct and all social constructs are subject to change, barren couples and couples who choose to not have children can get married, and same-sex couples who wish to adopt children badly in need of a loving family should be allowed access to marriage. I find it far more insulting to the concept of marriage the high divorce rate of straight couples and those who abuse their spouse--that's what we should be addressing, not how same-sex couples "destroy" marriage. The former destroys marriage).

As for the whole "opinions are equal" idea, I do agree with giving any opinion a chance, so at this very basic level, I suppose they are equal. Once they've been given a chance, however, you'll find that some opinions are more sound, some are more informed, and some don't disrespect other people, in which case they are not equal at all. What Qwed says is important: if your opinion is that a certain demographic should be put to death, how can someone in that demographic be "respectful" with you when your opinion doesn't respect their right to life? It's an extreme example, but it's a valid one, I think.
Don't live to conlang; conlang to live.

My conlang: Image Lihmelinyan

User avatar
OTʜᴇB
roman
roman
Posts: 960
Joined: 14 May 2016 10:59
Location: SW England

Re: German Gay Marriage Law & Resulting Discussion [split]

Post by OTʜᴇB » 02 Jul 2017 16:55

KaiTheHomoSapien wrote:As for the whole "opinions are equal" idea, I do agree with giving any opinion a chance, so at this very basic level, I suppose they are equal. Once they've been given a chance, however, you'll find that some opinions are more sound, some are more informed, and some don't disrespect other people, in which case they are not equal at all. What Qwed says is important: if your opinion is that a certain demographic should be put to death, how can someone in that demographic be "respectful" with you when your opinion doesn't respect their right to life? It's an extreme example, but it's a valid one, I think.
This was essentially what I was getting at. All opinions have equality of opportunity, but forcing equality of outcome involves messing with the far more important equality of opportunity. As long as equality of opportunity is respected, then I have no problem. If an opinion cannot hold up to scrutiny, then it doesn't become a "lesser" opinion, it's just an incorrect one, and I'd expect any reasonable person to abandon an opinion if it was shown to them that it was incorrect or flawed.

The only issue then is with subjective opinions which don't have a right or wrong. Here, they are most definitely all equal as subjectivity means there is no superior option. It's attacking people for these that really cheeses me off, even if I don't agree with the opinion. It's like 5 year-olds not letting little Tommy into the cardboard box fort because he likes chocolate ice-cream.
:con: : Current Project

BTW I use Arch

Locked