Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
5 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,817 Year: 3,074/9,624 Month: 919/1,588 Week: 102/223 Day: 13/17 Hour: 0/1


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Kingdom on Earth (Re: Barack Obama comments)
crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1467 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


Message 106 of 308 (436808)
11-27-2007 5:09 PM
Reply to: Message 105 by Silent H
11-27-2007 4:48 PM


Re: legitimacy of repeated questions
I will begin answering them once you show a capacity not to attack me personally, during the asking of a question as well as in your answers.
Let's take a look at the scurrilous ad-homimems you're objecting to, in a thread you created, supposedly, to invite my participation. Here's my first post in that thread, in its entirety:
quote:
Let me bring over what I said in the other thread, along with some additional thoughts.
quote:
Let me say that I grasp the merit of your point; it's just that, like most things, you take an obvious principle and extend it to ridiculous extremes.
Obviously, it would be folly in the extreme to think that the solutions of my culture, my neighborhood, my community could be transplanted verbatim halfway across the world and have positive results. I think we've seen the results of that kind of thinking writ large across the Middle East lo the past several years.
It's a serious mistake to disregard completely local customs, local outlooks, local solutions to problems. It would be a disaster. And to come in as an outsider to a culture and attempt to solve problems in a way that people are going to respect and help with is a difficult problem indeed.
But to say that it is difficult is not to say that it is impossible, or to say that there's no reason to think of problems as problems, or to simply abandon all hope of rendering aid to people not like ourselves, as you would seemingly have us do. It's simply hard.
Think of it like a neighborhood, Holmes. When neighbors can't get over their differences, when they're afraid to engage with each other for fear of misunderstanding or out of distrust, neighborhoods suffer for it. We see communities like these in our own country, in the roughest conditions. And, of course, declining conditions drive residents into even more insular and disconnected attitudes.
But when neighbors act like neighbors, explore each other's viewpoints, share what works for them, and yes - enforce community standards when it becomes necessary - the neighborhood is vibrant. People feel safe and problems come to have solutions. And, hey, what works at one house doesn't work at another, without taking into account how the people of one home differ from another. Obviously. But that doesn't mean we shouldn't share. And, yes, when a neighbor threatens the community by violating its standards, our differences can't mean that we don't take action.
It's ultimately selfish to withhold from others the benefits we enjoy. It's ultimately racist to assert that those who are not like us can gain nothing from what we have to offer them, or they from us. I'm sorry you object to that, but it's true. Language, culture, and race are not excuses for us to close our hearts to one another, regardless of what precious multi-culturalism might tell you.
Now, you're going to object (I imagine) to me acting like my idea of community standards are right; but like Greg House, I simply can't operate from the assumption that I'm wrong about everything. Who can?
And I don't envision this human community as one that does exactly what I say; I see it as a community where individuals bring what they individually think is right to the table, and then a consensus emerges through compromise and conversation.
I don't see it as a deterministic process, subject to rigid interpretations and dogmatic assertions of what is right and wrong overriding all other belief. I see it as a holistic process where the community as a whole develops its own standards even as individual members take opposing viewpoints.
holmes writes:
For example there is no "wolf community" such that one wolf, or pack, suddenly gets entry to all others by virtue of being the same species.
You've just identified that wolf community - the wolf species, Canis lupis.
Similarly, species Homo sapiens forms a community entire. In a biological sense its a reproductive community - by definition - but it's also a social community. The vast record of human history is not one of isolation, but one of congress, one of sharing, one of communication, however attenuated by distance.
holmes writes:
Somehow I don't see this as a coming together to share a human community at all, otherwise they'd have a say, and a vote, in how you live.
They do. Why wouldn't they?
holmes writes:
It is my belief the concept of human rights is currently being used as a pretext to destroy cultural diversity.
That's an astounding accusation of bad faith on your part. What possible evidence could you have that your opponents are motivated not by concern for other human beings, but out of a desire to "destroy cultural diversity"? Why would anybody want to do that?
Oh, wow. I mean I really laid into you! First I called you a... um... and then a.... yeah. Actually I really can't see a single example of the ad hominem you're talking about.
Moving on, let's catalog the vicious imprecations I employed in my next post:
quote:
Scratch all that. I think I can put this all to bed a lot sooner if I concentrate a lot less on your disingenuous sophistry, cites that don't actually support your points, and strawman rebuttals, and just cut right to the chase.
Aside from violating the prime directive and "enforcing cultural ideals on other people", or whatever - in your view, Holmes, is there even a cultural practice you would find indefensible? Could there be such a practice, in your view?
If so what would be an example?
Hrm. Again, I simply don't see any personal attacks. That your posts are disingenuous is a reflection on your arguments, not on you. I've told you in the past what you need to do to avoid being accused of being disingenuous; simply stop being disingenuous. Like you are here:
I will begin answering them once you show a capacity not to attack me personally, during the asking of a question as well as in your answers.
Hopefully it should be lost on no one that that's how I started out, from the get-go; the result is that my points were repeatedly ignored - despite your specific invitation.
Look, it's not my fault that it takes a little needling to get your attention. And I was actually being quite civil until you fell right back into your old habits of relentless misrepresentation and disingenuity. I gave you every opportunity to convince me you had turned over a new leaf, like you asked for, and instantly after being told you had that chance you threw it back in my face.
And now you're acting like it's been all my fault? Please don't take it personally when I tell you to get the hell over yourself. If you want to engage in a civil discussion be civil. Be honest. Again, you have the exact same opportunity to do so as you've always had in the past.
Why you continue to turn your back on honesty remains completely beyond my understanding - not least of which because you've refused, for a year at least, to give any kind of explanation for your egregious conduct.
But it would really have to be free of animus...
When you can behave without animus, it will be.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 105 by Silent H, posted 11-27-2007 4:48 PM Silent H has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 109 by Silent H, posted 11-27-2007 6:51 PM crashfrog has replied

FliesOnly
Member (Idle past 4145 days)
Posts: 797
From: Michigan
Joined: 12-01-2003


Message 107 of 308 (436816)
11-27-2007 5:29 PM
Reply to: Message 103 by Silent H
11-27-2007 4:20 PM


Re: legitimacy of repeated questions
Silent H writes:
Being told many times by many people does not mean they are right, and the single person wrong.
That's not what nator said. NJ continually makes that argument that homosexuality is no different that rape or bestiality. He has been told that the difference is "consent". It's not a matter of many people claiming to be "right" while NJ is "wrong"...it's that his question has been answered...repeatedly...over and over...a lot.
You (and possibly NJ) now want to argue the definition of consent, when I think any normal person following along knows exactly what is meant within the context of the debate (you know...the "place" where his question has been answered...repeatedly...over and over...a lot).

This message is a reply to:
 Message 103 by Silent H, posted 11-27-2007 4:20 PM Silent H has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 110 by Silent H, posted 11-27-2007 7:07 PM FliesOnly has replied
 Message 131 by Hyroglyphx, posted 11-28-2007 12:20 PM FliesOnly has replied

Chiroptera
Inactive Member


Message 108 of 308 (436818)
11-27-2007 6:01 PM
Reply to: Message 105 by Silent H
11-27-2007 4:48 PM


Frankly I'd love to see a mature, well-reasoned debate on this topic.
Well, good luck with that. To be honest, I can't recall off the top of my head of an example where I witnessed an American engaging in a well-reasoned discussion about any topic concerning sex.

Progress in human affairs has come mainly through the bold readiness of human beings not to confine themselves to seeking piecemeal improvements in the way things are done, but to present fundamental challenges in the name of reason to the current way of doing things and to the avowed or hidden assumptions on which it rests. -- E. H. Carr

This message is a reply to:
 Message 105 by Silent H, posted 11-27-2007 4:48 PM Silent H has not replied

Silent H
Member (Idle past 5819 days)
Posts: 7405
From: satellite of love
Joined: 12-11-2002


Message 109 of 308 (436827)
11-27-2007 6:51 PM
Reply to: Message 106 by crashfrog
11-27-2007 5:09 PM


Re: legitimacy of repeated questions
Crash, I already explained in an earlier post to you that I stopped discussion with you because of behavior in another thread. That was before I even saw your post in the one I created. I personally had no problems with your first post in that thread, or in I think one or two others.
However, in the other thread I asked if you could be civil, and you said no. You continue to prove that is the case.
We will begin discussing actual issues, when you can agree to be civil and roundly stop attacking me personally.

h
"Civilized men are more discourteous than savages because they know they can be impolite without having their skulls split, as a general thing." - Robert E. Howard

This message is a reply to:
 Message 106 by crashfrog, posted 11-27-2007 5:09 PM crashfrog has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 111 by crashfrog, posted 11-27-2007 7:17 PM Silent H has replied

Silent H
Member (Idle past 5819 days)
Posts: 7405
From: satellite of love
Joined: 12-11-2002


Message 110 of 308 (436839)
11-27-2007 7:07 PM
Reply to: Message 107 by FliesOnly
11-27-2007 5:29 PM


Re: legitimacy of repeated questions
NJ continually makes that argument that homosexuality is no different that rape or bestiality. He has been told that the difference is "consent". It's not a matter of many people claiming to be "right" while NJ is "wrong"...it's that his question has been answered...repeatedly...over and over...a lot.
Yeah, but they are just saying a word, which is not an answer. It's not that I NOW want to argue the definition, I ALWAYS HAVE argued about the definition. Its just that people have "forgotten" that and repeat the same thing they did earlier.
If NJ is guilty of repeating an already answered point, then so are most here who keep bringing up consent.
I think any normal person following along knows exactly what is meant within the context of the debate...
You say normal, but I just said that across sections of europe bestiality is legal. To them homosexuality is the same as bestiality. Are they not normal? There are others who would say homosexuals have as little ability to give consent as children or the insane. Are they not normal? Who is normal?
I could likewise find a large audience that would agree that homosexuality is aberrant behavior. So if they answer "aberrant" to a question of why all those issues are the same, would that make it a reasonable answer? Could they claim normalcy if they were in the majority?
I think NJ gets what everyone is saying, that they are using a term called consent, and likely to US version, but the devil is in the details. There is no reason why consent (and again I must ask people be accurate as to simple or informed consent) should be accepted as a criteria any more than another. Or at least no argument has been made as such.
If people really want to discuss this, please open a thread. I'm not going to open that can of worms again, but I'll wriggle into it if someone else does.

h
"Civilized men are more discourteous than savages because they know they can be impolite without having their skulls split, as a general thing." - Robert E. Howard

This message is a reply to:
 Message 107 by FliesOnly, posted 11-27-2007 5:29 PM FliesOnly has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 122 by FliesOnly, posted 11-28-2007 7:29 AM Silent H has replied

crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1467 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


Message 111 of 308 (436841)
11-27-2007 7:17 PM
Reply to: Message 109 by Silent H
11-27-2007 6:51 PM


Re: legitimacy of repeated questions
Crash, I already explained in an earlier post to you that I stopped discussion with you because of behavior in another thread.
Behavior that you misrepresented. I did not say what you asserted I had said.
Misrepresentation upon misrepresentation. I'm sorry you find the accurate description of your behavior "uncivil", and a "personal attack", even though it is abundantly obvious that it is neither.
I personally had no problems with your first post in that thread, or in I think one or two others.
Yet, it's those questions you continue to evade.
Funny, that. I provided exactly what you asked for; your sole response has been to evade and misrepresent.
However, in the other thread I asked if you could be civil, and you said no.
Except that I didn't. What I said was if you could be civil, you had every opportunity to begin doing so. Which is what you were asking for - the chance to begin again.
You've chosen to respond by completely misrepresenting the exchange and throwing it in my face. I'll repeat my point in that post; at any time that you'd like to begin discussing honestly, you can do so, and then the debate will proceed honestly.
You're the only one who insists on incivility. Thus, the discussion will become civil as soon as you choose to make it so. If you'd like to do that, you can respond to both of those two posts in your thread - posts 4 and 16 - and we can proceed with the actual discussion instead of grappling with your misrepresentations.
We will begin discussing actual issues, when you can agree to be civil and roundly stop attacking me personally.
We're already discussing an issue; the issue is why you insist on misrepresenting nearly every exchange you become involved in. How do you explain this intense dishonesty on your part?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 109 by Silent H, posted 11-27-2007 6:51 PM Silent H has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 112 by Silent H, posted 11-27-2007 7:38 PM crashfrog has replied

Silent H
Member (Idle past 5819 days)
Posts: 7405
From: satellite of love
Joined: 12-11-2002


Message 112 of 308 (436848)
11-27-2007 7:38 PM
Reply to: Message 111 by crashfrog
11-27-2007 7:17 PM


Re: legitimacy of repeated questions
My answer to your questions here, are in the other thread. There will be no more answers given on this subject in this thread. Thank you.

h
"Civilized men are more discourteous than savages because they know they can be impolite without having their skulls split, as a general thing." - Robert E. Howard

This message is a reply to:
 Message 111 by crashfrog, posted 11-27-2007 7:17 PM crashfrog has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 113 by crashfrog, posted 11-27-2007 7:42 PM Silent H has not replied

crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1467 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


Message 113 of 308 (436850)
11-27-2007 7:42 PM
Reply to: Message 112 by Silent H
11-27-2007 7:38 PM


Re: legitimacy of repeated questions
My answer to your questions here, are in the other thread.
If only that were true. Instead, I find misrepresentation. Nonetheless, we should continue the discussion over there.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 112 by Silent H, posted 11-27-2007 7:38 PM Silent H has not replied

Silent H
Member (Idle past 5819 days)
Posts: 7405
From: satellite of love
Joined: 12-11-2002


Message 114 of 308 (436872)
11-27-2007 9:19 PM


Back to 'Bama
Now about that Obama guy...
Does anyone have a problem that he's too thin and good looking?

h
"Civilized men are more discourteous than savages because they know they can be impolite without having their skulls split, as a general thing." - Robert E. Howard

Replies to this message:
 Message 133 by Hyroglyphx, posted 11-28-2007 12:25 PM Silent H has not replied

Hyroglyphx
Inactive Member


Message 115 of 308 (436893)
11-27-2007 11:05 PM
Reply to: Message 96 by nator
11-27-2007 6:46 AM


Re: The Obama/Osama connection?
Clearly not, since you've been given that answer many times, yet here you are, asking the same question, again.
Consent supposedly determing the morality of something is specious. But I digress, since we've been over that multiple times.

“This life’s dim windows of the soul, distorts the heavens from pole to pole, and goads you to believe a lie, when you see with and not through the eye.” -William Blake

This message is a reply to:
 Message 96 by nator, posted 11-27-2007 6:46 AM nator has not replied

Hyroglyphx
Inactive Member


Message 116 of 308 (436898)
11-27-2007 11:19 PM
Reply to: Message 98 by nator
11-27-2007 7:12 AM


Re: The Obama/Osama connection?
So, does that mean that the definition of "miscegenation" has been mischaracterized, and the people who "disagree" with mixed race marriage aren't really bigots?
What you apparently have a really difficult time with, Juggs, is the idea that just because a particular idea, concept, or act undertaken by consenting adults isn't right for you doesn't mean it isn't right for somebody else.
You still don't get it, after all of this time. I lead you guys in to the pit lined with punji sticks everytime. And every time you fall right in.
With your world view, there are no objective moral values. So if I say something is wrong, and you say its right, it doesn't matter either way.
And you're left completely indefensible.
We know you get icked out by gays (well, probably only the gay men). We know your religion condemns homosexuality and homosexuals. That's fine. Live your life being icked out and condemn people if you like.
Just leave everyone else alone, including legally. Your personal feelings, including the religious ones, only apply to you.
See the interesting thing is that for some bizarre reason, you only think the first amendment applies to you, or that a reciprocal conversation instantly becomes one-sided, provided I say something that personally offends your delicate sensibilities.
They must in fact be quite delicate because anyone heartbroken over the matter-of-fact statements I make about homosexuality in your mind is tantamount to setting up 40 pipe bombs at an LGBT parade.
And why are we even discussing this? Its totally irrelevant to the OP. I sense a tirade coming my way. I'm sure you'll understand why I won't reply.

“This life’s dim windows of the soul, distorts the heavens from pole to pole, and goads you to believe a lie, when you see with and not through the eye.” -William Blake

This message is a reply to:
 Message 98 by nator, posted 11-27-2007 7:12 AM nator has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 117 by jar, posted 11-27-2007 11:27 PM Hyroglyphx has not replied

jar
Member (Idle past 394 days)
Posts: 34026
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004


Message 117 of 308 (436899)
11-27-2007 11:27 PM
Reply to: Message 116 by Hyroglyphx
11-27-2007 11:19 PM


Re: The Obama/Osama connection?
You still don't get it, after all of this time. I lead you guys in to the pit lined with punji sticks everytime. And every time you fall right in.
You seem to think they are punji sticks but reality is they are but gummy worms.
With your world view, there are no objective moral values. So if I say something is wrong, and you say its right, it doesn't matter either way.
What nonsense. There are objective moral values that we agree upon.
If you say something we don't much care as long as what you say does not incite harm. But when you do something we check against the accepted moral values to see if what you did was within the bounds of those accepted limits.

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

This message is a reply to:
 Message 116 by Hyroglyphx, posted 11-27-2007 11:19 PM Hyroglyphx has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 118 by Silent H, posted 11-27-2007 11:44 PM jar has replied

Silent H
Member (Idle past 5819 days)
Posts: 7405
From: satellite of love
Joined: 12-11-2002


Message 118 of 308 (436902)
11-27-2007 11:44 PM
Reply to: Message 117 by jar
11-27-2007 11:27 PM


worms
NJ is correct, he keeps setting traps, and people do keep hitting them. The only answers I see coming his way are asserted denials and then name calling.
What nonsense. There are objective moral values that we agree upon.
Agreed upon morals are not objective moral values. If they were then all sorts of bigotry was objective.
But when you do something we check against the accepted moral values to see if what you did was within the bounds of those accepted limits.
Isn't that what people who don't like gays do? And aren't there a whole lot more of them accepting that limit?
Remember I'm not against homosexuality at all. And I'm even an opponent of NJ's (on morality). But you guys keep missing when he has a point and then just shout him out. He's the best debater we've had on the opposite side since I've been here, and no one takes advantage of that (or seems to recognize it).
What a shame.
Edited by Silent H, : limit, title

h
"Civilized men are more discourteous than savages because they know they can be impolite without having their skulls split, as a general thing." - Robert E. Howard

This message is a reply to:
 Message 117 by jar, posted 11-27-2007 11:27 PM jar has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 119 by jar, posted 11-27-2007 11:48 PM Silent H has not replied

jar
Member (Idle past 394 days)
Posts: 34026
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004


Message 119 of 308 (436903)
11-27-2007 11:48 PM
Reply to: Message 118 by Silent H
11-27-2007 11:44 PM


Heading afield but one comment
Agreed upon morals are not objective moral values. If they were then all sorts of bigotry was objective.
But they were objective.
Maybe it is time for yet another thread on the subject since this really is not the topic.

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

This message is a reply to:
 Message 118 by Silent H, posted 11-27-2007 11:44 PM Silent H has not replied

Hyroglyphx
Inactive Member


Message 120 of 308 (436904)
11-27-2007 11:51 PM
Reply to: Message 99 by macaroniandcheese
11-27-2007 10:19 AM


Re: The Obama/Osama connection?
you have an irrational fear of penises touching.
Not with everybody's-- just with yours. Perish the thought
So I'm on a plane headed towards Miami after a layover in Washington DC. My wife and my daughter are sitting in the seats in front of me, and my son is next to me.
The person sitting on the other side of me is gay. He's the kind of guy that didn't have to come out of the closet but only because the closet burned down around him. He's a nice enough guy though, very amicable.
The problem is that in mid-flight, he starts making these subtle gestures where he is rubbing his finger in a phallic manner. Its obvious enough that he's obviously signaling me, but subtle enough to where if I called him out on it he would just play dumb.
In any event, I thought it was pretty disrespectful that he would do that while I'm there with my family.
The point is, I didn't freak out. I didn't ignore him. I didn't treat him like a scourge. But if the conversation would have come up, I would have told him how I felt about homosexuality. And you know what? While he would rather me like homosexuality, I'll bet he we could have left the plane in total civility.
So much for my homophobia.
Edited by Nemesis Juggernaut, : No reason given.
Edited by Nemesis Juggernaut, : typo

“This life’s dim windows of the soul, distorts the heavens from pole to pole, and goads you to believe a lie, when you see with and not through the eye.” -William Blake

This message is a reply to:
 Message 99 by macaroniandcheese, posted 11-27-2007 10:19 AM macaroniandcheese has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 121 by FliesOnly, posted 11-28-2007 6:54 AM Hyroglyphx has not replied
 Message 124 by nator, posted 11-28-2007 9:38 AM Hyroglyphx has replied
 Message 126 by nator, posted 11-28-2007 10:18 AM Hyroglyphx has not replied
 Message 127 by nator, posted 11-28-2007 10:19 AM Hyroglyphx has not replied

Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024