- Jul 5, 2012
- 27,107
- 45,033
- AFL Club
- Sydney
- Other Teams
- Kidding, right?
It’s certainly entertaining though, isn’t it?
Play Nice Society, Religion & Politics Thread
- Thread starter Borough Blood
- Start date
- Tagged users None
Hey don't mention the "f" word. This thread isn't about footy
Jewelsbon
Norm Smith Medallist
- Aug 30, 2016
- 5,890
- 17,954
- AFL Club
- Sydney
I hope you didn't take offence at my post because that certainly was not my intention.
Yes it has, and I must say that whilst emotions have run high, on the whole each side has been pretty respectful of the others views.
Haha no offence taken at all, sorry! It’s been a pretty willing debate so should have been more careful about tone, but it was written with a smile on my face!
- Feb 5, 2012
- 5,818
- 6,208
- AFL Club
- Sydney
All good, just noticed your posts being overly aggressive and swearing and highlighted it for you.
- Feb 5, 2012
- 5,818
- 6,208
- AFL Club
- Sydney
He's been under a fair bit of fire too haha
- Feb 5, 2012
- 5,818
- 6,208
- AFL Club
- Sydney
That's my point, those people and representatives values swing from progressive to conservative and laws will be amended accordingly to reflect the change.
- Sep 12, 2013
- 5,219
- 5,356
- AFL Club
- Sydney
Yes, you've mentioned that three times now, and ignored it being highlighted that you didn't pull up much more aggressive and distasteful posts. You can stop saying it now.
- Jul 5, 2012
- 27,107
- 45,033
- AFL Club
- Sydney
- Other Teams
- Kidding, right?
That may well be the case, and that’s life, but that’s hardly “postmodernism”, where “all truth is relative”.
That’s values and ethics changing, not truth.
In any case, Postmodernism rejects completely objective truth, but it doesn’t suggest that anything is equally true regardless of weight of evidence.
- Aug 9, 2016
- 5,110
- 6,331
- AFL Club
- Sydney
How many ways do you want to pose this question? It has been answered at least a 100 times now and the answer will never change. Is your thinking 'if I call him discriminatory one more time maybe he'll change?' lol. Really?
I struggle with many things. Understanding of a situation is rarely one. Gays are emotionally invested in this outcome. I get that.
If anyone is struggling it's those who have emotional investment because they feel compelled to vent anger frustration and outrage that people don't agree with a principle so important to THEM. I'm really sorry. I am.
I spent no more than about 30 sec on the whole process including the time it took to place it in envelope.
I voted no. It was a democratic process and the yes was successful. I therefore accept new law even though I think it's crazy. Am I going to protest waving an anti gay poster at the Mardi Gras? He'll no it's not that important to me and I'm certainly NOT full of ANY anti gay sentiment. Rather, though I didn't agree the one positive was that it would please many for whom this was critically important. So I'm happy that LGBTQI people are pleased now it's over with success
To me the question was an academic one rather than an empathetic one. Academically I'll never change but I also am pleased that the gay community could celebrate.
- Sep 12, 2013
- 5,219
- 5,356
- AFL Club
- Sydney
Yet here you are.
- Aug 9, 2016
- 5,110
- 6,331
- AFL Club
- Sydney
You and your mate just can't accept that people have different opinions to you and just possibly they may be right.
It's a common pyschological malady where something becomes critically important on an emotional level. You build a scotoma to anything other than your belief.
Yep I'm struggling lmao
Oh I can accept people have different opinions alright. And I can accept that people dislike homosexuality, and I know that that’s just not something that can usually be reasoned because it’s usually either religious or based on a gut aversion. I can accept that, but I’ll call it bigoted just as I would aversion to other races.
But when you try to make a logical argument based on fundamentally flawed logic and hypocrisy I will point out those flaws and argue the point.
You prefer maintaining a discriminatory aspect of a tradition despite that discrimination being entirely arbitrary in the modern day (because gays can procreate/otherwise have family), instead of just changing it to be more inclusive, for no other reason than you simply don’t want to. That’s not logic. There is no logic there. It’s just being needlessly cruel.
- Feb 5, 2012
- 5,818
- 6,208
- AFL Club
- Sydney
I hear you, just not answerable to you is all, think I'll just point it out if I see it if it' all the same to you to tone down the aggressiveness a little.
- Feb 5, 2012
- 5,818
- 6,208
- AFL Club
- Sydney
No worries, we should start up a what is postmodernism thread.
- Feb 5, 2012
- 5,818
- 6,208
- AFL Club
- Sydney
Not sure there's a sole agreed upon position in society as definitive as you make it sound to be.
- Sep 12, 2013
- 5,219
- 5,356
- AFL Club
- Sydney
You've posted multiple times that the only reason anyone would disagree with you is if they were gay, part of the gay agenda, or brainwashed by homosexuals.
- Sep 12, 2013
- 5,219
- 5,356
- AFL Club
- Sydney
That's a very strange way to open a post where you demand someone meets your personal expectations of behaviour.
- Jul 5, 2012
- 27,107
- 45,033
- AFL Club
- Sydney
- Other Teams
- Kidding, right?
I’d rather not.
But that doesn’t change the fact that we’re not living in some weird era where there’s no such thing as truth anymore.
- Feb 5, 2012
- 5,818
- 6,208
- AFL Club
- Sydney
I'm comfortable with it.
- Feb 5, 2012
- 5,818
- 6,208
- AFL Club
- Sydney
Many disagree with you (implicitly) is my anecdotal observations. People's opinions, actions and innactions on topical issues seem to indicate it (from my particular perspective). I'm ok to be wrong in that perspective but I certainly wouldnt be the only person who sees modern society as having no absolute truth when it comes to customs, rules, laws, values, ethics and beliefs etc.
- Aug 9, 2016
- 5,110
- 6,331
- AFL Club
- Sydney
The debate over whether something is objectively true as opposed to subjectively true is an interesting one.
It's absurd and just plain wrong to say objective truth can't exist. Of course it can. If a million people say that a ball they observe is red and only one person says it's blue the objective truth is that the ball is red. The evidence is overwhelming that the ball is red confirmed even more by statement of the manufacturer that he used red dye in his manufacturing process. The objective truth value is 100% by the nature of the question (the colour of a tangible thing) and by the evidence offered ( 1 million personal observations and manufacturer input). Pretty clear.
The objective truth value in that instance was 100% by virtue of the nature of question posed- one which can have absolutes in evidence. Elsewhere there may be statements which inherently have subjectivity as greater element to them. For example I've stated that a gay man ejaculating inside the rectum of his partner will leave that partner with a squelchy sensation.
Is that objectively true? What evidence is there for that? I know that when a man ejaculates there is usually semen released. I know from literature and personal experience that it's usually 10-15ml. But there is a condition called retrograde ejaculation where none is produced. I surmise ( subjective rather than objective determination) that 15ml of fluid in a rectum will be enough to create a squelchy sensation and that nerve endings are sufficiently active to feel the sensation. What is even a 'squelchy sensation'?- requires definition of a subjective state. See the question itself is one that requires subjectivity because what is squelchy to one person may differ to another. A gay man may contribute better to objectivity because he will have experienced whatever sensation exists and know that when his partner unleashes his load it will give him that sensation or not.
My point is that because of it's nature the objective truth value of the statement is necessarily low perhaps as low as 20%. At least in this instance it is a objective truth capable of measurement despite it's definition and evidence gathering shortcomings.
In a case where we are seeking to determine the objective truth of the statement that someone is discriminatory toward gays because he voted no on the same sex marriage we have to have objective verifiable evidence of his motivation on emotive and intellectual levels, knowledge of his empathy, value systems and beliefs. Only by having that information can we deduce motivation. Motivation is the determinative criteria because there are myriad of viable explanations why a no vote exists yet remains non discriminatory. Even then conclusions are flawed because we are unaware of the level of disconnect between those contributing factors and the decision made (if in fact there is disconnect) A process of surmising someone else's motivation has for these reasons an extremely low objective truth value on the scale and is tantamount to guessing. A person may vote no for as simple as the fact they don't like change. Is that motivation discriminatory? Of course it's not. The person making the vote is the only one that can know his motivation, the criteria he used for that decision determining the objective truth of the remark.
Casting derogatory aspersions of 'discrimination' and 'hypocrisy' on actions for which only subjective rather than objective truth exists for that observer is pretty disgraceful........perhaps even indicative of self delusion ( along lines I've already stated where a person having huge emotional investment deludes themselves by building a scotoma to anything other than their belief). My subjective judgement? Only imbecilic pricks do that
It's absurd and just plain wrong to say objective truth can't exist. Of course it can. If a million people say that a ball they observe is red and only one person says it's blue the objective truth is that the ball is red. The evidence is overwhelming that the ball is red confirmed even more by statement of the manufacturer that he used red dye in his manufacturing process. The objective truth value is 100% by the nature of the question (the colour of a tangible thing) and by the evidence offered ( 1 million personal observations and manufacturer input). Pretty clear.
The objective truth value in that instance was 100% by virtue of the nature of question posed- one which can have absolutes in evidence. Elsewhere there may be statements which inherently have subjectivity as greater element to them. For example I've stated that a gay man ejaculating inside the rectum of his partner will leave that partner with a squelchy sensation.
Is that objectively true? What evidence is there for that? I know that when a man ejaculates there is usually semen released. I know from literature and personal experience that it's usually 10-15ml. But there is a condition called retrograde ejaculation where none is produced. I surmise ( subjective rather than objective determination) that 15ml of fluid in a rectum will be enough to create a squelchy sensation and that nerve endings are sufficiently active to feel the sensation. What is even a 'squelchy sensation'?- requires definition of a subjective state. See the question itself is one that requires subjectivity because what is squelchy to one person may differ to another. A gay man may contribute better to objectivity because he will have experienced whatever sensation exists and know that when his partner unleashes his load it will give him that sensation or not.
My point is that because of it's nature the objective truth value of the statement is necessarily low perhaps as low as 20%. At least in this instance it is a objective truth capable of measurement despite it's definition and evidence gathering shortcomings.
In a case where we are seeking to determine the objective truth of the statement that someone is discriminatory toward gays because he voted no on the same sex marriage we have to have objective verifiable evidence of his motivation on emotive and intellectual levels, knowledge of his empathy, value systems and beliefs. Only by having that information can we deduce motivation. Motivation is the determinative criteria because there are myriad of viable explanations why a no vote exists yet remains non discriminatory. Even then conclusions are flawed because we are unaware of the level of disconnect between those contributing factors and the decision made (if in fact there is disconnect) A process of surmising someone else's motivation has for these reasons an extremely low objective truth value on the scale and is tantamount to guessing. A person may vote no for as simple as the fact they don't like change. Is that motivation discriminatory? Of course it's not. The person making the vote is the only one that can know his motivation, the criteria he used for that decision determining the objective truth of the remark.
Casting derogatory aspersions of 'discrimination' and 'hypocrisy' on actions for which only subjective rather than objective truth exists for that observer is pretty disgraceful........perhaps even indicative of self delusion ( along lines I've already stated where a person having huge emotional investment deludes themselves by building a scotoma to anything other than their belief). My subjective judgement? Only imbecilic pricks do that
I’m not a libertarian, I dislike the ideology greatly, but I understand why others are and that’s cool, I’ll debate them, or not, whatever. Same with religious people. Same with people who like Taylor Swift. I do not hate people with beliefs other than mine.
You think I’m ignoring/guessing at your motivations. On the contrary, you’ve stated your motivations pretty damn clearly.
1) Marriage is about procreation, therefore only heterosexual couples are applicable
2) Marriage has always been a heterosexual tradition
3) Retaining the heterosexuals-only status of marriage is preferable to changing such a long-standing tradition.
Is that about right?
Ok, so, why that is discriminatory:
1) Leaving aside the historical context of marriage, broadly agree that in the past, especially when the idea of same sex couples raising families together would not only have seemed ridiculous, but criminal, it makes sense that marriage would be heterosexual-only.
2) Agreed. However, same sex couples can now procreate/otherwise have children, and marriage has moved a long way away from being only procreative anyway. The purpose has shifted, which brings me to the next point:
3) Unless you can articulate the negative consequences of changing the tradition (which you have never once done this entire very long thread despite repeated requests), this preference for maintaining the tradition despite same sex couples now qualifying (on the basis that they already can have families and marriage isn’t solely used for that anymore) is arbitrary. Arbitrary exclusion of a demographic is the definition of discrimination.
I am not assuming your motivations. I am saying the motivations you have stated are by definition discriminatory because you place arbitrary tradition over equality. And guess what? Your motivations aren’t even relevant, because the outcome is discriminatory too! Even if you’re not meaning to be discriminatory, that is the consequence of your position - people may have failed to gain rights that there is absolutely no good reason for them not to have.
Your argument is like me saying “I just don’t let black people into my house, you don’t know my motivations so you can’t call it discriminatory”. It’s ridiculous, but apparently (not wanting to assume your motivations here) you think you can dress it up in big words to make it look like a real argument.
Finally, for you of all people to use the “don’t assume my motivations” argument is the absolute height of hypocrisy - you have spent most of this thread claiming Kummerspeck and I are brainwashed, the gay community is just seeking validation for past persecution, and all sorts of other shit you would have no idea about. You have assumed my motivations every step of the way, first that I was gay, then that I was in denial, then that I was brainwashed, then that I was trying to look good/progressive/whatever, then that I just hate people with different views. Again, height of hypocrisy.
Last edited:
- Aug 9, 2016
- 5,110
- 6,331
- AFL Club
- Sydney
If you are not assuming my motivation then you cannot say the no choice IS discriminatory because the ONLY way you can determine discrimination is via that route. Arbitrary exclusion isn't discrimination all. Discrimination requires intent.
'Leaving aside the historical context' why? Because it's convenient to you? Omg
Same sex couples can now procreate. On what universe does that happen? Certainly not this one. The procreation occurs through use of a surrogate. A woman!! What's more one that would have conceived within marriage as it was known. Huge difference. A statement that is OBJECTIVELY wrong
I don't have to articulate negative consequences at all. Entirely unrelated to the decision. But you want to fabricate that step in the chain to enable you to then say well you are discriminating against the gay community an outcome you've already predetermined despite it being a subjective truth to you. Stated repeatedly that the genetic intention at the centre of the social construct of marriage is procreation and because of that I'm entirely happy with the pre existing definition and tradition. Prefer it not change. I've told you that a thousand times but to you that's insufficient because I need to further articulate negative outcomes. How about the fact that the change will be then inconsistent with the genetic and social constructed purpose of marriage because that IS my belief.
Some were influenced by the empathy of the issue. I wasn't because, as I've stated, I believe we all must deal with our genetic lot in life.
As far as not allowing blacks in someone's home. Only possibly discriminatory. A whole debate exists in the USA around guns drawn by police officers causing shooting incidents and sometimes death. It's hate crime by police against blacks the black community and many whites yell. Some notable perhaps but the very real motivation is criminal profiling. Police know with certainty that 80% of crime is perpetrated by blacks. That IS an OBJECTIVE truth. When a police officer approaches a car knowing there is a black occupant they are on high alert because it statistically is more dangerous to them. Is that discriminatory or simply risk profiling to stay alive. I say it's risk profiling. Likewise allowing an unknown black person inside your home in the USA is statistically more likely to result in you being a crime victim. So decisions like that aren't racial they are rational. Sad that crime is so high with blacks but there are flow on effects......and crime profiling is one. Doesn't make it discriminatory.
We've been over and over this time and again. You think I'm a discrimatory hypocrite and I think you're an imbecilic bigoted prick who happens to also be gay. Let's leave it there and move on.
