View Poll Results: If a person smears a Christian as a "homophobe," should that person returh fire?

Voters
30. You may not vote on this poll
  • Yes. If they call you a homophobe you should be able to comment on their morals/etc.

    5 16.67%
  • No, they shouldn't return fire because they deserve it.

    1 3.33%
  • Simply ignore the smears and continue debating.

    3 10.00%
  • How about we show some respect and NOT smear eachother?

    16 53.33%
  • Don't know/Other

    5 16.67%
Page 18 of 23 FirstFirst ... 81617181920 ... LastLast
Results 171 to 180 of 222

Thread: Slander in Politics

  1. #171
    Dorset Patriot
    Wessexman's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    Sydney, Australia(but my heart is back in Dorset.)
    Last Seen
    10-17-17 @ 04:17 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Very Conservative
    Posts
    8,468

    Re: Slander in Politics

    Quote Originally Posted by teamosil View Post
    I'm not really sure what you're looking for. There isn't such a thing as like objective evidence and proofs of answers to moral questions. Morality is just subjective preferences people have. The closest we can do is to explain to somebody why what they are doing is hurting other people and hope that their morals tell them that hurting people is wrong.
    Perhaps, but you cannot simply say such and such is wrong and not give any support to this and when you finally do give support to it you cannot simply give a similar sort of assertion, like it is wrong because people should mind their own business.

    When we argue we all have to make certain assumptions, otherwise we'd never finish laying out our argument, but you were only really relying on question begging and assumptions. You would make one quick assertion and when you finally got around to backing it up you'd do so with an almost equally brief and controversial assertion. This is not an acceptable way to prove your point. If I did, if I said homosexuality is wrong and then backed it up by saying it is unnatural, you'd be up in arms.


    Of course it hurts somebody to be forced to live a life unable to marry the person they love and stigmatized and insulted... You can't really deny that....

    So go ahead, what's your response?
    My response would be you are making a lot of assumptions about the nature of marriage and about what is right or wrong in this instance that need further argument and explanation. I'm not actually going to argue the issue with you, I've simply been trying to get you to stop relying so heavily on assumptions and unexamined and unproven assertions.
    Last edited by Wessexman; 01-23-12 at 08:29 PM.
    "It is written in the eternal constitution that men of intemperate minds cannot be free. Their passions forge their fetters." - Edmund Burke

  2. #172
    Sage
    teamosil's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    San Francisco
    Last Seen
    05-22-14 @ 12:47 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Liberal
    Posts
    6,623

    Re: Slander in Politics

    Quote Originally Posted by Wessexman View Post
    Perhaps, but you cannot simply say such and such is wrong and not give any support to this and when you finally do give support to it you cannot simply give a similar sort of assertion, like it is wrong because people should mind their own business.

    When we argue we all have to make certain assumptions, otherwise we'd never finish laying out our argument, but you were only really relying on question begging and assumptions. You would make one quick assertion and when you finally got around to backing it up you'd do so with an almost equally brief and controversial assertion. This is not an acceptable way to prove your point. If I did, if I said homosexuality is wrong and then backed it up by saying it is unnatural, you'd be up in arms.

    My response would be you are making a lot of assumptions about the nature of marriage and about what is right or wrong in this instance that need further argument and explanation. I'm not actually going to argue the issue with you, I've simply been trying to get you to stop relying so heavily on assumptions and unexamined and unproven assertions.
    Any moral argument is just built on assumptions. You at some point made the assumption that a particular god exists and that he dictated certain things to you. Somebody else made the assumption that what is important is treating your fellow man kindly. There are many assumptions people can make that start their moral sensibility rolling. You can't have a moral argument that doesn't go back to an unsupported assumption, there is no such thing.

    Like I said, all you can do is show somebody how their behavior is cruel- how it hurts somebody else, and sometimes even worse, that it doesn't even benefit them. Then you can hope that they have what I would consider enough moral decency to know that cruelty is bad. If they don't, there isn't really anything you can do about it. I think I've taken you that far. Where you go from there is up to you.

    Regardless of what conclusions you reach on the topic personally though, understand that if you opt to engage in cruel behavior, people will treat you accordingly.

  3. #173
    Dorset Patriot
    Wessexman's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    Sydney, Australia(but my heart is back in Dorset.)
    Last Seen
    10-17-17 @ 04:17 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Very Conservative
    Posts
    8,468

    Re: Slander in Politics

    No. We have to make some assumptions to argue, but not of the sort you are making. You make assumptions such as Christians who believe homosexuality is a sin are bigots. You then back this up, eventually, with assumptions like they are bigots because they should mind their own business. If this was acceptable then I could at least match you by saying homosexuality is a sin and wrong, and then finally that it is a sin and wrong because it is unnatural or God says so. Your arguments are so much reliant on unexamined and unproved assumptions that they are, generally, really of this order. This is not acceptable in debate, even though certain assumptions are.
    "It is written in the eternal constitution that men of intemperate minds cannot be free. Their passions forge their fetters." - Edmund Burke

  4. #174
    Sage
    teamosil's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    San Francisco
    Last Seen
    05-22-14 @ 12:47 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Liberal
    Posts
    6,623

    Re: Slander in Politics

    Quote Originally Posted by Wessexman View Post
    You make assumptions such as Christians who believe homosexuality is a sin are bigots.
    No, I emphatically never said that. In fact I have explicitly said that that was not the case many times. As I keep saying, Christians (or anybody else) are totally free to believe whatever they want. But when they start persecuting people for being different than them, then yes obviously they are bigots at that point.

    Quote Originally Posted by Wessexman View Post
    I could at least match you by saying homosexuality is a sin and wrong, and then finally that it is a sin and wrong because it is unnatural or God says so.
    Again, that would still be totally irrelevant to the discussion. The question isn't "is homosexuality wrong?", the question is "do you have the right to persecute others because you believe the demographic group they are a member of are 'sinners'?"

  5. #175
    Dorset Patriot
    Wessexman's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    Sydney, Australia(but my heart is back in Dorset.)
    Last Seen
    10-17-17 @ 04:17 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Very Conservative
    Posts
    8,468

    Re: Slander in Politics

    Quote Originally Posted by teamosil View Post
    No, I emphatically never said that. In fact I have explicitly said that that was not the case many times. As I keep saying, Christians (or anybody else) are totally free to believe whatever they want. But when they start persecuting people for being different than them, then yes obviously they are bigots at that point.
    Your back up for that is just it is none of their business. Which is question begging and manifestly unacceptable.

    Again, that would still be totally irrelevant to the discussion. The question isn't "is homosexuality wrong?", the question is "do you have the right to persecute others because you believe the demographic group they are a member of are 'sinners'?"
    And your argument on this have been little more than question begging on a huge scale.
    "It is written in the eternal constitution that men of intemperate minds cannot be free. Their passions forge their fetters." - Edmund Burke

  6. #176
    Irremovable Intelligence
    Removable Mind's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2011
    Location
    Austin, Texas
    Last Seen
    Today @ 03:11 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    23,493

    Re: Slander in Politics

    Quote Originally Posted by Wessexman View Post
    Or just perhaps I'm talking about an entire discussion that has gone on for many pages now.

    But that post does beg questions, it begs the question of whether it is none of our business what people do in their personal lives. I'm not saying this is wrong or right, simply it has to be argued.
    Then argue away...but you are making the process of exchange much more complex than it needs to be...in my humble opinion.

    So many moral issues are subjective, with the exception of those obviously bound by law. Then those exchanges come down to what the letter of law undisputedly is in written reality...and easily sourced.

    Moral arguments get cloudy, off track, etc. So I'm not sure how to remedy that except how you place your exceptions on others as to how you want an argument formatted and carried out.

    Guide people into your very specific points of your argument...one at a time if necessary. Ask them to refine their replies. But I seriously get lost in your trying to explain why the arguments aren't meeting your needs.

    I think we can keep our arguments to the point and simple...if we help each other understand what it is that we feel isn't meeting our needs.

  7. #177
    Dorset Patriot
    Wessexman's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    Sydney, Australia(but my heart is back in Dorset.)
    Last Seen
    10-17-17 @ 04:17 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Very Conservative
    Posts
    8,468

    Re: Slander in Politics

    Quote Originally Posted by Removable Mind View Post
    Then argue away...but you are making the process of exchange much more complex than it needs to be...in my humble opinion.

    So many moral issues are subjective, with the exception of those obviously bound by law. Then those exchanges come down to what the letter of law undisputedly is in written reality...and easily sourced.

    Moral arguments get cloudy, off track, etc. So I'm not sure how to remedy that except how you place your exceptions on others as to how you want an argument formatted and carried out.

    Guide people into your very specific points of your argument...one at a time if necessary. Ask them to refine their replies. But I seriously get lost in your trying to explain why the arguments aren't meeting your needs.

    I think we can keep our arguments to the point and simple...if we help each other understand what it is that we feel isn't meeting our needs.
    To be honest the arguments you keep referencing, those of Teamosil and Sangha are pretty to obviously flawed. Teamosil keeps just begging the question and well Sangha is Sangha. I don't see what is wrong with pointing out the obvious, particularly when they have so much confidence in their arguments.
    "It is written in the eternal constitution that men of intemperate minds cannot be free. Their passions forge their fetters." - Edmund Burke

  8. #178
    Sage
    teamosil's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    San Francisco
    Last Seen
    05-22-14 @ 12:47 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Liberal
    Posts
    6,623

    Re: Slander in Politics

    Quote Originally Posted by Wessexman View Post
    Your back up for that is just it is none of their business. Which is question begging and manifestly unacceptable.

    And your argument on this have been little more than question begging on a huge scale.
    Again, it is impossible to offer some kind of objective proof that a certain thing is immoral. It's a subjective topic. All you can do is show somebody why it is cruel- that it hurts some people and helps no one- and hope they make the decision not to be cruel. If they decide to conduct themselves in a cruel way, people will treat them the way they treat other cruel people and no amount of pointing out that moral arguments are not based on anything objective will change that.

    You're right that the idea that you should not hurt people for no reason is just an assumption. But it's an assumption that the vast majority of people in the world agree with, so if you choose not to accept it, you need to realize that you'll be at odds with most people most of the time.
    Last edited by teamosil; 01-23-12 at 09:11 PM.

  9. #179
    Dorset Patriot
    Wessexman's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    Sydney, Australia(but my heart is back in Dorset.)
    Last Seen
    10-17-17 @ 04:17 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Very Conservative
    Posts
    8,468

    Re: Slander in Politics

    Quote Originally Posted by teamosil View Post
    Again, it is impossible to offer some kind of objective proof that a certain thing is immoral. It's a subjective topic. All you can do is show somebody why it is cruel- that it hurts some people and helps no one- and hope they make the decision not to be cruel. If they decide to conduct themselves in a cruel way, people will treat them the way they treat other cruel people and no amount of pointing out that moral arguments are not based on anything objective won't change that.

    You're right that the idea that you should not hurt people for no reason is just an assumption. But it's an assumption that the vast majority of people in the world agree with, so if you choose not to accept it, you need to realize that you'll be at odds with most people most of the time.
    It is possible to give far better arguments than you have on morality. Your approach to morality arguments is to argue that stealing is wrong and then eventually support this by saying stealing harms people. Obviously you'd need to argue some of harm principle and so forth to make a proper argument of this. Your way of supporting it is manifestly unacceptable. It is not that your arguments aren't objective, it is that they are brief, perfunctory and beg the question.
    Last edited by Wessexman; 01-23-12 at 09:19 PM.
    "It is written in the eternal constitution that men of intemperate minds cannot be free. Their passions forge their fetters." - Edmund Burke

  10. #180
    Sage
    teamosil's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    San Francisco
    Last Seen
    05-22-14 @ 12:47 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Liberal
    Posts
    6,623

    Re: Slander in Politics

    Quote Originally Posted by Wessexman View Post
    It is possible to give far better arguments than you have on morality. Your approach to morality argument is to argue that stealing is wrong and then eventually support this by saying stealing harms people. Obviously you'd need to argue some of harm principle and so forth to make a proper argument of this. Your way of supporting it is manifestly unacceptable. It is not that your arguments aren't objective, it is that they are brief, perfunctory and beg the question.
    I explained clearly how denying gay people equal rights or persecuting them harms them... Are you really saying you don't agree that it is harmful to persecute somebody and strip them of their rights? Of course it does. Now sometimes it's worth it. Sometimes stripping somebody of their rights or locking them up or denouncing them or whatever is outweighed by the benefits. For example, it harms a burglar to lock them up, but it's worth it because it is offset by the benefit to society that there are hopefully going to be fewer burglaries in the future as a result. But in a case where it is just harm with no benefit, there really isn't any complicated reasoning required. You're weighing some amount of harm against zero benefit.

    So, all you need to know to form a position on the issue is that needless cruelty is wrong. I can't prove to you that needless cruelty is wrong. If you don't think it is, that's more of an emotional problem or a socialization problem or something than a logical problem, so I can't change it with reasoned arguments. It's something that people figure out, or don't, below the level at which logic operates.

Page 18 of 23 FirstFirst ... 81617181920 ... LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •