• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Slander in Politics

If a person smears a Christian as a "homophobe," should that person returh fire?


  • Total voters
    27
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.
 
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.
 
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:
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:
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.
 
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.
You just continue to beg the question. You continue to claim that homosexuality shouldn't be what you refer to as persecuted, that it should have what you refer to as equal marriage, that harm should be defined as you briefly state and that yours is the only way to think about marriage. You need more arguments and less assumptions.
 
Last edited:
You just continue to beg the question. You continue to claim that homosexuality shouldn't be what you refer to as persecuted, that it should have what you refer to as equal marriage, that harm should be defined as you briefly state and that yours is the only way to think about marriage. You need more arguments and less assumptions.

Well, anyways dude. Obviously you're just going to keep cutting and pasting the same reply, so I guess we're done. But I hope you give it some thought.

The main thing that I think you ought to consider is that there are two parties involved- those who oppose same sex marriage and those who are gay. Denying gay people equal rights has zero impact on the people who oppose same sex marriage. They gain nothing. So the only relevant question is whether it is harmful to somebody to be denied equal rights or not.
 
Last edited:
Well, anyways dude. Obviously you're just going to keep cutting and pasting the same reply, so I guess we're done. But I hope you give it some thought.

The main thing that I think you ought to consider is that there are two parties involved- those who oppose same sex marriage and those who are gay. Denying gay people equal rights has zero impact on the people who oppose same sex marriage. They gain nothing. So the only relevant question is whether it is harmful to somebody to be denied equal rights or not.
And I hope you stop begging the question. Your arguments are so brief, perfunctory and question begging as to be totally unacceptable for showing why Christians who wish to prevent gay marriage are bigots or any of the other claims you have made.
 
You supported it with more question begging. You supported your unproved assumption that such Christians are bigots with the unproved assumption it is not their business what homosexuals do.

It's not though.

The sex lives of strangers is nobody else's business. If you think otherwise, I have alot of nosy questions for you.
 
And I hope you stop begging the question. Your arguments are so brief, perfunctory and question begging as to be totally unacceptable for showing why Christians who wish to prevent gay marriage are bigots or any of the other claims you have made.

He asked a new question though. Answer it.
 
He asked a new question though. Answer it.
I did, that question involved the same brief, perfunctory and question begging basis I have been referring to. It was all just assertions that homosexuality doesn't hurt anyone, there is nothing wrong with it and therefore should have no sanctions against it in any way. He may be right, that is not what I'm arguing, just that you can't make these assertions without giving a proper argument for them, simply stating them is not enough.
 
Last edited:
I have a few questions.

I notice that there are people who are more socially-liberal who, continuously, insult the more socially-conservative for their stances on social issues.

This is what I ask: If a liberal slanders a Christian by calling him/her a "homophobe/whatever," why should that person not turn around and insult the person's degenerate moral character?

What do we do about this? Why is it that those more on the left are allowed to smear people with epithets of "racist/homophobe/bigot/etc?"

Why shouldn't those being smeared with those malicious insults not turn around and at least chastise them on their moral degeneracy?

Or, better yet, why can't we seem to get people [all people] to stop smearing/insulting eachother?

If a person who supported segregation did so because he believed blacks were inferior to whites and the races should not mingle, we would call that person a bigot. Right?

Why is it so difficult for you to understand that when you express a similarly negative opinion about gays (based mostly on your fears about homosexuality and your clinging to one or two misunderstood lines of scripture) then you ARE, in fact, a HOMOPHOBE.



If it quacks like a duck, etc.
 
The only time it would be wrong to call a Christian a homophobe is when they are giving away their son at his gay wedding.

In other words, it's only slander if it is not true.

Are you or aren't you a homophobe? Do you look down on gays as sinners not deserving to get married and adopt children? If so, you're a homophobe.
 
What business is it of yours what two people you don't know do in the privacy of their own bedroom? (or any other room)
I didn't say it was my business. What I said is it is no sort of argument just to state it wasn't someone else's business. If you are defending his assertion then you have to show that is no one else's business with a proper argument. I'm not saying he is wrong necessarily, only that you cannot make these sort of question begging, perfunctory little assertions and treat it as an argument. That is in no sense a less bigoted, unexamined and narrow a way to carry on as the so called 'homphobes' are often accused of.
 
Last edited:
Who says it isn't your business. The problem with you Teamosil is you can't seem to stop making claims which require support, support you don't give them.

You may be right it no one else's business, but you have to argue it. Otherwise why can't I just say the opposite back to you with just as much back up, or lack thereof.

I say it isn't my business...

Constitutional Law

Privacy Rights and Personal Autonomy

The U.S Constitution safeguards the rights of Americans to privacy and personal autonomy. Although the Constitution does not explicitly provide for such rights, the U.S. Supreme Court has interpreted the Constitution protect these rights, specifically in the areas of marriage, procreation, abortion, private consensual homosexual activity, and medical treatment.
State and federal laws may limit some of these rights to privacy, as long as the restrictions meet tests that the Supreme Court has set forth, each involving a balancing of an individual's right to privacy against the state's compelling interests. Such compelling interests include protecting public morality and the health of its citizens and improving the quality of life.

The Right to Marital Privacy

In Griswold v. Connecticut, 381 U.S. 479 (1965), the State of Connecticut convicted two persons as accessories for giving a married couple information on and a prescription for a birth-control device. The U.S. Supreme Court overturned the convictions and found the Connecticut law to be unconstitutional because it violated a right to privacy in the marital relation.
The Court stated that even though the Constitution did not specifically protect the right of privacy, a line of U.S. Supreme Court cases suggested that specific guarantees in the Bill of Rights had penumbras, which covered the marital relationship.

The Right to Procreation

In Eisenstadt v. Baird, 405 U.S. 438 (1972), the Supreme Court expanded the scope of sexual privacy rights when it struck down a Massachusetts law banning the sale of contraceptives to unmarried couples. The decision in this case extended constitutional protection to all procreative sexual intercourse, not just sex between married partners.

The Right to Abortion

In Roe v. Wade, 410 U.S. 113 (1973), the Supreme Court found a fundamental right of privacy under the due process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. The Court interpreted this right to cover women seeking to terminate their pregnancies, but only before a fetus is viable outside the womb. This period is generally the first trimester of a pregnancy. Accordingly, the government must justify any limit it places on abortions by providing a compelling state interest. Once a fetus is viable outside of the womb, the state's compelling interest in preventing abortion and protecting the life of the mother outweighs a mother's personal autonomy.

While states cannot prohibit abortions during the first trimester, they can regulate abortions within that state as long as the restrictions do not create an "undue burden" on a woman's ability to obtain an abortion. Courts then often have to decide which limitations constitute an undue burden. For example, courts have held that a requirement for a 24-hour waiting period for an abortion is not an undue burden, nor is a requirement that abortions be performed by licensed physicians. Courts have struck down spousal consent and notification laws as unconstitutional, but have permitted some parental notification regulations. Also, courts have ruled that the right to abortion is an individual privacy right, and the government does not have to provide or pay for abortions.

Right to Private Consensual Homosexual Activity

The constitutional right to privacy now grants privacy protection to adults who engage in private consensual homosexual activity. In 1986, a Georgia statute that made same-sex sodomy illegal was upheld in Bowers v. Hardwick, 478 U.S. 186. But in 2003, the Supreme Court overturned Bowers in Lawrence v. Texas, 539 U.S. 558, striking down the criminal prohibition of homosexual sodomy in Texas. Lawrence v. Texas held that the freedom of adults to engage in consensual sexual acts is a right protected by substantive due process under the Fourteenth Amendment. This decision invalidated similar laws throughout the United States that criminalized private homosexual activity between consenting adults.

Right to Pornography

The Court has not granted a complete right of personal autonomy in the area of pornography, but some privacy has been allowed. In Stanley v. Georgia, 394 U.S. 557 (1969), the Supreme Court invalidated all state laws that prohibit the private possession of obscene materials, based upon rights granted by the First and Fourteenth Amendments. Protection for the private possession of obscene materials is limited to those materials depicting adults over age 18.

Right to Refuse Medical Treatment

The Supreme Court has held that adults have the right to personal autonomy in matters relating to their own medical care. Adults, as long as they are competent to understand their decision, have the right to refuse medical treatment, even life-saving medical treatment, though a state may require clear and convincing evidence that a person wanted treatment ended before it allows termination. A state may restrict family members from terminating treatment for another, because this right belongs to each individual. The court has not extended this right to allow physician-assisted suicide.

The above Constitutionally backed laws...make a whole lot of human behaviors NONE OF MY BUSINESS...and NONE OF YOUR BUSINESS!

Again Wessexman...you constantly play the nuance game. You know what others fundamental arguments are (or should), yet you try to make exchanges of opinions and debate complex because they don't meet your definition of "making an argument".
 
Who says? You cannot just make assertions like this without anything else and expect them to be taken as irrefutable or any real sort of argument.

What kind of sex do you have, Wessexman?

Anal? Oral? How often? What positions? Do you masturbate? What are your favorite fantasies? Anything kinky?

If you don't give complete and honest answers to all these questions, tell me why exactly.
 
I didn't say it was my business. What I said is it is no sort of argument just to state it wasn't someone else's business. If you are defending his assertion then you have to show that is no one else's business with a proper argument. I'm not saying he is wrong necessarily, only that you cannot make these sort of question begging, perfunctory little assertions and treat it as an argument. That is in no sense a less bigoted, unexamined and narrow a way to carry on as the so called 'homphobes' are often accused of.

I didn't say it was an argument. I think it's pretty much self-evident and nearly universally accepted, so I think your objection is just bluster. I think you agree with it and just can't think of anything else to say.
 
I'm guessing "Wishful".

:lol:

We can have as much fun as we want speculating about his sex life now, until he comes out and says "my sex life is none of your business." This should be fun!
 
What kind of sex do you have, Wessexman?

Anal? Oral? How often? What positions? Do you masturbate? What are your favorite fantasies? Anything kinky?

If you don't give complete and honest answers to all these questions, tell me why exactly.
You are not giving an argument. You maintain it is never anyone's business, but you will not provide an argument. That is question begging, that is unexamined and narrow ideological bigotry as much as what the so called 'homophobes' are accused of.

I'm a traditional Christian who is unmarried. But this doesn't change your question begging approach. You cannot simply state it is never anyone else's business, you must argue it.
 
I say it isn't my business...

Constitutional Law

Privacy Rights and Personal Autonomy

The U.S Constitution safeguards the rights of Americans to privacy and personal autonomy. Although the Constitution does not explicitly provide for such rights, the U.S. Supreme Court has interpreted the Constitution protect these rights, specifically in the areas of marriage, procreation, abortion, private consensual homosexual activity, and medical treatment.
State and federal laws may limit some of these rights to privacy, as long as the restrictions meet tests that the Supreme Court has set forth, each involving a balancing of an individual's right to privacy against the state's compelling interests. Such compelling interests include protecting public morality and the health of its citizens and improving the quality of life.

The Right to Marital Privacy

In Griswold v. Connecticut, 381 U.S. 479 (1965), the State of Connecticut convicted two persons as accessories for giving a married couple information on and a prescription for a birth-control device. The U.S. Supreme Court overturned the convictions and found the Connecticut law to be unconstitutional because it violated a right to privacy in the marital relation.
The Court stated that even though the Constitution did not specifically protect the right of privacy, a line of U.S. Supreme Court cases suggested that specific guarantees in the Bill of Rights had penumbras, which covered the marital relationship.

The Right to Procreation

In Eisenstadt v. Baird, 405 U.S. 438 (1972), the Supreme Court expanded the scope of sexual privacy rights when it struck down a Massachusetts law banning the sale of contraceptives to unmarried couples. The decision in this case extended constitutional protection to all procreative sexual intercourse, not just sex between married partners.

The Right to Abortion

In Roe v. Wade, 410 U.S. 113 (1973), the Supreme Court found a fundamental right of privacy under the due process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. The Court interpreted this right to cover women seeking to terminate their pregnancies, but only before a fetus is viable outside the womb. This period is generally the first trimester of a pregnancy. Accordingly, the government must justify any limit it places on abortions by providing a compelling state interest. Once a fetus is viable outside of the womb, the state's compelling interest in preventing abortion and protecting the life of the mother outweighs a mother's personal autonomy.

While states cannot prohibit abortions during the first trimester, they can regulate abortions within that state as long as the restrictions do not create an "undue burden" on a woman's ability to obtain an abortion. Courts then often have to decide which limitations constitute an undue burden. For example, courts have held that a requirement for a 24-hour waiting period for an abortion is not an undue burden, nor is a requirement that abortions be performed by licensed physicians. Courts have struck down spousal consent and notification laws as unconstitutional, but have permitted some parental notification regulations. Also, courts have ruled that the right to abortion is an individual privacy right, and the government does not have to provide or pay for abortions.

Right to Private Consensual Homosexual Activity

The constitutional right to privacy now grants privacy protection to adults who engage in private consensual homosexual activity. In 1986, a Georgia statute that made same-sex sodomy illegal was upheld in Bowers v. Hardwick, 478 U.S. 186. But in 2003, the Supreme Court overturned Bowers in Lawrence v. Texas, 539 U.S. 558, striking down the criminal prohibition of homosexual sodomy in Texas. Lawrence v. Texas held that the freedom of adults to engage in consensual sexual acts is a right protected by substantive due process under the Fourteenth Amendment. This decision invalidated similar laws throughout the United States that criminalized private homosexual activity between consenting adults.

Right to Pornography

The Court has not granted a complete right of personal autonomy in the area of pornography, but some privacy has been allowed. In Stanley v. Georgia, 394 U.S. 557 (1969), the Supreme Court invalidated all state laws that prohibit the private possession of obscene materials, based upon rights granted by the First and Fourteenth Amendments. Protection for the private possession of obscene materials is limited to those materials depicting adults over age 18.

Right to Refuse Medical Treatment

The Supreme Court has held that adults have the right to personal autonomy in matters relating to their own medical care. Adults, as long as they are competent to understand their decision, have the right to refuse medical treatment, even life-saving medical treatment, though a state may require clear and convincing evidence that a person wanted treatment ended before it allows termination. A state may restrict family members from terminating treatment for another, because this right belongs to each individual. The court has not extended this right to allow physician-assisted suicide.

The above Constitutionally backed laws...make a whole lot of human behaviors NONE OF MY BUSINESS...and NONE OF YOUR BUSINESS!

Again Wessexman...you constantly play the nuance game. You know what others fundamental arguments are (or should), yet you try to make exchanges of opinions and debate complex because they don't meet your definition of "making an argument".

There is nothing nuanced about wishing that people actually give argument instead of just make claims. That is about as nuanced as sledge hammer.

Anyway the above is a good argument. Can you spot the difference between it and Misterman's post;

It's not though.

The sex lives of strangers is nobody else's business. If you think otherwise, I have alot of nosy questions for you.

This difference is not nuance, it is the difference between random, unsupported assertions, or bigotry, and your proper argument.
 
There is nothing nuanced about wishing that people actually give argument instead of just make claims. That is about as nuanced as sledge hammer.

Anyway the above is a good argument. Can you spot the difference between it and Misterman's post;



This difference is not nuance, it is the difference between random, unsupported assertions, or bigotry, and your proper argument.
This is very rich coming from Mr Because-I-Say-So. I've yet to see you back up anything you have argued with evidence, citations or data. You constantly resort to, "it's a matter of reasoning", claiming that because this is an internet forum and "this is not a court of law" you have no need to provide evidence. Somehow, when someone challenges you, evidence is suddenly necessary.
 
This is very rich coming from Mr Because-I-Say-So. I've yet to see you back up anything you have argued with evidence, citations or data. You constantly resort to, "it's a matter of reasoning", claiming that because this is an internet forum and "this is not a court of law" you have no need to provide evidence. Somehow, when someone challenges you, evidence is suddenly necessary.
Who said anything about evidence? I simply said an argument. Reasoning is often valid, as evidence. The problem is Andy, you, like so many, are mesmerised by statistics without realising you have to get your thought right first and use thought to make any sense of them.

I did not say he has to provide statistics, just more than a bald assertion, so your complaint makes no sense.

Can you please show me where I asked for evidence? For instance this post talks only of reason and arguments;

You are not giving an argument. You maintain it is never anyone's business, but you will not provide an argument. That is question begging, that is unexamined and narrow ideological bigotry as much as what the so called 'homophobes' are accused of.

I'm a traditional Christian who is unmarried. But this doesn't change your question begging approach. You cannot simply state it is never anyone else's business, you must argue it.

Next time you try and swoop in to keep up the side, at least make sure you say something that makes sense Andy.
 
Last edited:
Back
Top Bottom