|
ErIog posted:Wasn't trying to excuse it. I was simply saying that it wasn't necessarily hypocritical. There is no excuse to create an environment of hate for others whether you're a hypocrite or not. So whether or not the person is a hypocrite doesn't much matter, and it turns out they might not even be hypocritical when you examine what they believe about their own behavior. It's impossible to determine hypocrisy using secret beliefs, so I concede that last point. Public exposure of hypocrisy only cares about two things: what you publicly claim to believe and how you act. If you claim to believe one thing, privately believe another, and act according to the private set of beliefs you better believe people are going to be pissed when they find out. Tying this back to the Alabama politicians, it doesn't exactly help the case of a hypothetical closeted affair-having "family values"-endorsing state senator to come out afterward and say he/she doesn't personally believe in "family values" and has acted accordingly.
|
#
?
Feb 1, 2015 05:03
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 9, 2024 04:42 |
|
|
ErIog posted:Hoping anti-gay people and "family values" politicians are outed is simply schadenfreude. It may have a certain kind of ad hominem value, but it's fundamentally a shaky logical argument. It feels like justice sometimes when bad things happen to people you think are bad, but that feeling is pretty cheap. Like someone else said, there's a zillion more true believers to take that person's place when they fall. It doesn't matter so much in terms of the movement. The anti-gay groups aren't just gonna pack it up because Brian Fisher is an anti-semite. Haggard getting caught with drugs and hookers didn't lead to drugs and hookers being legal. Yeah but the point isn't to convince the anti-gay groups, right? Bigots gonna bigot, but we've managed to make strides in gay rights without winning over Brian Fisher. The point as always, is to win over the majority of people that aren't ideologically committed to being anti-gay bigots, and the revelations of hypocrisy and fraud on the part of the outspoken moral crusaders has actually made them less convincing to the average person.
|
|
#
?
Feb 1, 2015 07:35
|
|
|
rkajdi posted:Clinton's affair was an issue to exactly three people-- Bill, Hillary, and Monica. Everyone else should have ignored it because it is precisely none of our loving business which consenting adult another adult fucks. This is the basis on why LGBT people are equal. Because what happens in the bedroom is only the business of the people in the bedroom. Hillary could have given a poo poo too if she wanted, but obviously she didn't care that much considering they are still married and any issues they had they worked though, even if it was to just keep it a marriage of convenience. Again, it's not our relationship so we have gently caress all to say about it's dynamics. I do not think it's Puritan to expose the sex lives of public figures to a heightened level of scrutiny. When you run for office and then while running for office gently caress someone on the side the public has a right to know. Especially if you're running as a family values candidate. Your nonsense that it's none of our business that the most powerful man in the world has so little self control he can't keep himself off an intern is just that, nonsense. It absolutely speaks to his character. If Hillary started sleeping with her security detachment we'd have a right to know. Basically your argument against Puritan values seems to be that it doesn't matter to you and it shouldn't matter to us. You're wrong though. "This is the basis on why LGBT people are equal" Nah, we're equal because we're equal. Same rights, rewards, and responsibilities. One of those responsibilities is to be honest when we are acting as elected officials. That so many public officials fail to be honest doesn't give us a pass. What happens in your bedroom is your business until you've got a public face. Imagine if Clinton had been blackmailed. We aren't saying anything about the dynamics of the Clinton relationship, we're talking about the dynamics of the Clinton/US relationship. Every person who votes for you has a relationship with you, and lying to them makes you a scummy person, potentially unworthy of the office to which you were elected.
|
|
#
?
Feb 1, 2015 14:30
|
|
|
ErIog posted:Wasn't trying to excuse it. I was simply saying that it wasn't necessarily hypocritical. There is no excuse to create an environment of hate for others whether you're a hypocrite or not. So whether or not the person is a hypocrite doesn't much matter, and it turns out they might not even be hypocritical when you examine what they believe about their own behavior. They're also not elected officials to public office. Hypocrisy from a public official is a strong indication that they very much value their own self-interest not from their constituencies but from outside damaging sources (be it money, simply for them self, etc). If it was from their constituencies you could at least say that they're doing their job. However, if the constituency very much opposes adultery, and their elected official commits it, that's a big deal. It's a even bigger deal when that same official is chastising other people for their sexual activities under the guise of maintaining a strong family. Which anyone can see being an adulterer contradicts. This goes into the character of the person they elected. If you want poo poo heads to stop being elected to public office, continue to call them out until people start noticing the trend. A poo poo hole may continue to vote R after nameless hypocritical homophobe is discharged, but they may be more willing to vote for the less homophobic/less hypocritical R hopefully next time. Or, if they don't, you do the same thing to the next guy. If the Right whines about it, let them. Point out that they're actually defending adulterers. As long as you have actual evidence, it's not a witch hunt. It's called holding people in public office accountable to the moral standards required of the position and their declared beliefs. Now, if this hypothetical official got elected running as a member of the Adulterer's Party, then the sudden revelation that they have cheated would neither be surprising nor dishonest. But that is not the case.
|
|
#
?
Feb 1, 2015 14:53
|
|
|
CNN posted:Washington (CNN)Republican presidential hopeful Mike Huckabee says expecting Christians to accept same-sex marriage is "like asking someone who's Jewish to start serving bacon-wrapped shrimp in their deli." He is such a piece of poo poo.
|
|
#
?
Feb 1, 2015 17:55
|
|
|
Three Olives posted:He is such a piece of poo poo. And he's (allegedly) running for president!
|
|
#
?
Feb 1, 2015 18:05
|
|
|
RZApublican posted:And he's (allegedly) running for president! The good thing is that he would never win. Even if he managed to get the republican nomination, there is no way he would ever win the election. The kind of stuff he says is exactly the kind of stuff that would turn away most independent votes and would also probably cause some republican voters to just decide not to vote at all.
|
|
#
?
Feb 1, 2015 18:56
|
|
|
ErIog posted:Hypocrisy isn't always an automatic slam dunk argument. "You shouldn't smoke," from a smoker is still a point to be taken seriously
|
|
#
?
Feb 1, 2015 19:07
|
|
|
quote:Washington (CNN)Republican presidential hopeful Mike Huckabee says expecting Christians to accept same-sex marriage is "like asking someone who's Jewish to start serving bacon-wrapped shrimp in their deli." Holy poo poo this pisses me off as a Jew. Can someone with a Christian upbringing explain to me how they've appropriated OUR loving holy books in order to discriminate against homosexuals, but somehow don't have to keep kosher? What did Jesus say that allowed people to blow off one page of Leviticus while clinging to another? At least it would be internally consistent if he was also defending animal sacrifice as proscribed by Leviticus.
|
|
#
?
Feb 1, 2015 19:22
|
|
|
ErIog posted:I agree that they shouldn't have been so flippant about the effects on Hillary, but the point was that it wasn't the public's business. They did say that it mattered to Hillary. They weren't necessarily saying that she endorsed it. So which bad acts are only between the victim and the perpetrator and how do you draw that line? Where does this idea come from that if you act like a giant piece of poo poo in private that its secret and people talking about it is distasteful? If I cheated my business partner out of a bunch of money by lying to him people would absolutely use that as a judge of my character, but if I break a much more solemn vow that's off limits?
|
|
#
?
Feb 1, 2015 19:22
|
|
|
SubponticatePoster posted:Smoking is measurably harmful to you, being gay is not. Not that I'm arguing with you, but of the significant amount that don't agree with or accept homosexual relationships, many have it in their head that homosexual tendencies just tend to generate disease and poor health. They also target your kids and some other such bullshit. A lot of people are stupid and believe stupid things their stupid pastors/uneducated people of authority told them about the world. So they vote against it.
|
|
#
?
Feb 1, 2015 19:55
|
|
|
Peztopiary posted:I do not think it's Puritan to expose the sex lives of public figures to a heightened level of scrutiny. When you run for office and then while running for office gently caress someone on the side the public has a right to know. Especially if you're running as a family values candidate. Your nonsense that it's none of our business that the most powerful man in the world has so little self control he can't keep himself off an intern is just that, nonsense. It absolutely speaks to his character. If Hillary started sleeping with her security detachment we'd have a right to know. Basically your argument against Puritan values seems to be that it doesn't matter to you and it shouldn't matter to us. You're wrong though. I think you've landed on the thing that's been driving me nuts about this Clinton/Lewinsky sidebar, although you landed at a sideways angle. Nobody seems to remember that the reason they were rounding up all of these prurient details was because Bill, while he was a sitting president, coerced an intern to lie about the nature of their relationship under oath. "Under oath" was what they were trying to push as an impeachable offense, and if the press had covered it any other way than they did, "under oath" would've been the key phrase striking the trust issues at the core of the Clinton/US relationship. Fortunately for Bill, the coverage was nothing but blue dresses with semen stains, using Monica's vagina as a humidor, and smug jerks speculating that the Clintons were "obviously" in a loveless marriage (my first memory of Fox News, by the way), to the point where everybody outside of the US thought we'd gone nuts, both on the Hill and off. That happened to be true, but it doesn't make it any easier to deal with. The Puritan part about it is that we got so hung up on the details of the Starr Report that everybody forgot why we were rooting through the garbage in the first place. Which is why I'm not a big fan of this tit-for-tat garbage. Apart from giving your opponents a siege mentality (and remember, they think they're fighting a war for civilization, so they don't need an excuse to start indulging martyrdom fantasies), attacking the messengers is perceived as a signal that the opposition can't attack the actual message. And that turns us all into Fox News blowhards, where scoring debate points is more important than figuring out what needs to be done next. Too many years of that. Let's figure out a different way.
|
|
#
?
Feb 1, 2015 19:57
|
|
|
MrChupon posted:Holy poo poo this pisses me off as a Jew. Can someone with a Christian upbringing explain to me how they've appropriated OUR loving holy books in order to discriminate against homosexuals, but somehow don't have to keep kosher? What did Jesus say that allowed people to blow off one page of Leviticus while clinging to another? At least it would be internally consistent if he was also defending animal sacrifice as proscribed by Leviticus. This would be a bad example, because there is a passage in Mark which people interpret to mean Jesus lifting the kosher restrictions. In this exactly one instance, they would have one philosophical leg to stand on.
|
|
#
?
Feb 1, 2015 20:09
|
|
|
Midnight Voyager posted:This would be a bad example, because there is a passage in Mark which people interpret to mean Jesus lifting the kosher restrictions. In this exactly one instance, they would have one philosophical leg to stand on. I can't quite remember; doesn't the same passage apply to the homosexuality "rule" from Leviticus as well? (Setting aside what Paul says, because Paul is a douchebag.)
|
|
#
?
Feb 1, 2015 20:16
|
|
|
mdemone posted:I can't quite remember; doesn't the same passage apply to the homosexuality "rule" from Leviticus as well? (Setting aside what Paul says, because Paul is a douchebag.) It could be interpreted that way, but the exact instance deals with food, so people generally only interpret it as lifting the kosher restrictions. http://www.christianbiblereference.org/faq_OldTestamentLaw.htm Here, this is actually a pretty good dissection of the whole thing, complete with references. The way I learned it, Jesus fulfilled the purpose of the old laws, so they didn't apply anymore. People can still follow the laws, but it wasn't a Biblical Requirement. Midnight Voyager fucked around with this message at 22:18 on Feb 1, 2015 |
|
#
?
Feb 1, 2015 22:15
|
|
|
I think Paul has enough lovely things to say on sexuality that Christians shouldn't need to go back to Leviticus anyway.
|
|
#
?
Feb 1, 2015 22:26
|
|
|
Since when do Kosher restrictions (or any of laws of Moses --- rather than Noah) --- apply to gentiles anyway?
|
|
#
?
Feb 1, 2015 22:33
|
|
|
OddObserver posted:Since when do Kosher restrictions (or any of laws of Moses --- rather than Noah) --- apply to gentiles anyway? Many early Christians were Jews, and they tried to argue that these laws should apply to Christians even if they were gentiles. The official stance was "You don't have to, but if you don't mind, can you not do these certain things around the Jews? It offends them lots."
|
|
#
?
Feb 1, 2015 22:37
|
|
|
The book of Acts specifically talks about the early church fathers debating whether or not Gentiles who convert to Christianity should have to get circumcised, as well as follow the other laws of Moses. As far as the whole OT laws being applied to Christians, the excuse most of them use is that there are two types of laws in the OT, ritual and moral. The ritual laws such as circumcision, eating shrimp, trimming beards, and having a moldy house examined by a priest no longer apply to Christians, but moral ones such as no homosexuality, don't lie/steal, and don't worship idols, do.
|
|
#
?
Feb 2, 2015 00:18
|
|
|
RZApublican posted:And he's (allegedly) running for president! He's not. He has no desire to be President because being a religious conman pays better. He'd "run" in the same vein that Trump or Palin would. To make more money off right wing rubes.
|
|
#
?
Feb 2, 2015 01:14
|
|
|
MrChupon posted:Holy poo poo this pisses me off as a Jew. Can someone with a Christian upbringing explain to me how they've appropriated OUR loving holy books in order to discriminate against homosexuals, but somehow don't have to keep kosher? What did Jesus say that allowed people to blow off one page of Leviticus while clinging to another? At least it would be internally consistent if he was also defending animal sacrifice as proscribed by Leviticus. It's because of how Christian exegesis developed over the years. In the 1800s there was a large reactionary movement against the Higher Criticism and other schools of thought that were seen as deviating from tradition, which gave rise to the literalist schools of biblical interpretation. These modern literalist interpretations are what have very specific readings of different passages that often seem to contradict each other. They are also the interpretations that seem to have largely taken over the American public's understanding of how to read the Bible, which you can see in any SA thread that's not (a) specifically about, and (b) filled with posters who understand, the historical contexts in which different schools of interpretation arose. For example, see a few pages back when I pointed out some of the actual interesting facts about interpretations of the story of Sodom and Gomorrah, and was piled on extensively by goons who had quite clearly never read a single book or article about biblical interpretation or criticism. Also yes, the Hebrew scriptures are "yours", but billions of non-Jews have studied them for thousands of years too 
Lutha Mahtin fucked around with this message at 04:56 on Feb 2, 2015 |
|
#
?
Feb 2, 2015 03:18
|
|
|
Lutha Mahtin posted:It's because of how Christian exegesis developed over the years. In the 1800s there was a large reactionary movement against the Higher Criticism and other schools of thought that were seen as deviating from tradition, which gave rise to the literalist schools of biblical interpretation. These modern literalist interpretations are what have very specific readings of different passages that often seem to contradict each other. They are also the interpretations that seem to have largely taken over the American public's understanding of how to read the Bible, which you can see in any SA thread that's not (a) specifically about, and (b) filled with posters who understand, the historical contexts in which different schools of interpretation arose. For example, see a few pages back when I pointed out some of the actual interesting facts about interpretations of the story of Sodom and Gomorrah, and was piled on extensively by goons who had quite clearly never a single book or article about biblical interpretation or criticism in their life. Yup, I've taken some theology courses and the first thing the professor would point out is how unusual the typical American understanding of Christianity is in the context of the entire history of the religion. It's pretty mindblowing that St. Augustine for example had a more liberal view on the interpretation of Genesis than a majority of today's American Christians, given the context of how developed scientific understanding is now compared to the fourth century.
|
|
#
?
Feb 2, 2015 04:50
|
|
|
While this biblical discussion sure is fun, isn't there a better place than the news/discussion thread for marriage equality?
|
|
#
?
Feb 2, 2015 13:20
|
|
|
MaxxBot posted:Yup, I've taken some theology courses and the first thing the professor would point out is how unusual the typical American understanding of Christianity is in the context of the entire history of the religion. It's pretty mindblowing that St. Augustine for example had a more liberal view on the interpretation of Genesis than a majority of today's American Christians, given the context of how developed scientific understanding is now compared to the fourth century. I think people have constructed a wall purposefully in response to the advances in science over the years. Back when people weren't so sure of a lot of things it was a lot easier to remain confident the Bible was either in the ballpark or a slightly better explanation. Now that a lot of it has been explicitly disproven you have a more organized effort from a lot of people for burying their heads in the sand as a way to stop science from intruding so forcefully.
|
|
#
?
Feb 2, 2015 15:13
|
|
|
Mr. Nice! posted:While this biblical discussion sure is fun, isn't there a better place than the news/discussion thread for marriage equality? Agreedo.
|
|
#
?
Feb 2, 2015 16:59
|
|
|
http://www.thenewcivilrightsmovement.com/davidbadash/wyoming_house_passes_anti_gay_license_to_discriminate_billquote:Pastor Nathan Winters, who is also State Representative Nathan Winters, today saw his bill, the Religious Freedom Restoration Act (RFRA) pass the Wyoming House. Originally exceptionally broad, it was amended recently to ensure LGBT people are not refused services by state employees, including county clerks who issue marriage licenses. Now, should the state senate and pass it and should the Republican governor of Wyoming sign it, anyone in the private sector will be able to refuse to serve any LGBT person merely by citing their supposed deeply held religious beliefs.
|
|
#
?
Feb 2, 2015 22:19
|
|
|
CommieGIR posted:http://www.thenewcivilrightsmovement.com/davidbadash/wyoming_house_passes_anti_gay_license_to_discriminate_bill "Thou shalt turn thy nose up at sinners, just like Jesus did."
|
|
#
?
Feb 2, 2015 22:33
|
|
|
Mr. Nice! posted:While this biblical discussion sure is fun, isn't there a better place than the news/discussion thread for marriage equality? Many people in opposition to marriage equality use that text in support of their beliefs. I'm all for discussion of what they are looking at and how they are interpreting it. If all you want is an RSS feed with recent news, a thread in the Debate and Discussion forum may not be the right place to look. Pretty much everyone left in this thread agrees that marriage equality is a good thing, so we are discussing what's left. And I would rather read discussion of how/why/if Paul is responsible for the modern anti-SSM marriage movement than I would read news about how Republican politician X gives interview confirming unfavorable view Y. At least I learn something new in the former case.
|
|
#
?
Feb 2, 2015 22:44
|
|
|
Edit: Never mind, it finally dawned on me. I am immensely stupid.
|
|
#
?
Feb 2, 2015 22:52
|
|
|
Grundulum posted:Many people in opposition to marriage equality use that text in support of their beliefs. I'm all for discussion of what they are looking at and how they are interpreting it. If all you want is an RSS feed with recent news, a thread in the Debate and Discussion forum may not be the right place to look. Pretty much everyone left in this thread agrees that marriage equality is a good thing, so we are discussing what's left. And I would rather read discussion of how/why/if Paul is responsible for the modern anti-SSM marriage movement than I would read news about how Republican politician X gives interview confirming unfavorable view Y. At least I learn something new in the former case. Everyone here already knows what those passages actually say and how they're used in a modern context to justify discrimination. Pretending that the way they were interpreted by some esoteric group a few centuries ago is relevant in the context of a discussion of marriage rights in the 21st century is like a linguistics nerd jerking themselves off about how they know what the word decimate really means and everyone else is just using it wrong.
|
|
#
?
Feb 3, 2015 00:02
|
|
|
CommieGIR posted:http://www.thenewcivilrightsmovement.com/davidbadash/wyoming_house_passes_anti_gay_license_to_discriminate_bill Reducto ad Absurdium; could a gay service employee then refuse to serve anyone wearing a cross because of the employee's "deeply held religious beliefs" that christians persecuting him is morally wrong? Could anyone, gay or not, do the same thing for the same reason?
|
|
#
?
Feb 3, 2015 03:24
|
|
|
Strawman posted:Everyone here already knows what those passages actually say and how they're used in a modern context to justify discrimination. Pretending that the way they were interpreted by some esoteric group a few centuries ago is relevant in the context of a discussion of marriage rights in the 21st century is like a linguistics nerd jerking themselves off about how they know what the word decimate really means and everyone else is just using it wrong. Yes, because the philosophical arguments used by Westerners in the year 2014 couldn't possibly be built upon any thought that might have come before. Clearly, teachers and professors who even mention that dipshit Aristotle should be executed by the Internet smuggo squad 
|
|
#
?
Feb 3, 2015 03:48
|
|
|
Royal W posted:Reducto ad Absurdium; could a gay service employee then refuse to serve anyone wearing a cross because of the employee's "deeply held religious beliefs" that christians persecuting him is morally wrong? Could anyone, gay or not, do the same thing for the same reason? From here. HB0083 posted:
Bolding is mine because holy  that's incredibly broad. So basically as long as your particular interpretation of any religion results in a sincere belief to do X or not do X, and neither doing X nor not doing X conflicts with other laws already on the books, you are covered. Which means that as long as anyone can spin it as a religiously motivated, sincere belief you can refuse service to whoever the hell you want."What's that? You want a cake? Sorry, I don't serve Christians. Praise Allah."
|
|
#
?
Feb 3, 2015 04:03
|
|
|
Buried alive posted:From here.  treats all religions as equals ( on paper anyway), so there is no onus on a person to prove that their beliefs come from a "legit religion." It's my belief that people who have baseball teams of children are a blight on the world, so no, I won't bake a cake for (Ai/Cay)den's birthday.
|
|
#
?
Feb 3, 2015 04:23
|
|
|
Wait until somebody not-Christian (hopefully a Satanist or Muslim for ultimate trolling) uses these laws to refuse service to a Baptist and then see them a) get repealed or (more likely) b) get rewritten to say "Christian" and get the poo poo declared unconstitutional because the morons writing them don't think past "gays icky." e: VVV Just claim Satanism, it's funnier and an actual religion. SubponticatePoster fucked around with this message at 04:31 on Feb 3, 2015 |
|
#
?
Feb 3, 2015 04:27
|
|
|
I have a feeling it's specifically written that way so if someone tries to pull the "I'm an atheist and don't serve Christians" card, the prosecution will argue that atheism isn't a system of religious beliefs therefore it doesn't apply.
|
|
#
?
Feb 3, 2015 04:30
|
|
|
Strawman posted:Everyone here already knows what those passages actually say and how they're used in a modern context to justify discrimination. Pretending that the way they were interpreted by some esoteric group a few centuries ago is relevant in the context of a discussion of marriage rights in the 21st century is like a linguistics nerd jerking themselves off about how they know what the word decimate really means and everyone else is just using it wrong. I don't, though, despite having read every single post in the thread. Maybe I wasn't paying attention sufficiently the last time this was discussed. v  v
|
|
#
?
Feb 3, 2015 04:59
|
|
|
Twelve by Pies posted:I have a feeling it's specifically written that way so if someone tries to pull the "I'm an atheist and don't serve Christians" card, the prosecution will argue that atheism isn't a system of religious beliefs therefore it doesn't apply. This is why certain atheistic groups are making a point to consider their set of beliefs as legitimately "religious" ones, without the prerequisite of a higher power.
|
|
#
?
Feb 3, 2015 06:09
|
|
|
Don't all businesses "reserve the right to refuse service to anyone" anyway? Aren't "religious freedom" laws pragmatically redundant? I understand that the people attempting to enact these laws just want "gays are icky" to be law, but it seems to me that businesses could refuse service anyway, without giving a reason, and get away with it. NuclearEagleFox!!! fucked around with this message at 07:26 on Feb 3, 2015 |
|
#
?
Feb 3, 2015 07:15
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 9, 2024 04:42 |
|
|
You can refuse service to anyone unless it's a protected group. If someone is being loud and noisy in your restaurant, or comes in barefoot, you can refuse them service because these aren't protected groups. And yes, sometimes it can be hard to prove intent but having these laws on the books is one of the important steps to making sure that kind of discrimination isn't tolerated.
|
|
#
?
Feb 3, 2015 07:20
|
|
