Announcement

Collapse

Civics 101 Guidelines

Want to argue about politics? Healthcare reform? Taxes? Governments? You've come to the right place!

Try to keep it civil though. The rules still apply here.
See more
See less

Children are just commodities in the liberal culture.

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Originally posted by Abigail View Post
    I think that, JimL, because Christians *are* being systematically denied existence. Gay people who built their whole case around their identity and the persecution they were getting, now seem quite happy to ignore the identity of others and persecute those in turn.
    EGGzackly - "I want to be treated equally, and left alone to pursue my own life, but once I get that, I'm going to make double durn sure you don't have that same freedom".
    The first to state his case seems right until another comes and cross-examines him.

    Comment


    • Originally posted by Abigail View Post
      I think that, JimL, because Christians *are* being systematically denied existence. Gay people who built their whole case around their identity and the persecution they were getting, now seem quite happy to ignore the identity of others and persecute those in turn. In other words they are undermining the whole logic on which they appealed to people because their actions are now showing a different message - that power and influence makes right. They used the empathetic, equal rights case because they knew this would have weight with Christians who are expected to treat their neighbours with Christian love and who do realize that ultimately people have freewill to live their own choices. For instance I have seen Starlight turn on the empathy taps full-blast when trying to make people feel guilty over holding a Christian view on homosexuality yet I have seen another streak in him, ruthless and totally lacking in empathy, when speaking about late term abortion. You can see why I am suspecting you guys for being manipulaters. Manipulating people into getting what you want, no matter if that entails people being forced into denying their sincerely held beliefs.
      I think you're confusing the words "empathy" and "emotionalism". They mean different things, though there can be some overlap. "Empathy" refers to understanding what another person is experiencing, and thinking about how the world must look through their eyes, and thinking about their point of view as well as your own. Some people are better at this than others, or are more naturally inclined toward doing it, and to a certain extent it seems to be a mental skill that can be learned. "Emotionalism" is about phrasing arguments to make heart-wrenching emotional appeals, a common debate tactic widely used by both sides on any given issue.

      You saying I lack empathy when speaking about late term abortions is not really a statement that makes sense. What I think you're trying to contrast is the emotionally-appealing way I try to phrase pro-gay-rights arguments, with my relative disinterest in the emotionally-appealing way pro-life advocates try to phrase their arguments on abortion.

      Whereas when I complain about conservatives lacking empathy on gay rights issues (and abortion for that matter), I am talking about the fact that they very often haven't even considered the point of view of gay people (or, in the case of abortion, the point of view of the pregnant woman). I commonly find on many issues that religious conservatives are often quite rules-focused rather than people-focused and so will simply say "the bible says X, therefore X" without engaging in any process of empathy and thinking about the point of view of the people that their rules would potentially hurt.

      Courts are part of the public square and if I am being told I cannot conduct my business in accordance with my identity as a Christian then I am being discriminated against - by your own definition. We must then do away with gay bars etc etc
      I would imagine that gay bars would be illegal according to standard anti-discrimination laws. They could certainly promote themselves to the gay community as a "gay bar", but legally they would have to serve anyone who walked through their door, gay or not.

      A Christian by definition sees his/her identity as primarily bound up in Christ. A gay person, by definition, obviously sees their identity primarily in terms of their sexuality.
      Um, no. For lots of Christians, being a Christian is not regarded by them as their primary identity, just one thing among many. And I don't think I've ever heard of a gay person who ever said being gay was their primary identity... surely by definition gender has to be more primary than sexuality anyway, because to have a given sexuality you have to first have a gender yourself and then compare it to the gender you're attracted to, so your sexuality is a derived characteristic of those two things and not a primary thing.

      If a customer comes into my shop wanting a gay wedding cake and I am forced to make it, all the while being threatened with law if I should I voice any Christian views I have on the matter, then my identity is being denied to me.
      You could presumably tell them about your views, while taking their cake order.

      I am very skeptical of your general claim that your primary identity is being denied just because you're not allowed to act a certain way in a five minute period of your life. Surely, your identity as a Christian is an internal thing between you and God. Obviously, it has natural consequences about how you might want to act in various circumstances. But if you are not able to act in the way you want in every single circumstance, it doesn't destroy your internal identity. The very fact that as a sinner you sin shows that your identity is not lived out in every single way every single moment of the every day. Yet your deviance doesn't destroy your Christian identity.

      If you come into my shop for a gay wedding cake and I refuse to make it, your identity is not being denied, in fact it is being recognized... So who is actually going to be losing more of their core identity? In the first senario I am denied my identity entirely. In the second You are denied a cake.
      However, the purpose of secular law is not "to maximally recognize the self-identity of all citizens". If that really was a widely-shared social goal, then you would have a point. However, as I have mentioned before, the overall social view that drives most modern laws and most secular people's idea of morality is along the lines of wanting to "maximize well-being and minimize harm in an equitable way". So what will interest most people who consider the bakery scenario will be the pros and cons of the different possible laws in terms of who is harmed/helped and why, and what would result in the greatest equality.

      It's perfectly reasonable to make the argument that a person is harmed by not being able to fully-express their religious identity, and that they are being harmed by being forced to serve a customer they don't want to serve. And I agree. Yes. Those are real harms. That are really inflicted on the bakery owners in this scenario. But there are also harms inflicted on the customers in this scenario. And it is a matter of considering all the harms involved, and then selecting a law that finds an optimal balance. Most people who seriously sit down and work through the pros and cons of it, seem to conclude that the harms done to the customer outweigh those done to the owner, and therefore prefer the law to say that the owner must serve all equally.

      People should be able to conduct business in accordance with their beliefs,
      I agree that people being able to act according to their beliefs is part of the concept of "freedom" and is a good thing. However, I think people acting in a way that harms other people is a bad thing. So if one group of people wants to act according to their beliefs (a good) in a way that harms other people (a bad), I've then got to think through all the pros and cons of the situation, and it's not inherently obvious which principle should be allowed to win out over the other. However, it's not enough to simply state that people acting according to their beliefs is a good thing, and therefore just allow them to do anything that their religion might happen to say is a good thing: eg doing drugs, human sacrifice, executing gay people, beheading blasphemers, killing the infidel, etc.
      "I hate him passionately", he's "a demonic force" - Tucker Carlson, in private, on Donald Trump
      "Every line of serious work that I have written since 1936 has been written, directly or indirectly, against totalitarianism and for democratic socialism" - George Orwell
      "[Capitalism] as it exists today is, in my opinion, the real source of evils. I am convinced there is only one way to eliminate these grave evils, namely through the establishment of a socialist economy" - Albert Einstein

      Comment


      • Originally posted by Starlight View Post
        It's perfectly reasonable to make the argument that a person is harmed by not being able to fully-express their religious identity, and that they are being harmed by being forced to serve a customer they don't want to serve. And I agree. Yes. Those are real harms. That are really inflicted on the bakery owners in this scenario. But there are also harms inflicted on the customers in this scenario. And it is a matter of considering all the harms involved, and then selecting a law that finds an optimal balance. Most people who seriously sit down and work through the pros and cons of it, seem to conclude that the harms done to the customer outweigh those done to the owner, and therefore prefer the law to say that the owner must serve all equally.
        Well, there's that pesky thing about the guarantee of life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. The same sex couple has the freedom to pursue all three, but the baker or photographer is thwarted in their attempt to pursue their own liberty and happiness.

        However, it's not enough to simply state that people acting according to their beliefs is a good thing, and therefore just allow them to do anything that their religion might happen to say is a good thing: eg doing drugs, human sacrifice, executing gay people, beheading blasphemers, killing the infidel, etc.
        Um, perhaps you didn't notice that these extreme things you mentioned (really dumb examples) are bad things that one DOES, not things one refrains from doing, like not baking a cake.
        The first to state his case seems right until another comes and cross-examines him.

        Comment


        • Originally posted by Starlight View Post
          However, it's not enough to simply state that people acting according to their beliefs is a good thing, and therefore just allow them to do anything that their religion might happen to say is a good thing: eg doing drugs, human sacrifice, executing gay people, beheading blasphemers, killing the infidel, etc.
          What complete moron would equate... let's see..... "doing drugs, human sacrifice, executing gay people, beheading blasphemers, killing the infidel" = "not baking a cake".

          Oh, YEAH!!!! That's the universe Starlight lives in!
          The first to state his case seems right until another comes and cross-examines him.

          Comment


          • Originally posted by Cow Poke View Post
            Well, there's that pesky thing about the guarantee of life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.
            Um... you do realize those things are not actually guaranteed, because that phrase is from the declaration of independence which has no legal force...? (If it did, the legal case for same-sex marriage in the US would have been a lot stronger! Pretty hard to argue that prohibiting a gay couple from marrying isn't denying them their right to pursue happiness.)

            Um, perhaps you didn't notice that these extreme things you mentioned (really dumb examples) are bad things that one DOES, not things one refrains from doing, like not baking a cake.
            Telling a customer that you're refusing them service is also something that one does, so I don't see the relevance of this distinction.

            What complete moron would equate... let's see..... "doing drugs, human sacrifice, executing gay people, beheading blasphemers, killing the infidel" = "not baking a cake"
            Those are all true examples of things that religious people have wanted to do as part of their religion, things which many people feel harm others. That is why vaguely worded religious freedom laws are dangerous, because people around the world and through history have wanted to do quite a number of things in the name of religion that hurt others.

            The most cute recent example of the religious freedom laws in the US, is religious exemptions for marijuana usage. The First Church of Cannabis has now successfully registered with the IRS as a tax-exempt organisation using Indiana's new religious-freedom law. Their teachings promote the use of cannabis among their members, who are allowed to exercise their religious freedoms due to the new religious freedom laws, regardless of what other state and federal laws might happen to say about marijuana usage. But, of course, there was already a religion that endorsed marijuana use as a basic tenet, so members of that religion can equally use the new religious freedom laws to evade conviction. I wish good luck to any conservatives who want to stand up in court and argue "when we passed that religious freedom law, we didn't really mean religious freedom per se, just Christian freedom, and we didn't really mean to allow religious people to do anything their religion happened to teach, we were just trying to make it legal for people to be anti-gay." I'll be watching with popcorn.
            Last edited by Starlight; 06-09-2015, 08:13 AM.
            "I hate him passionately", he's "a demonic force" - Tucker Carlson, in private, on Donald Trump
            "Every line of serious work that I have written since 1936 has been written, directly or indirectly, against totalitarianism and for democratic socialism" - George Orwell
            "[Capitalism] as it exists today is, in my opinion, the real source of evils. I am convinced there is only one way to eliminate these grave evils, namely through the establishment of a socialist economy" - Albert Einstein

            Comment


            • Originally posted by Starlight View Post
              I think you're confusing the words "empathy" and "emotionalism". They mean different things, though there can be some overlap. "Empathy" refers to understanding what another person is experiencing, and thinking about how the world must look through their eyes, and thinking about their point of view as well as your own. Some people are better at this than others, or are more naturally inclined toward doing it, and to a certain extent it seems to be a mental skill that can be learned. "Emotionalism" is about phrasing arguments to make heart-wrenching emotional appeals, a common debate tactic widely used by both sides on any given issue.

              You saying I lack empathy when speaking about late term abortions is not really a statement that makes sense. What I think you're trying to contrast is the emotionally-appealing way I try to phrase pro-gay-rights arguments, with my relative disinterest in the emotionally-appealing way pro-life advocates try to phrase their arguments on abortion.

              Whereas when I complain about conservatives lacking empathy on gay rights issues (and abortion for that matter), I am talking about the fact that they very often haven't even considered the point of view of gay people (or, in the case of abortion, the point of view of the pregnant woman). I commonly find on many issues that religious conservatives are often quite rules-focused rather than people-focused and so will simply say "the bible says X, therefore X" without engaging in any process of empathy and thinking about the point of view of the people that their rules would potentially hurt.
              I could say exactly the same from my corner and your lack of empathy shows throughout this post.. How many liberals have actually tried to think how it feels for a Christian who sincerely hold the beliefs they do? Not many it seems because I have met almost nobody who is prepared to appreciate that we are not setting out to harm homosexuals or wantonly deprive them of their rights.
              Originally posted by Starlight
              I would imagine that gay bars would be illegal according to standard anti-discrimination laws. They could certainly promote themselves to the gay community as a "gay bar", but legally they would have to serve anyone who walked through their door, gay or not.
              Yes and find other surreptitious ways of making people feel unwelcome. See, those who really want to discriminate are mostly underhand about it. It is organized and pernicious and often done in such a way that any comeback can be deflected. I know, I have been on the receiving end of such discrimination. I know I have been discriminated against and the people who discriminated against me know they have discriminated against me.

              Originally posted by Starlight
              Um, no. For lots of Christians, being a Christian is not regarded by them as their primary identity, just one thing among many. And I don't think I've ever heard of a gay person who ever said being gay was their primary identity... surely by definition gender has to be more primary than sexuality anyway, because to have a given sexuality you have to first have a gender yourself and then compare it to the gender you're attracted to, so your sexuality is a derived characteristic of those two things and not a primary thing.
              Perhaps lots of Christians do that but Christianity is not defined by what the 'lots' do but by the Bible. We are supposed to live our faith. It is not just a pick and choose. Despite your slippery semantics, I think you know what I mean when I said a gay person gets their identity from their sexuality and your show here of trying to cloud the issue with all sorts of gender-speak confirms to me that I have hit the kernel of the issue.
              Originally posted by Starlight
              You could presumably tell them about your views, while taking their cake order.
              Things might be fairer if I could but we have already heard of people being arrested for voicing their views on homosexuality.

              Originally posted by Starlight
              I am very skeptical of your general claim that your primary identity is being denied just because you're not allowed to act a certain way in a five minute period of your life. Surely, your identity as a Christian is an internal thing between you and God. Obviously, it has natural consequences about how you might want to act in various circumstances. But if you are not able to act in the way you want in every single circumstance, it doesn't destroy your internal identity. The very fact that as a sinner you sin shows that your identity is not lived out in every single way every single moment of the every day. Yet your deviance doesn't destroy your Christian identity.
              Yes, but as a sinner I am supposed to repent and try and turn from my sin. How I am I supposed to do that if I have no say in the matter and am just expected to commit the same sin every time a gay person comes in for a wedding cake, making me party to the sin - I have to try fight the law or else at least be able to preach to the person who is intent on sinning. On a personal level with an individual customer, I would be open to keeping the channels open bothways, making the wedding cake on the understanding I can raise my views to the person. If I am legislated to keep my views to myself then I would not bake the cake. Under no circumstances would I bake a cake for a rally in support of something which went against my conscience as was really the case.
              Originally posted by Starlight
              However, the purpose of secular law is not "to maximally recognize the self-identity of all citizens". If that really was a widely-shared social goal, then you would have a point. However, as I have mentioned before, the overall social view that drives most modern laws and most secular people's idea of morality is along the lines of wanting to "maximize well-being and minimize harm in an equitable way". So what will interest most people who consider the bakery scenario will be the pros and cons of the different possible laws in terms of who is harmed/helped and why, and what would result in the greatest equality.
              Originally posted by Starlight
              It's perfectly reasonable to make the argument that a person is harmed by not being able to fully-express their religious identity, and that they are being harmed by being forced to serve a customer they don't want to serve. And I agree. Yes. Those are real harms. That are really inflicted on the bakery owners in this scenario. But there are also harms inflicted on the customers in this scenario. And it is a matter of considering all the harms involved, and then selecting a law that finds an optimal balance. Most people who seriously sit down and work through the pros and cons of it, seem to conclude that the harms done to the customer outweigh those done to the owner, and therefore prefer the law to say that the owner must serve all equally.
              Though by my estimation of the thing, the ultimate harm for the Christian would be that if he could not reconcile it with his conscience then he would need to drop that service for all or even possibly close his business. The ultimate harm for the homosexual would be that he would need to go to another bakery to get his cake. In other words the Christian is harmed more.

              Originally posted by Starlight
              I agree that people being able to act according to their beliefs is part of the concept of "freedom" and is a good thing. However, I think people acting in a way that harms other people is a bad thing. So if one group of people wants to act according to their beliefs (a good) in a way that harms other people (a bad), I've then got to think through all the pros and cons of the situation, and it's not inherently obvious which principle should be allowed to win out over the other. However, it's not enough to simply state that people acting according to their beliefs is a good thing, and therefore just allow them to do anything that their religion might happen to say is a good thing: eg doing drugs, human sacrifice, executing gay people, beheading blasphemers, killing the infidel, etc.
              It is dishonest to equate the harm of not being served wedding cake with ones that cause actual bodily harm and deprive a person of their physical life. I am also not sure why you listed drugs since most of the drives for legalizing drugs come from the non-religious.
              Last edited by Abigail; 06-09-2015, 08:35 AM.

              Comment


              • Originally posted by Starlight View Post
                The most cute recent example of the religious freedom laws in the US, is religious exemptions for marijuana usage. The First Church of Cannabis has now successfully registered with the IRS as a tax-exempt organisation using Indiana's new religious-freedom law. Their teachings promote the use of cannabis among their members, who are allowed to exercise their religious freedoms due to the new religious freedom laws, regardless of what other state and federal laws might happen to say about marijuana usage. But, of course, there was already a religion that endorsed marijuana use as a basic tenet, so members of that religion can equally use the new religious freedom laws to evade conviction. I wish good luck to any conservatives who want to stand up in court and argue "when we passed that religious freedom law, we didn't really mean religious freedom per se, just Christian freedom, and we didn't really mean to allow religious people to do anything their religion happened to teach, we were just trying to make it legal for people to be anti-gay." I'll be watching with popcorn.
                Yeah well some of these could be trojan horses to cause 'noise' on the issue of religious freedom and to bring the whole area into disrepute and confusion. There are some very nasty and small-minded people in the world and they are not above something like this.

                Hatred of Christians is real and growing.

                Comment


                • Originally posted by Starlight View Post
                  Um... you do realize those things are not actually guaranteed, because that phrase is from the declaration of independence which has no legal force...?
                  Yes, I'm well aware of that, but they are principles upon which this country was founded.

                  (If it did, the legal case for same-sex marriage in the US would have been a lot stronger! Pretty hard to argue that prohibiting a gay couple from marrying isn't denying them their right to pursue happiness.)
                  They have a right to pursue it - it doesn't mean they automatically get it.

                  Telling a customer that you're refusing them service is also something that one does, so I don't see the relevance of this distinction.
                  Yeah, even worse than beheading them.

                  Those are all true examples of things that religious people have wanted to do as part of their religion, things which many people feel harm others. That is why vaguely worded religious freedom laws are dangerous, because people around the world and through history have wanted to do quite a number of things in the name of religion that hurt others.
                  Nothing whatsoever to do with cake baking.

                  I think I'll just ignore your "cute" example.
                  The first to state his case seems right until another comes and cross-examines him.

                  Comment


                  • Originally posted by Irate Canadian View Post
                    Ad JimL ignores my posts.... Hurrah...
                    He's ignoring that it was a cake with a message the baker did not agree with. or if he isn't then Jiml is saying it is ok to force a black cake baker to bake a cake with a pro KKK message on it or a jewish cake baker a pro nazi message becuase other wise they are discriminating against someone else never mind they would like teh christian cake baker bake other cakes for people who have a different view then they do.
                    Last edited by RumTumTugger; 06-09-2015, 10:35 AM.

                    Comment


                    • Originally posted by RumTumTugger View Post
                      He's ignoring that it was a cake with a message the baker did not agree with. or if he isn't then Jiml is saying it is ok to force a black cake baker to bake a cake with a pro KKK message on it or a jewish cake baker a pro nazi message becuase other wise they are discriminating against someone else never mind they would like teh christian cake baker bake other cakes for people who have a different view then they do.
                      OK, TwebMom -- Be nice to JimL!
                      The first to state his case seems right until another comes and cross-examines him.

                      Comment


                      • Originally posted by Cow Poke View Post
                        OK, TwebMom -- Be nice to JimL!
                        Why

                        oh and it looks like starlight would be in JimLs camp here as well. Since a customer wanting to put a Pro-KKK or Pro-Nazi message on their cake has a right to force a black or jewish cake baker to do the job. according to how JIML, Starlight and their ilk for abusing the anti discrimination laws.

                        Comment


                        • Originally posted by RumTumTugger View Post
                          Why
                          It's up to you. The Lord told me if I can be nice to Jim, I can be nice to anybody.

                          oh and it looks like starlight would be in JimLs camp here as well. Since a customer wanting to put a Pro-KKK or Pro-Nazi message on their cake has a right to force a black or jewish cake baker to do the job. according to how JIML, Starlight and their ilk for abusing the anti discrimination laws.
                          It gets silly. Would I even WANT to eat a cake that I forced somebody else to bake? That would be like griping out your waiter before you got your food.
                          The first to state his case seems right until another comes and cross-examines him.

                          Comment


                          • Originally posted by Cow Poke View Post
                            It's up to you. The Lord told me if I can be nice to Jim, I can be nice to anybody.



                            It gets silly. Would I even WANT to eat a cake that I forced somebody else to bake? That would be like griping out your waiter before you got your food.
                            Well, it's obviously not about the cake, it's about pushing lawsuits so they can get their way.

                            Comment


                            • Originally posted by Cerebrum123 View Post
                              Well, it's obviously not about the cake, it's about pushing lawsuits so they can get their way.
                              EGGzackly
                              The first to state his case seems right until another comes and cross-examines him.

                              Comment


                              • Starlight would you bake a cake for my black Friends and I saying "Down with the white devil"?
                                "Kahahaha! Let's get lunatic!"-Add LP
                                "And the Devil did grin, for his darling sin is pride that apes humility"-Samuel Taylor Coleridge
                                Oh ye of little fiber. Do you not know what I've done for you? You will obey. ~Cerealman for Prez.

                                Comment

                                Related Threads

                                Collapse

                                Topics Statistics Last Post
                                Started by little_monkey, Yesterday, 04:19 PM
                                16 responses
                                116 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post One Bad Pig  
                                Started by whag, 03-26-2024, 04:38 PM
                                53 responses
                                318 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post Mountain Man  
                                Started by rogue06, 03-26-2024, 11:45 AM
                                25 responses
                                111 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post rogue06
                                by rogue06
                                 
                                Started by Hypatia_Alexandria, 03-26-2024, 09:21 AM
                                33 responses
                                196 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post Roy
                                by Roy
                                 
                                Started by Hypatia_Alexandria, 03-26-2024, 08:34 AM
                                84 responses
                                360 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post JimL
                                by JimL
                                 
                                Working...
                                X