Page 2 of 3 FirstFirst 123 LastLast
Results 11 to 20 of 22
  1. #11
    Jakko's Avatar
    Jakko is offline Senior Member Community Builder
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Location
    North Carolina, US
    Posts
    4,503

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Animagus10 View Post
    first and foremost, i want to apologise to those who were offended by my "ignorance." i meant no harm by it and am in no way shape or form intolerant of homosexuals. no, i am not just saying this to save my own skin or so that i don't get flamed. i truly believe that we are all the same beit homosexual or straight. i mean, we all laugh at funny things, cry at sad ones, feel pain, fear rejection... the list goes on and i am certain of this not because of some study that was published or some claim that was proven but because i have experienced/continue to experience it first hand.

    second, i won't even argue on whether being homosexual is purely genetic, caused by outside influences, none of the above, or all of the above. numerous theories and studies have been published on this subject and while one finding may support a claim, another will refute the said claim. so nope, i definitely will not claim any experties on this area. nor will i say that i understand it. all that really matters to me is that homosexuals are also people and should be treated with respect and fairness.

    so once again, to anyone offended by my previous post, i apologize for the inconvenience.
    ???
    This is exactly what I am talking about.
    I do not give a crap about the fact that you didn't mean to be "intolerant to homosexuals." Point in fact, you weren't.

    You were "intolerant" to "religious and political conservatives." It is this casual disdain and arrogance towards religious people, and those that hold conservative beliefs that I find maddening. You can't in one breath speak of the evils of "intolerance," while in the next being "intolerant" of those that do not believe in your specific mantra. That kind of self-righteous moral indignation to those that would dare disagree with you is hypocritical in the extreme. The lack of thought behind such slights make it that much worse.

    Look up the definition of "tolerance." It means that one can disagree with another, but not persecute them because of that. I disagree with homosexuality, I think of it as a sin, a perversion. That does not keep me from loving them as a person, or being friends with them(for example, I am friends with several gays, and work closely with several more). I disagree with Islamic beliefs and atheistic beliefs, but this does not keep me from socializing, respecting, or befriending members of these groups. You can't preach "tolerance" while snubbing a group that disagree's with you, that is the very definition of intolerance. In point of fact, I am, by your definition, an intolerant person. I believe that homosexuality is wrong. But you will never see me insulting them for this, or making outlandish jokes equating them to monsters(and dehumanizing them at the same time) who would go through convoluted conspiracies to further a morally reprehensible cause(and I would consider modifying a human babies genes to fit a social belief such). I am not even angry that you insulted conservatives and religious groups, as much as the callous and nonchalant way you did, as if it was nothing, and the first idea you sprung on later was(God forbid) "intolerance." Ask yourself who the truly intolerant person is.

  2. #12
    Saizou is offline Senior Member Always Around
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    Helsinki, Finland
    Posts
    1,279

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Jakko
    You were "intolerant" to "religious and political conservatives." It is this casual disdain and arrogance towards religious people, and those that hold conservative beliefs that I find maddening. You can't in one breath speak of the evils of "intolerance," while in the next being "intolerant" of those that do not believe in your specific mantra. That kind of self-righteous moral indignation to those that would dare disagree with you is hypocritical in the extreme. The lack of thought behind such slights make it that much worse.
    Actually, he's not intolerant per definition, he just makes stupid claims. You're reading slightly too much into what he said. After all, intolerance is primarily a matter of actions, not beliefs.

    Quote Originally Posted by Jakko
    Look up the definition of "tolerance." It means that one can disagree with another, but not persecute them because of that. I disagree with homosexuality, I think of it as a sin, a perversion. That does not keep me from loving them as a person, or being friends with them(for example, I am friends with several gays, and work closely with several more). I disagree with Islamic beliefs and atheistic beliefs, but this does not keep me from socializing, respecting, or befriending members of these groups. You can't preach "tolerance" while snubbing a group that disagree's with you, that is the very definition of intolerance. In point of fact, I am, by your definition, an intolerant person. I believe that homosexuality is wrong. But you will never see me insulting them for this, or making outlandish jokes equating them to monsters(and dehumanizing them at the same time) who would go through convoluted conspiracies to further a morally reprehensible cause(and I would consider modifying a human babies genes to fit a social belief such). I am not even angry that you insulted conservatives and religious groups, as much as the callous and nonchalant way you did, as if it was nothing, and the first idea you sprung on later was(God forbid) "intolerance." Ask yourself who the truly intolerant person is.
    This is an interesting argument. Personally, I would argue that it is ethically justified to be intolerant towards the intolerant. If the intolerant behavoiur of a group causes great harm, why should society tolerate them?

  3. #13
    Jakko's Avatar
    Jakko is offline Senior Member Community Builder
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Location
    North Carolina, US
    Posts
    4,503

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Saizou
    This is an interesting argument. Personally, I would argue that it is ethically justified to be intolerant towards the intolerant. If the intolerant behavoiur of a group causes great harm, why should society tolerate them?
    But the question arises, who is the truly intolerant? What right does said person have to judge actions, thoughts, and ideologies in a relative truth world and whether something is right or wrong, or harmful or not? What defines harm in their eyes? And once they cause harm to the intolerant person, are they any different?

  4. #14
    loca93 is offline Senior Member Always Around
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    New York
    Posts
    1,172

    Default

    A little off the whole gay animals topic, but oh well. Jakko do you go to college or something because or law school and or something similar because you defend and structure your case well.

    Anyway new question for the 60 minutes thing. Do you think it's right. Do you think it's right for scientist to turn animals gay.


  5. #15
    SAND_MAN is offline Senior Member Always Around
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    The 1/4 Mile
    Posts
    1,009

    Default

    0.0 this thread got serious...if you watched the video they did NOT turn the animals gay The guy said we are altering hormones he did not mention pleasure or sexual prefrence merely the act of triggering a natural behaivior that is not commenly found in males.


    "Let my ears hear not but the most sinful of lyrics"

  6. #16
    loca93 is offline Senior Member Always Around
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    New York
    Posts
    1,172

    Default

    Headline said what IF they can turn them gay. All I am asking is do you think it's right?


  7. #17
    hermit78 is offline Senior Member Well Known
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Canada
    Posts
    325

    Default

    last night iwas watching tv (yeh it was saturday night...),there was these program which talked about homesexuality in mokeys espically chimpanzes ,they reported that there was alesbian chimp in austrialian zoo that she only had sex with females and she refused to have sex with males,also they showed male chimpanzes in japanese zoo that were gay .
    i kinda believe animals can be gay(not because of the program but because iknow that are gay animals .http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gay_ani...exual_behavior)
    and no i dont think its right to make an anmal/human gay with experiments , nature or choice must be the ones that decide
    Last edited by hermit78; 05-27-2007 at 10:36 AM.

  8. #18
    fiks_me_manga is offline Senior Member Long Time Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Posts
    976

    Default

    my emo spotter is going off
    Flyer than a piece of paper bearing my name,

    The Private Potion, don't drink it!!!

  9. #19
    Saizou is offline Senior Member Always Around
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    Helsinki, Finland
    Posts
    1,279

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Jakko View Post
    But the question arises, who is the truly intolerant? What right does said person have to judge actions, thoughts, and ideologies in a relative truth world and whether something is right or wrong, or harmful or not?
    Truth, defined as the accuracy of a statement describing the objective universe, is hardly relative. In any case, the harm done is the important point. More on that later. And humans certainly have the right to judge each other. The idea that we can't judge each other stems from the fallacious concept that the character of a person somehow affects whether a statement made by said person is true or not.

    Quote Originally Posted by Jakko
    What defines harm in their eyes?
    Harm is hard to define, I'll give you that. In its simplest form, harm would be something that you, from the viewpoint of perfect rationality, is detrimental to your life, liberty and/or happiness. It is an extremely simplified view, true, but unfortunately I don't have the time to write a humongous block of text.

    In any case, harm is much easier to define from a practical point of view. Things such as murder, racism and intolerance can all be defined as harmful.

    Quote Originally Posted by Jakko
    And once they cause harm to the intolerant person, are they any different?
    First of all, by preventing an intolerant person from harming others doesn't mean that you have to harm them in return, and secondly, the morally correct choice would naturally be the one that causes the least amount of harm. I can't see any concievable scenario where preventing intolerance and bigotry would cause more harm than good.

    Unfortunately I won't be able to use the net until Friday night, so I can't answer eventual replies until then.

  10. #20
    Jakko's Avatar
    Jakko is offline Senior Member Community Builder
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Location
    North Carolina, US
    Posts
    4,503

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Saizou View Post
    Truth, defined as the accuracy of a statement describing the objective universe, is hardly relative. In any case, the harm done is the important point. More on that later. And humans certainly have the right to judge each other. The idea that we can't judge each other stems from the fallacious concept that the character of a person somehow affects whether a statement made by said person is true or not.



    Harm is hard to define, I'll give you that. In its simplest form, harm would be something that you, from the viewpoint of perfect rationality, is detrimental to your life, liberty and/or happiness. It is an extremely simplified view, true, but unfortunately I don't have the time to write a humongous block of text.

    In any case, harm is much easier to define from a practical point of view. Things such as murder, racism and intolerance can all be defined as harmful.



    First of all, by preventing an intolerant person from harming others doesn't mean that you have to harm them in return, and secondly, the morally correct choice would naturally be the one that causes the least amount of harm. I can't see any concievable scenario where preventing intolerance and bigotry would cause more harm than good.

    Unfortunately I won't be able to use the net until Friday night, so I can't answer eventual replies until then.
    Good points, all of them. As I have till Friday, I will also do some thinking. Unfortunately, Next sunday i will be gone for a week as well, so, we get to have some drawn out discussions.
    Dang, you bring up some valid points. I will have to think hard on this...

 

 
Page 2 of 3 FirstFirst 123 LastLast

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  
vBulletin Skin by: ForumThemes.com
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.2.0
Copyright © 2014 vBulletin Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved.
SEO by vBSEO 3.6.0 PL2

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70 71 72 73 74 75 76 77 78 79