Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[Frumple]

Eh, if the things labeled christian diverges wildly from what you believe, what you believe probably isn't christian, though you likely shanghai'd the name. Various presbyterian denominations do indeed vary wildly, but they either share certain core concepts nevertheless or they're lying about their beliefs in one way or another by claiming the name. You do want to judge people individually, but at the same time you don't get to claim association with something and then avoid scrutiny for what your claimed group is doing. You can't claim to not be anti-LGBT and be voting republican, ferex (though you may be able to be voting conservative, so long as whatever party or individual you're voting for isn't voting lockstep with the GOP). However strongly you say the former, the latter puts it to lie. With some sorts of association, certain things stop being assumption, and denial by the person associating starts being a lie, regardless of what the individual has told others, or even themself, what they believe.

Religion's a fair bit more muddy than most things political, though. Funding and political support and whatnot paints you, but by and large much of what's related to religion functionally doesn't matter outside your head, holy texts can and have been twisted to invalidate any particular belief associated with them, and so many bloody people claim the top level names they're effectively meaningless -- muslim, ferex, may mean you see the qur'an as a holy text and claim belief in a specific holy figure or two, but how you or your denomination interpret the former or view the latter is pretty much entirely up in the air.

You still have metaphorical problems (so far as wanting to claim you approach others in a sort of tabula rasa state) when you're claiming a specific denomination -- "christian" says basically jack all about your beliefs, but "baptist" or whatev' says quite a bit more -- or talking about a specific region, but it's a lot less necessarily clear, and there's a lot more wiggle room, with the occasional exception. LRA says a hell of a lot more than, say, catholic, heh. Philosophy or ideology is about in the same spot, really, though  those those tend to not splinter into a dozen things fighting over the same name quite so regularly.

There's also a fair bit of difference between talking about an individual member of a group and the group itself. Lot less of the things stated about the latter can be claimed to be assumptions. A criticism of a group you associate isn't necessarily a criticism of you, after all. Unless you're displaying or supporting whatever is being criticized, anyway.

... do wish the bloody denominations would name themselves more clearly, though. Know why they do it (wanting to claim authority over a certain title, since new denominations tend to form due to schisms within a particular denomination), but good gods does it make things more annoying.

[Baffler]

Eh, if the things labeled christian diverges wildly from what you believe, what you believe probably isn't christian, though you likely shanghai'd the name. Various presbyterian denominations do indeed vary wildly, but they either share certain core concepts nevertheless or they're lying about their beliefs in one way or another by claiming the name. You do want to judge people individually, but at the same time you don't get to claim association with something and then avoid scrutiny for what your claimed group is doing. You can't claim to not be anti-LGBT and be voting republican, ferex (though you may be able to be voting conservative, so long as whatever party or individual you're voting for isn't voting lockstep with the GOP). However strongly you say the former, the latter puts it to lie. With some sorts of association, certain things stop being assumption, and denial by the person associating starts being a lie, regardless of what the individual has told others, or even themself, what they believe.

The implications of this paragraph are interesting. Am I to assume, then, since you are a Democrat and support Democrat politicians, that you're perfectly fine with Obama's policy of labeling every man killed by a drone strike, intentionally or not, a terrorist? The party was behind him on it...

[Sergarr]

The implications of this paragraph are interesting. Am I to assume, then, since you are a Democrat and support Democrat politicians, that you're perfectly fine with Obama's policy of labeling every man killed by a drone strike, intentionally or not, a terrorist? The party was behind him on it...

Sounds like a good policy to me. Can't wage an effective war against terrorism without having a few civilian casualties, and civilian casualties apparently trigger American population waaaay disproportionate to their real impact.

[Frumple]

The implications of this paragraph are interesting. Am I to assume, then, since you are a Democrat and support Democrat politicians, that you're perfectly fine with Obama's policy of labeling every man killed by a drone strike, intentionally or not, a terrorist? The party was behind him on it...

Was it? I don't recall many dems running on the platform. Or a vote on it. Do seem to recall quite a bit of condemnation for drone strikes in general and a definite call for reigning some of its excesses in, if still a fair amount of support for the practice if not all its particulars. And eventual statements by the gov't that un-ID'd folks were assumed noncombatants. Apparently executive orders and whatnot calling for greater scrutiny and clearer reporting on the subject, too, with a bit of checking, for all the stats they were using were to all appearances pretty fucked up.

That said, particularly if I had been aware of it at the time, voting for obama would have been giving support to the policy, or at the absolute least support for the use of drone strikes despite issues like that surrounding it. Regardless as to how comfortable I was with it, after that claiming to be anti-drone to much extent would indeed have been a lie.

There is some leeway involved, mind you. If you vote someone into office and then they run off doing shit at odds with their previous positions, or vote people that support 'em in and they back the critter on stuff neither you nor they established previously, yeah, you can't much be held to that decision. Dems might have wiggle room on that particular subject, if not much given the support given to the practice in general, at the time. Reps don't have a single bloody inch of space to claim a stance even neutral on LGBT issues, on the flip side of this particular bit of discussion.

[The Ensorceler]

I think you can claim to be pro-LGBT and vote GOP if your pro-LGBT-ness is a low enough priority. Like you could, say, think the new Bomberman R game looks pretty sweet, but skip buying it so you can get Breath of the Wild instead. Compromise only equals hypocrisy when you are omnipotent and could have gotten everything you asked for. You would just be a liar if you misrepresented the degree of support, which does indeed happen all the time. I guess there is an extra category for the willfully ignorant who don't care if their actions and values correlate at all, tho.

About moral courage/cowardice vs hypocrisy, I think there is a bit more to discuss. Is a hypocrite not a moral coward if they refuse to self-reflect out of fear they will condemn  and hate themselves?

[Baffler]

-snip-

The specifics aren't as important as the essence of the example. It's extremely presumptuous of you to say that Republican voters are by default hostile to LGBT interests, just as it would be presumptuous of me to assume that someone who votes for the Green Party believes in healing crystals and thinks GMO's will alter the DNA of the person who eats them. And I'm willing to bet that the Green Party voter who doesn't believe those things is far more acutely aware of the fact that some of the party's chosen representatives do than any outsider. The best the average person can do is just pick the best one.

Or I could just do what you appear to be doing and write you, or a nonspecific Obama voter in case you didn't, off and chastise you for actively supporting Obama's expansion of the surveillance state and funny counting of civilian casualties because it was known about when he went up for re-election. And possibly even voting for him on the grounds that he apparently thinks all Muslim men are terrorists and that the American people cannot be trusted and need to have all of their communications monitored. All it does is dilute the quality of the discussion.

[Frumple]

No, you're right, the specifics don't matter, but the generalities damn sure do. There's no presumption that a GOP voter is by default hostile to LGBT interests. Maybe they'd rather not be, but it doesn't change that they are. There'd be presumption if I were to claim they all want criminal sodomy laws or some shit enforced, or that they'd push the issue even in the face of other considerations. But that they're willing to support anti-LGBT policy and platforms is not something that can be questioned -- the closest you could get to it is if they're voting for lower level politicians that are actually voting and pushing stances counter to the GOP stance on the subject (or at least goddamn abstaining), or at the very lowest amount of effort (assuming it won't get them hospitalized or killed, anyway) openly speaking against it and pushing for what change they can within the party.

Similarly, there would not be presumption to claim a green voter is willing to support nontraditional medicine and anti-GMO sentiment. There would be for the healing crystal or DNA thing in particular, but that and the state of things with the GOP and LGBT issues are significantly different things (though the state of things with the greens and anti-GMO sentiment is less so). It's entirely possible that the voter has reasons they think as sufficient to excuse it, or that they'll claim they're opposed on an ideological level or whathaveyou, but some things you can't really divorce yourself from. Some shit you own when you cover yourself in it whether you want to or not. Doesn't mean you're necessarily a bad person or something', and gods know there can be extenuating circumstances, but it's still shit you've put yourself behind and to say you didn't is a flat bloody lie.

You would have been right to criticize a dem voter for supporting the surveillance state when we voted obama, basically. That is absolutely what we did, for whatever reason, and we've harangued ourselves a fair amount for it, since. Similarly, those of us who voted for lower level politicians that supported him on those issues would be someone you could call out. You might have less grounds given there's not much in this country of political note that's not, but you'd still be making an accurate statement. Maybe more if there's significant conflict within the party('s voting habits). But that's still an issue you could take. _{Least assuming you didn't vote GOP, or most of the other American political parties, heh.}

Don't recall where I said anything about writing people off, though. Just that some associations do indeed make some things said about the folks associated not an assumption. Hell, the thing with the GOP's base and its support for anti-lgbt sentiment is to figure out what's causing it, and how to stop it, not write them off as whatever the blazes.

[McTraveller]

Eh, if the things labeled christian diverges wildly from what you believe, what you believe probably isn't christian, though you likely shanghai'd the name.

I suppose that depends on how you interpreted 'diverges wildly'.  I didn't think it was that vague... I mean, most denominations that claim to be Christian have essentially the same core faiths like the Trinity and Jesus is divine (although you can't assume this - some Christian seminaries don't actually teach this).  But beyond that, things can be pretty different in terms of what even that 'core' faith means in terms of how your life might be affected.  I mean, people tend to have this view that "Evangelical Christian" in the US means Dispensationalism and hypocrisy, heavy personal salvation but don't have to change behavior, your neighbor be damned, etc. Some denominations are heavily works based, some are all about only "personal" salvation, your neighbor be damed to fire and brimstone, others are about loving your neighbors and enemies (though not necessarily supporting their behaviors), etc. etc.  And that's not even getting into stuff like church governance (hierarchical? congregational?), is wearing (or not) a hat a sin, and are guitars the work of the devil (forgetting that David worshipped so freely he got criticized for not dressing properly while doing so)?

I mean, there are "reasonable" differences in theology like is communion transubstantiation or not, just what does predestination mean anyway, that are kind of "non-divisive" but then you go down the rabbit hole into things like qualification for church leaders and sexuality and roles of men, women, children, and hats.  And some of these aren't trivial either - they speak volumes about people's views of God and humanity and the relationship between them - especially with the more recent developments about morality (which oddly focuses on consensual sexuality, you don't hear much controversy about substance abuse or financial corruption - is it ok to have a practicing embezzler be a head pastor?) that sort of confound the concept of an unchanging God (which, depending on your denomination, may or may not be a thing).

So all that to say - both in religion and politics - there is almost assuredly not any organized group with more than one person that has exactly the same beliefs.

[Neonivek]

For this I like to point out the Apostle's Creed

Which for Catholics is all the requirements to be a Catholic as far as beliefs are concerned. That is it, the only thing.

Sure there is the Magisterium, but that is more the Church's official stance on several topics rather then a checklist of what a Catholic needs to believe.

So everything else is frosting.

[feelotraveller]

Quotidian amusement:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hypocrisy
The word hypocrisy comes from the Greek ὑυπόκρισις (hypokrisis), which means "jealous", "play-acting", "acting out", "coward" or "dissembling".

"When I use a word," Humpty Dumpty said, in rather a scornful tone, "it means just what I choose it to mean – neither more nor less."
"The question is," said Alice, "whether you can make words mean so many different things."
"The question is," said Humpty Dumpty, "which is to be master – that's all."
(Alice's Adventures in Wonderland, Lewis Carroll)

Spoiler: Loud Whispers (click to show/hide)

[Loud Whispers]

Quotidian amusement:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hypocrisy
The word hypocrisy comes from the Greek ὑυπόκρισις (hypokrisis), which means "jealous", "play-acting", "acting out", "coward" or "dissembling".

"When I use a word," Humpty Dumpty said, in rather a scornful tone, "it means just what I choose it to mean – neither more nor less."
"The question is," said Alice, "whether you can make words mean so many different things."
"The question is," said Humpty Dumpty, "which is to be master – that's all."
(Alice's Adventures in Wonderland, Lewis Carroll)

Spoiler: Loud Whispers (click to show/hide)

Hypocrisy:

The practice of claiming to have higher standards or more noble beliefs than is the case.
‘his target was the hypocrisy of suburban life’
‘she was irritated to be accused of hypocrisy’
‘spokesmen unversed in the smoother hypocrisies of diplomacy’

Origin
Middle English: from Old French ypocrisie, via ecclesiastical Latin, from Greek hupokrisis ‘acting of a theatrical part’, from hupokrinesthai ‘play a part, pretend’, from hupo ‘under’ + krinein ‘decide, judge’.
https://en.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/hypocrisy

Your definition is out of date by a mere few thousand years

Spoiler: feelotraveller (click to show/hide)

[overseer05-15]

Incredibly unpopular (at least where I live): I believe Trump is probably better for this country than Hillary, solely due to the fact that while he's a shit-eating asshole, he is a competent shit eating asshole.

[misko27]

That's not unpopular, that's a statement, not an opinion (one that, incidentally, is the exact opposite of almost everyone I've ever met, supporters or opponents). And as a statement, that's just wrong, and easily refuted; particularly since you declined to provide evidence, and statements without evidence can be dismissed without evidence (unless you're the President).

Come now, put some more meat on those bones for us to chew on. Precisely what do you mean by competent? Competent at what? By what measure? Relative to whom? And why is it good for the country? Why is it better than what Hillary would do (and what precisely would Hillary have done)? So much to be said before I can even begin to discuss.

[Antioch]

Incredibly unpopular (at least where I live): I believe Trump is probably better for this country than Hillary, solely due to the fact that while he's a shit-eating asshole, he is a competent shit eating asshole.

Competent at what. He has no political experience and has shown no competency in government whatsoever. His attempt to block people of randomly picked nations he doesn't like simply got blocked by a judge. He pissed of several countries by trying to turn back agreements or with his idiotic wall. He has extreme difficulty even filling his staff positions. The staff he does have abuses their power by promoting personal merchandise of Trumps family or is under investigation for being Russian puppets.

And all he does is scream fake news at everything he doesn't like.

I don't really see anything that hints at competency.

[Neonivek]

Not to mention Trump isn't EXACTLY competent at business either if you go by his track record.

I mean don't get me wrong... I am not here to put you down. Just what competency are you specifically referring to? Media manipulation? finding loopholes in laws?