Print

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

[MetalSlimeHunt]

Holy Crap 40% don't think it should be legal to be gay and in a gay relationship:


And even in the updated 2011 version guess which political ideology still overwhelmingly doesn't like the gays...?

I am being unreasonable here, because looking at those numbers, what else am I supposed to think?

Truean, the 2011 study is on Same-Sex Marriage, not the legality of being gay. I'm pretty sure that people who want to criminalize homosexuality would be around 30% now, because the updated study shows a 54% support for Same-Sex Marriage in 2011, which has always had far lesser numbers than the legality of homosexuality.

Of course, my figure is an estimate based upon the last trend Gallup recorded on the subject, and cannot be confirmed until a new poll on the legality of homosexuality is conducted.

One does however decide to be religious, as well as what religion one precisely belongs to. Now, I am all for anti-religious violence but something tells me that that position isn't really favored by the more moderate people here.

Look, Virex, buddy. I know you're frustrated with religion. I am as well. In fact, I would go so far as to say that I hate the presence of religion in our world. Violence is not going to fix anything in this regard, and would be morally wrong even if it did. That kind of fanatical thinking is similar to the very religious fanaticism you are obviously not a fan of.

[kaijyuu]

Ok, I'm hoping I'm misreading something here, but is Virex really advocating violence against people due to them not believing what he believes?

[Nadaka]

I do not align myself with organizations that I substantially disagree with. Why do you?

I'd be willing to bet the vast majority of Americans do this. There's only two parties with a shot at winning anything, and unless one is a total sheep nodding in agreement to whatever their chosen party says, no one completely agrees with either side.

Example: Do you "substantially disagree" with video game censorship? I do. The democratic party is usually the one heading that particular debacle in the US. I'll probably still (largely) vote democratic, though.


Anywho I think his point is "don't generalize," which I can totally get behind.

I do substantially disagree with the democratic party on censorship, intellectual property, gun control and a number of other policies. Just because I occasionally vote for a democratic candidate because that individual is less bad than the guy they are running against does not mean I am a democrat. I have no party. I substantially disagree with every single party out there.

One does however decide to be religious, as well as what religion one precisely belongs to. Now, I am all for anti-religious violence but something tells me that that position isn't really favored by the more moderate people here.

I am not a moderate, I am a radical, and I don't favor anti religious violence. For most people it isn't really a choice, but I won't go into that again.

pseudo edit: Warning - while you were typing 14 new replies have been posted. You may wish to review your post.

[Virex]

I'm not following you? Why would you absolutely need reasoning to come to a conclusion? There's no reasoning involved in the conclusion that gays need to be tossed of a roof and yet nearly everyone in Iran holds that belief.

Yes, literally everyone in the entire nation believes that gays need a bit of murderin' done to them. Try painting with narrower strokes.

You only need a 75% majority across 4 consecutive years to do that in most democratic countries. Now the figure in Iran is of course not 100%, but I'd be surprised if it was lower than 75%

Ok, I'm hoping I'm misreading something here, but is Virex really advocating violence against people due to them not believing what he believes?

I thought I made it clear I'm not going to debate this?

[kaijyuu]

I do substantially disagree with the democratic party on censorship, intellectual property, gun control and a number of other policies. Just because I occasionally vote for a democratic candidate because that individual is less bad than the guy they are running against does not mean I am a democrat. I have no party. I substantially disagree with every single party out there.

Fair 'nough.

I thought I made it clear I'm not going to debate this?

I'm not asking to debate it. I'm asking if my interpretation is correct. Yes or no, and I'll leave it at that.

[G-Flex]

You only need a 75% majority across 4 consecutive years to do that in most democratic countries. Now the figure in Iran is of course not 100%, but I'd be surprised if it was lower than 75%

You need a 75% majority across 4 consecutive years to do what? You said "nearly everyone". I don't consider 3/4 "nearly everyone". Also, to be honest, I think I missed the word "nearly" on my first read, but still.

I thought I made it clear I'm not going to debate this?

If you don't care to defend or even clarify your statements, then don't make statements that are inflammatory and controversial.

[Virex]

I could defend it, but it'd not be in the interest of the thread. You're right that I should not have brought it up.

You only need a 75% majority across 4 consecutive years to do that in most democratic countries. Now the figure in Iran is of course not 100%, but I'd be surprised if it was lower than 75%

You need a 75% majority across 4 consecutive years to do what?

To alter the constitution so that discrimination is no longer forbidden, as per the rules of most countries on mainland Europe, IIRC.

[SalmonGod]

I'm not following you? Why would you absolutely need reasoning to come to a conclusion? There's no reasoning involved in the conclusion that gays need to be tossed of a roof and yet nearly everyone in Iran holds that belief.

That's simply a large-scale cultural agreement that doesn't have enough opposition for compromise to be necessary for the social stability of that nation... arguably on all counts, but that's what it looks like to me.  If half the population became gay overnight, you'd suddenly see a desperate need for logical debate on the topic to avoid the alternate consequence of civil war large enough to tear down their society.  Even if half the population harbors burning hatred for gay people and insists they need no logical explanation to justify it, they should probably have enough interest in large-scale stability of their society to be willing to pursue constructive debate.  We have a situation in America where a disturbingly large number of people are not willing to pursue constructive debate, regardless of the consequences.

[MetalSlimeHunt]

I could defend it, but it'd not be in the interest of the thread. You're right that I should not have brought it up.

You only need a 75% majority across 4 consecutive years to do that in most democratic countries. Now the figure in Iran is of course not 100%, but I'd be surprised if it was lower than 75%

You need a 75% majority across 4 consecutive years to do what? You said "nearly everyone". I don't consider 3/4 "nearly everyone". Also, to be honest, I think I missed the word "nearly" on my first read, but still.

To alter the constitution so that discrimination is no longer forbidden.

You could also alter the Constitution to allow slavery again with a 75% supermajority. That doesn't mean that it has any chance of happening ever. The thing you are altering actually has to gather that support, and some things are unsupportable in 2011.

[Truean]

Holy Crap 40% don't think it should be legal to be gay and in a gay relationship:


And even in the updated 2011 version guess which political ideology still overwhelmingly doesn't like the gays...?

I am being unreasonable here, because looking at those numbers, what else am I supposed to think?

Truean, the 2011 study is on Same-Sex Marriage, not the legality of being gay. I'm pretty sure that people who want to criminalize homosexuality would be around 30% now, because the updated study shows a 54% support for Same-Sex Marriage in 2011, which has always had far lesser numbers than the legality of homosexuality.

Of course, my figure is an estimate based upon the last trend Gallup recorded on the subject, and cannot be confirmed until a new poll on the legality of homosexuality is conducted.

One does however decide to be religious, as well as what religion one precisely belongs to. Now, I am all for anti-religious violence but something tells me that that position isn't really favored by the more moderate people here.

Look, Virex, buddy. I know you're frustrated with religion. I am as well. In fact, I would go so far as to say that I hate the presence of religion in our world. Violence is not going to fix anything in this regard, and would be morally wrong even if it did. That kind of fanatical thinking is similar to the very religious fanaticism you are obviously not a fan of.

I guess I should've positioned the "update" underneath the marriage graph to make it more clear. Let's even assume you're right at 30%. How would you feel if 30% of people thought you should be in prison for marrying your wife? Still, does the point not stand about Republicans generally disfavoring and Democrats favoring the gays?

I'm not following you? Why would you absolutely need reasoning to come to a conclusion? There's no reasoning involved in the conclusion that gays need to be tossed of a roof and yet nearly everyone in Iran holds that belief.

O, you don't need reasoning to come to a conclusion. I dunno how good of a conclusion one can come to without reasoning, but I'm gonna go ahead and say reasoning helps make better conclusions.

Having a society that tosses people off roofs should worry people, because those people could wind up being tossed themselves.... Lil self preservation for the potential tossers and dare I say the tossees.

[Virex]

Having a society that could decide that I cost too much money and that I therefor should be forced to migrate also isn't appealing. However, it is fully based on logic:
Premisse: Reducing government expenses benefits the country (empirical fact for a proper definition of benefit)
A: People that cost a lot more than they produce increase government expenses
B: Removing A reduces government expenses
C: I am one of the people that cost too much
Conclusion: Off you go.


In other words, for both situations a worst-case scenario can be drawn that would be unfavorable. The only logical conclusion therefor must be that the best debate is in a state of quantum-indecission between logic-based and feeling-based. Unfortunately it would be impossible to observe such a debate...

I'm not following you? Why would you absolutely need reasoning to come to a conclusion? There's no reasoning involved in the conclusion that gays need to be tossed of a roof and yet nearly everyone in Iran holds that belief.

That's simply a large-scale cultural agreement that doesn't have enough opposition for compromise to be necessary for the social stability of that nation... arguably on all counts, but that's what it looks like to me.  If half the population became gay overnight, you'd suddenly see a desperate need for logical debate on the topic to avoid the alternate consequence of civil war large enough to tear down their society.  Even if half the population harbors burning hatred for gay people and insists they need no logical explanation to justify it, they should probably have enough interest in large-scale stability of their society to be willing to pursue constructive debate.  We have a situation in America where a disturbingly large number of people are not willing to pursue constructive debate, regardless of the consequences.

In such a case, a debate based on feelings would be very possible. One would possibly not reach an agreement and the internal debate for both groups would probably be about if they feel like it's worth it to let the situation develop into a civil war. But the same would be true for a debate based on logic. I still do not see the value of logic in this, even less now, since it's impossible to have a debat about gay rights based on logic. After all, logic does not dictate any values, only consistency of argumentation.

[MetalSlimeHunt]

I guess I should've positioned the "update" underneath the marriage graph to make it more clear. Let's even assume you're right at 30%. How would you feel if 30% of people thought you should be in prison for marrying your wife? Still, does the point not stand about Republicans generally disfavoring and Democrats favoring the gays?

I'm not disputing any of your points, it was a semantic point on what graphs measure what.

[Truean]

I guess I should've positioned the "update" underneath the marriage graph to make it more clear. Let's even assume you're right at 30%. How would you feel if 30% of people thought you should be in prison for marrying your wife? Still, does the point not stand about Republicans generally disfavoring and Democrats favoring the gays?

I'm not disputing any of your points, it was a semantic point on what graphs measure what.

K

Having a society that could decide that I cost too much money and that I therefor should be forced to migrate also isn't appealing. However, it is fully based on logic:
Premisse: Reducing government expenses benefits the country (empirical fact for a proper definition of benefit)
A: People that cost a lot more than they produce increase government expenses
B: Removing A reduces government expenses
C: I am one of the people that cost too much
Conclusion: Off you go.

Axiom of Self Preservation:
A: What is done to one person can be done to another person.
B: I am a person
C: What is done to one person can be done to me (I).
Conclusion: We shouldn't toss people, because I might be tossed.
,
A voting system that decides otherwise is an argument to numbers/population a logical fallacy.

[Virex]

The concept of self-preservation is not rooted in logic though. There is no purely logical reason for a human being to value it's own existence. Though I'll give you that if you subscribe to that concept and to the validity of reasoning, then you're right. But a logical debate is not bound to adhere to the first.

[SalmonGod]

In such a case, a debate based on feelings would be very possible. One would possibly not reach an agreement and the internal debate for both groups would probably be about if they feel like it's worth it to let the situation develop into a civil war. But the same would be true for a debate based on logic. I still do not see the value of logic in this, even less now, since it's impossible to have a debat about gay rights based on logic. After all, logic does not dictate any values, only consistency of argumentation.

No.  There's much more difference here than you're recognizing.

Debate based on feelings:  "I feel this way, and will not budge.  If you don't budge, there will be X consequence"  "Oh yeah?  Well I also will not budge, and there will be X+1 consequence if you don't budge"  And so on until somebody withdraws, or people start making good on their threats.  I know.  I've been involved with families who conduct all of their internal business in exactly this manner.  Raw head-butting.  It's a winner-takes-all environment where compromise is very rarely possible.

Debate based on logic, on the other hand, creates the potential for mutual agreement.  That is not total victory for one or the other, but rather "There is X risk involved for either of us if we fight about this, so let's compare our positions and see if we can come up with a solution that may have disagreeable aspects for both of us, but is more acceptable than embracing X risk."

If someone would rather go for the fight, then fine.  I'd rather they just say so.