Page 2 of 3

Re: Homophobic bigotry gets standing ovation

Posted: Wed May 30, 2012 9:29 pm UTC
by omgryebread
Ormurinn wrote:You're actually suggesting people who disagree with you, shouldn't be able to make their own laws if they want to have children own slaves?
Yes, people are saying you shouldn't be able to form your own country in order to continue practicing human rights abuses.

Re: Homophobic bigotry gets standing ovation

Posted: Wed May 30, 2012 9:34 pm UTC
by Ormurinn
I'll bow out here, we're just going to have to agree to disagree. To me preventing the secession of a group because you disagree with their beliefs is more repugnant than the possibility of a state that refuses to accept homosexuals. To other posters, the opposite is the case. Many of you appear to have more expertise with homosexuality than I do, so I will defer to your wisdom.

I'd like to see a sort of halfway solution, where secession was permitted, but the children involved were still U.S citizens and able to leave. I've got no desire for gay children to be abused, but i don't want to impose an unacceptable state on people who dont wish to live under it.

Re: Homophobic bigotry gets standing ovation

Posted: Wed May 30, 2012 9:44 pm UTC
by Weeks
It's the same thing with any number of horrible practices in other countries. We just can't actually prevent them from creating a culture where such practices are permitted. In this case it's possible.

Re: Homophobic bigotry gets standing ovation

Posted: Wed May 30, 2012 10:10 pm UTC
by Dauric
Ormurinn wrote:I'll bow out here, we're just going to have to agree to disagree. To me preventing the secession of a group because you disagree with their beliefs is more repugnant than the possibility of a state that refuses to accept homosexuals. To other posters, the opposite is the case. Many of you appear to have more expertise with homosexuality than I do, so I will defer to your wisdom.

I'd like to see a sort of halfway solution, where secession was permitted, but the children involved were still U.S citizens and able to leave. I've got no desire for gay children to be abused, but i don't want to impose an unacceptable state on people who dont wish to live under it.


Problem is that gay children being born in to such a society would be an ongoing thing. Separating the population doesn't change that there will be some number of children in every generation in that population born with the propensity towards homosexuality or other 'deviant' gender identification. There's no way to have it both ways, unless you're advocating massive homosexual orphanages in the contiguous U.S. to house, teach, and find homes for that 2%-10% of the children cast out by the theocracy.

And that assumes that you can trust the theocracy to properly administer the program from their side without running anti-gay conversion camps, or just lynching them on the spot.

Re: Homophobic bigotry gets standing ovation

Posted: Wed May 30, 2012 10:25 pm UTC
by Lucrece
Most importantly, children love their parents -- even their abusive ones. Children themselves will rarely take initiative to separate themselves from the people they've grown up with and identified with for most of their lives. We see countless cases of children who cover up and fiercely defend their dysfunctional/dangerous parents from state authorities.

You would need to have state agencies dedicating resources (which won't happen, because as it happens most straight people don't give a shit and don't want more of their dollars spent exclusively on gay people's issues) and policing a sovereign state. How manageable is that?

Re: Homophobic bigotry gets standing ovation

Posted: Wed May 30, 2012 10:34 pm UTC
by ShootTheChicken
Ormurinn wrote:I'll bow out here, we're just going to have to agree to disagree. To me preventing the secession of a group because you disagree with their beliefs is more repugnant than the possibility of a state that refuses to accept homosexuals.


Change it then. What if the group wanted to ritually murder and sacrifice their children? Do you still think they should be allowed to do that?

Re: Homophobic bigotry gets standing ovation

Posted: Wed May 30, 2012 11:26 pm UTC
by omgryebread
You don't even have to reach for examples like that, we have one. In history.


A bunch of states tried to leave so they could keep slavery legal. That shit actually occurred. You'd seriously defend that?


(Preemptive strike: If you don't think the Civil War was about slavery, whatever, I'm not going to argue that in this thread, so just imagine I'm talking about a theoretical secession about slavery).

Re: Homophobic bigotry gets standing ovation

Posted: Thu May 31, 2012 5:54 am UTC
by Metaphysician
Ormurinn wrote:I'll bow out here, we're just going to have to agree to disagree. To me preventing the secession of a group because you disagree with their beliefs is more repugnant than the possibility of a state that refuses to accept homosexuals. To other posters, the opposite is the case. Many of you appear to have more expertise with homosexuality than I do, so I will defer to your wisdom.

I'd like to see a sort of halfway solution, where secession was permitted, but the children involved were still U.S citizens and able to leave. I've got no desire for gay children to be abused, but i don't want to impose an unacceptable state on people who dont wish to live under it.


The issue with this is that what these people would be doing, would result in human rights abuses, whereas the state they were fleeing from, wasn't persecuting them in the least, just making laws allowing for more freedom for OTHER people. What sexual acts other people engage in, or who they marry, has absolutely no effect on my life whatsoever. They cast it as if they are being persecuted but nobody is forcing them to believe anything, nobody is treading on their rights as United States citizens, nobody is doing them any harm. Their grounds for secession are specious.

Re: Homophobic bigotry gets standing ovation

Posted: Thu May 31, 2012 6:32 am UTC
by Ormurinn
omgryebread wrote:
Ormurinn wrote:You're actually suggesting people who disagree with you, shouldn't be able to make their own laws if they want to have children own slaves?
Yes, people are saying you shouldn't be able to form your own country in order to continue practicing human rights abuses.


What about the human right of these secessionist Christians to live under a government acceptable to them?

Would you support invasion and annexation of states that support the death penalty? what about the U.K? We deny prisoners the vote, and haven't ratified the convention on the rights of migrant workers.

Dauric wrote:Problem is that gay children being born in to such a society would be an ongoing thing. Separating the population doesn't change that there will be some number of children in every generation in that population born with the propensity towards homosexuality or other 'deviant' gender identification. There's no way to have it both ways, unless you're advocating massive homosexual orphanages in the contiguous U.S. to house, teach, and find homes for that 2%-10% of the children cast out by the theocracy.

And that assumes that you can trust the theocracy to properly administer the program from their side without running anti-gay conversion camps, or just lynching them on the spot.


What the contiguous U.S does with regards to its new neighbour is its own business. You're putting the rights of that small minority of homosexuals over the rights of the majority of this hypothetical community to live under a government deriving its power from their consent.

Assuming most people's sexuality begins to solidify around age 12, we're talking about a state where homosexual children need to remain closeted for 6 years before being allowed to leave without the consent of their parents. Is this a bigger imposition than expecting these fundamentalist Christians to live their entire lives under a government unsuitable to them? Moreover, these individuals self segregating gets them out of your national politics, so national policy isn't affected by them anymore.

Lucrece wrote:Most importantly, children love their parents -- even their abusive ones. Children themselves will rarely take initiative to separate themselves from the people they've grown up with and identified with for most of their lives. We see countless cases of children who cover up and fiercely defend their dysfunctional/dangerous parents from state authorities.

You would need to have state agencies dedicating resources (which won't happen, because as it happens most straight people don't give a shit and don't want more of their dollars spent exclusively on gay people's issues) and policing a sovereign state. How manageable is that?


Characterising any family that doesn't accept homosexuality as abusive is unfair. "I'm sorry, you can't live in our community" might sound mean to you, but it's not abuse by any means.

Why should the electorate vote for more of their money to be taken to go to a cause that doesn't benefit them?

omgryebread wrote:You don't even have to reach for examples like that, we have one. In history.


A bunch of states tried to leave so they could keep slavery legal. That shit actually occurred. You'd seriously defend that?


(Preemptive strike: If you don't think the Civil War was about slavery, whatever, I'm not going to argue that in this thread, so just imagine I'm talking about a theoretical secession about slavery).


Yeah, the south definitely had a right to secede, I thought I'd made that point in this thread. Given that the North's response to that peaceful secession was war and genocide, I think that example speaks against you more than me.

Assuming the given state's slave trade was internal, and the decision to secede was democratic, then I actually do support the right of a state that wants slavery to secede. It's unpleasant, but it's better than the alternative.

Spoiler:
(OT, I'd like to see a return in my country to customary law in some respects. Punishing property crimes and manslaughter with wergild paid for through thralldom is preferable to me than our current system of putting petty criminals in training to make sure they come out hardened ones. You're saying if I get together a whole community, that decides that yeah, personal property crimes will be paid for by a fixed term of slavery, that we have no right to form a government to establish that as law?)


Metaphysician wrote:Their grounds for secession are specious.


King George thought the same about the thirteen colonies. All England wanted was for the colonies to pay the costs incurred by England defending them.

The colonists were still right to secede. It doesn't matter how specious you think the secessionists reasons are, it only matters what those in the area choosing to secede think.

Re: Homophobic bigotry gets standing ovation

Posted: Thu May 31, 2012 6:42 am UTC
by Bassoon
Ormurinn wrote:Characterising any family that doesn't accept homosexuality as abusive is unfair. "I'm sorry, you can't live in our community" might sound mean to you, but it's not abuse by any means.


When you take it out of context, yes. In reality, it's more like "I'm sorry, but you, my child, are not the perfect image I had in my head, and even though you've lived with your family for years and years, you no longer have any right to be a part of it because my perfect idea of you no longer reflects reality, and so you must leave, because you're ruining the idea of our family." Does that sounds like abuse?

Re: Homophobic bigotry gets standing ovation

Posted: Thu May 31, 2012 6:49 am UTC
by Ghostbear
Ormurinn wrote:Assuming most people's sexuality begins to solidify around age 12, we're talking about a state where homosexual children need to remain closeted for 6 years before being allowed to leave without the consent of their parents. Is this a bigger imposition than expecting these fundamentalist Christians to live their entire lives under a government unsuitable to them?

Yes, yes it is. Nobody will ever find a democratic government that is wholly suitable to them. Living under a government that is not wholly suitable to you is not some huge affront to your life. What is an affront is when the government denies you personal rights. Which they would not be losing -- they would not be forced to be gay, or perform gay marriages, or even be friendly to gay people. On the other hand, living in a government where you might as well be burned at the stake for being a sinner for 6 years, then forced to abandon everything -- your entire livelihood, family, friends, support network, education -- or live a life of fear and lies, is a rather significant affront to somebody's rights.

Moreover, I would like to inquire: where, exactly, would you make the cutoff points for this secession? Any state where 50%+1 people oppose gay marriage, or would it be civil unions? Would it be a super-majority (60%), a 2/3 majority (errr... 66.6%), or something else? What would you do to the internal groups that would find that secessionist government unsuitable to them: the people living in the major cities and population centers? Would they get to split off too? What about the individual street blocks from those communities that would find the new split-off government unsuitable? Do we get a government for Homophobic Avenue and another government for Homophilic Avenue? Where does the fact that, by current trends, even die-hard homophobic states like Alabama will be majority pro-marriage-equality in the next 20-30 years? Do we have to let them secede then rejoin after they change their minds?

There are so many aspects of your argument that do not seem to be thought out to their full conclusion.

Re: Homophobic bigotry gets standing ovation

Posted: Thu May 31, 2012 7:18 am UTC
by Lucrece
Ormurinn wrote:
omgryebread wrote:
Ormurinn wrote:You're actually suggesting people who disagree with you, shouldn't be able to make their own laws if they want to have children own slaves?
Yes, people are saying you shouldn't be able to form your own country in order to continue practicing human rights abuses.


What about the human right of these secessionist Christians to live under a government acceptable to them?

Would you support invasion and annexation of states that support the death penalty? what about the U.K? We deny prisoners the vote, and haven't ratified the convention on the rights of migrant workers.


The desires of the many to marginalize (and I'll find you hard-pressed to argue that marginalization doesn't ultimately lead to harm) the few does not trump the rights of the few to not have the many strip them of safety and emotional wellbeing and legal equality as a goal of marginalization.

Dauric wrote:Problem is that gay children being born in to such a society would be an ongoing thing. Separating the population doesn't change that there will be some number of children in every generation in that population born with the propensity towards homosexuality or other 'deviant' gender identification. There's no way to have it both ways, unless you're advocating massive homosexual orphanages in the contiguous U.S. to house, teach, and find homes for that 2%-10% of the children cast out by the theocracy.

And that assumes that you can trust the theocracy to properly administer the program from their side without running anti-gay conversion camps, or just lynching them on the spot.


What the contiguous U.S does with regards to its new neighbour is its own business. You're putting the rights of that small minority of homosexuals over the rights of the majority of this hypothetical community to live under a government deriving its power from their consent.

Assuming most people's sexuality begins to solidify around age 12, we're talking about a state where homosexual children need to remain closeted for 6 years before being allowed to leave without the consent of their parents. Is this a bigger imposition than expecting these fundamentalist Christians to live their entire lives under a government unsuitable to them? Moreover, these individuals self segregating gets them out of your national politics, so national policy isn't affected by them anymore.


People's sexuality doesn't begin to solidify at 12. I knew considerably before that, my crushes beginning earlier -- sexual orientation is not the only aspect of gay people; the romantic element cannot be ignored.

You're also assuming that being closeted is foolproof. I would like to challenge you to hide your sexuality so well, to convince others that you're fond of cock so much so that nobody in all those years of being close to them finds out or develops heavy suspicion that you might like pussy. And if they were to discover you, you would be liable for financial ruination not to mention good likelihood of assault and exclusion.

Emigrating is costly, time-consuming, and not even assured. Some gay people even claiming political asylum from countries that would imprison/murder them often don't get asylum status granted still.

Lucrece wrote:Most importantly, children love their parents -- even their abusive ones. Children themselves will rarely take initiative to separate themselves from the people they've grown up with and identified with for most of their lives. We see countless cases of children who cover up and fiercely defend their dysfunctional/dangerous parents from state authorities.

You would need to have state agencies dedicating resources (which won't happen, because as it happens most straight people don't give a shit and don't want more of their dollars spent exclusively on gay people's issues) and policing a sovereign state. How manageable is that?


Characterising any family that doesn't accept homosexuality as abusive is unfair. "I'm sorry, you can't live in our community" might sound mean to you, but it's not abuse by any means.


Of course it is abusive to reject your child about some innate quality of his, his idea of love no less, and cast him out of the support network you've raised him in for most of his current life. You're erasing any sense of identity and connection the kid might have, and you're cutting any financial support most other kids would otherwise enjoy as they develop.

Why should the electorate vote for more of their money to be taken to go to a cause that doesn't benefit them?


Because it is that electorate's fault that these gay kids' are raised in a bronze age repressive ideology that deeply disadvantages them? If you're going to let them secede and want to clear your conscience on what you're allowing to be done to innocent children, the remaining course is to at least offer an agency that helps them recover from the ills you've enabled.

omgryebread wrote:You don't even have to reach for examples like that, we have one. In history.


A bunch of states tried to leave so they could keep slavery legal. That shit actually occurred. You'd seriously defend that?


(Preemptive strike: If you don't think the Civil War was about slavery, whatever, I'm not going to argue that in this thread, so just imagine I'm talking about a theoretical secession about slavery).


Yeah, the south definitely had a right to secede, I thought I'd made that point in this thread. Given that the North's response to that peaceful secession was war and genocide, I think that example speaks against you more than me.

Assuming the given state's slave trade was internal, and the decision to secede was democratic, then I actually do support the right of a state that wants slavery to secede. It's unpleasant, but it's better than the alternative.


So why is the sovereignty of slaves of lesser priority to the sovereignty of the state that holds them captive to its tenets?

Spoiler:
(OT, I'd like to see a return in my country to customary law in some respects. Punishing property crimes and manslaughter with wergild paid for through thralldom is preferable to me than our current system of putting petty criminals in training to make sure they come out hardened ones. You're saying if I get together a whole community, that decides that yeah, personal property crimes will be paid for by a fixed term of slavery, that we have no right to form a government to establish that as law?)


We already have slavery as law. Prisons already force labor out of the inmates for abysmal cents per hour. No, just because you get a group of people into consensus does not give you some special legitimacy to cause tangible damage to people lest you suffer some sort of invisible spiritual damage for not being allowed to carry out your malleable religious principles at the expense of people you're intent on harming/taking advantage of.

Re: Homophobic bigotry gets standing ovation

Posted: Thu May 31, 2012 7:23 am UTC
by Princess Marzipan
Ormurinn wrote:What about the human right of these secessionist Christians to live under a government acceptable to them?
It, uh, doesn't exist. At least not in the sense you're using.

If their one problem with government is that it actually treats its homosexual citizens like all the straight ones, what about MY human right to a government acceptable to me? Where's MY government that doesn't have a death penalty and doesn't let churches be tax-exempt and that provides harsher penalties for police officers who break laws than for regular citizens?

No, you're just wrong. There are very few if any people on Earth who live under a government which is wholly acceptable to them - who WOULDN'T have at least a few changes to implement if they were dictator for a day?

Re: Homophobic bigotry gets standing ovation

Posted: Thu May 31, 2012 9:58 am UTC
by Steroid
There still seems to be this idee fixe that happiness and life affirmation from anything inherent--race, gender, sexuality--are sacred human rights that must be protected, while happiness and life affirmation from anything chosen or artificial--religion, politics, money--are not rights at all and merit no consideration, indeed should be the sacrificed to the other. This strikes me first as a goalpost-moving change of mission in the progress toward equality, from "You should not be specifically targeted by the government detrimentally because of your inherent and unpopular nature" to "You *should* be specifically targeted by the government beneficially because of your inherent and unpopular nature." Saying that a life lived well through homosexuality is more important than a life lived well through a political position because the latter is chosen seems to me to be just as dehumanizing as denying status based on homosexuality.

If it were homosexuals who wanted to secede to live under a government friendly to them, would that be equally wrong? If so, then the conclusion is that homosexuals must stay with, live among, and put up with people they don't like, and their only recourse is to argue and try to convince those people to agree with them. In which case, that same recourse should be given to homophobic Christians.

In other words, if we're taking secession out of the equation (which we might well do), then all we're left with is debate. That's fine, but debate means that the other side gets to argue its points to its base and against its opponents. If you're shocked at a rally against homosexuality, you should be equally shocked at a rally in favor of it.

Re: Homophobic bigotry gets standing ovation

Posted: Thu May 31, 2012 10:05 am UTC
by Ghostbear
Steroid wrote:There still seems to be this idee fixe that happiness and life affirmation from anything inherent--race, gender, sexuality--are sacred human rights that must be protected, while happiness and life affirmation from anything chosen or artificial--religion, politics, money--are not rights at all and merit no consideration, indeed should be the sacrificed to the other.

No. The idea is that oppressing groups of people isn't an inherent right, and that losing that power is not an infringement on your rights. Granting rights to people that does not interfere with your rights is not denying you your rights. Not in the least. What happened to "Your right to swing your arms ends just where the other man's nose begins." ? You seem to be misconstruing the loss of religious groups to punch gays as an infringement on their rights. It isn't; stop pretending it is.

Re: Homophobic bigotry gets standing ovation

Posted: Thu May 31, 2012 10:16 am UTC
by Steroid
Ghostbear wrote:No. The idea is that oppressing groups of people isn't an inherent right, and that losing that power is not an infringement on your rights. Granting rights to people that does not interfere with your rights is not denying you your rights. Not in the least. What happened to "Your right to swing your arms ends just where the other man's nose begins." ? You seem to be misconstruing the loss of religious groups to punch gays as an infringement on their rights. It isn't; stop pretending it is.

It's not in and of itself. When you combine it with denial of secession, denying the ability to create a fist-swinging community and tell everyone else to keep their noses out of the way, then it is an infringement of rights.

Re: Homophobic bigotry gets standing ovation

Posted: Thu May 31, 2012 10:26 am UTC
by Ghostbear
Steroid wrote:It's not in and of itself. When you combine it with denial of secession, denying the ability to create a fist-swinging community and tell everyone else to keep their noses out of the way, then it is an infringement of rights.

No, that's not true in the least, because the the right to "[secede and create a] fist-swinging community" would be a right to deny rights to others. Which as I just went over, is not an inherent right.

Re: Homophobic bigotry gets standing ovation

Posted: Thu May 31, 2012 10:37 am UTC
by Steroid
Ghostbear wrote:No, that's not true in the least, because the the right to "[secede and create a] fist-swinging community" would be a right to deny rights to others. Which as I just went over, is not an inherent right.

Denying rights to whom? The people left in the non-fist-swinging community? Or the people who change their mind in the new community? If it's the latter, I agree in principle, but I think it's a minor detail that can be worked over. If it's the former, then I take issue.

Let's take the extreme hypothetical. Can I, alone, go buy an island somewhere, put up some "No Trespassing" signs, and write a constitution that says that no one other than me has any rights on the island?

Re: Homophobic bigotry gets standing ovation

Posted: Thu May 31, 2012 10:43 am UTC
by Ghostbear
Steroid wrote:Denying rights to whom? The people left in the non-fist-swinging community? Or the people who change their mind in the new community? If it's the latter, I agree in principle, but I think it's a minor detail that can be worked over. If it's the former, then I take issue.

To all of the people who are now forced to live in that fist-swinging community. People don't choose where they're born, you might notice. The whole principle of your new community is to create an area where you can deny rights to a specific subset of people because you want to. You have no inherent right to do so however. The act of creating that area, with those rules, is to deny rights to others.

Steroid wrote:Let's take the extreme hypothetical. Can I, alone, go buy an island somewhere, put up some "No Trespassing" signs, and write a constitution that says that no one other than me has any rights on the island?

I don't see how a place with a population of 0 and an expected population of 1 (you), has any relevance to this.

Re: Homophobic bigotry gets standing ovation

Posted: Thu May 31, 2012 10:51 am UTC
by Princess Marzipan
Steroid wrote:Let's take the extreme hypothetical. Can I, alone, go buy an island somewhere, put up some "No Trespassing" signs, and write a constitution that says that no one other than me has any rights on the island?
Not if all the capitalists have bought all the islands!

Re: Homophobic bigotry gets standing ovation

Posted: Thu May 31, 2012 10:59 am UTC
by Steroid
Ghostbear wrote:To all of the people who are now forced to live in that fist-swinging community. People don't choose where they're born, you might notice. The whole principle of your new community is to create an area where you can deny rights to a specific subset of people because you want to. You have no inherent right to do so however. The act of creating that area, with those rules, is to deny rights to others.

Yes, but I don't actually need that subset around to have the area. Which makes my island question relevant. What I'm reading you as saying is that there is no place in the cosmos where I can go to have a gay-unfriendly community. And if that is what you're saying, then--and this is just an opinion--it's far worse than anything I'm saying. "There's somewhere where you can't do {x}" is not nearly as bad as "there's nowhere where you can do {x}," even if {x} is rights-denying.

Re: Homophobic bigotry gets standing ovation

Posted: Thu May 31, 2012 11:05 am UTC
by Ghostbear
Steroid wrote:Yes, but I don't actually need that subset around to have the area. Which makes my island question relevant. What I'm reading you as saying is that there is no place in the cosmos where I can go to have a gay-unfriendly community. And if that is what you're saying, then--and this is just an opinion--it's far worse than anything I'm saying. "There's somewhere where you can't do {x}" is not nearly as bad as "there's nowhere where you can do {x}," even if {x} is rights-denying.

There is nowhere you can go where you will have an inherent right to deny other people rights. There is nowhere where that will be a good, acceptable thing to do.

I don't think you can truly claim to care about rights, but instead self-interest. If you cared about rights, you'd care when rights were denied to people that aren't you, instead of being disappointed that you can't go around punching people anymore.

Re: Homophobic bigotry gets standing ovation

Posted: Thu May 31, 2012 11:07 am UTC
by Steroid
Ghostbear wrote:There is nowhere you can go where you will have an inherent right to deny other people rights. There is nowhere where that will be a good, acceptable thing to do.

I don't think you can truly claim to care about rights, but instead self-interest. If you cared about rights, you'd care when rights were denied to people that aren't you, instead of being disappointed that you can't go around punching people anymore.

I believe that acting in one's own self-interest is a right. The right, in fact, from which all others spring. The right to life only exists because people want to live. If we were suicidal lemmings, there would be instead a right to death.

Re: Homophobic bigotry gets standing ovation

Posted: Thu May 31, 2012 11:10 am UTC
by Princess Marzipan
I'll keep playing, it's fun.

So do you have a right to kill people? Obviously let's assume it's in your self-interest to do so.

Re: Homophobic bigotry gets standing ovation

Posted: Thu May 31, 2012 11:34 am UTC
by Ghostbear
Steroid wrote:
Ghostbear wrote:There is nowhere you can go where you will have an inherent right to deny other people rights. There is nowhere where that will be a good, acceptable thing to do.

I don't think you can truly claim to care about rights, but instead self-interest. If you cared about rights, you'd care when rights were denied to people that aren't you, instead of being disappointed that you can't go around punching people anymore.

I believe that acting in one's own self-interest is a right. The right, in fact, from which all others spring. The right to life only exists because people want to live. If we were suicidal lemmings, there would be instead a right to death.

Except what I was pointing out is that you don't care about the rights of anyone else. You'd gladly give up the rights of others in order to further yourself. That's not concern with rights, that's concern with yourself. You've been masquerading as a libertarian, as someone who is rights-centric, but that's not true. You're self-centric. You care about your rights, but the rights of others are inconsequential unless it makes you better off, by your own statements. That's not concern for rights.

Re: Homophobic bigotry gets standing ovation

Posted: Thu May 31, 2012 11:56 am UTC
by eran_rathan
Ormurinn wrote:You're putting the rights of that small minority (snip) over the rights desire of the majority of this hypothetical community to live under a government deriving its power from their consent.


this is the ENTIRE POINT of a republic.

Re: Homophobic bigotry gets standing ovation

Posted: Thu May 31, 2012 11:59 am UTC
by Steroid
Ghostbear wrote:Except what I was pointing out is that you don't care about the rights of anyone else. You'd gladly give up the rights of others in order to further yourself. That's not concern with rights, that's concern with yourself. You've been masquerading as a libertarian, as someone who is rights-centric, but that's not true. You're self-centric. You care about your rights, but the rights of others are inconsequential unless it makes you better off, by your own statements. That's not concern for rights.

I'm a libertarian because it's in my self-interest. If I thought it was in my self-interest to become a communist, I would become a communist. You seem unable to even conceive of a subjective point of view that acknowledges that I am the highest principle, but which can still see other principles as supporting them. But no, even in my libertarianism, I am not subjugating myself to anything or anyone.

Princess Marzipan wrote:I'll keep playing, it's fun.

So do you have a right to kill people? Obviously let's assume it's in your self-interest to do so.

Under certain circumstances, yes. Self-defense, for one. But I don't think that's what you're talking about. What I am saying is that if I advertised for someone willing to be killed by me (say, for a large payment to their family), and someone agrees, that no one else should interfere. And, what's more relevant to the discussion, that if I can get others to agree that I can kill at will, that I and those others can form a community based around that right.

Re: Homophobic bigotry gets standing ovation

Posted: Thu May 31, 2012 12:03 pm UTC
by eran_rathan
Steroid wrote:rights.


You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means.

Re: Homophobic bigotry gets standing ovation

Posted: Thu May 31, 2012 12:06 pm UTC
by Ghostbear
Steroid wrote:I'm a libertarian because it's in my self-interest. If I thought it was in my self-interest to become a communist, I would become a communist. You seem unable to even conceive of a subjective point of view that acknowledges that I am the highest principle, but which can still see other principles as supporting them. But no, even in my libertarianism, I am not subjugating myself to anything or anyone.

No, I'm more than capable of seeing how someone can think of themselves as the only factor that matters, and everything else be damned if it benefits them. I don't doubt that you feel that way. What I'm pointing out is that your beliefs of such are not compatible with being concerned about rights, because you aren't. You're concerned about yourself -- state it as such, don't lie and say you're rights-centric when you aren't. Just because you'd vote to support a policy does not make you that -- I vote for democrats, but I don't consider myself one, I don't tell people I am one. Just because you'd vote for libertarians doesn't mean you are one -- you're just someone who is wholly self-interested and considers that the result most likely to benefit you. You'd gladly give up the rights of all others for your benefit; that isn't something someone concerned with rights would see as "good".

Though eran_rathan has basically said it in less words than I could.

Re: Homophobic bigotry gets standing ovation

Posted: Thu May 31, 2012 12:07 pm UTC
by eran_rathan
Steroid wrote:I'm a libertarian


I think you may be confused on this.

EDIT: damn, ninja'd.

Re: Homophobic bigotry gets standing ovation

Posted: Thu May 31, 2012 12:31 pm UTC
by TheGrammarBolshevik
Steroid wrote:And, what's more relevant to the discussion, that if I can get others to agree that I can kill at will, that I and those others can form a community based around that right.

I think the question is more what you do when you have kids who don't want to be killed at will, and are now stuck in a community where all the power rests with people willing to kill them.

Re: Homophobic bigotry gets standing ovation

Posted: Thu May 31, 2012 12:35 pm UTC
by JudeMorrigan
Ormurinn wrote:Yeah, the south definitely had a right to secede, I thought I'd made that point in this thread. Given that the North's response to that peaceful secession was war and genocide, I think that example speaks against you more than me.

That is a *terrible* description of what happened during the Civil War.

Re: Homophobic bigotry gets standing ovation

Posted: Thu May 31, 2012 12:36 pm UTC
by Steroid
Ghostbear wrote:No, I'm more than capable of seeing how someone can think of themselves as the only factor that matters, and everything else be damned if it benefits them. I don't doubt that you feel that way. What I'm pointing out is that your beliefs of such are not compatible with being concerned about rights, because you aren't. You're concerned about yourself -- state it as such, don't lie and say you're rights-centric when you aren't. Just because you'd vote to support a policy does not make you that -- I vote for democrats, but I don't consider myself one, I don't tell people I am one. Just because you'd vote for libertarians doesn't mean you are one -- you're just someone who is wholly self-interested and considers that the result most likely to benefit you. You'd gladly give up the rights of all others for your benefit; that isn't something someone concerned with rights would see as "good".

Though eran_rathan has basically said it in less words than I could.

But libertarianism is a political position that is a subset of my self-interest, which is a full-life worldview. Just because I don't keep my opinions in parallel, but place them in a hierarchy, that doesn't mean that the lower-order opinions are invalid. I support economic capitalism so far as it is consistent with political libertarianism, and I support political libertarianism so far as it is consistent with my general self-interest. Does that make me less of a capitalist than I am a libertarian?

TheGrammarBolshevik wrote:
Steroid wrote:And, what's more relevant to the discussion, that if I can get others to agree that I can kill at will, that I and those others can form a community based around that right.

I think the question is more what you do when you have kids who don't want to be killed at will, and are now stuck in a community where all the power rests with people willing to kill them.

Which is what I thought was a minor detail to be hashed out. If my community gives an out clause, or immunity to being killed, to anyone who asks for it, is that sufficient?

Re: Homophobic bigotry gets standing ovation

Posted: Thu May 31, 2012 12:46 pm UTC
by TheGrammarBolshevik
Sure, I don't see why not. I think people were proceeding under the assumption that no such out clause would be given, that the people abusing their children now wouldn't suddenly become idealistic libertarians just because they moved to a new country.

Re: Homophobic bigotry gets standing ovation

Posted: Thu May 31, 2012 12:55 pm UTC
by Ghostbear
Steroid wrote:But libertarianism is a political position that is a subset of my self-interest, which is a full-life worldview. Just because I don't keep my opinions in parallel, but place them in a hierarchy, that doesn't mean that the lower-order opinions are invalid. I support economic capitalism so far as it is consistent with political libertarianism, and I support political libertarianism so far as it is consistent with my general self-interest. Does that make me less of a capitalist than I am a libertarian?

You aren't a libertarian because you'll completely abscond those goals the moment it does not further your self-interest. When you're a proponent of something, you're a proponent of it even when it isn't directly in your interests. You said in the other thread that being taxed was worse millions of people dying. That means you value the right to life of people -- and not just a few, and not just abstract foreigners, but fellow Romans countrymen (and as such, closer to your own personal monkey-sphere) -- millions of people, less than your own self-interest. You don't care about their rights, because their rights do not make you better off. Rights are a means to an end for you -- not a goal in and of themselves. You're just selfish (and proud of it, by all I can tell); acknowledge such, instead of trying to falsely claim a high ground. Saying that you're a libertarian gives a bad name to libertarians everywhere, because you aren't -- you just see their political motives as a tool for yourself.

When you claim you're a libertarian, you're just trying to invent yourself a lofty position to speak from. You're distorting your views. You don't care about rights that aren't your own. You have been highly inconsistent here; the history of your posts in the past have been to go on about how you're very rights-centric. Lately, however, you have gone on about how you don't think certain people should get rights, because it does not benefit you. You have indicated that the rights of other people are insignificant to you, if you can trade their rights for your own benefit. That's not being concerned with rights -- that's being concerned with yourself.

Re: Homophobic bigotry gets standing ovation

Posted: Thu May 31, 2012 1:15 pm UTC
by Steroid
If I've made my positions out to be lofty or noble, I have done so in error. They're not. They're simply useful positions for me to take. Giving them names only helps to understand how I reach them. Both a libertarian and a plutocrat might want lower taxes. I think that it's better to say why I want them.

This is why I think that we have so much trouble understanding each other. I don't read your positions as being universal. I think they're your positions, that you want me to feel the consequences of. Conversely, you see mine as universal, when they're not. I'm glad you brought up the monkey sphere. When I read about that, I thought, "This applies to me," and rather than assume that I am flawed because of it, took it as a good way of understanding myself.

Re: Homophobic bigotry gets standing ovation

Posted: Thu May 31, 2012 1:30 pm UTC
by eran_rathan
Steroid wrote:If I've made my positions out to be lofty or noble, I have done so in error. They're not. They're simply useful positions for me to take. Giving them names only helps to understand how I reach them. Both a libertarian and a plutocrat might want lower taxes. I think that it's better to say why I want them.

This is why I think that we have so much trouble understanding each other. I don't read your positions as being universal. I think they're your positions, that you want me to feel the consequences of. Conversely, you see mine as universal, when they're not. I'm glad you brought up the monkey sphere. When I read about that, I thought, "This applies to me," and rather than assume that I am flawed because of it, took it as a good way of understanding myself.


That explanation works only when you don't decide to pick up a label that is more or less completely opposite of what you state your positions are.

Re: Homophobic bigotry gets standing ovation

Posted: Thu May 31, 2012 1:36 pm UTC
by Steroid
Then it's a good thing for me tha I haven't done that. As I said, I'm lazy. If there's libertarianism, I don't have to think about politics. If there's capitalism, we get labor-saving devices and I can work swiftly to get it over with and enjoy the material pleasures it brings. An easy life all around.

Re: Homophobic bigotry gets standing ovation

Posted: Thu May 31, 2012 1:38 pm UTC
by iamspen
Steroid wrote:If there's libertarianism, I don't have to think about politics. If there's capitalism, we get labor-saving devices and I can work swiftly to get it over with and enjoy the material pleasures it brings.


That makes so much less sense than you think it does.

Re: Homophobic bigotry gets standing ovation

Posted: Thu May 31, 2012 1:40 pm UTC
by Ghostbear
Steroid wrote:If I've made my positions out to be lofty or noble, I have done so in error. They're not. They're simply useful positions for me to take. Giving them names only helps to understand how I reach them. Both a libertarian and a plutocrat might want lower taxes. I think that it's better to say why I want them.

This is why I think that we have so much trouble understanding each other. I don't read your positions as being universal. I think they're your positions, that you want me to feel the consequences of. Conversely, you see mine as universal, when they're not.

Truth be told, if I thought your positions were universal I'd be absolutely terrified of the world we live in. What I am bothered by is that you are applying labels to yourself that are not accurate to you at all. It makes it very difficult to discuss with someone when there's a huge disconnect between one statement ("I care about rights") and another statement ("I don't care about these people's rights"). It's OK to not be a libertarian (I'm not one!) and it's OK to not have a simple catch-all for your beliefs (I don't have one! Though I guess "liberal" is a semi-accurate approximation. Sorta.), but that doesn't mean you should use the label of a group that you're willing to use to further your own, separate, beliefs.

The whole thing could have been avoided by not insisting that you're a libertarian -- it's not an accurate description of your belief system (which, again, is fine -- though I do think I disagree with nearly every part of that system itself), even as a semi-accurate approximation. Your belief system is more accurately described as self-interest than as libertarianism. You're willing to use libertarianism to further your self-interest, but that doesn't mean your beliefs are libertarian. You can't see the rights of others as insignificantly as you do and be a libertarian.

Steroid wrote:I'm glad you brought up the monkey sphere. When I read about that, I thought, "This applies to me," and rather than assume that I am flawed because of it, took it as a good way of understanding myself.

The interesting thing about the monkey-sphere is it's supposed to apply to everyone. If I recall correctly, it's also believed to explain why people care so much about celebrities -- they act as a common point of the spheres of individuals, allow for an easier interaction. It also explains why we're more able to concern ourselves with atrocities in Eastern Europe or North Africa than we are with those in sub-Saharan Africa: the people in one set are less "points" further from our own sphere than the people in another set.