Shooting at Christian organization in DC

Seen something interesting in the news or on the intertubes? Discuss it here.

Moderators: Zamfir, Hawknc, Moderators General, Prelates

Steroid
Posts: 549
Joined: Wed Mar 26, 2008 10:50 am UTC

Re: Shooting at Christian organization in DC

Postby Steroid » Mon Aug 20, 2012 3:37 pm UTC

yurell wrote:Oh, right, he was an anti-Christian bigot: that's why he blew up a cathedral. No, sorry, shot up a church, and said "I hate your religion". No, I screwed that up again: it's why he went and attacked an organisation that was saying he should be deported from the country, that wanted to remove all his right as a person, and why he said "I don't like your politics." Yup, that sounds like insane anti-Christian bigotry right there, and he clearly wants to establish a homosexual autocracy. It's the only rational conclusion!

Thank you for interpreting my question of "Is it possible?" as "Is is the only rational conclusion?" My point is that you're willing to give the shooter the benefit of the doubt, but not the FRC. They say that they're not against the people, only the practice. Why do you refuse to take them at face value?

Izawwlgood wrote:Because the majority culture, Christianity in this case, is making an effort to make the minority culture, freedom to be non-Christian, LEGALLY IMPOSSIBLE.

No, they're not. The one legal issue that's being discussed is legal partnership. The Christian beef with that is A) that it's being enacted through judicial fiat instead of representative legislature, and B) that the social trappings of marriage are being dragged along with it. B is not a legal argument. It's a social one. As of yet, that's the only legal complaint I've heard here.

So let's talk about the social sphere. This also relates to AJR's post that anti-gay Christians are trying to force a moral code onto others, and the Princess's post about the hating subsets of both populations.

Christianity, and the anti-gay part of it, didn't become the majority through illicit means. They became so by a long, steady build of influence, power, and results. Christianity has been working for over two millenniums, and heternormativity for even longer. They've developed their influence by convincing people to ascribe to their values. You don't get to cancel all of that out just because you have a disagreement. The homosexual culture in particular, and the multicultural view in general, both have a long way to go before they reach the status that Christianity already has. And this is the heart of our difference. To you, power is the source of oppression. To me, it's evidence of past success. If working hard to advance your culture doesn't gain you anything, then what's the point?

Imagine if it had gone the other way. If the homosexual movement were the majority and had done all the work to get there, and the Christian sect jumped into existence a century ago and started to preach heteronormativity and sexual self-discipline, would they be right to whine about not having equal social standing? Again, take the legality part of it out. In the social arena, anything goes.

User avatar
eran_rathan
Mostly Wrong
Posts: 1840
Joined: Fri Apr 09, 2010 2:36 pm UTC
Location: in your ceiling, judging you

Re: Shooting at Christian organization in DC

Postby eran_rathan » Mon Aug 20, 2012 3:49 pm UTC

Steroid wrote:Thank you for interpreting my question of "Is it possible?" as "Is is the only rational conclusion?" My point is that you're willing to give the shooter the benefit of the doubt, but not the FRC. They say that they're not against the people, only the practice. Why do you refuse to take them at face value?


Because their actions explicitly go against everything they state?
"Does this smell like chloroform to you?"
"Google tells me you are not unique. You are, however, wrong."
nɒʜƚɒɿ_nɒɿɘ

User avatar
sam_i_am
Posts: 624
Joined: Mon Jun 18, 2012 3:38 pm UTC
Location: Urbana, Illinois, USA

Re: Shooting at Christian organization in DC

Postby sam_i_am » Mon Aug 20, 2012 3:58 pm UTC

Steroid wrote:No, they're not. The one legal issue that's being discussed is legal partnership. The Christian beef with that is A) that it's being enacted through judicial fiat instead of representative legislature, and B) that the social trappings of marriage are being dragged along with it. B is not a legal argument. It's a social one. As of yet, that's the only legal complaint I've heard here.


How, might I ask, will Christians be affected if same-sex couples can be legally considered to be married?

Christianity, and the anti-gay part of it, didn't become the majority through illicit means. They became so by a long, steady build of influence, power, and results. Christianity has been working for over two millenniums, and heternormativity for even longer. They've developed their influence by convincing people to ascribe to their values. You don't get to cancel all of that out just because you have a disagreement. The homosexual culture in particular, and the multicultural view in general, both have a long way to go before they reach the status that Christianity already has. And this is the heart of our difference. To you, power is the source of oppression. To me, it's evidence of past success. If working hard to advance your culture doesn't gain you anything, then what's the point?


(Note: I question the accuracy of the above post, but that's not particularly important)

Okay, So Christianity is older than multiculturalism. So what? Do you know what's older than Christianity? Polygamy is. Paganism is too. Those and all manner of objectionable things were considered even older and even more established than Christianity was, at least in some point in history.

Imagine if it had gone the other way. If the homosexual movement were the majority and had done all the work to get there, and the Christian sect jumped into existence a century ago and started to preach heteronormativity and sexual self-discipline, would they be right to whine about not having equal social standing? Again, take the legality part of it out. In the social arena, anything goes.


I must ask again. How are Christians affected by homosexuality existing?

User avatar
Izawwlgood
WINNING
Posts: 18686
Joined: Mon Nov 19, 2007 3:55 pm UTC
Location: There may be lovelier lovelies...

Re: Shooting at Christian organization in DC

Postby Izawwlgood » Mon Aug 20, 2012 4:04 pm UTC

Steroid wrote:The Christian beef with that is A) that it's being enacted through judicial fiat instead of representative legislature, and B) that the social trappings of marriage are being dragged along with it. B is not a legal argument. It's a social one. As of yet, that's the only legal complaint I've heard here.

Firstly, you're effectively making an argument that some freedoms aren't constitutionally protected, and drawing neat lines around what you think should and shouldn't be. Should black people be allowed to vote? Women? Or should we let the states decide? (Those are rhetorical questions, but in case you needed a cheat sheet, yes, yes, no are the answers)

Secondly, the day the Christian right says "We don't think gays should be allowed to marry, but are prepared to let individual States decide" is the day you can actually make the argument that it's really only about denying representative legislature.

Steroid wrote:Christianity, and the anti-gay part of it, didn't become the majority through illicit means.

Der, what? Crusades much? Anti-Communism propaganda much? Steroid, I'm having a really hard time believing you're not trolling hard here.

Steroid wrote:Imagine if it had gone the other way. If the homosexual movement were the majority and had done all the work to get there, and the Christian sect jumped into existence a century ago and started to preach heteronormativity and sexual self-discipline, would they be right to whine about not having equal social standing? Again, take the legality part of it out. In the social arena, anything goes.

The thing you don't seem to get is that everywhere you have freedom, you have people choosing to live with more rules. Vegas exists and has gambling and prostitution; not everyone who lives in Vegas is a gambler or a prostitute. Your hypothetical isn't just some idiotic scare scenario, it's a reality that currently exists, and no one is telling Christians who want to live within the rules of their faith that they cannot. As PM has pointed out to you numerous times, saying 'You are free to live however you want, even to ignore some of the freedoms available to you' is NOT oppressive in the same way that saying 'You are not free to enjoy the same rights and privileges I have' is oppressive. One is giving someone the choice to live their life as they want. The other is REMOVING the choice of someone to live their life the way they want.
... with gigantic melancholies and gigantic mirth, to tread the jeweled thrones of the Earth under his sandalled feet.

User avatar
TheGrammarBolshevik
Posts: 4878
Joined: Mon Jun 30, 2008 2:12 am UTC
Location: Going to and fro in the earth, and walking up and down in it.

Re: Shooting at Christian organization in DC

Postby TheGrammarBolshevik » Mon Aug 20, 2012 4:12 pm UTC

Steroid wrote:That's the bias, and that's what's unfair.

No, it's not unfair. It's different. "Unfair" implies that, if things lived up to moral standards, people would be treated the same. So it's unfair that nonviolent drug users are in prison and I'm not, because it's wrong to imprison people for using drugs. But it isn't unfair that Charles Manson is in prison and I'm not, because it's OK (obligatory, even) to imprison mass murderers.

But you've made your living on the forums here denying that there are substantial moral norms that can distinguish these cases. So when you say "unfair," it's like saying you don't like chocolate ice cream. You've told us a fact about yourself, but not a fact about the situation that should change how we feel about it. Why should we give a shit if all you want to tell us is how things make you feel? That's not a rhetorical question: how can discussion even make sense if there isn't some sort of shared conclusion we can discuss?

Steroid wrote:What you call stigmatizing and oppressing is different for each group. Christians are being called upon to surrender their values in place of multicultural ones that treat anti-Christian concepts as equal. They consider that oppression.

Yeah, which means they're wrong. Because, like unfairness, there are criteria that distinguish oppression from not-oppression. And saying "Help help I'm being oppressed" is not a sufficient condition.

Surely you can at least understand the idea that there are facts about who is doing something right and who is doing something wrong, even if you disagree?
Last edited by TheGrammarBolshevik on Mon Aug 20, 2012 4:16 pm UTC, edited 1 time in total.
Nothing rhymes with orange,
Not even sporange.

User avatar
Zamfir
I built a novelty castle, the irony was lost on some.
Posts: 7588
Joined: Wed Aug 27, 2008 2:43 pm UTC
Location: Nederland

Re: Shooting at Christian organization in DC

Postby Zamfir » Mon Aug 20, 2012 4:14 pm UTC



Imagine if it had gone the other way. If the homosexual movement were the majority and had done all the work to get there, and the Christian sect jumped into existence a century ago and started ti preach heteronormativity and sexual self-discipline, would they be right to whine about not having equal social standing? Again, take the legality part of it out. In the social arena, anything goes.


How is this a hypothetical question? The FRC for example is just a few decades old. They can claim to be the appointed spokesperson for 2000 years of tradition, but that doesn't make it true. For one thing, they are Evangelicals, hardly the church of Rome when it comes to tradition. There are prize pigs with older established lineages.

So there's clear answer to your question: if you, or James Dobson, start a sect, you get to be as self-disciplined at home as your kinks require, you can marry another Dobsonite if you want to (but not two at the same time), you get freedom to spread your message, and lots of counterflak from people who disagree with you.

User avatar
Garm
Posts: 2241
Joined: Wed Sep 26, 2007 5:29 pm UTC
Location: Usually at work. Otherwise, Longmont, CO.

Re: Shooting at Christian organization in DC

Postby Garm » Mon Aug 20, 2012 4:28 pm UTC

Imagine if it had gone the other way. If the homosexual movement were the majority and had done all the work to get there, and the Christian sect jumped into existence a century ago and started ti preach heteronormativity and sexual self-discipline, would they be right to whine about not having equal social standing? Again, take the legality part of it out. In the social arena, anything goes.


No, that's not acceptable. You're right that in the social arena anything goes (well, sort of anyway), but you cannot deny legal rights to people based on your social concepts. That's fundamentally unamerican.
Those who make peaceful revolution impossible will make violent revolution inevitable.
- JFK

Steroid
Posts: 549
Joined: Wed Mar 26, 2008 10:50 am UTC

Re: Shooting at Christian organization in DC

Postby Steroid » Mon Aug 20, 2012 4:54 pm UTC

sam_i_am wrote:How, might I ask, will Christians be affected if same-sex couples can be legally considered to be married?

If they are given contract rights? None. If the social trappings of marriage are attached to same-sex contracted couples? It will affect Christians by devaluing their exclusivity on what they see as the biblical concept of marriage.

Now, as I've said, marriage is the only political/legal issue that's been brought up. So, other than the marriage issue, how are homosexuals affected by anything else that the FRC or right-wing Christians do?

(Note: I question the accuracy of the above post, but that's not particularly important)

Okay, So Christianity is older than multiculturalism. So what? Do you know what's older than Christianity? Polygamy is. Paganism is too. Those and all manner of objectionable things were considered even older and even more established than Christianity was, at least in some point in history.

I didn't specify age as the sole criterion. It's an evolutionary concept. Dinosaurs existed before humans, but they died, so they lost. We're running the planet, so we're winning. No one's going around saying, "Hey, the bees and the termites are your evolutionary superiors, so hurry up and die out so they can take over." That's essentially what is happening to Christianity and heteronormativity.

I must ask again. How are Christians affected by homosexuality existing?
As I said, in the social arena, anything goes. You can determine your own effect. If I'm ticked off by you wearing a hat, I can't legally stop you, but I can take any social steps to convince you not to wear the hat.

Izawwlgood wrote:Firstly, you're effectively making an argument that some freedoms aren't constitutionally protected, and drawing neat lines around what you think should and shouldn't be. Should black people be allowed to vote? Women? Or should we let the states decide? (Those are rhetorical questions, but in case you needed a cheat sheet, yes, yes, no are the answers)

Secondly, the day the Christian right says "We don't think gays should be allowed to marry, but are prepared to let individual States decide" is the day you can actually make the argument that it's really only about denying representative legislature.

But that is what the Christian right is saying. They're also saying that they're going to continue to support the status quo. I don't agree with them on that point of legislature. But I do agree with them on the procedure.

As to the first part, essentially we did let the states decide on those issues through the amendment process. No court ever found a fundamental right to vote in some penumbra.

Der, what? Crusades much? Anti-Communism propaganda much? Steroid, I'm having a really hard time believing you're not trolling hard here.

If war and propaganda are illicit, then what are legitimate means to advance a cause? Do you know what happens to causes that only work through pure rationality and noninterference? They get eaten up by the Christians.

The thing you don't seem to get is that everywhere you have freedom, you have people choosing to live with more rules. Vegas exists and has gambling and prostitution; not everyone who lives in Vegas is a gambler or a prostitute. Your hypothetical isn't just some idiotic scare scenario, it's a reality that currently exists, and no one is telling Christians who want to live within the rules of their faith that they cannot. As PM has pointed out to you numerous times, saying 'You are free to live however you want, even to ignore some of the freedoms available to you' is NOT oppressive in the same way that saying 'You are not free to enjoy the same rights and privileges I have' is oppressive. One is giving someone the choice to live their life as they want. The other is REMOVING the choice of someone to live their life the way they want.

That's a fine system. For some, the freedom they're looking to exercise is gambling, or prostitution (point of order; prostitution is not legal in Vegas). Here, the freedom is preaching and political advocacy. Christians are only asking that they be allowed to assemble and petition the government. If that's oppressive, then so is homosexual assembly and petition.

TheGrammarBolshevik wrote:
Steroid wrote:That's the bias, and that's what's unfair.

No, it's not unfair. It's different. "Unfair" implies that, if things lived up to moral standards, people would be treated the same. So it's unfair that nonviolent drug users are in prison and I'm not, because it's wrong to imprison people for using drugs. But it isn't unfair that Charles Manson is in prison and I'm not, because it's OK (obligatory, even) to imprison mass murderers. . . .
Surely you can at least understand the idea that there are facts about who is doing something right and who is doing something wrong, even if you disagree?

But the "who's right and who's wrong" and "who belongs in jail and who doesn't" are orthogonal concepts. Punishments like jail and fines and the death penalty should be delivered dispassionately, as proportionate and just retribution for like actions. Right and Wrong are part of the open social arena and the evolutionary concepts I discussed above. Christianity has a lot of Right on its side.

User avatar
Belial
A terrible sound heard from a distance
Posts: 30450
Joined: Sat Apr 15, 2006 4:04 am UTC
Contact:

Re: Shooting at Christian organization in DC

Postby Belial » Mon Aug 20, 2012 4:58 pm UTC

Steroid wrote:If war and propaganda are illicit, then what are legitimate means to advance a cause? Do you know what happens to causes that only work through pure rationality and noninterference? They get eaten up by the Christians.


So...are you again saying that the only way to avoid oppression by christianity is to stamp out christianity?

What do you get out of advancing that point, exactly?
addams wrote:A drunk neighbor is better than a sober Belial.


They/them

Роберт
Posts: 4285
Joined: Wed May 14, 2008 1:56 am UTC

Re: Shooting at Christian organization in DC

Postby Роберт » Mon Aug 20, 2012 5:04 pm UTC

Belial wrote:
Steroid wrote:If war and propaganda are illicit, then what are legitimate means to advance a cause? Do you know what happens to causes that only work through pure rationality and noninterference? They get eaten up by the Christians.


So...are you again saying that the only way to avoid oppression by christianity is to stamp out christianity?

What do you get out of advancing that point, exactly?

He bought a bunch of stock in religious warfare and stands to make quite a nice profit if enough breaks out.
The Great Hippo wrote:[T]he way we treat suspected terrorists genuinely terrifies me.

Steroid
Posts: 549
Joined: Wed Mar 26, 2008 10:50 am UTC

Re: Shooting at Christian organization in DC

Postby Steroid » Mon Aug 20, 2012 5:06 pm UTC

Belial wrote:
Steroid wrote:If war and propaganda are illicit, then what are legitimate means to advance a cause? Do you know what happens to causes that only work through pure rationality and noninterference? They get eaten up by the Christians.


So...are you again saying that the only way to avoid oppression by christianity is to stamp out christianity?

What do you get out of advancing that point, exactly?
Not at all. You can advance your cause any way that the world lets you. But it has to have that evolutionary value. Christianity was enough to get people to give up their homes and join the crusades. Does multiculturalism inspire that kind of commitment? If it did, you wouldn't need to have the fight.

My point is that when you do have a cause, just expecting everyone else to accept it is unrealistic, and taking a gun and shooting the opposition is counterproductive.

User avatar
sam_i_am
Posts: 624
Joined: Mon Jun 18, 2012 3:38 pm UTC
Location: Urbana, Illinois, USA

Re: Shooting at Christian organization in DC

Postby sam_i_am » Mon Aug 20, 2012 5:10 pm UTC

Steroid wrote:
sam_i_am wrote:How, might I ask, will Christians be affected if same-sex couples can be legally considered to be married?

If they are given contract rights? None. If the social trappings of marriage are attached to same-sex contracted couples? It will affect Christians by devaluing their exclusivity on what they see as the biblical concept of marriage.

Now, as I've said, marriage is the only political/legal issue that's been brought up. So, other than the marriage issue, how are homosexuals affected by anything else that the FRC or right-wing Christians do?


So, Part of being Christian is having exclusive rights?

(Note: I question the accuracy of the above post, but that's not particularly important)

Okay, So Christianity is older than multiculturalism. So what? Do you know what's older than Christianity? Polygamy is. Paganism is too. Those and all manner of objectionable things were considered even older and even more established than Christianity was, at least in some point in history.

I didn't specify age as the sole criterion. It's an evolutionary concept. Dinosaurs existed before humans, but they died, so they lost. We're running the planet, so we're winning. No one's going around saying, "Hey, the bees and the termites are your evolutionary superiors, so hurry up and die out so they can take over." That's essentially what is happening to Christianity and heteronormativity.


Homosexuals aren't so much working toward causing Christianity to die out as much as they are working toward being able to do their own thing.

User avatar
Kulantan
Posts: 999
Joined: Mon May 04, 2009 9:24 pm UTC
Location: Somewhere witty

Re: Shooting at Christian organization in DC

Postby Kulantan » Mon Aug 20, 2012 5:14 pm UTC

Steroid wrote:]Not at all. You can advance your cause any way that the world lets you. But it has to have that evolutionary value. Christianity was enough to get people to give up their homes and join the crusades. Does multiculturalism inspire that kind of commitment? If it did, you wouldn't need to have the fight.

My point is that when you do have a cause, just expecting everyone else to accept it is unrealistic, and taking a gun and shooting the opposition is counterproductive.

So we should have a non-shooty multicultural crusade to prove its evolutionary value so we don't have to fight for multiculturalism...
Spoiler:
WTFreadingpony.jpg
WTFreadingpony.jpg (10.17 KiB) Viewed 4330 times
TEAM SHIVAHN
Pretty much the best team ever

phlip wrote:(Scholars believe it is lost to time exactly which search engine Columbus preferred... though they are reasonably sure that he was an avid user of Apple Maps.)

Blog.

User avatar
PeteP
What the peck?
Posts: 1451
Joined: Tue Aug 23, 2011 4:51 pm UTC

Re: Shooting at Christian organization in DC

Postby PeteP » Mon Aug 20, 2012 5:15 pm UTC

Steroid wrote:
Belial wrote:
Steroid wrote:If war and propaganda are illicit, then what are legitimate means to advance a cause? Do you know what happens to causes that only work through pure rationality and noninterference? They get eaten up by the Christians.


So...are you again saying that the only way to avoid oppression by christianity is to stamp out christianity?

What do you get out of advancing that point, exactly?
Not at all. You can advance your cause any way that the world lets you. But it has to have that evolutionary value. Christianity was enough to get people to give up their homes and join the crusades. Does multiculturalism inspire that kind of commitment? If it did, you wouldn't need to have the fight.

My point is that when you do have a cause, just expecting everyone else to accept it is unrealistic, and taking a gun and shooting the opposition is counterproductive.

So since the anti gay side is slowly but surely losing, that will prove that our side has a higher evolutionary value? Good to know, problem solved.

User avatar
Belial
A terrible sound heard from a distance
Posts: 30450
Joined: Sat Apr 15, 2006 4:04 am UTC
Contact:

Re: Shooting at Christian organization in DC

Postby Belial » Mon Aug 20, 2012 5:16 pm UTC

Steroid wrote:
Belial wrote:
Steroid wrote:If war and propaganda are illicit, then what are legitimate means to advance a cause? Do you know what happens to causes that only work through pure rationality and noninterference? They get eaten up by the Christians.


So...are you again saying that the only way to avoid oppression by christianity is to stamp out christianity?

What do you get out of advancing that point, exactly?
Not at all. You can advance your cause any way that the world lets you. But it has to have that evolutionary value. Christianity was enough to get people to give up their homes and join the crusades. Does multiculturalism inspire that kind of commitment? If it did, you wouldn't need to have the fight.

My point is that when you do have a cause, just expecting everyone else to accept it is unrealistic, and taking a gun and shooting the opposition is counterproductive.


The argument that ideas with power will win is a stupid argument to make, because if it's true, you don't need to argue it, just stand back and let things sort themselves out. But you don't actually believe that, because you clearly think that certain ideas have value regardless of their ability to preserve themselves in the face of opposition. Otherwise, you would not be so bothered by the idea of "multiculturalism" replacing christian values, for example.

Which leads me to believe that this entire line of argumentation is just obfuscatory scumfuckery on your part.
addams wrote:A drunk neighbor is better than a sober Belial.


They/them

User avatar
Izawwlgood
WINNING
Posts: 18686
Joined: Mon Nov 19, 2007 3:55 pm UTC
Location: There may be lovelier lovelies...

Re: Shooting at Christian organization in DC

Postby Izawwlgood » Mon Aug 20, 2012 5:25 pm UTC

Steroid wrote:If I'm ticked off by you wearing a hat, I can't legally stop you, but I can take any social steps to convince you not to wear the hat.

I'm curious if you're aware of how appropriate this analogy is to the homosexual agenda; you are more than welcome to convince us not to wear hats, but you are NOT in the right if you are taking legal measures to prevent us from wearing hats. Mirror it; you are more than welcome to not wear hats, but us hat wearers are NOT in the right to demand you put one on.

Steroid wrote:But that is what the Christian right is saying. They're also saying that they're going to continue to support the status quo. I don't agree with them on that point of legislature. But I do agree with them on the procedure.

Again, you seem to not know what words mean; the Christian right is not saying 'Us Christians don't believe in homosexual equality, so we won't personally have homosexual marriage', they're saying 'Us Christians don't believe in homosexual equality, so no one should be able to'. Again, no state should be allowed to legislate that, say, black people aren't entitled a vote. This is the same thing.

Steroid wrote:If war and propaganda are illicit, then what are legitimate means to advance a cause? Do you know what happens to causes that only work through pure rationality and noninterference? They get eaten up by the Christians.

You were the one who claimed that Christianity wasn't spread through illicit means. I'm pointing out to you that it was. What is legitimate means? The means that the homosexual agenda is advocating it's cause; through attempting to secure more rights and freedoms to people.

Steroid wrote:Christians are only asking that they be allowed to assemble and petition the government. If that's oppressive, then so is homosexual assembly and petition.

You still don't get it; Christians are seeking to assemble and petition the government, but they are petitioning the government TO CONTINUE OPPRESSING non-Christians. Because again, no one is saying 'Stop letting Christians live as they want'. Christians however, ARE saying 'Stop letting non-Christians live as non-Christians'.
... with gigantic melancholies and gigantic mirth, to tread the jeweled thrones of the Earth under his sandalled feet.

User avatar
TheGrammarBolshevik
Posts: 4878
Joined: Mon Jun 30, 2008 2:12 am UTC
Location: Going to and fro in the earth, and walking up and down in it.

Re: Shooting at Christian organization in DC

Postby TheGrammarBolshevik » Mon Aug 20, 2012 5:27 pm UTC

Steroid wrote:But the "who's right and who's wrong" and "who belongs in jail and who doesn't" are orthogonal concepts. Punishments like jail and fines and the death penalty should be delivered dispassionately, as proportionate and just retribution for like actions. Right and Wrong are part of the open social arena and the evolutionary concepts I discussed above. Christianity has a lot of Right on its side.

I'm not saying that all and only people who do wrong should be put in jail; it's not about the relationship between doing wrong and being imprisoned. I'm saying that if there are facts about who belongs in jail, or what is just retribution, or a dispassionate reason to imprison someone, or that any of the above should be the basis for imprisonment, then there are moral facts. And if there are moral facts, then there is a clear line between bothering people to do the right thing and just bothering people. Ignoring this distinction by saying that conservative Christians and queer people just want to "oppress" people is, as Belial says, obfuscatory. Instead of taking on the reasons that people actually have for drawing a distinction, you just go and talk about something else.
Nothing rhymes with orange,
Not even sporange.

webzter_again
Posts: 119
Joined: Sun May 27, 2012 4:37 am UTC

Re: Shooting at Christian organization in DC

Postby webzter_again » Mon Aug 20, 2012 5:39 pm UTC

Steroid wrote:Christianity was enough to get people to give up their homes and join the crusades. Does multiculturalism inspire that kind of commitment? If it did, you wouldn't need to have the fight.

... taking a gun and shooting the opposition is counterproductive.


I was not aware that the crusades were fought without anyone dying.

User avatar
sam_i_am
Posts: 624
Joined: Mon Jun 18, 2012 3:38 pm UTC
Location: Urbana, Illinois, USA

Re: Shooting at Christian organization in DC

Postby sam_i_am » Mon Aug 20, 2012 5:39 pm UTC

Izawwlgood wrote:You still don't get it; Christians the Family Research Council is seeking to assemble and petition the government, but they are petitioning the government TO CONTINUE OPPRESSING non-Christians. Because again, no one is saying 'Stop letting Christians live as they want'. Christians the Family Research Council however, IS saying 'Stop letting non-Christians live as non-Christians'.


fix'd

User avatar
Izawwlgood
WINNING
Posts: 18686
Joined: Mon Nov 19, 2007 3:55 pm UTC
Location: There may be lovelier lovelies...

Re: Shooting at Christian organization in DC

Postby Izawwlgood » Mon Aug 20, 2012 5:42 pm UTC

Yeah, fair enough. If Steroid gets to wash the entire gay agenda under the umbrella of this one shooter, then it's equally dishonest to lump all Christians with the FRC.
... with gigantic melancholies and gigantic mirth, to tread the jeweled thrones of the Earth under his sandalled feet.

User avatar
sam_i_am
Posts: 624
Joined: Mon Jun 18, 2012 3:38 pm UTC
Location: Urbana, Illinois, USA

Re: Shooting at Christian organization in DC

Postby sam_i_am » Mon Aug 20, 2012 5:50 pm UTC

Izawwlgood wrote:If It's good enough for steroid, than it's good enough for me.

User avatar
Izawwlgood
WINNING
Posts: 18686
Joined: Mon Nov 19, 2007 3:55 pm UTC
Location: There may be lovelier lovelies...

Re: Shooting at Christian organization in DC

Postby Izawwlgood » Mon Aug 20, 2012 5:51 pm UTC

Is... the opposite of what I actually wrote, but yeah, ok?
... with gigantic melancholies and gigantic mirth, to tread the jeweled thrones of the Earth under his sandalled feet.

User avatar
TheAmazingRando
Posts: 2308
Joined: Thu Jan 03, 2008 9:58 am UTC
Location: San Diego, CA

Re: Shooting at Christian organization in DC

Postby TheAmazingRando » Mon Aug 20, 2012 6:09 pm UTC

Steroid: are black people oppressing white supremacists by living in America, since white supremacists are being denied racial exclusivity?
Is it unfair to label one a hate group, but not the other?

More to the point: if a group feels oppressed because they're being denied exclusive rights to something they have no legitimate claim to, why should I give a fuck?

Princess Marzipan
Posts: 7717
Joined: Sun May 27, 2007 5:28 am UTC
Location: neither a road, nor an island

Re: Shooting at Christian organization in DC

Postby Princess Marzipan » Mon Aug 20, 2012 10:17 pm UTC

Steroid wrote:To you, power is the source of oppression. To me, it's evidence of past success.
The problem here is that you believe that "success" means an inherent objective superiority across all possible measurements. All we can observe about "success" is that these ideas remained the dominant paradigms. That doesn't mean they're the best paradigms; it could just as easily mean they're the most power-concentrating and self-perpetuating.

Steroid wrote:Imagine if it had gone the other way. If the homosexual movement were the majority and had done all the work to get there, and the Christian sect jumped into existence a century ago and started to preach heteronormativity and sexual self-discipline, would they be right to whine about not having equal social standing? Again, take the legality part of it out. In the social arena, anything goes.
False equivalence. There is no "homosexual movement" per se; there is no one saying homosexuality is the orientation everyone should ascribe to. AGAIN, homosexuals just want bigots to live and let live so that being gay isn't a detriment.
You're also implicitly linking homosexuality with a lack of "sexual self-discipline", which is rather disingenuous.
But I'll pretend your question is completely valid and answer it: Would Christians be right to "whine" about not having equal social standing in a world where homosexuality is the norm and Christians just want the right to engage in lifelong monogamous heterosexual relationships? YES, if these bizarro homosexuals were dead-set on doing everything possible to make heterosexual monogamy appear evil or wrong, YES. YES they would absolutely be right to "whine" about that, if by "whine" you mean "not sit there and soak up abuse and bigotry from the majority".
Steroid wrote:Christianity was enough to get people to give up their homes and join the crusades. Does multiculturalism inspire that kind of commitment? If it did, you wouldn't need to have the fight.
[...]
My point is that when you do have a cause, just expecting everyone else to accept it is unrealistic, and taking a gun and shooting the opposition is counterproductive.
...are you aware of what the Crusades were? It was a lot of KILLING. I can't imagine you'd seriously argue the crusades were fine just because no one was using guns. Sweet Celestia of Equestria, how on Earth can you on one hand hold up Christianity as more valid because it had the Crusades, but then on the other hold up slaying the opposition as counterproductive?


TheAmazingRando wrote:Steroid: are black people oppressing white supremacists by living in America, since white supremacists are being denied racial exclusivity?
Is it unfair to label one a hate group, but not the other?

More to the point: if a group feels oppressed because they're being denied exclusive rights to something they have no legitimate claim to, why should I give a fuck?
I think these are excellent questions.
"It's Saturday night. I've got no date, a two-liter of Shasta, and my all-Rush mixtape. Let's rock!"
"I am just about to be brilliant!"
General_Norris, on feminism, wrote:If you lose your six Pokémon, you lost.

User avatar
Zamfir
I built a novelty castle, the irony was lost on some.
Posts: 7588
Joined: Wed Aug 27, 2008 2:43 pm UTC
Location: Nederland

Re: Shooting at Christian organization in DC

Postby Zamfir » Mon Aug 20, 2012 10:59 pm UTC

...are you aware of what the Crusades were? It was a lot of KILLING. I can't imagine you'd seriously argue the crusades were fine just because no one was using guns. Sweet Celestia of Equestria, how on Earth can you on one hand hold up Christianity as more valid because it had the Crusades, but then on the other hold up slaying the opposition as counterproductive?

Well, the Crusades were not that productive either. Neither in conquest or conversion, unless you count the Reconquista of Iberia.

User avatar
sardia
Posts: 6782
Joined: Sat Apr 03, 2010 3:39 am UTC

Re: Shooting at Christian organization in DC

Postby sardia » Mon Aug 20, 2012 11:35 pm UTC

Zamfir wrote:
...are you aware of what the Crusades were? It was a lot of KILLING. I can't imagine you'd seriously argue the crusades were fine just because no one was using guns. Sweet Celestia of Equestria, how on Earth can you on one hand hold up Christianity as more valid because it had the Crusades, but then on the other hold up slaying the opposition as counterproductive?

Well, the Crusades were not that productive either. Neither in conquest or conversion, unless you count the Reconquista of Iberia.

But it did. Clear up the backlog of violent young men in Europe.

User avatar
yurell
Posts: 2924
Joined: Sat Nov 13, 2010 2:19 am UTC
Location: Australia!

Re: Shooting at Christian organization in DC

Postby yurell » Tue Aug 21, 2012 12:11 am UTC

Steroid wrote:My point is that you're willing to give the shooter the benefit of the doubt, but not the FRC. They say that they're not against the people, only the practice. Why do you refuse to take them at face value?


I'm not willing to give the shooter the benefit of the doubt; I've condemned his actions openly, and I've linked to sources arguing that he's hurt the LGBT movement (especially in terms of PR). What he did was a vile, stupid thing. I do, however, doubt that it's because of anti-Christian bigotry because of a) his statement and b) his target. In what way am I being unreasonable to him or the hate group, who are trying to mandate the interactions between other consenting adults?
cemper93 wrote:Dude, I just presented an elaborate multiple fraction in Comic Sans. Who are you to question me?


Pronouns: Feminine pronouns please!

User avatar
netcrusher88
Posts: 2166
Joined: Mon Mar 26, 2007 4:35 pm UTC
Location: Seattle

Re: Shooting at Christian organization in DC

Postby netcrusher88 » Tue Aug 21, 2012 12:35 am UTC

Even if he'd gone and shot Catholic priest it wouldn't be necessarily anti-Christian.
Sexothermic
I have only ever made one prayer to God, a very short one: "O Lord, make my enemies ridiculous." And God granted it. -Voltaire
They said we would never have a black president until Swine Flu. -Gears

Steroid
Posts: 549
Joined: Wed Mar 26, 2008 10:50 am UTC

Re: Shooting at Christian organization in DC

Postby Steroid » Tue Aug 21, 2012 1:16 am UTC

Izawwlgood wrote:Again, you seem to not know what words mean; the Christian right is not saying 'Us Christians don't believe in homosexual equality, so we won't personally have homosexual marriage', they're saying 'Us Christians don't believe in homosexual equality, so no one should be able to'. Again, no state should be allowed to legislate that, say, black people aren't entitled a vote. This is the same thing.

But they're not saying that. They're not saying that homosexuals should be denied free speech, voting rights, freedom of religion, freedom of property, or anything. They're only saying that A) homosexuals should stop being homosexual and return to the way it was, B) the definition of marriage shouldn't change, and C) the government shouldn't allow same-sex people to contract for marriage.

I disagree with the last, agree with the second, and take no opinion on the third.

You were the one who claimed that Christianity wasn't spread through illicit means. I'm pointing out to you that it was. What is legitimate means? The means that the homosexual agenda is advocating it's cause; through attempting to secure more rights and freedoms to people.

OK, why are they legitimate and Christianity's rise illegitimate? I've said that the rise of power of any idea is evolutionary. You're saying that the power should be stripped unless it's by campaigning for power. Why should this be a controlled situation instead of an open evolutionary concept? And even if it should, how do you get that control?

You still don't get it; Christians are seeking to assemble and petition the government, but they are petitioning the government TO CONTINUE OPPRESSING non-Christians. Because again, no one is saying 'Stop letting Christians live as they want'. Christians however, ARE saying 'Stop letting non-Christians live as non-Christians'.

But ANY assembly and ANY petition should be allowed to occur. I can write my congressperson trying to get him to repeal the 13th amendment and make you all my slaves. You can disagree with him doing it, but if you want to deny me my right to write that letter and take that position, then you're oppressing me. In the same way, if you're trying to stop Christians from saying that non-Christians shouldn't live as non-Christians, even to the government, then you are saying, "stop letting Christians live as they want."

TheGrammarBolshevik wrote:I'm not saying that all and only people who do wrong should be put in jail; it's not about the relationship between doing wrong and being imprisoned. I'm saying that if there are facts about who belongs in jail, or what is just retribution, or a dispassionate reason to imprison someone, or that any of the above should be the basis for imprisonment, then there are moral facts.

Yes. . .

And if there are moral facts, then there is a clear line between bothering people to do the right thing and just bothering people.
No. The action is the determinant of moral facts, not the motive. There is not a clear line between robbing people to do the right thing and just robbing people. Both warrant prison, just retribution, etc. There is not a clear line when the action is bothering people. Or, if there is, then the standard of right and wrong changes from "which side just wants to walk away and be left alone" to "what's the evolutionary superior?"

Ignoring this distinction by saying that conservative Christians and queer people just want to "oppress" people is, as Belial says, obfuscatory. Instead of taking on the reasons that people actually have for drawing a distinction, you just go and talk about something else.


I'm not ignoring the distinction, I'm trying to argue against it. I'm saying that what makes things distinct is not the end, but the means.

In other words, there are three different tiers at which we can look at the two sides:

1. The violence they are committing (counting oppressive laws as violence)
2. The non-violent acts they are committing. (speeches, arguments, political positions, and community advancement, etc.)
3. The potential violence, and the changes they would make to others, if given the complete fulfillment of their desires.

I think that Tier 3 is not a particularly practical thing to talk about, but since everyone wants to talk about it vis a vis right-wing Christians, I include it.

On Tier 1, we both agree on the standard of noninterference. Shooting warrants just retribution, and an unfair law should be stricken from the books. We disagree on the process in both cases, but we agree on the standard.

The problem comes when you compare Tier 2 for homosexuals and multiculturalists against Tier 3 for Christians. My argument is that Tier 2 is deuces wild, anything goes. Say anything. Argue for theocracy, dictatorship, homosexual superiority, whatever. You don't. You're saying that there are some positions that warrant Tier-3 judgement, and that Christians are taking them. If that's the case, then I'm going to judge the homosexual movement by its Tier 3.

Here you say that the ultimate goals of the homosexual movement are non-violent and noninterfering. I don't believe that. In the first place, we don't have sufficient evidence to say what they would do if they had the kind of social and political power that the Christian right has. The assumption that their noninterference position is taken out of pure heart and not out of the simple fact that they don't have the ability to interfere with Christians is one that I don't make. In the second, we do have evidence of what happens when the multicultural position gets some social and political power. It censors words and positions, and, in some countries, does so by force of law. In the third place, I believe that, based on their statements and positions, homosexuals and multiculturalists both want, as their ultimate genie-lamp wish, right-wing Christianity to go away or convert to a moderate position. And that's nothing more than what the right-wing Christians want for the opposition.

Let's see another example:

TheAmazingRando wrote:Steroid: are black people oppressing white supremacists by living in America, since white supremacists are being denied racial exclusivity?
Is it unfair to label one a hate group, but not the other?

More to the point: if a group feels oppressed because they're being denied exclusive rights to something they have no legitimate claim to, why should I give a fuck?

Are they? No. Are white supremacists oppressing black people by living in America and taking the nonviolent actions that they take? No.

Do white supremacists want, wish, and desire to restrict the freedoms of black people, thus oppressing them? Yes. Do black people want, wish, and desire to restrict the freedoms of white supremacists, thus oppressing them? Yes.

User avatar
Jave D
chavey-dee
Posts: 1042
Joined: Mon Oct 18, 2010 4:41 pm UTC

Re: Shooting at Christian organization in DC

Postby Jave D » Tue Aug 21, 2012 1:43 am UTC

Steroid wrote:Are they? No. Are white supremacists oppressing black people by living in America and taking the nonviolent actions that they take? No.

Do white supremacists want, wish, and desire to restrict the freedoms of black people, thus oppressing them? Yes. Do black people want, wish, and desire to restrict the freedoms of white supremacists, thus oppressing them? Yes.


Isn't it much more convenient to couch your ridiculous opinions in the form of a question that you then answer, so it looks like you're being open minded and having a discussion but really just spewing your opinions again and again and loving the attention you receive for them? Yes.

Aren't all your so-called arguments basically just like that? Yes.

Isn't this fun? Yes.

User avatar
TheGrammarBolshevik
Posts: 4878
Joined: Mon Jun 30, 2008 2:12 am UTC
Location: Going to and fro in the earth, and walking up and down in it.

Re: Shooting at Christian organization in DC

Postby TheGrammarBolshevik » Tue Aug 21, 2012 2:31 am UTC

Steroid wrote:
And if there are moral facts, then there is a clear line between bothering people to do the right thing and just bothering people.
No. The action is the determinant of moral facts, not the motive.

Perhaps I was unclear with that sentence. The dividing line is not a moral dividing line; the point is not that conservative Christians are doing the wrong thing and LGBT equality activists are doing the right thing. The point is that each group wants to do what it does for a certain reason. Each group is motivated by what it takes to be the case. So, even if both groups take symmetric actions, one group's actions can be mistaken in a way the other's are not if it is mistaken in what it takes to be the case. This has nothing to do with morality; it's a more general principle of reasoning, which says that you should not act on beliefs that do not obtain. Certainly on that level it matters what your motive is: if I want to drink a glass of vodka, that would be a mistake if my goal is to slake my thirst, but it would not be a mistake if my goal is to get ready for a party.

So, while I agree that each side wants the other "to go away or convert to a moderate position," I do not agree that this means both sides are justified or both sides are unjustified. Because neither side wants the other to change their mind just as a matter of arbitrary preference; they want them to change their minds because they think they are wrong. So I think there is a difference between the demands that each side makes because I think that one gets the underlying reasoning right. And they themselves, I take it, agree: if you were to convince a conservative Christian, for example, that it is not wrong for two men to have sex, she would not continue believing that they should "go away or convert." And if gay people came to recognize conservative Christian views as correct, they would not want conservative Christians to convert; instead they would, quite literally, convert to Christianity.
Nothing rhymes with orange,
Not even sporange.

User avatar
Izawwlgood
WINNING
Posts: 18686
Joined: Mon Nov 19, 2007 3:55 pm UTC
Location: There may be lovelier lovelies...

Re: Shooting at Christian organization in DC

Postby Izawwlgood » Tue Aug 21, 2012 5:22 am UTC

Steroid wrote:They're not saying that homosexuals should be denied free speech, voting rights, freedom of religion, freedom of property, or anything. They're only saying that A) homosexuals should stop being homosexual and return to the way it was, B) the definition of marriage shouldn't change, and C) the government shouldn't allow same-sex people to contract for marriage.

"They're not saying homosexuals shouldn't have equal rights! They're just saying homosexuals shouldn't be homosexual, and shouldn't have equal rights!"

Steroid wrote:OK, why are they legitimate and Christianity's rise illegitimate?

Slavery 'evolved naturally'. Most decent people would agree that it is not acceptable in today's world. Again, as has already been pointed out to you by PM, the presence of an existing power structure does not mean its existence is legitimate. But it certainly bears pointing out that the civil rights movement resulted in strikingly less deaths than the slave trade. Similarly, granting homosexuals equal rights in America will probably result in strikingly less Matthew Shepards. I personally have an enormously difficult time wrapping my head around the mind set required to believe less civil liberties is a good thing. Because for the like, eighth time in this thread, someone is explaining to you that more freedom doesn't mean people aren't free to live as religiously and heterosexually as they want, it just means not everyone has to.

Steroid wrote:if you're trying to stop Christians from saying that non-Christians shouldn't live as non-Christians, even to the government, then you are saying, "stop letting Christians live as they want."

Everyone is getting tired of you making this claim while ignoring the statements that are being made; NO ONE IS TELLING CHRISTIANS TO STOP LIVING AS THEY WANT. No one is even telling Christians to stop petitioning. What *IS* being said is for homosexuals to have the same freedoms as Christians, like, as you keep for some not remotely surprising reason ignoring, the right to marry. If Christians want to argue that the government shouldn't have the right to marry homosexuals, then the agenda is shifted, and the actual claim is 'no one but Christians should have a right to define marriage'. Which is bullshit for the same reason white people cannot say 'black people are my slaves'.

Steroid wrote:Here you say that the ultimate goals of the homosexual movement are non-violent and noninterfering. I don't believe that.

The day gay bullies are beating up straight Christians, and heterosexual kids are committing suicide at a shockingly higher rate than homosexual kids, and Christians can't marry and a non-Christian president is in office is the day I accept that the homosexual movement has violence and interfering goals. Go ahead, point us to the institutionalized hatred of Christians that has resulted in decades of inequality and stigmatization. I'm totally waiting for your proof.

Steroid wrote:Do white supremacists want, wish, and desire to restrict the freedoms of black people, thus oppressing them? Yes. Do black people want, wish, and desire to restrict the freedoms of white supremacists, thus oppressing them? Yes.

Wrong again;
From the ACLU Wiki wrote:For example, the reactionary, anti-Catholic, anti-black Ku Klux Klan (KKK) was a frequent target of ACLU efforts, but the ACLU defended the KKK's right to hold meetings in 1923
... with gigantic melancholies and gigantic mirth, to tread the jeweled thrones of the Earth under his sandalled feet.

User avatar
Adacore
Posts: 2755
Joined: Fri Feb 20, 2009 12:35 pm UTC
Location: 한국 창원

Re: Shooting at Christian organization in DC

Postby Adacore » Tue Aug 21, 2012 5:26 am UTC

Izawwlgood wrote:
Steroid wrote:Do white supremacists want, wish, and desire to restrict the freedoms of black people, thus oppressing them? Yes. Do black people want, wish, and desire to restrict the freedoms of white supremacists, thus oppressing them? Yes.

Wrong again;
From the ACLU Wiki wrote:For example, the reactionary, anti-Catholic, anti-black Ku Klux Klan (KKK) was a frequent target of ACLU efforts, but the ACLU defended the KKK's right to hold meetings in 1923

I wondered about that. Is it Steroid's opinion that the fact black people don't accept the restricted freedom &c. desired by the white supremacists is an act that construes 'oppression' of the white supremacists' freedoms? Because otherwise, lumping 'black people' together as a single entity doesn't make much sense and is horribly racist. I'm sure some black people desire to restrict the rights of the KKK, for example, to hold meetings, while others would fight to the death to preserve that freedom.

User avatar
Izawwlgood
WINNING
Posts: 18686
Joined: Mon Nov 19, 2007 3:55 pm UTC
Location: There may be lovelier lovelies...

Re: Shooting at Christian organization in DC

Postby Izawwlgood » Tue Aug 21, 2012 5:30 am UTC

Well, at the last meeting, black people decided that they wanted to spread awareness of the KKK intimidating voters in poorer neighborhoods or something, so, clearly, black people are oppressing the KKK.
... with gigantic melancholies and gigantic mirth, to tread the jeweled thrones of the Earth under his sandalled feet.

Steroid
Posts: 549
Joined: Wed Mar 26, 2008 10:50 am UTC

Re: Shooting at Christian organization in DC

Postby Steroid » Tue Aug 21, 2012 9:31 am UTC

Izawwlgood wrote:Slavery 'evolved naturally'. Most decent people would agree that it is not acceptable in today's world. Again, as has already been pointed out to you by PM, the presence of an existing power structure does not mean its existence is legitimate.
I'm saying it does. That's why things like reparations for slavery don't get off the ground. Is it really your position that every historical wrong needs to be corrected going forward? Because by that standard, no one is innocent and no one has legitimate power. I can find ignominy in anyone's ancestors.

Everyone is getting tired of you making this claim while ignoring the statements that are being made; NO ONE IS TELLING CHRISTIANS TO STOP LIVING AS THEY WANT.
YES. THEY ARE. They're not threatening to pass a law against it, but they are telling them. The homosexual movement is trying to get people to change their values in their favor. If a Christian has a child who comes out as gay, the Christian is supposed to accept it and support them instead of withdrawing or trying to change them. If a homosexual starts a business in the Christian's neighborhood, the Christian is supposed to not automatically refuse to patronize that business, but consider its merits. When the Christian is among his friends, but there are some non-Christians of the right-wing stripe, he's supposed to censor himself and not talk about his feelings regarding homosexuality. That is telling Christians how to live.

Again, refer to my post above. This is Tier 3, "if we had our way," thinking. Both sides want the other to change. If you're talking about what goes on as a result of the social power that each side has, then I agree that Christians have an advantage, but I say they should. If you're talking about laws, then, barring one point of contract law, neither side has an advantage. So which is it?

The day gay bullies are beating up straight Christians, and heterosexual kids are committing suicide at a shockingly higher rate than homosexual kids, and Christians can't marry and a non-Christian president is in office is the day I accept that the homosexual movement has violence and interfering goals. Go ahead, point us to the institutionalized hatred of Christians that has resulted in decades of inequality and stigmatization. I'm totally waiting for your proof.

You're jumping all over here. Bullying: that's assault. Anyone who assaults, regardless of cause and victim, should be legally punished. Suicide: that's social. If Christians have a particular resistance to suicidal tendencies, it's something they've built up over time and shouldn't be penalized for it. Marriage: I've agreed on the contractual aspects of it. The social trappings again belong to history. President: Who serves in government jobs isn't an indicator of fairness. But are you saying that homosexuals don't want a gay president?

From the ACLU Wiki wrote:For example, the reactionary, anti-Catholic, anti-black Ku Klux Klan (KKK) was a frequent target of ACLU efforts, but the ACLU defended the KKK's right to hold meetings in 1923

Exactly. The ACLU wasn't supporting the KKK socially, only legally. The KKK aren't working against black people legally* or violently**, only socially.

*That's not to say they wouldn't like to work against them legally, but any political position is valid.

**Except where and when they are, which should be punished and curtailed.

User avatar
Izawwlgood
WINNING
Posts: 18686
Joined: Mon Nov 19, 2007 3:55 pm UTC
Location: There may be lovelier lovelies...

Re: Shooting at Christian organization in DC

Postby Izawwlgood » Tue Aug 21, 2012 12:36 pm UTC

Steroid wrote:I'm saying it does. That's why things like reparations for slavery don't get off the ground. Is it really your position that every historical wrong needs to be corrected going forward? Because by that standard, no one is innocent and no one has legitimate power. I can find ignominy in anyone's ancestors.

Since it appears to be that your position is that every historical wrong must persist throughout our history, I don't actually think I need to reply to this. Especially considering your position is basically 'the historical wrongs *I happen to like* are the ones that should be allowed to persist'. As Zamfir pointed out, Christianity having this position on homosexuality or presence in the outward politics of America isn't even terribly old. But, yes, obviously wrong doings need to be corrected. I find it absolutely stunning that you exist as an entity Steroid; you are the only person I've ever encountered who has openly stated that the civil rights movement AND the women's rights movement was a Bad Thing. You know what else was a bad thing? When we left the forest for caves. When we left caves for mud huts and eventually cities. After all, those changes were from social precedence that evolved naturally; fuck those progressives, amiright, oppressing the cave or tree dwelling proto-humans!

Steroid wrote:YES. THEY ARE. They're not threatening to pass a law against it, but they are telling them.

Right, so, legally, the homosexual agenda isn't doing anything to oppress these Christians. But earlier you explained that Christians were going about their form of protest legitimately (by petitioning government). So, what you have here is a majority (Christians) who are legally oppressing homosexuals, and the minority (homosexuals) who are petitioning government for equal legal rights as Christians... So... Show me again how homosexuals are OPPRESSING Christians, because every time we explain it to you, you ignore it, and every time you explain it to us, you, by your own frequently minced terms, state that homosexuals aren't actually oppressing Christians. But they are. But just not by, you know, any actual definition of the word.

Steroid wrote: The homosexual movement is trying to get people to change their values in their favor. If a Christian has a child who comes out as gay, the Christian is supposed to accept it and support them instead of withdrawing or trying to change them. If a homosexual starts a business in the Christian's neighborhood, the Christian is supposed to not automatically refuse to patronize that business, but consider its merits. When the Christian is among his friends, but there are some non-Christians of the right-wing stripe, he's supposed to censor himself and not talk about his feelings regarding homosexuality. That is telling Christians how to live.

To the above bolded, again, you keep saying that, but don't know what it means. Just look back at YOUR hat analogy. No gay person is telling a Christian they can't be Christian, they're only saying that as a gay person, they deserve the same civil rights as a Christian person. You are AGAIN, confusing 'I want the same rights as you' with 'I want to take away your rights'.

So, if any of the boo-fucking-hoo scenarios pop up, and in your hypothetical Armageddon where the gay agenda has won, these Christians can still do any of the things they want to do; a Christian parent doesn't have to support a gay kid (indeed, currently, many don't!), a Christian community can boycott a gay business, and Christians, when among rational people, are still free to run their mouths about the evils of homosexuality and how evolution is just a theory, yaddayaddayadda. The fact that each point you provided has counter points from the recent national news is beside the point; what is most telling is that the notion of equality rubs you so vehemently the wrong way that you resort to this alarmist bullshit with not only has zero historical precedent, but zero basis in reality.

Steroid wrote:Exactly. The ACLU wasn't supporting the KKK socially, only legally. The KKK aren't working against black people legally* or violently**, only socially.

"Exactly, the ACLU disagrees with the views of the KKK, but doesn't oppress them! In fact, it still supports them!"
Remember, this was your statement that caused me to bring this point up;
Steroid wrote:Do white supremacists want, wish, and desire to restrict the freedoms of black people, thus oppressing them? Yes. Do black people want, wish, and desire to restrict the freedoms of white supremacists, thus oppressing them? Yes.

And, as an aside;
*This is false. The KKK is presently actively fighting "illegal immigration, urban crime and same-sex marriage". My guess is 'urban crime' means 'there are black people in my city'.
**This is beyond false.
... with gigantic melancholies and gigantic mirth, to tread the jeweled thrones of the Earth under his sandalled feet.

Princess Marzipan
Posts: 7717
Joined: Sun May 27, 2007 5:28 am UTC
Location: neither a road, nor an island

Re: Shooting at Christian organization in DC

Postby Princess Marzipan » Tue Aug 21, 2012 12:55 pm UTC

Steroid, how do you expect social change to come to pass, if it's wrong to oppose the existing social order? For all your unsubstantiated claims that Christianity has some sort of right-by-victory to enshrine into law its prejudices, you seem to be forgetting that Christianity was once as fringe as homosexuality was. Back in its early days, Christianity was not the dominant social paradigm. It challenged the existing dominant social paradigms, but what makes that acceptable and right for Christianity to have done in the past but wrong and immoral and oppressive for homosexuals to do now?
"It's Saturday night. I've got no date, a two-liter of Shasta, and my all-Rush mixtape. Let's rock!"
"I am just about to be brilliant!"
General_Norris, on feminism, wrote:If you lose your six Pokémon, you lost.

Steroid
Posts: 549
Joined: Wed Mar 26, 2008 10:50 am UTC

Re: Shooting at Christian organization in DC

Postby Steroid » Tue Aug 21, 2012 1:10 pm UTC

Izawwlgood wrote:Since it appears to be that your position is that every historical wrong must persist throughout our history, I don't actually think I need to reply to this. Especially considering your position is basically 'the historical wrongs *I happen to like* are the ones that should be allowed to persist'. As Zamfir pointed out, Christianity having this position on homosexuality or presence in the outward politics of America isn't even terribly old. But, yes, obviously wrong doings need to be corrected. I find it absolutely stunning that you exist as an entity Steroid; you are the only person I've ever encountered who has openly stated that the civil rights movement AND the women's rights movement was a Bad Thing. You know what else was a bad thing? When we left the forest for caves. When we left caves for mud huts and eventually cities. After all, those changes were from social precedence that evolved naturally; fuck those progressives, amiright, oppressing the cave or tree dwelling proto-humans!

I don't think they were bad things. I am saying that if I were around during them, I would have thought that they were bad things. If, in a hundred years, homosexuality is mainstream, I will stop opposing it. Blacks, women, and homosexuals should all have their rights. But whites, men, and straights should not lose their privilege in order to accomplish it.

Right, so, legally, the homosexual agenda isn't doing anything to oppress these Christians. But earlier you explained that Christians were going about their form of protest legitimately (by petitioning government). So, what you have here is a majority (Christians) who are legally oppressing homosexuals,

No. There is no legal oppression. There's a desire and a campaign for legal oppression. That's perfectly legitimate. All campaigns are equal. I'm campaigning to be dictator of the universe. Are you claiming that I'm legally oppressing you by saying that?

To the above bolded, again, you keep saying that, but don't know what it means. Just look back at YOUR hat analogy. No gay person is telling a Christian they can't be Christian, they're only saying that as a gay person, they deserve the same civil rights as a Christian person. You are AGAIN, confusing 'I want the same rights as you' with 'I want to take away your rights'.

No, that's not "only" what they're saying. If that were the case, they wouldn't have pride parades, they'd have "equal legal rights while maintaining the same level of shame" parades. They wouldn't be asking for more homosexuals on television. They wouldn't be publishing books with gay characters. The homosexual lobby is in large part a social lobby. They're trying to make people in general accept them. Christians don't want to do that. Doing that destroys their status as Christian, according to them. QED, homosexuals are saying that a Christian can't be Christian.

So, if any of the boo-fucking-hoo scenarios pop up, and in your hypothetical Armageddon where the gay agenda has won, these Christians can still do any of the things they want to do; a Christian parent doesn't have to support a gay kid (indeed, currently, many don't!), a Christian community can boycott a gay business, and Christians, when among rational people, are still free to run their mouths about the evils of homosexuality and how evolution is just a theory, yaddayaddayadda.

And in today's world, homosexuals can still do any of the things they want to do, with the one exception of a point of contract law. They can couple, have sex, own property, and anything else a straight can do. It's just that some people don't like them for it. Boo-fucking hoo.

Princess Marzipan wrote:Steroid, how do you expect social change to come to pass, if it's wrong to oppose the existing social order? For all your unsubstantiated claims that Christianity has some sort of right-by-victory to enshrine into law its prejudices, you seem to be forgetting that Christianity was once as fringe as homosexuality was. Back in its early days, Christianity was not the dominant social paradigm. It challenged the existing dominant social paradigms, but what makes that acceptable and right for Christianity to have done in the past but wrong and immoral and oppressive for homosexuals to do now?


Well, I'd like it to happen with as little upset to the status quo as possible. Build recruitment and make money and advance as a society without upsetting the current society, until the minority has enough strength to form its own society where what was its deviance is now the norm. Practically, I expect them to commit the wrong and oppose the existing order. But why should I join in with something that I think is wrong?

User avatar
yurell
Posts: 2924
Joined: Sat Nov 13, 2010 2:19 am UTC
Location: Australia!

Re: Shooting at Christian organization in DC

Postby yurell » Tue Aug 21, 2012 1:16 pm UTC

Steroid wrote:And in today's world, homosexuals can still do any of the things they want to do, with the one exception of a point of contract law. They can couple, have sex, own property, and anything else a straight can do. It's just that some people don't like them for it. Boo-fucking hoo.


Liar.
cemper93 wrote:Dude, I just presented an elaborate multiple fraction in Comic Sans. Who are you to question me?


Pronouns: Feminine pronouns please!

User avatar
Izawwlgood
WINNING
Posts: 18686
Joined: Mon Nov 19, 2007 3:55 pm UTC
Location: There may be lovelier lovelies...

Re: Shooting at Christian organization in DC

Postby Izawwlgood » Tue Aug 21, 2012 1:30 pm UTC

Steroid wrote:But whites, men, and straights should not lose their privilege in order to accomplish it.

And again, tell us how whites, men, and straights are losing their privilege to be whites, men, or straights, when homosexuals accomplish equality? Are you uncertain what the word 'equality' means, or 'privilege'? Do you think 'privilege' means 'I can tell you to do what I want you to do and you have to obey', or 'I am the majority' or 'I enjoy liberties that you don't enjoy'?

Steroid wrote:Christians don't want to do that.

I don't want commercials interrupting my television. Ergo, advertising is oppressing me. I also don't want to wear pants. Ergo, society is oppressing me. I also don't want to own slaves, ergo, the KKK is oppressing me.

Steroid wrote:And in today's world, homosexuals can still do any of the things they want to do, with the one exception of a point of contract law. They can couple, have sex, own property, and anything else a straight can do. It's just that some people don't like them for it. Boo-fucking hoo.

Are you... Are being deliberately obtuse, or do you have selective reading? Gays. Cannot. Marry. That means homosexuals CANNOT do all the things they want to do, and further, they CANNOT do all the things CHRISTIANS CAN DO.

Steroid wrote:Well, I'd like it to happen with as little upset to the status quo as possible. Build recruitment and make money and advance as a society without upsetting the current society, until the minority has enough strength to form its own society where what was its deviance is now the norm. Practically, I expect them to commit the wrong and oppose the existing order. But why should I join in with something that I think is wrong?

Oh, you mean like how over the last 100 or so years, homosexuality has gradually, slowly, with many bumps and frequent backslides, gained acceptance in society, both within the cultural and political sphere? Huh. Well done homosexual agenda!

Frankly, this is getting tiring; you repeatedly bring up demonstrable falsehoods, continue to move the goal posts, can't even keep your own arguments straight, and, to make matters worse, when people ask pointed questions that underline either the atrociousness or inconsistencies of your worldview, you ignore it.
... with gigantic melancholies and gigantic mirth, to tread the jeweled thrones of the Earth under his sandalled feet.


Return to “News & Articles”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: New User and 18 guests