Gays, lesbians, bisexuals, PART II

[inked]

GW,

As you see, the truly unpardonable sin is being "not" liberal - however the newspeakers define it on any given day. Smoking does come in a close second, however, if it is tobacco. Other substances are to be legalized, remember, by the oppressive conservative majority so as to enter the enlightenment of that particular liberal value. And so on through as many changes as one can ring until reality sets in and the laughter interrupts the liberal process for sheer absurdity.

[brownjenkins]

Liberal basically means everything is open to discussion and change is a good thing.

Conservative basically means everything should be based upon traditional values and change, while sometimes necessary, is usually resisted.

Most, if not all, people are both depending upon the situation. So it's a mostly useless stereotype to label a individual with. Unless you have ulterior motives, of course.

[Rían]

Originally Posted by Gaffer

"Familiar liberal idea of stupidity of the masses". Hmmm. Not familiar with that one I must confess. I thought liberals were the ones who are in favour of civil rights, free speech, not believing every word of some religious text, etc. I must have been mistaken.

Perhaps liberals are in favor of those things, but that's not what I was talking about.

I was referring to what I've observed over the years in the US, and especially the last 5 or so years, about how LOCs (Loud Obnoxious Conservatives) usually refer to those who disagree with them, as opposed to how LOLs (Loud Obnoxious Liberals) usually do. (I'm not saying all LOLs do this, but it's the LOLs that I usually hear and read about.) I've noticed that when LOCs talk about someone that disagrees with their POV, they often refer to the disagreer as "wrong" and then give info/analysis to support their point. OTOH, all too often when LOLs talk about someone that disagrees with their POV, they just dismiss the disagreer as "stupid" and think that seals it. The former gives dignity to the disagreer (it implies that they are capable of thought and consideration, but their conclusion is wrong because of lack of info); the latter, to me, is just really insulting and implies that the disagreer isn't even capable of rational thought.

Originally Posted by Gaffer

As you say, critical faculties are to be developed by introducing new ideas. In what sense would reading about family values be introducing them to new ideas?

I don't think either inked or I said that (your first sentence). I said, "Why not expose the students to all sorts of ideas?" I think that's more rounded than only exposing them to new ideas. Why not expose them to a wide spectrum of ideas, both old and new, and teach them how to think and evaluate with an open mind?

Originally Posted by Gaffer

It seems as if a conservative lectures on right and wrong it's them stating their opinion, if a liberal does it it's them being illiberal. This is just one of the many the fundamental hypocrisies at the heart of this conservative argument.

Well, you must admit that a liberal saying that tolerance is good, and then turning around and saying viewpoints that are different than his are wrong and should be stamped out, is pretty funny (at least on a language level)! Again, I see in general that LOCs will use the idea of the dissenter being "wrong", while LOLs will use the idea of the dissenter being "stupid". Not a blanket statement, but a general one, from my observations.

[Rían]

Originally Posted by brownjenkins

Liberal basically means everything is open to discussion and change is a good thing.

But wouldn't you want to qualify it to SOME change is a good thing, or OFTEN change is a good thing? I can sure think of many changes that you wouldn't think are good ones.

[The Gaffer]

Originally Posted by RÃ*an

OTOH, all too often when LOLs talk about someone that disagrees with their POV, they just dismiss the disagreer as "stupid" and think that seals it.

If a LOL actually did that, I would agree that it is an unacceptable way to behave.

Originally Posted by RÃ*an

I don't think either inked or I said that (your first sentence). I said, "Why not expose the students to all sorts of ideas?" I think that's more rounded than only exposing them to new ideas. Why not expose them to a wide spectrum of ideas, both old and new, and teach them how to think and evaluate with an open mind?

Of course. But there are lots of other reasons at work in this case which we don't know about. Personal politics probably being the key one.

So, it's just another example of "see what these liberal fascists are up to now" sensationalism.

Originally Posted by RÃ*an

Well, you must admit that a liberal saying that tolerance is good, and then turning around and saying viewpoints that are different than his are wrong and should be stamped out, is pretty funny (at least on a language level)!

(Who said whose views should be stamped out?) but that's my point: it IS funny, but only at a language level. To then elevate it into a serious argument against "liberals", as I have seen many conservatives do, is lazy and dishonest IMO.

[brownjenkins]

Originally Posted by RÃ*an

But wouldn't you want to qualify it to SOME change is a good thing, or OFTEN change is a good thing? I can sure think of many changes that you wouldn't think are good ones.

The point is that liberals consider change as a viable option if it seems to make real world sense (i.e. good for society).

Conservatives tend to fear change in and of itself, without even truely looking at the positives and negatives behind that change.

The "best" system is probably somewhere in between. I think change is a good thing, but it has to be tempered by the reality that many people are resistant to it.

[Insidious Rex]

Originally Posted by RÃ*an

I don't think either inked or I said that (your first sentence). I said, "Why not expose the students to all sorts of ideas?" I think that's more rounded than only exposing them to new ideas. Why not expose them to a wide spectrum of ideas, both old and new, and teach them how to think and evaluate with an open mind?

Im awaiting the segue into "Creationism should be taught in schools" now.

So who gets to make the rules about what shall be included in this "wide spectrum" exactly? And what specific curriculum do you use to satisfy everyone that kids are being taught "how to think" with an open mind?

[Rían]

Originally Posted by The Gaffer

If a LOL actually did that, I would agree that it is an unacceptable way to behave.

Since I specifically referred to my "observations", that means yes, LOLs have actually done that - there's no "if" involved And I'm not saying worldwide, either - I said in the US, where I live and can observe (and HAVE observed this, quite often).

(Who said whose views should be stamped out?) but that's my point: it IS funny, but only at a language level. To then elevate it into a serious argument against "liberals", as I have seen many conservatives do, is lazy and dishonest IMO.

I think it is both funny and sad. I do think it is a serious argument against liberals, because it is an illogical position (and I think positions should be logical) and IMO an often duplicitous one. I think it's entirely appropriate to question someone who espouses "tolerance" and acts intolerant.

Originally Posted by brownie

Conservatives tend to fear change in and of itself, without even truely looking at the positives and negatives behind that change.

Not the ones I know.

I would add that I think liberals tend to embrace change "in and of itself, without even truely looking at the positives and negatives behind that change."

I agree that the best position is somewhere in between.

[Rían]

Originally Posted by Insidious Rex

So who gets to make the rules about what shall be included in this "wide spectrum" exactly? And what specific curriculum do you use to satisfy everyone that kids are being taught "how to think" with an open mind?

As far as "who", whatever the school boards have put into place, and if people don't like it, they can make their voice heard with their money (don't go to the school) and in the press.

I can't name a specific curriculum because I haven't looked into it, but I think something that covers basic thinking/analysis skills, such as the law of noncontradiction and valid ways of drawing conclusions, is sorely needed.

[Gwaimir Windgem]

Originally Posted by inked

GW,

As you see, the truly unpardonable sin is being "not" liberal - however the newspeakers define it on any given day. Smoking does come in a close second, however, if it is tobacco. Other substances are to be legalized, remember, by the oppressive conservative majority so as to enter the enlightenment of that particular liberal value. And so on through as many changes as one can ring until reality sets in and the laughter interrupts the liberal process for sheer absurdity.

That's right...so, if I put tobacco in my pipe, then just tell people it's...something else, I'm okay?

Though, I doubt the latter smells like tobacco...but maybe they'll have non-functioning olfactories.

EDIT: And, so as to remain on-topic, let us assume that it is Sir Ian McKellen who's sniffing my pipe.

[GreyMouser]

Originally Posted by RÃ*an

Perhaps liberals are in favor of those things, but that's not what I was talking about.

I was referring to what I've observed over the years in the US, and especially the last 5 or so years, about how LOCs (Loud Obnoxious Conservatives) usually refer to those who disagree with them, as opposed to how LOLs (Loud Obnoxious Liberals) usually do. (I'm not saying all LOLs do this, but it's the LOLs that I usually hear and read about.) I've noticed that when LOCs talk about someone that disagrees with their POV, they often refer to the disagreer as "wrong" and then give info/analysis to support their point. OTOH, all too often when LOLs talk about someone that disagrees with their POV, they just dismiss the disagreer as "stupid" and think that seals it. The former gives dignity to the disagreer (it implies that they are capable of thought and consideration, but their conclusion is wrong because of lack of info); the latter, to me, is just really insulting and implies that the disagreer isn't even capable of rational thought.

There's a grain of truth in that. Liberals tend to worship intelligence, often confused with degrees from prestigious universities, whereas conservatives tend to distrust pointy-head intellectuals.
OTOH, In the last 5 years I've observed that LOCs are more apt to start screaming "traitors! appeasers! evil-doers!" and turn off the other guy's microphone.

[Rían]

hmm, I somewhat agree with your last part (and agree with your first part) - I'll start looking for that last part more.

[The Gaffer]

Originally Posted by RÃ*an

I think it is both funny and sad. I do think it is a serious argument against liberals, because it is an illogical position (and I think positions should be logical) and IMO an often duplicitous one. I think it's entirely appropriate to question someone who espouses "tolerance" and acts intolerant.

* sigh *

So, a liberal can't make a rule, because that would be illiberal, right?

Sorry to be elementary, but I would like to be clear about this.

Liberals are about tolerance and equal opportunities, right?

So, premise 1) = people are all different, which is great, but there is inequality in society
2) = we, as a society, have a moral duty to ensure that people have opportunities to be all they can be
3) given 1), 2) is only possible if you actively set out to try change things in some way
4) given 3), we have to think about things like welfare reform, affirmative action, etc etc whatever, which will increase the opportunities afforded to less advantaged groups
5) there is no point in 4) if you don't try to implement it.
6) which means we have to have rules/laws/policies to promote them.
7) which some people won't like for whatever reason.
8) but that's not the same as being intolerant!!

I would have though that anyone who had given serious contemplation to liberal arguments would realise that.

However, there are plenty of people who only give serious contemplation to the counter-arguments. No change there, back to the studio.

To take your argument, Liberals are being intolerant if they try to do anything to change the situation. Which is nonsensical as soon as you follow it through, LOGICALLY.

So, what it sounds like when you make this agrument is "shut up, you lily livered liberal you". Which appears to me to be intellectually lazy (at best) or dishonest (assuming that conservatives have made the mental effort to understand the nature of liberals' arguments and not just the counter-arguments) at worst.

[Rían]

Originally Posted by The Gaffer

* sigh *

So, a liberal can't make a rule, because that would be illiberal, right?

It depends what they say about other people that make rules, too. That's the bone I"m picking here.

(and this discussion might be more difficult because we're in two different countries and have different examples to draw from.)

Liberals are about tolerance and equal opportunities, right?

Well, I'll agree to that for the purposes of this discussion, but I don't think they have the market cornered on those things by any means.

So, premise 1) = people are all different, which is great, but there is inequality in society
2) = we, as a society, have a moral duty to ensure that people have opportunities to be all they can be
3) given 1), 2) is only possible if you actively set out to try change things in some way
4) given 3), we have to think about things like welfare reform, affirmative action, etc etc whatever, which will increase the opportunities afforded to less advantaged groups
5) there is no point in 4) if you don't try to implement it.
6) which means we have to have rules/laws/policies to promote them.
7) which some people won't like for whatever reason.
8) but that's not the same as being intolerant!!

I would have though that anyone who had given serious contemplation to liberal arguments would realise that.

Yes, I realize that - IMO, the problem is over the differing ideas of how to implement #2.

To take your argument, Liberals are being intolerant if they try to do anything to change the situation.

No, that's not my argument - I guess I should have been more clear. I'll do that now.

My objection is the hypocrisy (which I hate) that's involved in the whole use of the word "tolerance". And at least here in the US, "tolerance" usually means gay marriage, in the vast majority of cases.

I wouldn't mind at ALL if those that think it's right to legalize gay marriage said so, and presented argument for their cause. But they go further - they've hijacked the word "tolerant/tolerance" for their cause, and use it in a dishonest way, IMO - to smear those that believe differently than they do about how marriage should be defined (that it should be between one man and one woman). They try to present themselves as the "tolerant" side and talk about being "tolerant" to different ideas, esp. gay marriage, and then turn around and call people with different ideas "intolerant".

The two sides are doing EXACTLY the same thing - BOTH of them are trying to codify the definition of marriage how they think is right - and "tolerance" has nothing to do with it. Neither side tolerates the other side's viewpoint - they both think they are doing what is right.

Now perhaps the argument might be made that the side that wants to expand the definition of marriage is MORE tolerant, but they are certainly not "tolerant" and the other side "not tolerant". And I"m sure that at some point, most people that want gay marriage would want to draw the line, and then people that wanted broader defs of marriage could call them "intolerant" using the same reasoning, and I doubt they would think that's right.

BOTH sides are doing the exact same thing - defining marriage how they think is right. To call one side "intolerant" when one is doing the exact same thing, and when one would object to an even broader (and more "tolerant", by how they're using the word) definition, is just wrong, IMO.

[Insidious Rex]

So if I want to ban you from marrying you wouldnt say thats intolerant of me from your perspective?

"Intolerant: Opposed to the inclusion or participation of those different from oneself"

[Radagast The Brown]

Originally Posted by RÃ*an

Neither side tolerates the other side's viewpoint - they both think they are doing what is right.

Rian, I don't think it has to do with tolerating/not tolerating the other side's view point.

The difference between the two sides is, indeed, that one side wishes to limit the rights of a certain group and the other side wishes to expand their legal rights... and therefore one is intolerant and the other is. Not allowing a certain group to get the rights all others have does seem intolerant... in my opinion anyway.

[The Wizard from Milan]

Originally Posted by Radagast The Brown

The difference between the two sides is, indeed, that one side wishes to limit the rights of a certain group and the other side wishes to expand their legal rights... and therefore one is intolerant and the other is. Not allowing a certain group to get the rights all others have does seem intolerant... in my opinion anyway.

I agree with this. There is also another important difference though: one group is right and the other is not.

[Rían]

Originally Posted by Insidious Rex

So if I want to ban you from marrying you wouldnt say thats intolerant of me from your perspective?

No, I don't think that word is appropriate. But if you used it of me, then I'd use it of you, because we're doing the same thing - trying to define marriage by what we each think is right.

"Intolerant: Opposed to the inclusion or participation of those different from oneself"

Where did you get that quote from? I think a more normal def is from Webster's: "sympathy or indulgence for beliefs or practices differing from or conflicting with one's own."

[Rían]

Originally Posted by Radagast The Brown

The difference between the two sides is, indeed, that one side wishes to limit the rights of a certain group and the other side wishes to expand their legal rights... and therefore one is intolerant and the other is. Not allowing a certain group to get the rights all others have does seem intolerant... in my opinion anyway.

Well, how about polygamists? Are you intolerant towards polygamists, or do you support group marriages and wish to expand their legal rights? How about marriage of children? Many people (usually those in groups like NAMBLA - North American Man-Boy Love Association) think that man-boy sex is very beneficial to the boy - will you be intolerant towards that group, or will you support expanding their legal rights?

EVERYONE has an opinion on what a marriage should be, and IMO to call one group "intolerant" is just plain silly - UNLESS the person doing the name-calling is willing to allow ANY definition of marriage - group, man-boy, woman-brother, etc. etc.

[Gwaimir Windgem]

That's a rather iffy definition, IR. It seems to be merely constructed to attempt to signify a conservative viewpoint. Being intolerant is not being opposed; one can be opposed to something, and still tolerate. You are confusing tolerating with embracing. Tolerance in fact implies that something contrary to what one believes in, but one still "tolerates" it. Webster's use of "indulgence" captures this well.

And along the note of NAMBLA, there is great precedence for them in antiquity; not only was it accepted widely in many (though of course not all) ancient cultures, but in the Symposium it is portrayed by some persons explicitly (and generally agreed upon, apparently) as being superior to love between a man and a woman. There's certainly a case for allowing this pederastic relationship; I believe the only reason it's still so frowned upon in Western society is the lingering remains of Christian morality.