i just find that you rarely find people who will defend both groups, so i find both the (generally left) crowd attacking religion and defending homosexuality, and the (generally right) crowd attacking homosexuality, and defending religion, to be hypocritical to the realities of the other side. both groups treat their world view as the only acceptable one.
Originally posted by Sith Sorcerer
So explain the difference between me not supporting homosexuals because of ideological differences and Veneficus blurting out "bigot!!" because I don't share his views on this particular social issue.
Spoiler:
Explaining differences in worldviews is difficult!
Okay, there seems to be a major disconnect between what you and I mean by "support." When you say that you "don't support homosexuals," it can be parsed either as "you do not take action to further their push for equal rights" or "you do not believe they should have the right to exist." I believe that the second option is what Lucius hears, whereas your opinion is closer to the first.
Lucius is almost certainly projecting onto you every argument he's had with bigoted hicks in the past, and channeling the rage against idiocy he's stored since then. (I've done the same; it can be tough to stay within the confines of just one argument after you've become familiar with an issue.)
This is different from what tj has implied, and my response to him will probably cover the issue I suspect you are raising.
Originally posted by truejedi
I have a small problem with this. You are assuming that attacking someone's religion isn't attacking who they are? Who are we really? We define ourselves by our priority system, that is fairly well-known accepted psychological theory. To someone who defines themselves by their religion, attacking that religion IS attacking who they are. Just because (you) (not Z, just anyone choosing the view that finds the defense of homosexuality worth defending while deciding that religious identitity isn't) don't feel like religion is an important thing to defend in a bullying legislation, doesn't mean someone else feels the same.It's 180 degrees from someone who feels like homosexuality shouldn't be defended but religion should. it is 2 sides to the same coin, and BOTH are important to the people who are being mocked.
It is here that we diverge, however. I believe that religion is, first and foremost, an intellectual or cerebral pursuit. The exercise of spirituality is something that falls under the remit of human consciousness (i.e. pursued through an individual's free will). To challenge a belief, no matter how cherished, is the prerogative of a citizen endowed with the right of free speech. So long as that free speech does not drift into the realm of personal attacks, even the most vicious of attacks are mostly victimless. Ideology is not personality.
Sexuality, on the other hand, is not something that "falls under the remit of human consciousness." One does not sit down and make a deliberate choice to be gay. To what degree socialization and other factors contributes to the outcome of one's sexuality, I do not know (although evidence is available that supports the claim that "genes influence sexual orientation" (3rd link)). In light of this state of affairs, where sexuality is primarily an inherited trait (an assertion that is strongly supported by the evidence) I find no more hypocrisy in the defense of an immutable and unconscious trait while simultaneously critiquing religion than I would defending racial equality and criticizing religion.
And here we come to the ultimate disconnect between DS and Lucius. DS (I suspect) is approaching the question of treatment of homosexuals as though it was a matter of politics, just another belief that he does not agree with. Lucius sees discriminatory treatment of homosexuals (in the world, or projected upon DS) and thereby jumps on something that he sees as vile as racism.
I am obviously in the latter camp, where the idea that someone can claim that he "does not support homosexuality" translates much more closely to "does not support being black" than to "does not support the bailout." The distinction is one that I think can be addressed with education and socialization (meeting people who are openly gay) rather than the sort of activism that was required in the Civil Rights movement of the 60s. (But then again, I'm an optimist.)
Does this cover the sort of inconsistencies that you believed I was spouting?
Originally posted by Sith Sorcerer
You're right Janus. Providing an example of the extreme definitely helps your argument.
You're missing the point.
Tim McVeigh was bullied in high school and it left a permanent mark on his psyche. His family did not intervene, nor could he truly count them as allies against bullies.
He went on to join the Army and felt good because he was in a strict field which left no room for further bullying against his person. However, he came to view American foreign policy during the Gulf War as unjustified bullying of the Iraqi people.
He then witnessed the atrocity at Waco, and believed again that this was the government bullying civilians. He strongly believed that only by possessing firearms (strength to fight back) and by striking first (as he has likened Oklahoma to Pearl Harbor) was the only way to deal with bullies (the government).
Now, this isn't claiming that all bullying will lead to McVeighs; what is IS saying is that bullying CAN directly influence SOME people differently than you or I. Just because you didn't react viciously to your bullying (so you say) and you're fine (again, so you say) and apparently not a terrorist, you are attempting to claim that bullying is "good for us" and that opposing bullying would be "bad" or "leading to a Pussy State" as Lucien so eloquently put it. You can substitute bullying with verbal bullying, it's still the same thing. If anything, physical abuse can be easier to overcome then mental. It's been proven in studies that emotional and verbal abuse can reduce a child's ability to learn, especially early on, and it most certainly has impacts on a child's self-image if they are not particularly self-assured.
Back to your stance: If you claim that bullying (or verbal bullying) is acceptable, than I fully expect you to make a better argument than "I'm okay." Arguing from that your own personal case as the rule for the majority or is the best example of what is right doesn't make your case.
On another note, as someone who had real, diagnosed depression for 8-9 years, even I found it extremely selfish to even consider something like suicide.
Right, but what factors affect this? Religion? Family values and traditions? Concern for loved ones versus yourself? Having support from families and medical personnel?
Again, you're arguing your own case as absolute. That's nonsense. Just because you had depression and didn't consider suicide (which I find suspect, but whatever) or even feel your life was lacking in worth, therefore anyone who does must be "weak". Your underlying argument is "Those who do not act as I do to life stimulus are weak". That's not acceptable.
You can't argue to me that a person who may have no one to rely upon, is clinically depressed without proper treatment and support, and who knows - may even be homeless or orphaned (might as well lump on the variables here to make a point) ... is somehow weak for considering suicide or worse - committing it. Yet I doubt you would argue that people act appropriately at all times, correct? You are fallible, of course? Wait, no based on your underlying argument, if it's not the way you are/were raised, it's weak, right? So in a situation which is as dire as it gets, without any support, Mr. DS here will survive because he is "not weak"?
You said you were in law school. I'm calling it right now - you're gonna be a defense attorney.
But I suppose you and I are on opposite ends of the spectrum, where I'm all about personal responsibility, and you're all about societal/outside influences ruling the night.
Great way to marginalize the opposition. No, I too believe in personal responsibility. But I also recognize that there are factors which can hijack one's "self control", which is not absolute. If you intend to argue that self control is absolute, I'm certain you'll fail. Or most likely just ad hominem until this all blows over.
I'd love to see you speak at a rehab clinic or a psychiatric institute and go on about how they're all weak and they lack the self-control you have. Really, that's be priceless.
For the record:
Zamp is gay? Beefy's gaydar must work better than mine, because I honestly didn't see that one coming. He deceived me with the appreciation of women like Kaley Cuoco and Yvonne Strahovski.
Well played, my son.
SM
You said you were in law school. I'm calling it right now - you're gonna be a defense attorney.
This doesn't line up with his political ideology. Most defense attorneys are liberal.
Originally posted by Stealth MooseThe day life is as simple as "Man up, you wimp" will be a glorious one indeed.
I find it amusing that curbing of bullying would lead to a Pussy State, which I can only assume is a state where people respect differences and don't alienate each other based on sexual preference, nationality, religion, or sex. I mean, bullying doesn't arise from a sense of similarity; it's from differences. Disrespecting differences verbally is either wrong or it isn't. There's no grey area here. No civil liberties are being violated when you uphold a child's right to education without harassment. Odd that you don't disapprove of sexual harassment laws which protect the right of women especially to be free of unwanted behaviors in the workplace and in school, but bullying is apparently OK.Also keep in mind that it's difficult to "man up" when you have almost [b]zero
support at home. When bullies attempted to push me around, I had family to protect me and show me how to not only stand up for myself, but stand up for others who may be abused. If I didn't have them, I would have been victimized in school and eventually dropped out altogether. This would ruin my self-esteem, my future, and probably lead to suicide or worse. Simply saying "Ah, they just need to man up. I'm fine, nothing happened to me" is ignoring context. Life isn't as simple as you'd like to think.This is surely ignorance. Suicide is a very real part of life for people who struggle with Clinical depression and simply being different from the mainstream. Waiving it away as mere weakness and "opt outs" is choosing to remain ignorant of very real important factors which push people to suicide. Karma would be you being at your weakest and having a similarly-minded person walk right past your prostrate body, sneering arrogantly since you've opted to leave empathy at the roadside. [/B]
My fear of a "Pussy State" is born from a tendency toward outlawing every little thing that frightens or upsets--like a pack 'o pussies. Outright outlawing the act of bullying would be horrendous, if not unsurprising. I'm not talking about beat downs, the kind that leaves people with broken jaws or fractured bones. That's assault (or is it battery?) and needs to be dealt with by the police. But shoving, pantsing, headlocks, jeering, taunting, insulting etc., those shouldn't be outlawed. Neither should touch football or mixed martial arts. It's when you start down that path of outlawing anything that might hurt someone, you're in trouble, and that's what I find incredibly distasteful and, frankly, unethical. Kid getting picked on? You don't call the police for shoving and name calling. You tell a Principal, teacher, parent, older sibling, friends, w/e. If none of them can help you, fight back. With a rock if need be. I was a bullied as a kid, and I was a bully. I did it because I wanted to hurt someone (it wasn't home abuse, it wasn't a need for attention), but if the other guy had fought back, I'd have laid off. I've been on both ends of the spectrum, and sometimes the answer is a tough one to swallow--the fact that you might be f*cked for a while. But if it goes on for so long to such a degree that you consider death a better option than... literally anything else, then I have no sympathy for you.
There is no cure for bullying. It's not a cultural phenomenon, or a generational fixation--it's human nature. We so often try to control and dominate one another that it's no surprise that kids with no life experience and undeveloped emotions are going to indulge. The victims can either fight back, contract out, ignore it, or submit. It can not be 'cured', it can only be legally and ironically suppressed through fear and violence (of the Fuzz & Law). I'm a coldhearted bastard, I know. But when the time comes that the only viable option is suicide or... literally anything else, I have not a shred of compassion for the opt out.
Then again, a man I knew fell asleep at the wheel and drove his car into a retainer pond. he got out, his wife, and his 3 little girls in the back seat... didn't.
He killed himself 8 days later. am i suprised? do I judge him for that decision? no. I'm almost 100 percent sure i would do the same thing in that situation.
My views on suicide were once as strict and uncompromising as the Canadian's, but I think that was simply the result of misplaced sadness at the idea. A person taking their own life is truly a sad, sad thing. Even those fvcktards among us who do it for attention. 😬
Canadian
DS and Gideon (wherever he may be). They'd definitely shake some of our scrawnier members down for lunch money.
You didn't answer all of them. uhuh
Originally posted by PencilInEyelulz
Zamp is gay? Beefy's gaydar must work better than mine, because I honestly didn't see that one coming. He deceived me with the appreciation of women like Kaley Cuoco and Yvonne Strahovski.Well played, my son.
Like a fine wine, synchronized orgasms, this car, a perfectly executed Xanatos pileup, or the feeling of reading an entire archive in one night, Yvonne Strahovski transcends orientation. Never has there been a better application of Ryan North's e-card: "I'm not straight, but I'm straight for you" (meaning Yvonne).
Spoiler:
There is nothing that I am looking forward to more than being able to use that line as an insult someday.
Well said, my son. Well said.
Now, as a matter of practicality and politics, do you object to the word gay? For example, if I referred to you as "my gay friend, Zamp" or "my gay opponent, Zamp" or "my gay protégé, Zamp" or "the gay guy who once drafted that wretched argument for Nihilus, Zamp", would I have offended you?
Originally posted by truejediI've only been able to sympathize with suicides who do it as a sacrifice to save another, or those who do it to escape immense pain (usually physical, but I'm not that dead inside). Most of the ones I've hears about I've scoffed at. A girl hung herself near my place because her relationship fell apart.
Then again, a man I knew fell asleep at the wheel and drove his car into a retainer pond. he got out, his wife, and his 3 little girls in the back seat... didn't.He killed himself 8 days later. am i suprised? do I judge him for that decision? no. I'm almost 100 percent sure i would do the same thing in that situation.
I think I laughed when I heard that news.
I think you made a typo. I have helpfully corrected it for you:
the gay guy who once drafted thatwretchedcomprehensive argument for Nihilus, Zamp
I remember that my opponent (and noted Twilight enthusiast/Robert Patterson cosplayer) was reduced to whining about the usage of the word "significant" by the end of that exchange.
Canadian
I've only been able to sympathize with suicides who do it as a sacrifice to save another, or those who do it to escape immense pain (usually physical, but I'm not that dead inside). Most of the ones I've hears about I've scoffed at. A girl hung herself near my place because her relationship fell apart.I think I laughed when I heard that news.
Hanged, not hung. I am hung, the girl was hanged.
My gay friend
I think you made a typo. I have helpfully corrected it for you:I remember that my opponent (and noted Twilight enthusiast/Robert Patterson cosplayer) was reduced to whining about the usage of the word "significant" by the end of that exchange.
I believe you conceded to your enemy in light of his overwhelming sources and vastly cleverer wordplay. 131
