This board has been transferred to www.wsc.co.uk,

    why not join us there

One Touch Football - Archive   
my profile | directory login | search | faq | forum home

  next oldest topic   next newest topic
» One Touch Football - Archive » World » '"Overcome" Homosexuality' (Page 5)

 - UBBFriend: Email this page to someone!   This topic comprises 9 pages: 1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9   
Author Topic: '"Overcome" Homosexuality'
Wyatt Earp
Member
Member # 108

 - posted      Profile for Wyatt Earp     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post 
Yeah, that narrows it down.
Posts: 19927 | From: the Cryptic Cabal | Registered: May 2002  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
The Batebe of Toro Foundation
Member
Member # 465

 - posted      Profile for The Batebe of Toro Foundation     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post 
Well, okay, a serious question deserves a serious answer.

On "hate the sin, love the sinner", I think the sort of akrasia-related reluctance to act on the position puts someone most of the way towards abandoning the position. The last thing to do in that circumstance is to back them into a corner over it. But that's not just a problem with combativity, it's a problem I have with objecting to the holding of beliefs (which is different from objecting to the beliefs themselves) over and above the practical effect of those beliefs.

But that's all stuff for a different thread.

I can't see that there's anything morally wrong with homosexuality. Nor can I see that there's a useful moral case to be made against it, even (indeed, especially) within specifically theological contexts.

I think it's unconducive to human flourishing, in greatest part, though not exclusively, because many people do, unfortunately, think it's morally wrong. But since I don't think there are any correct eudaimonist (flourishing-based) ethical theories, I don't think that's a problem.

I have experienced most sides of this, as it happens. In school, I was as homophobic as the next thick kid, to a degreee that sometimes now disgusts me. On the other hand, as an undergraduate, well, put it like this; I have a lot more cause to believe that I'm straight than many other straight people. And most of my friends are aware of all that history...

So as I say, I think there is no moral or theological case to be made against homosexuality. And I think that in free, open discussion, the errors in any attempt to build such a case should become manifest. (If there were no errors, that too would become manifest, and we would have to conclude that homosexuality was wrong. But that's not something that worries me...)

Any attempt to victimise people for being wrong about this, to stifle or close off discussion, just gets their backs up and reduces the likelihood of rational processes affecting their thought. It's the worst thing we can possibly do, if we really are sure that ours is the correct view.

[ 01.12.2005, 13:28: Message edited by: y yo soy el toro ]

Posts: 17027 | From: your gaff, nicking stuff. | Registered: Oct 2002  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
ad hoc
Member
Member # 52

 - posted      Profile for ad hoc     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post 
I think it's unconducive to human flourishing, in greatest part, though not exclusively, because many people do, unfortunately, think it's morally wrong.

You what? Because some people are bigoted idiots, homosexuality is unconducive to human flourishing? Is this some academic use of "flourishing" with which I'm unfamiliar?

Posts: 14456 | From: Magyaristan | Registered: May 2002  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
The Batebe of Toro Foundation
Member
Member # 465

 - posted      Profile for The Batebe of Toro Foundation     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post 
Among other reasons, because of that, yeah.

"Flourishing" isn't a great translation, but it's what Aristotelians tend to think morality's about. But since they're all wrong, as I say, i don't see how that's a problem.

You don't think life is, other things being equal, harder (oo-er) for a gay than a straight person?

Posts: 17027 | From: your gaff, nicking stuff. | Registered: Oct 2002  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
ad hoc
Member
Member # 52

 - posted      Profile for ad hoc     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post 
Because other people are cunts? Yeah. It's harder for black people and women too.
Posts: 14456 | From: Magyaristan | Registered: May 2002  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Ginger Yellow
Member
Member # 447

 - posted      Profile for Ginger Yellow     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post 
Who's talking about victimising them, or closing off discussion? We're saying that they're wrong, saying why they're wrong and that we judge them for being wrong. Everyone has a right to their own beliefs, but you don't have a right not to have other people judge you for your beliefs.

[ 01.12.2005, 13:41: Message edited by: Ginger Yellow ]

Posts: 12612 | From: London | Registered: Oct 2002  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
ad hoc
Member
Member # 52

 - posted      Profile for ad hoc     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post 
But anyway, I see what you're on about. But it seems a curious argument to make against homosexuality. Really, it should be phrased "bigoted judgmentalism is unconducive to human floursihing". No?
Posts: 14456 | From: Magyaristan | Registered: May 2002  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
The Batebe of Toro Foundation
Member
Member # 465

 - posted      Profile for The Batebe of Toro Foundation     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post 
GY - Telling someone, the moment they pop up in a thread, to "fuck off, don't you have homos to stone?" hardly fits that profile, does it? Nor do most of SR's other prescriptions on that thread. And too, often, why they're wrong is not discussed. Seriously, point me to the last time a proper argument was actually given on otf against homophobia, as opposed to the (universal?) assumption that is was simply wrong/ "bigoted judgementalism?"

Ad hoc - For fuck's fucking, fucking sake, what on earth makes you think that I am making that argument "against homosexuality"? The fact that I explicitly say i amn't and that it doesn't work should be enough of a fucking hint. For fuck's sake.

And the way it should be phrased, "really", is "Being the subject of bigoted judgementalism is unconducive to one's own human flourishing", if we're going to nitpick. But what I said comes to the same, if you're not using some insane reading which ignores what I've said.

[ 01.12.2005, 13:51: Message edited by: y yo soy el toro ]

Posts: 17027 | From: your gaff, nicking stuff. | Registered: Oct 2002  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Super Sharp Shooter
Member
Member # 750

 - posted      Profile for Super Sharp Shooter     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post 
quote:
You might remember it; it ended up with SSS fighting with me.
Will you not find something else to cry about you quivery-lipped old queen. For fuck's sake. What a wet bastard.

[ 01.12.2005, 13:52: Message edited by: Super Sharp Shooter ]

Posts: 18241 | Registered: Oct 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Super Sharp Shooter
Member
Member # 750

 - posted      Profile for Super Sharp Shooter     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post 
quote:
Telling someone, the moment they pop up in a thread, to "fuck off, don't you have homos to stone?" hardly fits that profile, does it? Nor do most of SR's other prescriptions on that thread. And too, often, why they're wrong is not discussed. Seriously, point me to the last time a proper argument was actually given on otf against homophobia, as opposed to the (universal?) assumption that is was simply wrong/ "bigoted judgementalism?"
Nah, some things are beneath any serious consideration.

I'm quite a fan of militancy. People are going to have to accept homosexuals and homosexuality. That they have to is enshrined in law for a start. They are just going to have to catch the fuck up. It's entirely their problem. It's not like the idea of letting gay people get on and live their lives in peace is some wacky new idea. Pretty much everyone in modern Britain has got their head around it as far as I can see.

Same as the BNP. I advocate 100% a position of militant opposition to them. They are not worthy of debate. It's the same with homophobes.

I see nothing wrong, tactically, with the deployment of utter derision and scorn. Nor with a clear and firm statement that people's bigotry will not be tolerated and will be forcefully opposed.

[ 01.12.2005, 13:58: Message edited by: Super Sharp Shooter ]

Posts: 18241 | Registered: Oct 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
The Batebe of Toro Foundation
Member
Member # 465

 - posted      Profile for The Batebe of Toro Foundation     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post 
Whatever.
Posts: 17027 | From: your gaff, nicking stuff. | Registered: Oct 2002  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
ad hoc
Member
Member # 52

 - posted      Profile for ad hoc     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post 
Keep your hair on, Toro. Christ. That paragraph seemed to be the counterpoint to the previous ones (ie having outlined that I don't have a problem with homosexuality, here is the one area which there is an issue).

But what I said comes to the same, if you're not using some insane reading which ignores what I've said. Well, if that's what you meant you should have said it. I was confused by your terminology and I was trying to clarify what you were on about. You now havce clarified to my staistafction, yet ironically have done so in such a ludicrously hysterical way that you have now made me want to nitpick holes in your language. This, I suspect, is how you end up getting into a lot of arguments.

Posts: 14456 | From: Magyaristan | Registered: May 2002  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
The Batebe of Toro Foundation
Member
Member # 465

 - posted      Profile for The Batebe of Toro Foundation     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post 
It was pretty fucking self-evident, to be honest.

I could not have been any clearer about my views on the matter, and still I get your fucking "you what?" shit.

Call it ludicrously hysterical if you wish. I call it getting fed up to my back teeth at having to defend myself against every idiotic bigoted thing that people will go out of their way to read into what I've said, when I've said nothing of the sort.

Posts: 17027 | From: your gaff, nicking stuff. | Registered: Oct 2002  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Super Sharp Shooter
Member
Member # 750

 - posted      Profile for Super Sharp Shooter     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post 
Maybe if you stopped so regularly trying to justify the indefensible, you wouldn't have these problems.

[ 01.12.2005, 14:04: Message edited by: Super Sharp Shooter ]

Posts: 18241 | Registered: Oct 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
The Batebe of Toro Foundation
Member
Member # 465

 - posted      Profile for The Batebe of Toro Foundation     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post 
Fuck the fucking fuck right off, cunt.

Oh, and yeah, whatever.

Posts: 17027 | From: your gaff, nicking stuff. | Registered: Oct 2002  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
  This topic comprises 9 pages: 1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9   

   Close Topic   Feature Topic   Move Topic   Delete Topic next oldest topic   next newest topic
Hop To:


Contact Us | WSC

Powered by Infopop Corporation
UBB.classic™ 6.7.2

    This board has been transferred to www.wsc.co.uk,

    why not join us there