Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
6 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,810 Year: 3,067/9,624 Month: 912/1,588 Week: 95/223 Day: 6/17 Hour: 2/1


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Gay Marriage as an attack on Christianity
Rrhain
Member
Posts: 6351
From: San Diego, CA, USA
Joined: 05-03-2003


Message 691 of 1484 (803175)
03-26-2017 3:06 AM
Reply to: Message 402 by Tangle
03-19-2017 12:36 PM


Re: don't rock the boat
Tangle responds to me:
quote:
quote:
f you think suing someone for violation of anti-discrimination laws is "alienating," you aren't a friend.
And if you think that's what I'm saying you're not reading/thinking.
So when you wrote:
You risk alienating your friends by raving at those that support your cause but have the audacity to suggest that maybe other ways of pursuing it are now possible.
You didn't mean it?
So when you wrote:
A cake is trivia and always will be. I understand that it stands for more than the cake, and I understand that you feel that you've suffered for being what you are, and it's fun to mess with bigots - maybe once.
But if there are continued national outrages caused by minor issues it may become counterproductive.
You didn't mean it?
So when you wrote:
You risk alienating your friends by raving at those that support your cause
You didn't mean it?
So when you wrote:
if the public hears constantly about seemingly trivial complaints from a particular section of society it will turn them against that sector.
You didn't mean it?
So when you wrote:
I think it's a possibility that people will become irritated if there is continued pursuance of trivial complaints, yes.
You didn't mean it?
So when you wrote:
If you want to win the hearts of the nation you've just conquered on the battlefield, it's generally thought a bad idea to bayonet their wounded.
You didn't mean it?
quote:
You're editing out every nuance and turning everything I say around so that you can be righteously angry.
If you think that's what I've done, you're not reading/thinking. You're avoiding every attempt to clarify so you that you can pretend you're innocent.
quote:
I'm not saying never sue, I'm saying that sometimes it's a better idea not to.
And as you have been directly asked at least half a dozen times:
Says who? Who are you to tell someone else what is or is not a "better idea"? Because there is *always* a backlash to standing up for yourself.
You have directly stated that there is some sort of "artificial" activity going on (Message 129):
Artificially targetting bigots on trivial issues doesn't help the cause.
And you have been directly asked to provide any evidence of such. Who are these people "artificially targeting bigots"?
Can you give a single example? Names, Tangle, or it didn't happen.
This is not a particularly difficult concept, or so we thought.
quote:
There's no point me reading the rest of your post
Running away again, I see.
quote:
until you can grasp that.
What, that you don't mean what you say? Yeah, I have a hard time with that. I tend to take people at their word that when they write something, they meant to write it.
So when you said that there are people "artificially targeting bigots," you didn't mean it?
Names, Tangle, or it didn't happen.

Rrhain

Thank you for your submission to Science. Your paper was reviewed by a jury of seventh graders so that they could look for balance and to allow them to make up their own minds. We are sorry to say that they found your paper "bogus," specifically describing the section on the laboratory work "boring." We regret that we will be unable to publish your work at this time.

Minds are like parachutes. Just because you've lost yours doesn't mean you can use mine.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 402 by Tangle, posted 03-19-2017 12:36 PM Tangle has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 694 by Tangle, posted 03-26-2017 3:51 AM Rrhain has replied

  
PaulK
Member
Posts: 17822
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.2


Message 692 of 1484 (803176)
03-26-2017 3:14 AM
Reply to: Message 689 by Rrhain
03-26-2017 12:39 AM


Re: No case at all
Yes, exactly like arguing with a Fundamentalist the same "you can tell the truth about me but I can lie about you!" attitude.
So, what's the point ? Trying to cover up your mistake or are you just trolling ?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 689 by Rrhain, posted 03-26-2017 12:39 AM Rrhain has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 695 by Rrhain, posted 03-26-2017 3:58 AM PaulK has replied

  
Rrhain
Member
Posts: 6351
From: San Diego, CA, USA
Joined: 05-03-2003


Message 693 of 1484 (803178)
03-26-2017 3:45 AM
Reply to: Message 403 by Tangle
03-19-2017 2:08 PM


Tangle writes:
quote:
could it be because, amongst other inane rants where you refuse to consider that I might not be saying what you think I'm saying, dismissing my attempt to explain to you that I too have personal experience with LGBT people close to me, you say this?
Did you honestly just try to argue, "Some of my best friends are gay"?
See, the problem with that argument is that it presumes nefariousness on the part of other people. Sure, the gay people *you* know would never "artificially target bigots." But all those other gays? That's what they do! And you can't be bigoted because you know gay people!
And thus, you never see how you just contributed to the problem. You attribute to gay people in general a negative trait all the while thinking you haven't simply because there are specific gay people that you don't attribute that negative trait to. As was recently argued regarding the Muslim ban: Just because you aren't targeting every member of a group doesn't mean you aren't targeting the group.
You say you have "personal experience with LGBT people close to you." What would you do if they sued? Call them "petty"? Consider that they were "artificially targeting bigots"?
If not, why are you having such a hard time extending that courtesy to all the other gay people suing for recognition of their right to public accommodation?
If the logic is that you're tired of hearing about all the lawsuits (and really, exactly how many of these lawsuits do you truly know of?) then perhaps the problem is not that there is any sort of "artificial targeting of bigots" but rather that your claim that the "big battle was won" is not true. If it were won, we wouldn't be having all these lawsuits.
After all, Brown v. Board of Education didn't suddenly cause all the schools to become integrated peaceably and quietly with everybody welcoming the new non-white students with open arms and happiness. The winning of a lawsuit does not mean the battle is won. It's why Texas is trying to strip same-sex marriages of all rights to marriage (the logic being that the ruling said they had to give you a marriage license but it doesn't require it to come with any rights). It's why South Dakota just legalized discrimination against gay people in adoption. It's why all of these "religious freedom to discriminate" bills are being pushed not only in individual states but at the national level. It's why Michelangelo Signorile wrote It's Not Over: Getting Beyond Tolerance, Defeating Homophobia, and Winning True Equality after the Obergefell decision.
And thus, we're back to the question I had at the very beginning:
Exactly what battle was won?

Rrhain

Thank you for your submission to Science. Your paper was reviewed by a jury of seventh graders so that they could look for balance and to allow them to make up their own minds. We are sorry to say that they found your paper "bogus," specifically describing the section on the laboratory work "boring." We regret that we will be unable to publish your work at this time.

Minds are like parachutes. Just because you've lost yours doesn't mean you can use mine.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 403 by Tangle, posted 03-19-2017 2:08 PM Tangle has not replied

  
Tangle
Member
Posts: 9489
From: UK
Joined: 10-07-2011
Member Rating: 4.9


Message 694 of 1484 (803179)
03-26-2017 3:51 AM
Reply to: Message 691 by Rrhain
03-26-2017 3:06 AM


Re: don't rock the boat
Rrhain writes:
So when you wrote:
You risk alienating your friends by raving at those that support your cause but have the audacity to suggest that maybe other ways of pursuing it are now possible.
You didn't mean it?
Etc
As I read through your latest rant I was thinking that it's exactly like discussing with a religious zealot. The way you pick out words from an argument to make them match what you have in your head as my position whilst ignoring all the rest that tells you it's not is just like a creationist. You have no objectivity in this matter - you're an aggressive drunk in a pub just looking for reason to lash out.
You have directly stated that there is some sort of "artificial" activity going on (Message 129):
And I have repeatedly said that I have no reason to believe that in the cases we've discussed here that there has been. Though I have heard accusations made that in others there have. Stings for bigots would be an effective way of publicising the campaign would it not? And surely you don't doubt that many more radical actions have been taken than that? I'm not even sure it's a bad idea anyway, so whatever point you are trying to make is lost on me.
Perhaps you should focus on the point I'm trying to make instead of inventing your own for me?

Je suis Charlie. Je suis Ahmed. Je suis Juif. Je suis Parisien.
"Life, don't talk to me about life" - Marvin the Paranoid Android
"Science adjusts it's views based on what's observed.
Faith is the denial of observation so that Belief can be preserved."
- Tim Minchin, in his beat poem, Storm.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 691 by Rrhain, posted 03-26-2017 3:06 AM Rrhain has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 697 by Rrhain, posted 03-26-2017 4:26 AM Tangle has replied

  
Rrhain
Member
Posts: 6351
From: San Diego, CA, USA
Joined: 05-03-2003


Message 695 of 1484 (803180)
03-26-2017 3:58 AM
Reply to: Message 692 by PaulK
03-26-2017 3:14 AM


Re: No case at all
PaulK responds to me:
quote:
Yes, exactly like arguing with a Fundamentalist the same "you can tell the truth about me but I can lie about you!" attitude.
So when I quote you and provide the links to the posts so that people can check, that's "lying"? You didn't actually write what you were quoted as saying? Those links aren't to your posts?
Exactly how is it "lying" when all I am doing is quoting you?
How Trumpian.
quote:
So, what's the point ?
That eventually you'll get over yourself and respond to the argument?

Rrhain

Thank you for your submission to Science. Your paper was reviewed by a jury of seventh graders so that they could look for balance and to allow them to make up their own minds. We are sorry to say that they found your paper "bogus," specifically describing the section on the laboratory work "boring." We regret that we will be unable to publish your work at this time.

Minds are like parachutes. Just because you've lost yours doesn't mean you can use mine.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 692 by PaulK, posted 03-26-2017 3:14 AM PaulK has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 696 by PaulK, posted 03-26-2017 4:13 AM Rrhain has replied

  
PaulK
Member
Posts: 17822
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.2


Message 696 of 1484 (803181)
03-26-2017 4:13 AM
Reply to: Message 695 by Rrhain
03-26-2017 3:58 AM


Re: No case at all
quote:
So when I quote you and provide the links to the posts so that people can check, that's "lying"? You didn't actually write what you were quoted as saying? Those links aren't to your posts?
When you assert that the quotes support your claim when either they do not or only seem to when taken out of context. As you ought to know.
quote:
That eventually you'll get over yourself and respond to the argument
What argument ? And how can refusing to admit your mistake possibly help in getting me to respond to it ? Burying an argument behind piles of irrelevance is hardly a good way to get a response. Admitting your error and getting back on track would seem an obviously better approach.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 695 by Rrhain, posted 03-26-2017 3:58 AM Rrhain has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 698 by Rrhain, posted 03-26-2017 4:41 AM PaulK has replied

  
Rrhain
Member
Posts: 6351
From: San Diego, CA, USA
Joined: 05-03-2003


Message 697 of 1484 (803182)
03-26-2017 4:26 AM
Reply to: Message 694 by Tangle
03-26-2017 3:51 AM


Re: don't rock the boat
Tangle runs away:
quote:
quote:
So when you wrote:
You risk alienating your friends by raving at those that support your cause but have the audacity to suggest that maybe other ways of pursuing it are now possible.
You didn't mean it?
Etc
Read: Yes, but I know it means I'm arguing for bigotry and I can't have that so I'll avoid it.
If you didn't mean it, now's your chance to clarify. Since you seem to be unable to handle taking responsibility for all your statements, let's just focus on one:
Message 129
I'm not saying stop fighting for equality, I'm saying pick the battles and make sure they matter. Artificially targetting bigots on trivial issues doesn't help the cause.
Who are these people "artificially targeting bigots on trivial issues that don't help the cause"? Can you name a single instance?
quote:
And I have repeatedly said that I have no reason to believe that in the cases we've discussed here that there has been.
So why did you bring it up? In that exact same message, you also said:
There's planty of real campaigns to be fought by whatever means without taking principled stands against bigots that just make them look petty and unnecessarily aggressive.
So can you give a single example of a "fake" campaign? How does one determine when such a "campaign" is "petty and unnecessarily aggressive"?
It's time to be specific, Tangle. Can you give any example that meets this criteria you have? Why do you even suspect that there is such a "campaign"? If nobody has ever done so and if there is no such campaign to be found, why did you bring it up? If you're tired of hearing about lawsuits against people denying gay people their rights to public accommodation, perhaps the problem is not that they are "artificially targeting bigots" but rather that your claim that the "battle was won" is not true. Have you considered that?
You repeatedly claimed that gays who are fighting to have their rights recognized are "activist" and "doing more harm than good."
So did Curt Freed and Robert Ingersoll "actively look for Barronelle Stutzman to make an example of"? That's the florist in Washington that's in the news.
Did Laurel and Rachel Bowman-Cryer "actively look for Melissa and Aaron Klein to make an example of"? That's the baker in Oregon that's in the news.
Did Vanessa Willock and Misti Collinsworth "actively look for Elaine and Jonathan Huguenin to make an example of"? That's the photographer in New Mexico that's in the news.
Now's your chance, Tangle. Time to be a big boy and put your money where your mouth is. You claim to want a "reasoned and reasonable discussion," so it's time for you to engage.
Were these people "activist"? Where they "looking for a fight"? Were their lawsuits "misplaced"? Were they "petty and unnecessarily aggressive"? Were their actions "counterproductive"?
Or are you going to run away?
quote:
Though I have heard accusations made that in others there have.
(*blink!*)
You did not just say that, did you?
Did you seriously try to pull a Trump? Trump didn't say the Brits were spying on him...he was just repeating what he heard on Fox. You're not saying that there are "campaigns" to "artificially target bigots"...you're just repeating what you heard other people saying.
Names or it didn't happen, Tangle.
It's time to be specific.
quote:
Stings for bigots would be an effective way of publicising the campaign would it not?
No.
That may be why you're having such a hard time coming up with any examples.
So once again: Names or it didn't happen.
quote:
And surely you don't doubt that many more radical actions have been taken than that?
Yes, I do.
Names or it didn't happen.
quote:
I'm not even sure it's a bad idea anyway, so whatever point you are trying to make is lost on me.
The point is the same as it has always been:
Your assignation of nefarious purposes to gay people is homophobic bigotry. It requires gay people to justify their fight for equality as legitimate when that is the position we should be starting with. As if you are the arbiter of what is a "real campaign."
quote:
Perhaps you should focus on the point I'm trying to make instead of inventing your own for me?
Nice try. I have been. It's why I keep coming back to the same question. It's the question I asked you in my very first post to you in this thread and for which you have never even attempted an answer:
What exactly do you think it was that was "won"?

Rrhain

Thank you for your submission to Science. Your paper was reviewed by a jury of seventh graders so that they could look for balance and to allow them to make up their own minds. We are sorry to say that they found your paper "bogus," specifically describing the section on the laboratory work "boring." We regret that we will be unable to publish your work at this time.

Minds are like parachutes. Just because you've lost yours doesn't mean you can use mine.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 694 by Tangle, posted 03-26-2017 3:51 AM Tangle has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 700 by Tangle, posted 03-26-2017 5:09 AM Rrhain has replied
 Message 730 by Phat, posted 03-28-2017 5:44 PM Rrhain has replied

  
Rrhain
Member
Posts: 6351
From: San Diego, CA, USA
Joined: 05-03-2003


Message 698 of 1484 (803183)
03-26-2017 4:41 AM
Reply to: Message 696 by PaulK
03-26-2017 4:13 AM


Re: No case at all
PaulK responds to me:
quote:
When you assert that the quotes support your claim when either they do not or only seem to when taken out of context.
That's why I provided the links to the original posts to ensure that there would be no question. Here, let me post the entire posts again! It's not like it's hard:
Here's the entirety of your post (Message 145):
The whole basis for the claim that gay marriage is an attack on Christianity is based on the fact that a few Christian business openers have decided to defy State anti-discrimination laws and refuse to provide services to gay weddings.
In terms of both the scale and the limited connection to the Supreme Court decision this is absurd. That the business owners might be far better off seeing that their objections have a poor grounding in Christian doctrine - a fact brought out in this discussion - is not considered.
Indeed Faith herself puts any real concern for these people behind their use as a weapon against gay marriage - as seen by her refusal to even understand the laws under which they were convicted. And that is far from the worst of her behaviour.
But behaving badly does no better in making a case than ignoring the facts. Faced with intelligent, informed and rational opposition Faith was reduced to ranting and raving and finally running away.
And here's the entirety of my response (Message 151):
PaulK writes:
quote:
That the business owners might be far better off seeing that their objections have a poor grounding in Christian doctrine - a fact brought out in this discussion - is not considered.
Incorrect.
Wow, are you off there. It is most definitely considered. But who's going to have that conversation with them? The judge? Can you say, "First Amendment violation"? The law isn't there to tell you what to think or provide you with a sermon on what the True Meaning of Christmas is. It is simply there to regulate your actions. It doesn't matter why you're violating the law by discriminating against gay people.
And to that end, people have the right to be bigots. If they want to insist that their religion requires that gay people be considered tantamount to Satan, that's their right. After all, you're assuming you know the religion of the person being the bigot.
And as we have seen with Faith, trying to point out that the Bible doesn't say that or does say this other thing doesn't actually do anything. She's certain that anybody who contradicts her is an idiot and in league with the devil.
Remember, the florist in Washington who refused to provide flowers to a gay wedding was refusing to provide service to someone she claimed was a "friend." She had been happy to provide her services to these men for years. She certainly knew they were gay. There were any number of chances at conversation to discuss what the Bible instructs.
But it doesn't matter. That's not what the law is for. Even if we assumed that they had those conversations, she's still free to reject it all and maintain her position.
What she doesn't have is the right to deny them service.
In all my dealings with Faith on this subject, I've not attempted to change her mind about her religious beliefs because I maintain she has a right to them. After all, I've long argued with her on what the Bible actually says, and it still hasn't changed her mind. And in the end, it's irrelevant. The law doesn't care why a business owner treats their customers equally, only that they do.
You'll see that I was focusing on a particular point you made:
That the business owners might be far better off seeing that their objections have a poor grounding in Christian doctrine...is not considered.
I was generalizing out to the world at large. The attempts to point out that the so-called "Christian" message of doing good by your neighbors, respecting the laws of the country you are in, how being courteous and kind even to people whom you think to be the devil incarnate is not a sin, that's all been tried.
And sometimes it works.
But the government is not the one to give that lecture. That's why we have anti-discrimination laws.
And in the case of Faith, who will no doubt see any attempt to tell her that she doesn't understand her claimed religion as an attack (and potentially rightly so), it hasn't worked. Thus, we need the law.
quote:
As you ought to know.
Yep. Because this is at least the second time I've quoted the entire post you've made.
Now, you can engage by providing clarification, or you can continue to flail as you run away and claim that I am somehow lying.
quote:
What argument ?
The one that I made. You did read my post before you decided I was wrong, didn't you? This will be the third time I've said it: To try and claim that the religious owners of business don't understand their own religion has been considered and been shown to not work as well as being tremendously rude and arrogant. Because, in the end, it really doesn't matter if "their objections have a poor grounding in Christian doctrine" (your words...or am I lying when I say they are your words?) The law specifically states that it doesn't matter why they are denying service to gay people: It is illegal to do so. Gay people have the right to public accommodation.
Now, it's possible that there might be individuals out there who might be convinced and hey, how lovely it would be to help them not be conflicted in their desire to engage in a particular job and their desire to be good religious congregants. But the law is not the way to do that. No judge is in a position to tell the defendant, "You don't understand your own religion."
So you can run away again, if you like. You can refuse to admit your mistake, but how is that going to help in getting me to respond to whatever point you were trying to make? Whining about how I'm "lying" when I quote you in full is hardly a good way to get a response. Admitting your error and getting back on track would seem an obviously better approach.

Rrhain

Thank you for your submission to Science. Your paper was reviewed by a jury of seventh graders so that they could look for balance and to allow them to make up their own minds. We are sorry to say that they found your paper "bogus," specifically describing the section on the laboratory work "boring." We regret that we will be unable to publish your work at this time.

Minds are like parachutes. Just because you've lost yours doesn't mean you can use mine.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 696 by PaulK, posted 03-26-2017 4:13 AM PaulK has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 699 by PaulK, posted 03-26-2017 5:00 AM Rrhain has replied

  
PaulK
Member
Posts: 17822
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.2


Message 699 of 1484 (803184)
03-26-2017 5:00 AM
Reply to: Message 698 by Rrhain
03-26-2017 4:41 AM


Re: No case at all
quote:
That's why I provided the links to the original posts to ensure that there would be no question.
So everyone can see that you were misrepresenting my posts. Fine.
quote:
You'll see that I was focusing on a particular point you made
The actual point that I was making is that Faith failed to take that into consideration and that failure seriously undermined her case. You chose to take it out of context and present it as something else. I was willing to accept that as a mistake at first but the persistent refusal to acknowledge the error is hardly an encouraging sign.
I was not especially interested in discussing your point at first - since it did not have much bearing on my post. And since your idea of getting me to do so proved that you had no interest in honest discussion I certainly have no interest in discussing it with you now.
If you admit your error and apologise I will consider future discussion of other matters. But - thanks to your appalling behaviour here - that is as far as I am willing to go.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 698 by Rrhain, posted 03-26-2017 4:41 AM Rrhain has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 706 by Rrhain, posted 03-27-2017 6:00 PM PaulK has replied

  
Tangle
Member
Posts: 9489
From: UK
Joined: 10-07-2011
Member Rating: 4.9


Message 700 of 1484 (803185)
03-26-2017 5:09 AM
Reply to: Message 697 by Rrhain
03-26-2017 4:26 AM


Re: don't rock the boat
Rhain writes:
Your assignation of nefarious purposes to gay people is homophobic bigotry. It requires gay people to justify their fight for equality as legitimate when that is the position we should be starting with. As if you are the arbiter of what is a "real campaign."
Ok, I wasn't going to bring this up because even though you're being a total idiot and being as big a bigot as those that you oppose, we're on the same side of the discrimination argument. And given what you say above I think the argument that you may risk alienating those that support you is proven.
Do you recognise anything below?
In their 1989 manuscript, After the Ball: How America Will Conquer Its Fear and Hatred of Gays in the 90s, Harvard-educated marketing experts Marshall Kirk and Hunter Madsen meticulously laid out the homosexual lobby’s blueprint for success in what is widely regarded as the handbook for the "gay agenda." They devised a three-pronged approach that included the following major strategies:
(1) Desensitization: Desensitization, wrote Kirk and Madsen, means subjecting the public to a continuous flood of gay-related advertising, presented in the least offensive fashion possible. If ‘straights’ can’t shut off the shower, they may at least eventually get used to being wet. As the authors put it, homosexuals should be portrayed as the Everyman. In no time, they said, a skillful and clever media campaign could have the gay community looking like the veritable fairy godmother to Western Civilization.
(2) Jamming: Jamming refers to the public smearing of Christians, traditionalists or anyone else who opposes the gay agenda. Wrote Kirk and Madsen: Jam homo-hatred by linking it to Nazi horror. Associate all who oppose homosexuality with images of ‘Klansmen demanding that gays be slaughtered,’ ‘hysterical backwoods preachers,’ ‘menacing punks,’ and a ‘tour of Nazi concentration camps where homosexuals were tortured and gassed.’"
Kirk and Madsen added: In any campaign to win over the public, gays must be portrayed as victims in need of protection so that straights will be inclined by reflex to adopt the role of protector ... The purpose of victim imagery is to make straights feel very uncomfortable. In a related move, the authors and their ideological cohorts began to smear anyone who disagreed with their agendas as homophobes, hatemongers, and bigots.
(3) Conversion: Kirk and Madsen called for the conversion of the average American’s emotions, mind, and will, through a planned psychological attack, in the form of propaganda fed to the nation via the media. "In the early stages of any campaign to reach straight America," they said, "the masses should not be shocked and repelled by premature exposure to homosexual behavior itself. Instead, the imagery of sex should be downplayed and gay rights should be reduced to an abstract social question as much as possible. First let the camel get his nose inside the tent and only later his unsightly derriere!"
Kirk and Madsen actually admitted that their task was to manufactured a "gay civil rights" movement founded on the premise of widespread homosexual victimization.
Adapted from "Unmasking the 'Gay' Agenda," by Matt Barber
(February 13, 2008).

Je suis Charlie. Je suis Ahmed. Je suis Juif. Je suis Parisien.
"Life, don't talk to me about life" - Marvin the Paranoid Android
"Science adjusts it's views based on what's observed.
Faith is the denial of observation so that Belief can be preserved."
- Tim Minchin, in his beat poem, Storm.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 697 by Rrhain, posted 03-26-2017 4:26 AM Rrhain has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 701 by Modulous, posted 03-26-2017 8:45 AM Tangle has not replied
 Message 707 by Rrhain, posted 03-27-2017 6:28 PM Tangle has replied

  
Modulous
Member
Posts: 7801
From: Manchester, UK
Joined: 05-01-2005


(2)
Message 701 of 1484 (803187)
03-26-2017 8:45 AM
Reply to: Message 700 by Tangle
03-26-2017 5:09 AM


Re: don't rock the boat
Adapted from "Unmasking the 'Gay' Agenda," by Matt Barber
By 'adapted' I assume the meaning is, changed so that its obvious homophobic roots wouldn't be quite so evident:
quote:
Desensitization
Desensitization, wrote Kirk and Madsen, means subjecting the public to a continuous flood of gay-related advertising, presented in the least offensive fashion possible. If ‘straights’ can’t shut off the shower, they may at least eventually get used to being wet.
As previously stated, glamorizing and normalizing homosexual conduct in our public schools is a full time endeavor. But the schools represent only one field of battle in the war over America’s body, mind and soul.
With the aid of a willing mainstream media and a like-minded Hollywood, societal desensitization has been largely achieved. Blockbusters like Tom Hanks’ Philadelphia, the late Heath Ledger’s Brokeback Mountain, and television programs like Will and Grace and Ellen represent a modern-day fairy tale, creating a dishonest and sympathetic portrayal of a lifestyle which is emotionally, spiritually and physically sterile.
Reality is replaced with fantasy. Gone are references to, or images of, the millions of homosexual men wasting away in hospice due to behaviorally related diseases such as HIV/AIDS, Hepatitis and Syphilis. (Unnatural behaviors beget natural consequences. As Romans 6:23 says, The wages of sin is death.)
And gone are references to, or images of, men and women trapped in the homosexual lifestyle who aimlessly seek to fill a spiritual and emotional void through promiscuous and meaningless sexual encounters.
The homosexual group, GLAAD, even offers awards to the television networks that most effectively carry the homosexual lobby’s water. The more distorted and positive the portrayal of homosexual conduct and the more frequently the networks shows such portrayals; the more likely networks are to win the coveted awards.
As Kirk and Madsen put it, homosexuals should be portrayed as the Everyman. In no time, they said, a skillful and clever media campaign could have the gay community looking like the veritable fairy godmother to Western Civilization.
Prophetic words from two very smart men.
Jamming
Jamming refers to the public smearing of Christians, traditionalists or anyone else who opposes the gay agenda. Jam homo-hatred (i.e., disagreement with homosexual behaviors) by linking it to Nazi horror, wrote Kirk and Madsen. Associate all who oppose homosexuality with images of ‘Klansmen demanding that gays be slaughtered,’ ‘hysterical backwoods preachers,’ ‘menacing punks,’ and a ‘tour of Nazi concentration camps where homosexuals were tortured and gassed.’
In any campaign to win over the public, gays must be portrayed as victims in need of protection so that straights will be inclined by reflex to adopt the role of protector ... The purpose of victim imagery is to make straights feel very uncomfortable, they suggested.
But, perhaps Kirk and Madsen’s most revealing admission came when they said, [O]ur effect is achieved without reference to facts, logic, or proof.
And so words like homophobe and heterosexism were pulled from thin air, not because they had substance, but because they were effective jamming tools. Anyone who holds traditional values relative to human sexuality suddenly became a homophobe, a hatemonger, a bigot.
Not even churches are safe.
Gays can undermine the moral authority of homo-hating churches over less fervent adherents by portraying [them] as antiquated backwaters, badly out of step with the latest findings of psychology. Against the atavistic tug of ‘Old Time Religion’ one must set the mightier pull of science and public opinion. Such an ‘unholy’ alliance has already worked well in America against the churches, on such topics as divorce and abortion. [T]hat alliance can work for gays.
And, oh, how it has.
Conversion
Conversion means, in the words of Kirk and Madsen, conversion of the average American’s emotions, mind, and will, through a planned psychological attack, in the form of propaganda fed to the nation via the media.
In the early stages of any campaign to reach straight America, the masses should not be shocked and repelled by premature exposure to homosexual behavior itself. Instead, the imagery of sex should be downplayed and gay rights should be reduced to an abstract social question as much as possible. First let the camel get his nose inside the tent and only later his unsightly derriere!
So, as Kirk and Madsen both astutely understood and surprisingly admitted, homosexual activism is really a big game of hide the ball. In order to achieve widespread acceptance of gayness, they had to remove the focus from what homosexuality really is (deviant sexual conduct) and shift it onto the craftily manufactured specter of gay civil rights.
In order to cut through much of the propagandist sugarcoating, one need only consider what two men must actually do in order to consummate a so-called gay marriage. Kirk and Madsen understood that. Most people are repulsed by the mechanics of homosexual conduct, but everyone is for civil rights. Of course, in reality, the homosexual lifestyle has nothing to do with civil rights and everything to do with conduct.
Therein lies the deception.
But There’s Hope
There’s hope for people who are trapped in the homosexual lifestyle or who suffer from unwanted same-sex attraction. Part of our fallen condition as humans is that we are all subject to sin. Those who know the Savior of the world, Jesus Christ, are no better or worse than those who engage in homosexual sin.
But through the loving and redemptive power of Jesus Christ, we can all find salvation from sin. So can homosexuals. Gayness is not an immutable or unchangeable condition as homosexual apologists would have you believe. People can find freedom from homosexual behaviors and even from same-sex attractions. It’s not easy, but untold thousands of former homosexuals have done it.
There’s also hope in the ongoing battle between the gay agenda and our national moral integrity. Concerned Women for America (CWA) endeavors on a daily basis to counter this destructive movement throughout all facets of culture and public policy.
With God’s help, we can turn back the tide of sexual and moral relativism that has both permeated our society and offended our founding principles.
Perhaps you should use a better source? Here's the original material, without the homophobe interjecting editorializing:
quote:
Desensitization:
Prejudice = Alerting Signal. Warns tribal
mammals that a potential alien mammal
is in the vicinity and should be fought
or fled. Two things can happen: 1) Strong
or Weak Stimulus: fight it or flee from
it; and 2) Low Grade Stimulus: don’t take
action against it, irrelevanc
y, get used to it. (148)
b.
If H present themselves as different and
threatening, then straights go on alert and
fight against them.
c.
To desensitize straights,
H inundate them with conscious flood of H related
advertising, presented in the least offens
ive fashion. If straights can’t shut the
shower off, they may at least eventu
ally get used to being wet.
2. Jamming:
a.
Insertion of incompatible emotion
into the pre-existing system. Like
sprinkling sand into a pocket watch.
b.
Jamming is more active and a
ggressive than desensitization.
c.
Jamming uses the rules of
Associative Conditioning
(when two things are
repeatedly juxtaposed, one’s feelings
about one thing are
transferred to the
other) and
Direct Emotional Modeling
(the inborn tendenc
y of human beings
to feel what they perceive ot
hers to be feelings). (150)
d.
Consequent internal confusion has two effects:
Unpleasant/Emotional
Dissonance
will tend to result in an alteration of previous beliefs and feelings
so as to resolve the internal conflict. And second, the
Internal Dissonance
will
tend to inhibit over expressi
on of the prejudicial emoti
on — which is, in itself,
useful and relieving. (151)
e.
All normal people feel shame when they
perceive that they
are not thinking,
feeling, or acting like one of
the pack. The trick is to
get the bigot into the
position of feeling a conf
licting twinge of shame,
along with his reward,
whenever his homohatred surfaces, so that his reward will be diluted or
spoiled. (151)
f.
Propagandistic advertising can depict homophobic and homohating bigots as
crude loudmouths and assholes — pe
ople who say not only faggot but
nigger, kike, and other shameful epit
hets — who are not Christian. It can
show them being criticized, hated,
shunned. It can depict H experiencing
horrific suffering as the direct result of
homohatred — suffering of which even
most bigots would be ashamed to be the cause. It can, in short, link
homohating bigotry with all sorts of attributes the bi
got would be ashamed to
possess, and with social consequences
he would find unpleasant and scary.
The attack, therefore, is on self-image
and on the pleasure in hating. (151-152)
g.
When our ads show a bigot — just like
the members of the target audience —
being criticized, hated, a
nd shunned, we make use of
Direct Emotional
7
Lou
Modeling
as well. Remember, a bigot seeks approval and liking from ‘his
crowd.’ When he sees someone like hims
elf being disapproved of and disliked
by ordinary Joes,
Direct Emotional Modeling
ensures that he will feel just
what they feel — and transfer it to hi
mself. This wrinkle effectively elicits
shame and doubt; Jamming any pleasure he might normally feel. In a very real
sense, every time a bigot sees such a th
ing, he is unlearning a little bit of the
lesson of prejudice taught him by
his parents and peers. (152)
h.
Effect of Jamming, is achieved without reference to facts, logic or proof.
Through repeated infralogical emoti
onal conditioning, his bigotry can be
alloyed in exactly the same way, whether
he is conscious of the attack or not.
Indeed, the more he is distracted by
any incidental, even specious, surface
arguments, the less conscious he’ll be of
the true nature of the process — which
is all to the good. (153)
i.
In short, Jamming succeeds insofar as it in
serts even a slight frisson of doubt
and shame into the previously unalloyed, self-righteous pleasure. Need
massive public exposure of th
e message to succeed.
3. Conversion
a.
Desensitization aims at lowering the inte
nsity of antiH emotional reactions to
a level approximating sheer indifference.
Jamming attempts to blockade or
counteract the rewarding ‘pride in prej
udice’ by attaching to homohaterd a
pre-existing, and punishing, sense of sham
e in being a bigot, a horse’s ass, and
a beater and murderer. Both of these t
echniques are prelude
s to our highest —
though necessarily very long-range —
goal, which is conversion. (153)
b.
Conversion of the average American’s emotions, mind, and will, through a
planned psychological attack, in the form
of propaganda fed to the nation via
the media. We mean ‘subverting’ the mechanism of prejudice to our own ends
— using the very process that made Ameri
ca hate us to
turn their hatred into
warm regard — whether they like it or not. (153-154)
c.
If Desensitization lets the watch
run down, and Jamming throws sand in the
works, Conversion reverses the spring so that the hands run backward.
(154)
d.
In conversion, the bigot,
who holds a very negative stereotypic picture, is
repeatedly exposed to literal picture/label pairs, in magazines, and on
billboards and TV, of H —
explicitly labeled as su
ch — who not only don’t look
like his picture of H, but are carefully se
lected to look either like the bigot and
his friends, or like any one of his other
stereotypes of all-
right guys — the kind
of people he already likes and admires.
This image must, of necessity, be
carefully tailored to be free of absolute
ly every element of the widely held
stereotypes of how ‘faggots’
look, dress, and sound. He or she must not be too
well or fashionably dressed; must not be
too handsome, that is mustn’t look
like a model, or well groomed. The image mu
st be that of an icon or normality
— a good beginning would be to take a
long look at Coors beer and Three
Musketeers candy commercials. Subseque
nt ads can branch out from that
solid basis to include really adorable, at
hletic teenagers, kindly grandmothers,
avuncular policemen, ad infinitem. (154)
e.
But it makes no difference that the ads ar
e lies; not to us,
because we’re using
them to ethically good effect, to counter negative stereotypes
that are every bit
8
as much lies, and far more wicked ones; not be bigots, because the ads will
have their effect on them whether
they believe them or not. (154)
f.
When a bigot is presented with an imag
e of the sort of
person of whom he
already has a positive stereotype, he
experiences an involuntary rush of
positive emotion, of good feeling; he’s b
een conditioned to experience it. But,
here, the good picture has the bad labe
l — H! (The ad may say something
rather like ‘Beauregard Smith-beer dr
inker, Good Ole Boy, pillar of the
community, 100% American, and H as a
mongoose.’) The bigot will feel two
incompatible emotions: a good response to
the picture, a bad response to the
label. At worst, the two will cancel one
another, and we will have successfully
Jammed, as above. At best, Associativ
e Conditioning will,
to however small
an extent, transfer the positive emotion a
ssociated with the picture to the label
itself, not immediately replacing the
negative response, but definitely
weakening it. (155)
g.
You may wonder why the transfer woul
dn’t proceed in the opposite direction.
The reason is simple:
pictures are stronger than words and evoke
emotional responses more powerfully
. The bigot is presen
ted with an actual
picture, its label will evoke in his mi
nd his own stereotypic
picture, but what
he sees in his mind’s eye will be weaker than what he actually sees in front of
him with the eyes in his face.
The more carefully selected the advertised
image is to reflect his ideal of the so
rt of person who just couldn’t be H,
the more effective it will be.
Moreover, he will,
by virtue of logical
necessity, see the positive picture in the ad before it can arouse his negative
picture, and first impressions have
an advantage over second. (155)
h.
In Conversion, we mimic the natural
process of stereotype-learning, with
the following effect: we take the bigo
t’s good feelings about all-right guys,
and attach them to the label ‘gay,’
either weakening or, eventually,
replacing his bad feelings toward the label and the prior stereotype.
(155)
i.
Understanding Direct Emotional M
odeling, you’ll readily foresee its
application to Conversion; whereas in
Jamming the target is shown a bigot
being rejected by his crowd fo
r his prejudice against H,
in Conversion the
target is shown his crowd actually
associating with H in good fellowship
.
Once again, it’s very difficult for th
e average person, who, by nature and
training, almost invariably feels what
he sees his fellows feeling, not to
respond in this knee-jerk fashion to a su
fficiently calculated advertisement. In
a way, most advertisement is founded upon
an answer of Yes, definitely! To
Mother’s sarcastic question:
I suppose if all the other
kids jumped off a bridge
and killed themselves, you would too?
I believe that is the original text of the section you quoted although I only found this section put together by a homophobe, it at least looks complete. Apologies for the formatting -pdfs can be annoying. The point of the book is largely in line with your arguments that gays should avoid aggressive combative tactics, appear to the normal every day guys and so on. In short it is a book that is arguing along similar lines as you have in this thread. Although it was from over 25 years ago now, and the camel's nose is in the tent. Hopefully we'll usher the rest of the body in soon enough.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 700 by Tangle, posted 03-26-2017 5:09 AM Tangle has not replied

  
LamarkNewAge
Member (Idle past 738 days)
Posts: 2236
Joined: 12-22-2015


Message 702 of 1484 (803196)
03-26-2017 10:10 PM
Reply to: Message 652 by Faith
03-23-2017 6:05 PM


Faith is just amazing. She puts the "conscience " burden on Muslims, Jew's, gays, ve
Look at her words : "Second thought : However, as in the passage about meat sacrificed to idols, if my making food for such a festival was a matter of conscience for somebody else I would have to say no to it" ***************************** *************************************,,******************************************* *************************************************** Nevermind that she is back to ceremonial applications of the food prohibitions she desperately wants to ignore( she selectively parses food to be ceremonial and temporary while the fornication and possible "homosexual " parts of I Corinthians 6 and 10, in addition to Acts 15 and 21 and Revelation 2:14, are moral ). I just find it AMAZING that she has the audacity to place the burdens on OTHERS! She doesn't give a flying sh** about scripture but Galatians 6:2 says that the "law of Christ" (nomos Christou ) is about Christians bearing the burdens of others and Romans 15:1 says that meat eaters should cease for ever if vegetarians show a reaction to Christians consuming meat which indicates a conscious taking offense against the very activities which hurt their very real and powerful conscience itself. I know that Faith cares not one bit about what the scripture actually says and means, but her selectively self serving and judgmental slight of hand techniques should be noted for one thing.
Edited by LamarkNewAge, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 652 by Faith, posted 03-23-2017 6:05 PM Faith has not replied

  
New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


Message 703 of 1484 (803207)
03-27-2017 11:10 AM
Reply to: Message 682 by NoNukes
03-24-2017 4:10 PM


Re: The Main Points
Once the Supreme Court rules on something, then it is reasonable to incorporate that into the calculation. But when you just make up hypotheticals you are on your own.
That's weird. Are we just automatons following the SC's protocols, or are we thinking humans talking about this stuff?
If the SC ruled that, would everyone just shrug and go: "Huh, I guess we were wrong, the bakers should be able to refuse this service."?
The Supreme Court at some future point could rule for or against any particular action being speech. In some cases the rulings about what is speech and what is not speech, (for example flag burning) are controversial. At this point, there is no ruling that baking a wedding cake is speech.
The questions were what you, personally, think it ought to be. I'm not seeing much of a line between writing a speach and designing a cake.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 682 by NoNukes, posted 03-24-2017 4:10 PM NoNukes has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 704 by NoNukes, posted 03-27-2017 2:28 PM New Cat's Eye has replied
 Message 708 by Rrhain, posted 03-27-2017 6:50 PM New Cat's Eye has not replied

  
NoNukes
Inactive Member


Message 704 of 1484 (803220)
03-27-2017 2:28 PM
Reply to: Message 703 by New Cat's Eye
03-27-2017 11:10 AM


Re: The Main Points
If the SC ruled that, would everyone just shrug and go: "Huh, I guess we were wrong, the bakers should be able to refuse this service."?
You are certainly free to agree or disagree with the Supreme Court. However, your question was based on extending their ruling to something else. Absent some ruling of that type, baking a cake, absent some message on it, isn't speech.

Under a government which imprisons any unjustly, the true place for a just man is also in prison. Thoreau: Civil Disobedience (1846)
History will have to record that the greatest tragedy of this period of social transition was not the strident clamor of the bad people, but the appalling silence of the good people. Martin Luther King
I never considered a difference of opinion in politics, in religion, in philosophy, as cause for withdrawing from a friend. Thomas Jefferson
Seems to me if its clear that certain things that require ancient dates couldn't possibly be true, we are on our way to throwing out all those ancient dates on the basis of the actual evidence. -- Faith
Some of us are worried about just how much damage he will do in his last couple of weeks as president, to make it easier for the NY Times and Washington post to try to destroy Trump's presidency. -- marc9000

This message is a reply to:
 Message 703 by New Cat's Eye, posted 03-27-2017 11:10 AM New Cat's Eye has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 705 by New Cat's Eye, posted 03-27-2017 2:51 PM NoNukes has replied

  
New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


Message 705 of 1484 (803224)
03-27-2017 2:51 PM
Reply to: Message 704 by NoNukes
03-27-2017 2:28 PM


Re: The Main Points
Okay, I'll consider you an automaton just following the Supreme Court's protocols.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 704 by NoNukes, posted 03-27-2017 2:28 PM NoNukes has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 975 by NoNukes, posted 04-07-2017 10:41 AM New Cat's Eye has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024