On the Threshold of Bigotry

It's quite easy to objectively draw the line. You objectively draw the line when things become subjective. And you can ask others to get other viewpoints to try and collectively understand if you're all being objective or not.Exactly like what Straggler has done in Message 33: Nice, neat and objective. No subjectivity invloved. Unless you can point some out?Just because the line isn't always drawn perfectly objectively by everyone at every point in history doesn't mean it shouldn't be, or that we shouldn't try to correct those mistakes.

Sure. Go ahead and say that all you want.Thanks for pointing out how your subjective feelings about Michael Vick have no bearing on the objective demonstration of his wrong-doings.See? Objective, reasonable, rationally justified regulations are good.Subjective regulations should be corrected.

If you agree that subjective regulations should be corrected to being objective regulations as much as possible... why are you arguing the opposite in relation to gay rights?

But we're not talking about the meanings of words. We're talking about objective regulations. The rest of your post is about the meanings of words... this is not the issue.Remember the first thing we talked about: Message 35
And you have since agreed that objective, rational regulations are better than subjective regulations.Please try again, and please try to focus on what we're talking about: Message 43
1. You agree that subjective regulations should be corrected.
2. The current regulation is that gays cannot marry, and straights can.
3. You cannot come up with an objective, rational reason why this regulation should exist.
4. Therefore, this is a subjective regulation.
5. Therefore (according to you, even) this regulation should be corrected so that both gays and straights should marry.
6. You continue to refuse that this regulation should be corrected. Even though it is subjectively in place, and you say that subjective regulations should be corrected.This is the threshold of bigotry/hypocrosy/confusion that everyone is attempting to point out to you.Why do you say subjective regulations should be corrected except for this particular subjective regulation?Please explain the confusion.

Why do you keep trying to tell me this is what I'm trying to do?I've told you already that I am not doing this. I don't care about your definitions of words. What I care about is regulations. Message 51
These two sentences answer your post again.We're not talking about the meanings of words. I don't know how to say that more clearly.I'll say it again without using the word 'marry' this time, since you can't seem to get past that:1. You agree that subjective regulations should be corrected.
2. The current regulation is that gays cannot get the same level of governmental recognition for the consentual relationship of their choice that straights can.
3. You cannot come up with an objective, rational reason why this regulation should exist.
4. Therefore, this is a subjective regulation.
5. Therefore (according to you, even) this regulation should be corrected so that both gays and straights can gain the same level of governmental recognition for the consentual relationship of their choice.
6. You continue to refuse that this regulation should be corrected. Even though it is subjectively in place, and you say that subjective regulations should be corrected.Please note the intentional absence of the word 'marry'. No one cares about the definition of words. The issue is that there is a subjective regulation that should be corrected. You agree that subjective regulations should be corrected. Yet you do not agree that this subjective regulation should be corrected.How do you explain this appearance of hypocrisy? We'll move on once we deal with this topic. So far, you cannot deal with this topic. Once you show that you're capable of dealing with this topic we can proceed to others.

This is the problem, right here, clearly explained: Message 62

quote:

---

1. You agree that subjective regulations should be corrected.
2. The current regulation is that gays cannot get the same level of governmental recognition for the consentual relationship of their choice that straights can.
3. You cannot come up with an objective, rational reason why this regulation should exist.
4. Therefore, this is a subjective regulation.
5. Therefore (according to you, even) this regulation should be corrected so that both gays and straights can gain the same level of governmental recognition for the consentual relationship of their choice.
6. You continue to refuse that this regulation should be corrected. Even though it is subjectively in place, and you say that subjective regulations should be corrected.

---

No mention of the word "marriage".
But the problem did not 'dissipate like hot air'. The problem, and the appearance of hypocrisy, is still obviously present.Please explain this appearance of hypocrisy.Or maybe I am assuming wrongly? Perhaps you are not concerned with the hypocritical stance portrayed here?

Then I'll state it again, maybe next time I'll try bigger font? Message 62

quote:

---

1. You agree that subjective regulations should be corrected.
2. The current regulation is that gays cannot get the same level of governmental recognition for the consentual relationship of their choice that straights can.
3. You cannot come up with an objective, rational reason why this regulation should exist.
4. Therefore, this is a subjective regulation.
5. Therefore (according to you, even) this regulation should be corrected so that both gays and straights can gain the same level of governmental recognition for the consentual relationship of their choice.
6. You continue to refuse that this regulation should be corrected. Even though it is subjectively in place, and you say that subjective regulations should be corrected.

---

How can they not?You clearly state that you think subjective regulations should be corrected. Then you clearly state that you do not think this particular subjective regulation should be corrected.I'm not claiming that you are a hypocrit. I am asking you to clarify your claims because currently they appear hypocritical. I am showing you the confusion and asking for you to clarify.

But I don't make any sort of 'play' at all.I'm not calling the regulation subjective. You are making it so. By being unable to come up with any objective, rational reason why the regulation should be in place... it is subjective.Your own failure to produce an objective, rational defense of this regulation is what makes it subjective. It has nothing at all to do with me.Here's your chance again, here's the regulation: Message 62

quote:

---

2. The current regulation is that gays cannot get the same level of governmental recognition for the consentual relationship of their choice that straights can.
3. You cannot come up with an objective, rational reason why this regulation should exist.
4. Therefore, this is a subjective regulation.

---

I am not defining it as subjective. It's subjective because you are unable to show that it is objective. You can change that. All you need is a rational, reasonable, objective reason why this regulation should be in place.Personally, I'm not sure how you can rationally defend unequal rights for certain people in a place that promotes "...liberty and justice for all". But perhaps you know of something that I do not.You claim subjective regulations should be corrected.
When confronted with a regulation that is subjective, you are unable to show how it actually is objective, and you also demand that this subjective regulation should not be corrected.Please explain your apparent hypocrisy.

As your arguemenst are no longer developing, my answers will not need to either. I can copy and paste my answers to your old questions if that's what you'd like: From Message 62

quote:

---

I've told you already that I am not doing this. I don't care about your definitions of words. What I care about is regulations.

---

quote:

---

We're not talking about the meanings of words. I don't know how to say that more clearly.

​

I'll say it again without using the word 'marry' this time, since you can't seem to get past that:

​

1. You agree that subjective regulations should be corrected.
2. The current regulation is that gays cannot get the same level of governmental recognition for the consentual relationship of their choice that straights can.
3. You cannot come up with an objective, rational reason why this regulation should exist.
4. Therefore, this is a subjective regulation.
5. Therefore (according to you, even) this regulation should be corrected so that both gays and straights can gain the same level of governmental recognition for the consentual relationship of their choice.
6. You continue to refuse that this regulation should be corrected. Even though it is subjectively in place, and you say that subjective regulations should be corrected.

​

Please note the intentional absence of the word 'marry'. No one cares about the definition of words. The issue is that there is a subjective regulation that should be corrected. You agree that subjective regulations should be corrected. Yet you do not agree that this subjective regulation should be corrected.

​

How do you explain this appearance of hypocrisy?

---

Do you have anything that hasn't already been answered? It's a rather silly and unproductive tactic to hold your fingers in your ears and repeat yourself over and over.

If you actually think a 'popular vote' is objective, then I am unable to educate you.If you really think that a national referendum on gay marriage has anything to do with what you and I have been discussing, then you are not attempting to engage in our conversation.Anytime you can come up with a reasonable response to Message 62, I'll get back into the discussion.

It's not hard.Here, again, from Message 62, we see that I've already answered your 'question':

quote:

---

1. You agree that subjective regulations should be corrected.
2. The current regulation is that gays cannot get the same level of governmental recognition for the consentual relationship of their choice that straights can.
3. You cannot come up with an objective, rational reason why this regulation should exist.
4. Therefore, this is a subjective regulation.
5. Therefore (according to you, even) this regulation should be corrected so that both gays and straights can gain the same level of governmental recognition for the consentual relationship of their choice.
6. You continue to refuse that this regulation should be corrected. Even though it is subjectively in place, and you say that subjective regulations should be corrected.

---

It's step #5. We correct the issue by granting gays and straights the same level of governmental recognition for the consentual relationship of their choice.Again, no mention of the words "marriage" or "civil union".Again, when you're ready to move on, please do. We've gotten up to message 203 and you're still not past message 62.

I'm not talking about the definition of the word 'marriage'.
I'm not talking about any subjective definition of the word 'marriage'.
I'm not talking about any objective definition of the word 'marriage'.
I'm not even using the word 'marriage'. Message 51

quote:

---

But we're not talking about the meanings of words. We're talking about objective regulations. The rest of your post is about the meanings of words... this is not the issue.

---

Of course not. We can call it anything you'd like. The first thing to do is to make sure the regulations are equal. Then you can go about attempting to change the names of things all you'd like. Good luck. Of course we can have different points of view and not call each other bigots. The name 'bigot' starts being tossed around when someone starts refusing to allow equal rights to equal people. In order to not be a bigot, you have to prioritize equal rights for equal people above definitions of terms describing those rights.When you prioritize the simple definitions of words over the equal rights of fellow humans... you then become a bigot. You are now 'intolerant' of those fellow humans having equal rights.No one cares about the definition of the word marriage, the problem is prioritizing the definition of a word over allowing equal rights for fellow human beings.It is akin to arguing the use of 'toMEHto' vs 'toMAHto' while holding the tomato in your hand and not allowing a starving fellow human to eat it until you get your vocabulary straight.It's ridiculous.

Welcome to the show.
Hopefully this isn't the only topic you have interest in. The main focus here on evolution vs. creation does get very interesting in aspects of physical evidence and personal viewpoints.
But, in any event, hope you enjoy your stay and have some fun. A very good point. Rrhain actually attempted a very similar tactic in Message 140:

quote:

---

Contrary to your claim, it is not I who is "all atwitter over a single word." If you're so insistent on keeping it separate (see...you think there's a difference, which means they're not the same, which is in direct contradiction to your claim that they are), then you are the one who needs to come up with a new word for your contract. If you want to call your relationship a "special friendship," you go right ahead. It's your relationship.

---

..but the response to this particular point sort of got lost in the, um... mess Hope your attempt fares better.And keep up the contributions, all are welcome!

Your ideas that objectivity does not exist as an absolute (in the context of this arguement) is completely correct, and I agree.However, when I mention objectivity, I mean to place it in context of some over-arching principles that have already been agreed upon. Principles such as the ones the country is based on (I think, anyway).I'm not sure if it's in any precise document, but the text of "...liberty and justice for all" in the pledge of alligience indicates to me that there is some sort of "equal rights for all human beings" concept somewhere in the base of American culture.That's the key. Once it has been agreed upon that equal rights is something that should be pursued... then it IS objective to say how this issue is for or against that agreement.I agree that objectivity here does not exist in the absolute sense. But once something like "equal rights for all abled adults" is agreed upon, the objectivity based upon that agreement certainly does exist.That's how I think of it, anyway.However, I do like your example, and as an aside I'd like to discuss it a little bit: I agree.However... what's the next step?
Let's go with B). Now.. which individuals should possess different rights? What should those different rights be? How can we answer these questions objectively?
B) only creates more subjective aspects.I propose that since subjectivity has it's flaws, then we should avoid it if at all possible. And if not, then we should keep it to a minimum.A) contains the minimum amount of subjectivity. That's it, it's done. No more questions, no more additional subjectivity. Equality is a baseline.Therefore, if our goal is to minimize subjectivity, then that is our rational method for choosing A) over B).Now... what is our rational reason for desiring minimal subjectivity?Well, we can have a look at history. We can look at the choices of world leaders and see how their subjective choices into concept B) have worked out. We see mass killings all over the place, for no other reason than "I don't like them". And now we have a choice. If we want to continue mass killings for no better reason than "I don't like them" (and, allowance for someone to kill us personally because they "don't like us")... then we can choose B). Or, if we'ed like to minimize subjectivity, and therefore minimize mass killings over subjective reasoning... we should choose A)....or something.Anyway, I just wanted to ramble a bit over your musings.

No one cares about what you want to do "too". It only matters what you want to do "first". So what is it? What is your priority? Do you put equal rights for equal humans above the definition of terms? Or not?...your quote above would suggest "not". Or at least begs the question why you are avoiding a direct answer. It certainly doesn't suggest a positive. That's why people are concluding that you are a bigot, because you seem unable to prioritize equal rights above definitions.Do you squabble over what to call your tomato?
Or do you give it to the starving man and talk to him about what to call the thing tomorrow?Do you squabble over how to define 'marriage'?
Or do you grant equal rights to those who are being refused them and talk to them about how to define terms tomorrow?What's more important to you? Equal rights for living, breathing people or definitions of terms?