I would like to see Rule 10 enforced against xians who insult gays in a goading manner, but I have no illusion that such a thing will come to pass.
Well, in fairness rule 10 is about specific members, not groupings of people. If we enforced it against Christians, we'd have to likewise enforce it against those that insult Christians in a goading manner. Likewise with 'Creationists' and 'IDers', celebrities, prophets and possibly even deities.
That would probably kill a lot of discussion so we'd just prefer if you grow some thick skin and get used to the fact that some people in the world are unpleasant and realize that compromise means being able to roll your eyes when someone is being intolerant.
But so long as my position is being grossly mischaracterized I feel the need to point it out.
You probably should be complaining regarding the application/enforcement of rule 8. Unfortunately, this is an even more difficult one to untangle :)
New Members should start HERE to get an understanding of what makes great posts.
I think maybe Percy has a point, even though I resent the implication from him and all the other heterosexual admins that I'm "thin-skinned" or politically correct. I guess when it gets down to it, most heterosexual men will come down on an outsider before they come down on one of their own.
Well the last sentence is clearly unfair. Many bigoted people say terrible things about homosexuals and plenty of heterosexuals condemn the bigot. As for the first sentence, I'm not a heterosexual admin and I think you are being thin skinned. It is a valid question regarding the morality of homosexual sex and sex with another species and how do we regard one as morally fine and the other as reprehensible? The answer is straight forward: informed consent separates the two acts. Rape is immoral and animal abuse is immoral, since other species cannot give informed consent any sexual activity is animal abuse or cross species rape.
It's easily answered and there is no implication that homosexuals are anything other than human - otherwise it would not bestiality but 'two dogs shagging' and when we say bestiality we don't mean a dog humping a humans leg. Homosexual sex between humans and bestiality are two sex acts that involve at least one active human participant - one is morally repugnant and the reason is as I highlighted above.
In my view it is certainly the biggest forum related mountain that has been created out of a molehill for some time.
Not if you would never make such a question regarding the morality of heterosexual sex and sex with another species.
It's an equally valid question - though there are few threads around here concerned with the morality of heterosexual sex. I'm perfectly happy to entertain the question and I don't think it implies that heterosexuals are animals.
Indeed - we can go further and compare bestiality to other sexual activities: why is group sex moral and not bestiality? Why is having sex with somebody fifty years your senior moral when bestiality isn't. If anybody wanted to question the morality of any of these acts, the answer would be the same.
Indeed - the morality of oral sex was once questioned and we could even ask the question of oral sex.
In fact, given the fact that there is nothing that gay people do that straight people don't do, it is clearly inappropriate to focus on same-sex sexual interactions when discussing the morality of interspecies sexual interactions.
Which is backwards. Nobody is discussing the morality of bestiality. It was assumed that everybody agreed that bestiality was immoral. The question was what reasoning prevents us from considering it moral whereas we can consider homosexual sex not immoral.
The mere fact that the comparison is specifically to gay people is indicative of homophobia.
The question wasn't about gay people but about homosexual sex and its morality. The fact that somebody is questioning it's morality would indicate to me they are homophobic. That is a given. However - the question is does discussing the morality of bestiality mean that we are comparing gays with animals. The answer is no - we are comparing two sexual activities to understand how us non-homophobic people decide that homosexual sex is not immoral but bestiality is.
Actually, holmes countered this with his own philosophical lalaland logic. He said that the concept of "informed consent" has to do with legal issues, which we really don't want to drag this conversation into. After all, we have no way of proving one's ability to consent except to make a law stating specifically the age of consent. Holmes also argued that children should be allowed to have sex (they do anyway, according to him), which I'm sure nem jug is more than willing to accept.
If Holmes were here, and this were a debate thread I'd respond. As I did when he was and it was.
You also live in England, which has far less christian bigots than the deep south in the States.
I have family in the deep south - I'm related to some of those Christian bigots I'm afraid to say. Indeed - compared with some of the filth and hatred that comes forth from their lips in real physical encounters on a daily basis...nemesis should be a walk in the park. The vile and physically present bigots should thicken the skin and make nemesis a breath of fresh air.
At least here, you don't have to discuss the issue, you don't have it yelled at you. Debating remains a choice and if you are likely to get upset about an issue - it's probably best to not debate it.
See, some would argue that there is nothing immoral about bestiality. Animal don't have rights.
Had that come up in debate I'm sure we could have discussed the existence of animal rights. Though it would probably have been off topic.
When we talked about gay marriage, he compared that with marrying an animal or a motorcycle.
Indeed - and it drives towards an interesting question. What is the point of marriage and what is the government's role in that?
When we talked about homosexual sex, he compared that with rape.
And the difference is informed consent. It is easily rebutted.
This was what convinced me that nem jug's chosen examples weren't innocent at all. They were very carefully chosen for specific situation and specific topic to imply that gay people shouldn't have any right to give consent.
What's the problem with that? This is a debate forum after all. If we can't debate people with opinions very different from ours, what's the point? There is only one way to stop ideas we don't like being expressed here and that is to censor debate. Which seems absurd to me. If Nem was being disrespectful to a specific poster that would be one thing, but putting forward questions that are at the heart of the debate is something else entirely. All that is required to rebut Nem's point is to show how one can consistently apply rules and not special plead in the case of homosexuality.
. I am trying to say that long term direct exposure to the hatefilled filth that the christian bigots give to gay people actually make them more sensitive to the issue.
Makes some people more sensitive I'm sure. Here at EvC we try to encourage dispassionate debate - if it's a subject that you get upset about you have the choice of not opening a thread which is in stark contrast to real life in which you may be forced into dealing with a difficult subject.
I'm sure plenty of holocaust survivors went out of their way to engage with holocaust deniers - but plenty learned it simply wasn't worth the increased blood pressure. That's all I'm suggesting for anyone who is upset about people who question the morality of homosexual affairs.
New Members should start HERE to get an understanding of what makes great posts.
So let me get this straight: unless I'm prepared to be insulted in the most vile, disgusting and totally baseless manner imagineable by an administrator on this board, then I need to just stay the fuck away from here? Is that what you're saying?
No, my point is that I do not think you were insulted, though I remain open minded on the subject and am following the discussion in the admin forum as to whether you were. So far all I have seen is nemesis questioning the morality of homosexual acts and challenging those that see them as not being immoral to develop a consistent reason for why different sex acts (or marriage proposals etc) are considered immoral and others moral. He refers to the Bible, what reasoning, he asks, do we have for our position?
If you are offended by a debate opponent asking for you to justify your moral system, or if you are offended that a person might even question the morality of homosexuality (sex/marriage etc) then a debate forum that occasionally deals with issues of morality might be something for you to avoid. Personally I think it sufficient to avoid the threads discussing morality and/or sexuality. This can be difficult since we all have topics that wind us up, and it is not easy to refrain from reading or responding to them with a peice of our mind. If you feel the most prudent course of action is to leave altogther then so be it.
I do not think you need to stay the fuck away from this forum, far from it, I just think it might be wise to avoid certain topics for the time being.
comparisons aren't insulting if there is a valid reason for drawing them
I hope you never visit the Deep South, or if you do I hope you keep this to yourself. Else, you'll immediately be pegged as a self-loathing right-winger and you won't find yourself with many friends.
I have visited the Deep South since I have a lot of family there (Louisiana mostly - though they are spread around a bit and I've spent some time in Alabama).
I suppose Taz is right about the difference in here and there, cuz down here gay folk have been dealing with this specific insult all our lives; it's a stock argument for the fundies.
I am not suggesting that calling homosexuals sexual behaviour immoral is not insulting to gays. It is. It is not, however, specifically insulting to you. We don't suppress debate where a person has a problem with the morality of another group - otherwise we would not be able to lay out a claim outlining the immorality of the Christian Right. It works both ways.
So I want to be sure I have this right: if I can come up with the most disgusting, vile, demeaning comparison imaginable to use as an insult against the xians here, and I time the use of it to coincide with the online presence of the most devout xians here, I can expect the complete support of the admins here and, in fact, might be considered for an admin position myself?
It depends on the nature of the comparison. If you were to equate Christians with baby rapers that would probably be marked as inflammatory (I can't imagine an argument that would hold here, but if one exists I would be happy to see it presented), but if you were to say that Christians were mentally abusing children by threatening them with torture if they step out of line...that would be a fine topic of discussion.
Would a comparison of African-Americans to dirty apes also be acceptable here at EvC?
Would such a demeaning insult likewise earn the respect and defense of the admin staff?
Yes. African-Americans, like native Americans and Europeans are all covered in dirt and grease and they are all apes. I can see an appropriate comparison. Indeed the standard natural history of mankind is that populations of apes from Africa evolved into the people we call Africans.
It would earn my defence and respect. Likewise asking for a nonreligious and consistent justification for accepting homosexuality but rejecting bestiality as moral with no special pleading is also perfectly fine discussion topic. Nemesis was essentially trying to express that 'moral relativists' have to special plead in the case of bestiality because they cannot justify calling it immoral.
As I'm sure the stupid himself is enjoying following that thread. What a perfectly level playing field we have here, huh?
Sure - if either of you can point to where the other was personally insulted I will judge whether sanction has taken place. I've looked across the evidence so far presented as far as I can see and I have not found that it leads to the conclusion that nemesis was being disrespectful to another member.
Where the hell did you get that from? I'm talking about a direct, moral equivalence between innocent gay sex and BESTIALITY and/or RAPE.
I saw no such moral equivalence. I saw an argument against moral relativism by attempting to show how it special pleads for marrying children or dogs. It is easily rebutted but it is not morally equating the two - but rather enquiring as to how moral relativists can avoid equating the two without special pleading.
Thank you for telling us about yourself.
I was only telling you about myself in the sense that I, like all humans, am an ape that can be defined as being 'dirty'. I'm not sure what else you think I told you about myself.
New Members should start HERE to get an understanding of what makes great posts.
All Christians rape goats...It's not insulting if there's a valid reason for making the comparison, and let's face it... I enjoy saying that Christians rape goats. That's valid.
First of all, it is not a comparison it is an alleged statement of fact that needs to be backed by evidence were you to seriously propose it. This is not comparable to nemesis' statements in any way whatsoever since he did not say that all gay people have sex with animals.
Second, whim does not count as a valid reason to make a statement. If you were attempting to demonstrate how Christians special plead by showing an example of where they are forced to special plead - you will have made a valid point.
Yes, I expect to get suspended for this post
This is a thread for the non members to criticize moderation procedures. You did that, and I see no reason to suspend you for it and would speak out should you be suspended for it.
Re: comparisons aren't insulting if there is a valid reason for drawing them
This would be a valid point, if NJ had, at any time, pointed out what objective act involved in homosexuality is comparable to rape and/or bestiality, and how it is comparable.
They are both sexual acts. However, relativists see them as morally different. What nemesis was trying to demonstrate that relativists have no basis to differentiate the two acts, whereas he does - thus elevating his moral framework (absolutism) as superior.
Let's not confuse this for an intelligent criticism of Berberry's lifestyle which he doesn't like hearing, because it's fucking well not.
Nor was it intended to be. It was intended to be an intelligent criticism of moral relativity and how as a moral philosophy cannot differentiate between homosexuality and bestiality.
All NJ is doing is saying "they're the same, they're the same, whee!" over and over again.
It is extraordinarily simple to directly quote NJ as saying the contrary. From Message 1 and beyond:
I'm not equivocating homosexuals to dogs. I'm merely showing that moral relativism is a bit absurd when you view it in these contexts.
What difference is there if its all relative? You are making it sound as if marrying dogs and children is an immoral action.
From this very thread:
I don't make comparisons between homosexuals and animals. What I do is show why if you should morally support one, why don't you morally support the other by the same premise?
Me showing you how your relative morals really aren't relative is me showing you how your hypocrisy knows no end.
It is quite clear that NJ isn't saying they are the same, but instead asking why don't relativists consider them morally equivalent.
His comparison is, to carry your metaphor, a baby-raper comparison, not a mental abuse comparison.
I've looked through a few NJ posts as you can see and I find nothing where he directly compares homosexuals to zoophiles concluding that they are similar - instead he concludes that the relativist philosophy demands they be viewed equally but relativists do not - which, contends NJ, is hypocrisy.
If you can find some post where NJ states that in his moral framework, bestiality and homosexuality are equivalent, then I'd see your point. If you find one, please link to it so that I can read it. I'm not going to sanction somebody for criticising a philosophy, I'm sure you understand that would eliminate any debate.
"if you support the right of Christians to worship freely, you have no reason for not supporting the rape of goats."
Sounds like a fine opening - I'd like to see the reasoning now :) I can try and make one for you:
In order for Christians to worship freely they must be allowed sacrifice animals in a way that is not sanctioned by a government body (otherwise it wouldn't be free). Government sanction is there to ensure that the animals are slaughtered in a humane way. If Christians are allowed to slaughter in an inhumane way (using the free practice of religion as an excuse) then we should also another group of people to rape goats (far less cruel than a painful death, arguably) if they too use the free practice of religion as justification.
Assuming the premise is true in one or more cases, I'd agree with the conclusion and go on to say that I do not believe that anyone can engage in immoral behaviour under the shield of religion so I do not believe in total freedom of worship.
NJ's posts, paired with Berberry's suspension, adequately counter this statement all on their own.
If you wish to make an actual criticism of moderator policy with links then so be it. However, Percy's comments regarding Berberry's suspension clearly show that whim was not the reason. If you wish to specify something NJ has said which the reason put forward for making said statement was that of whim, please let me know so that I can examine it.
Oops. You've gone farther in your reasoning than NJ. So now you're officially defending a completely fictional NJ, who is far more competent than the genuine article.
But yes, I agree that this fictional NJ is quite persuasive, and just making a neat little point about a philosophy.
I cannot force you to read the words NJ wrote, where he explains why moral relativists should consider the two to be morally equivalent. Nor can I force you to read the posts which agree with NJ that he wasn't comparing homosexual sex to bestiality or even force you to read what I have said and where I have quoted NJ's explanations.
What I can do is this: I can ask you one more time to specify a post where NJ writes whatever disgusting thing regarding this topic. Until then I have nothing further to say since I have said it all several times already and you may refer to my earlier posts if you wish to read it.
Nor can I force you to do your fucking job, and view his statements in the context of his history on this forum, and the information we all know he already has. Life, as they say, is difficult.
If you have somehow got the impression that I think NJ is not a homophobe let me correct you. I think NJ is a homophobe. However I do not believe that all homophobes believe that homosexual marriage is as bad as marrying a dog. I imagine many do. Perhaps even NJ does. He has not stated that this is the case, he has stated the opposite.
abe: I cannot sanction a homophobe for criticising moral relativism, nor can I sanction a creationist for criticising naturalism nor can I sanction a racist for attacking determinism. Or is that what you think my job as an Admin is?
Then it was a comparison, sure, but it was an okay comparison. Now it's not a comparison at all. How odd.
It was not a comparison in the sense of putting two things side by side and stating they are more similar than not. It wasn't a comparison in the sense of 'homosexual sex is like having sex with another species'. It was a comparison in the sense of demonstration, an demonstration of where moral relativity should lead you. It was not a comparison that NJ subscribes to, according to his own words, but a comparison of what relativists should subscribe to if they are to be consistent with the morality they actually subscribe to.
Yes, let's point to Berberry's comments from eight months ago, in response to a completely different statement from a completely different poster. Wow, you really do suck at context.
Let us examine the context together shall we?
NJ says: I can see that you are a homosexual and that I offended you. You misinterpreted my post. We are discussing morals. If homosexual marriage is okay, relatively speaking, then so is marriage between a man and a child or a woman and a dog.
berberry replies: No it is not, because there is no valid comparison between them. There is only a thinly veiled insult, and I don't for one second believe it wasn't intended.
holmes replies: You need to stop and think about this carefully as you are talking past him. In the very quote you cited he sets the context for his statement as "relatively speaking". He is saying that the comparison would be true for relativists, which he most clearly is not.
berberry replies: holmes, you're reading past what I'm saying. I never said there was no basis whatever for the comparison, I said that there's no way to use the comparison without it being insulting.
The context is clear: This is the start of the very argument we are discussing here his response is to Holmes because Holmes tries to get NJ's point across in a different and clearer fashion after NJ takes insult to NJ's alleged disgusting comparison.
In fact, let's do it right after fucking suspending him, so he's not here to say what he did and did not mean. Wow, I just threw up in my mouth a little.
You really need to calm down a little there. I am not attacking Berberry but showing the origins of the debate and Berberry's own words as to his 'beef' - if Berberry contests that he meant something other than what he said then he is free to comment once his suspension is ended. This thread is not going anywhere in the next week as far as I know.
Edited by AdminModulous, : No reason given.
Edited by AdminModulous, : No reason given.
Edited by AdminModulous, : bleeding typos *shakes fist*
His argument presupposes that the same moral premise supports both acts. This moral premise, according to NJ, excludes heterosexuality.
How can this not be read as saying that the two are morally the same?
NJ is clearly stating that to the relativist the same moral premise comes into play for both acts. I do not see where NJ is excluding heterosexuality from this moral premise. He is not saying that the same moral premise comes into play in actuality.
Do you agree that this means that moral relativists should consider the two morally the same?
So it wasn't ever a comparison, even when you said it was.
Yes, it was a comparison. A comparison between the conclusions one draws from applying moral relativity and the conclusions that moral relativists say they have reached. It was not a comparing homosexual relations with cross-species relations in the sense of showing how they are similar.
Then, after a couple months have passed, NJ shows up and repeats his opening, insulting version again, as though nothing was ever said. Somebody points out why he's mistaken. So wait a little while more. Then he starts up again, with the same insulting version. Somebody again points out why he's mistaken. So he waits a while more. Then starts up again, with the same insulting version. Every time somebody points out why he's wrong, he not only completely ignores it, he pretends next time that nothing was ever said to him.
Other than the fact I don't consider it to be at all insulting, just wrong that sounds like a day in the life of EvC in general.
The moderators don't call him on it, because that would require some sort of judgement call, and we all know how scary those can be. So Berberry does, since really, he's the one being repeatedly insulted, over the course of months. Berberry gets suspended.
This kind of behaviour is called upon when it reaches randman-like levels. I have not seen NJ become as disruptive as randman was with his repetitive claims - of you'd do me the honour of providing me with the links of all the times this has come up I'll happily reassess that opinion.
No, you're quoting him out of context immediately after removing his ability to respond.
Except it was in context and I didn't remove his ability to respond. If you would care to explain why you think I am quoting him out of context in more detail we can continue discussing this moderator action otherwise we will just be saying 'is' 'is not' at each other ad infinitum.