Atomicflea wrote:
No. I wasn't being sarcastic, and I was asking a direct question. You must feel you are on the side of right and good somehow on this issue, Vocalize it. Use that verbosity with some kind of intent. It wouldn't keep me from disagreeing, I'm sure, but I've never understood your views largely because you express them poorly. You veer into other subjects, drone about group think, and do everything but explain yourself. Try it.
I'm sorry Flea. I can't. Because for me, this issue isn't about emotion. I know you're asking for emotional aspects of this issue, but my point is that this is the wrong reason or way to do things in the first place. You're insisting that I must address the issue from an emotional standpoint, and while that's wonderful for you since your position is based in emotion, mine is not. It's like asking a physicist to give you the emotions behind his latest equations on black holes.
My position is based on reason. Why can't you just accept that? Frankly, more people ought to be doing this my way rather than yours...
Quote:
See, like that. I didn't ask for you to explain why I feel as I do. I asked for you to explain your feelings on the matter. We're all repeating something, kid ("marriage between a man and a woman" ring a bell?). Nothing's original anymore.
Because my whole point in this thread is to show why holding a position based on emotion is fallacious. By doing so, it's easy to support a position that "feels right" at the time, but is a really bad thing in the long run.
Quote:
The only reason I'm labeling you negatively as of this moment is because you apparently lack the skills to express your feeling in a cohesive manner. Really, I'd go see a shrink about that.
That's because my position isn't based on how I feel. I know that it's easier for you to imagine that those who supported prop8 all did so because they really secretly hate homosexuals, but that's simply not the case. Insisting that I must argue my point from an emotional perspective is just silly...
If you ask about the emotional side of prop8 (which you did), my response is going to be to point out that using emotion to make an argument or to hold a position is a bad idea (which is what I've been doing). You may choose to disagree with that, but don't berate me for refusing to adopt your own flawed methodology for picking a position on an issue.
Quote:
Huh? So you believe this is the right stance because you have to stand up against the methodology that you feel will overtake our government? So your primary driving emotion there is fear?
You completely missed the point. The "fear" is of being labeled negatively for not going along with the cause and position of gay rights on this proposition. I was pointing to the quote from John Stewart to show an example of this, but there are many many more.
If I were acting out of fear on this issue I'd have opposed prop8, not supported it. What I'm actually doing is standing on principle while risking being labeled as a bigot and homophobe by those around me. It would be much much easier to just support gay marriage, wouldn't it? So who's acting out of fear here? Who's worried about being labeled and/or hated for his/her position?
Quote:
That isn't helping the homophobe thing,kid. How about this: talk about why you feel it is right. Positive terms that would help people understand. Since you pride yourself on not repeating arguments, heck try and leave the Bible out of it. It'll make it relatable.
I have not once mentioned the bible while debating this issue.
My position is right because I'm *not* basing it on an emotional response. Your's is wrong because you are. How's that?
Quote:
I don't see why you have to Godwin everything. Talk about rehashing arguments. *sigh*
I actually rarely do this. In this case, I did it not to create any sort of comparison between a given position and ****-ism, but to compare the methodology. The act of using emotion to base one's positions lends itself to being abused. You're looking at the trees. I'm looking at the forest. It's not about this specific issue, but the method by which you are deriving your position on it. I'm not at all suggesting that fighting to give gay marriages the same benefits as heterosexual ones is somehow similar to anything the **** regime did. What I *am* suggesting is that holding a position because of the emotional aspects and then negatively labeling anyone who doesn't agree with you *is* similar to what the **** regime did.
To be fair, it's not like they invented the idea. I'm just suggesting that the same process of scapegoating and labeling those who don't hold your own world view can lead to some pretty bad situations. We should avoid arguments based on such emotionally charged thinking, in order to prevent said types of bad situations from occurring.
Don't read more into it than that. I'm not even talking about the specifics of the position in question. Just the methodology being used by some to derive their position.
Quote:
That said, you're pretty much admitting that you're in the person-that-was-labeled-a-jew-hater-because-they-were-too-scared-to-stand-up camp,
I always wonder if such subtle word changes are deliberate, or subconscious.
The camp would be "person-that-was-labeled-a-jew-l
over-because-they-were-too-scared-to-stand-up"
The point, which you either missed or are avoiding, is that at that time and that place the emotional argument was about the popular belief that Jews were to blame for the current problems going on in Germany. They were blamed. Then anyone who stood up for them was labeled negatively. This created the "us vs them" dynamic, which was used to gain political power for those behind the whole movement.
What happened afterwards isn't what's relevant. I'm just trying to get you to be aware that this sort of methodology is inherently dangerous. Not because I believe that granting homosexuals full marriage benefits is dangerous, but because by using this method to do so, you'll be more likely to adopt the same methodology (or be swayed by it), when it's used in the future for something else. Yes. Slippery slope and all of that, but I don't think it's absurd to argue that the more we use this sort of argument and methodology, the more we as a people accept it as a valid way of pushing an agenda *and* the more we as a people just give in to whatever cause is being pushed.
That's where the danger lies IMO.
Quote:
I still don't think you're a homophobe. I just think you don't care enough to be an activist.
No. I disagree with what the activists want to do. That does not at all imply a lack of caring. Your very statement makes the assumption that the only "right" answer is to support the cause in question, with the only reasons not to being that one is a bigot (homophobe in this case) or knows what's right but doesn't care enough to do anything about it.
Lol. Ever consider that you're just wrong? Seriously. I disagree with the position you hold. Please respect the issue enough to at least consider that my argument may have merit. When I read this sort of statement, it leads me to believe you just haven't listened to a word I've said.
Quote:
When change comes, you'll fear it was the downfall of Western Civilization. When gays marry and buy homes in your town, you'll fear it'll impact your home value, but you won't ever do anything about it overtly or show any true discrimination. Fear is your driving emotion, then. I can understand that.
Huh? I voted for prop8. I've written at length my reasons for doing this. I've posted for almost two weeks on the subject. How much more "overt" do I need to get here?
I disagree with you. Period. It's not that I don't like homosexuals, and it's not that I agree but don't care. I disagree with you. Again. How about stepping back from your assumption that your "side" must be correct and maybe re-evaluating your own position before making assumptions about mine.
This should be doubly important given that you admit to holding your position because of emotions instead of reason. I'm looking at what the proposed change actually does legally. You are looking at which side you like and assuming that anything that isn't good for them must be bad. I happen to think my method of assessing the correct course of action in this particular situation is the better one.
Edited, Nov 17th 2008 6:47pm by gbaji
