CreateDebate


Youngidealis's Waterfall RSS

This personal waterfall shows you all of Youngidealis's arguments, looking across every debate.

Weren't they bones too in that part of the bible? I'm pretty sure that's what the passage said.

In my experience here in the states, it used to be an obvious thing in the 80's that anyone who screamed "socialist" was really just an old lunatic. It even seemed that way to people who didn't know what socialism was. Hence, long before I knew what it was I had a clear idea that it was about propaganda and not political philosophy when people used it in a debate.

Then in the 90's people forgot about politics all together and around 2003-2006, Fox News and the republican party started to bring it around again with only a slight improvement on their accuracy of it's use.

For example, it's fair of them to somewhat associate socialism with universal healthcare, but their insane base of moron zombies following them still has no idea and doesn't care. There was an old guy I spoke to once who blames the corruption of politics on the push towards socialist ideas and kept giving me the excuse "if only you saw what it was like in the 60's. People who worked hard got paid." I paraphrase but that's the general idea of what he said.

Despite how much skepticism reading Howard Zinn has left me with on that notionI still managed to stump him by saying, "Look I can see your point, but what if we could just say this much: If someone is willing and able to work 40 hours a week, they deserve to have all of their human needs met. I don't care if it's the lowest quality stuff on the market so long as it's safe. Healthy canned food, shelter that can survive the expected heat and the cold of their local climate, adequate transportation to work and their local community college, healthcare, protection from injustice, clothes, and enough water for drinking washing and bathing.

Make sure that every working individual has all of these necessities independently and you can have at it hoss. Compete to your heart's consent. The reason we need a base that every working individual is able to get and maintain is so that the investors don't just think they can choke the working poor for a greater profit."

He didn't have much to say against that even though the people who retaught him about the evils of socialism would have wanted him to scream at me for being so against free enterprise with that sentiment. American conservatives who listen to media like Fox News are delusional puppets.

Disagree? Quit being a coward and give a better argument.

0 points

Socialism is an idea worthy of being experimented to various degrees in democratic systems. Unlike what many McCarthyist sentiments would suggest, Socialism is not independent from Democracy, nor is it tied to Communism.

Socialism also holds just as many dangers as Capitalism with only one difference, extreme Capitalism puts too much power in the hands of the wealthy while extreme Socialism puts too much power in those who hold the positions of the government.

The powers that be should ultimately be in the hands of the people, with only minor decisions ever being made against the majority demands to maintain some sense of logical consistency and strategic integrity. This is important particularly in the cases where the majority seek to unduly oppress a minority.

I find that the ideal society is much like the current US. Some parts capitalism, some parts socialism. Free enterprise should be managed over industries which are allowed to fail while industries which must maintain consistency and a purpose to serve the needs of the people should be organized and run by government.

McCarthyism on the other hand is the epitome of lies and propaganda pushing. It serves no one and unlike most hateful and harmful political positions, most of it's advocates are hardly even aware of it's existence.

youngidealis(50) Clarified
-1 points

As a side point, I'm curious if you know what Socialism is exactly. can you describe it in your own words without using McCartheist sentiments?

2 points

Bigots look for excuses to hate. The many undue excuses to hate Obama is evidence of bigotry pretending that they have valid points against him when in reality they are pretending that they really are that dumb as an excuse to just hate him because he's black. It's not the only reason why his actions are considered "controversial" but it is a significant reason.

Case and point, calling him socialist. Conservative idiots try to make a big deal about him resembling Communist views because they've never been taught about McCartheism in recent US history. And yet, when he actually does something that a ruthless dictator would do, remove habeas corpus, they're complaints run silent.

Not because it doesn't fit with their argument but because the republican puppet masters from above wanted Obama to remove habeas corpus, and they arranged with conservative media to not make that particular subject a talking point.

Would the majority of Obama hating individuals have even the slightest desire to draw the connection when they are informed of this fact? Nope. Cause their only focus is the insult is that someone they have been taught to hate is leading the country.

I disagree with one point here. Dan Cathy and the organizations that he donated to are terrorizing the homosexual community. They along with Fox News should be in prison for the outright physical harm that their actions cause.

0 points

Vote me down all you want cowards. You're too chicken shit to check or get sources for this issue. Sooner or later you're going to get hurt personally for being such outright assholes towards innocent people.

Look forward to the day when the oppression that you push will be pushed right back at you. No one will have any sympathy for you when that day comes. I look forward to the chance to tell someone just like you that they cannot work with me or for me because of their decision to push for undue discrimination towards others.

Who do you actually see that's falling down?

Actually, I think it's a sort of hive mind behavior. As individuals we are like neurons or small network systems within the hive mind of society. When you are undecided on something, you look for some form of resolution from within, then whatever that resolution is, you might report it back to the group depending on what it is.

The six degrees of Bacon assures that your message has a great chance of reaching Kevin Bacon's ears and even if he doesn't know it was your idea, he can very well be convinced by it enough to report it back to the group and effect your opinion becoming the new social order of things.

It's natural democracy so to speak. People fight it out and try to squelch each other because cognitive dissonance hurts, even in the hive mind as a whole. We humans are obsessed with knowing things, and we will never stop attempting to know things. As soon as we know something, we move on to learn something else. Or else, when we become old dogs and are done with new tricks, we're left with trying to convince others that we already know things they are seeking.

"I know you have a great deal of respect for this guy, but keep in mind that he is still human and has a strong incentive to prove his own correct-ness. He already knows the answer he wants to come to, so once he finds a way to get to that answer, regardless of how reliant that way is on semantics, he will stop searching, so he never goes on to see the flaws in his reasoning."

This is not the case with Matt Dillahunty. Yes, he's only human and he is capable of error, as am I, but my respect for him comes from knowing his sincerity in seeking and speaking truth in logic. The atheist experience is a great show that covers many topics and arguments regarding atheism and freedom from religion.

I'm sorry it took me so long to get back to you. I found the belief video that he referenced in the video that I sent you. it's an hour long and it's great, but it's really difficult for me to quickly learn how to argue his points. I've watched it multiple times before responding so that I could both understand and repeat what was said in my own words.

Chances are, that I will misrepresent what he's saying because I'm still learning about these arguments, but unlike many religious followers, I will follow through with challenging my position and I will be openly willing to adjust my view to fit objective reality.

"Do you see the problem with this? If you don't believe the claim that there is a god nor the claim that there is no God, what position are you left with? Uncertainty, also known in this case as agnosticism."

Actually, in the belief video which I will attach to this post, he points out the difference between saying that an agnostic claim is that you don't know something verses the claim that you can't know. Matt accepts that he is an agnostic based on the first definition, but not by the second. If you claim that we can't know if there is a deity, then you have made a claim which you still need to demonstrate as true. You still need to demonstrate that knowledge of a deity's existence is unknowable and why it is unknowable.

Another point being made is that there are different questions being asked when we consider atheism and agnosticism. Atheism is a belief in response to a claim that a God exists, whereas agnosticism is a stance regarding knowledge of a truth claim. It's because of this difference that it's reasonable for a person to identify as an Atheist Agnostic.

"...with the weak justification that you can't have a single belief about multiple claims, which is false) and then asserting that the default position is always negative."

I'm pretty sure that he's not saying that. The justification of atheism being the default position is related to the reasons we say that a defendant is guilty vs not guilty rather than innocent vs not innocent. It's more practical and useful in determining truths even of claims which if true are indistinguishable from if they are not true. Either way, we should not be strongly acting upon what we do not know to a high degree of certainty.

That's in essence what makes Atheism the default position. Since a Deist God has no impact on our lives and is indistinguishable from the non existence of such a god, it's more rational to live by the idea that such a thing doesn't exist, otherwise you would be showing equal support to all metaphysical claims.

Any action that you take towards acting upon such beliefs is wasted effort, even to an extent of just thinking about the possibility of them being true/real because there's no way of telling which of those beliefs holding zero evidence are simply not true/real and the many different claims that would fall into the realm of potential but not true/real are infinite. It's also not possible for all potential realities to be true, because an infinite set of those potential realities would contradict one another.

The atheist position is therefore the default position because it's the more practical position to take when concerning matters of belief which match with reality. Why is it that you would even concern yourself with the possibility of a Deist God any more than you would concern yourself with the possibility that all matter in the universe is made out of invisible marshmallows? I would posit the likely reason being something to do with you wanting there to be a God or some sort of thing out there that explains your existence or else falls in line with the metaphysical beliefs that you were brought up to concern yourself with and that all of the reasons for why you got to that point can be explained with objective evidence.

Belief
3 points

False analogy. The same comparisons can be made against heterosexuality. Also, Normal and Abnormal are psychological terms. look them up.

Ad populum and the argument from ignorance. You don't know why it feels funny when you think about it so it must be squirrels... No wait you said it must be abnormal. That's the argument from ignorance talking. Also everybody thinks that the majority agrees with them. They're not always right about that, and the majority can always be wrong about things too. See American History of Slavery.

Psychology would disagree with you about being born gay. Did you choose to be straight? I also have no one close to me who's gay and I'm not gay. I choose to support their equal treatment because I've taken psychology of human sexuality and I now know the science. Forget gay rights events. Go to your local community college and take a cheap course in the Psychology of Human Sexuality. Gay people aren't looking for your approval, they are looking to get just enough tolerance for you to leave their equal rights alone.

2 points

I think you are getting normal and abnormal mixed up with something other than their psychological meanings. In psych, 'Abnormal' doesn't just mean uncommon.

"Most male animals will have sex with anything that moves just so it can pass down its genes."

The studies in question have shown individuals with preference to homosexual behavior. Not not just random one time events.

Fetus's have been found to masturbate in the womb. I also remember being with some friends at the age of 7, all of us getting a good look at a woman who was sunbathing topless on her porch. I couldn't look away. Explain how sexuality must be found later in life when that happens?

2 points

I found what lolzors93 is talking about. One Journal supposedly in a Christian Research Institute. It say's there's a link to the full article but I could not find it. Science requires more than one article from a biased source lolz

Supporting Evidence: Biased (www.equip.org)

If it happens in nature, then it's natural. You are a very well trained bigot indeed.

Where's your source for your statistics? I wanna see.

'Natural'

All of your points are demonstrably false, save one that's just irrelevant. I'll respond to one such point because you really need to educate yourself before saying these things.

"Is it a dangerous lifestyle? Yes."

The mere fact that heterosexual idiots like you have believed this has caused any and all trends that MIGHT have once agreed with you to turn completely around and statistically show that heterosexuals carry more STD's by percentage than homosexual men. Also, if health is a factor, then being a lesbian is most healthy and should be fully supported by you in every way. The passage of STD's between lesbians rounds down to 0%

"They have equal rights. Don't make it sound like something it is not. "

No, they don't have equal rights. They are still denied the Right to see their spouses in hospitals. Civil unions are still not recognized in every state. They are still mistreated by insurance companies and denied the right to adopt all because everywhere they look they have to chase down your beliefs which have been enacted into the law to define their marriage as something different from heterosexual marriage. Go look this shit up! Quit just denying everything like you can't pull your head out of your ass long enough to research before you assume things.

It's often the only thing you can expect from people. To have them meet you halfway.

""They've caused pain, ripped apart families, and ruined lives."

Who exactly are we talking about?? You speak as if we're talking about one person. You can just label a whole group of people like that."

I'm getting it from the definition of bigotry. It's active intolerance of people with a different choice of lifestyle. You really go far to make a lot of excuses for yourself don't you?

Being against hate in the law makes me look dumb? I don't wanna look smart.

"This question is tweaked at a very pacific and biased angle, but my official answer would be; To protect the definition of marriage."

You can't protect definitions of words. Ask the grammar experts. People use words and dictionaries report on their usage. You can however use that as a lame excuse to specifically try and assert laws which discriminate and treat people unequally.

"What the hell makes your opinion so special??"

The fact that it's not an opinion. It's well studied objective fact that homosexuality is natural and that it is healthiest to allow people their free choice to engage in it as consenting adults as they with without discrimination or shame or punishment for doing so. It's also objective fact that mistreatment and dehumanization of homosexuals has only led to the psychological and psychological abuse of innocents (gays and straights alike) even to the point of murder with hate towards homosexuals as the justification.

""They've caused pain, ripped apart families, and ruined lives."

Who exactly are we talking about?? You speak as if we're talking about one person. You can just label a whole group of people like that."

Actually we can. It is a heard mentality that has led to the physical and mental abuse that's been done gays and straights alike in the name of those who "just don't agree with it." It's more than opinion when you enact it into law. It's more than an opinion when you harass and beat up anyone who resembles your stereotype of a homosexual, and the same goes for when you discriminate just because you don't like it. It's more than opinion when you financially support hate groups like Exodus who actively abuse gay children.

So, you think reacting to something like this is just dumb?

I'll let Matt Dillahunty take it from here, since he taught me all I know on the topic. Watch it and argue against what he is saying and I promise that I will honestly consider your contentions and either agree or offer counterpoints to them

Atheism Is The Default Position
2 points

Poor people aren't asking for the rich to be taxed equally. People of every other class are pushing for it. Poor people are more often stupid enough to think that they don't need welfare or social security while they are getting both. This is what statistics are showing.

Objectivism doesn't deserve to be called a philosophy. Rand hated philosophers.

Supporting homosexuality is supporting human nature. That's a liberal ideology. In what way does liberal ideology go against any human nature? I mean, unless you mean the human nature to continue to deny something after it's been proven to be true.

No it is evidence of absence wherever evidence would be expected. This isn't suggesting that no gods could possibly exist but that any concept of a deity that one would expect to see evidence for (for example 99.999999999% of theists who are not deists) is showing thus the evidence of not existing.

I can't deny every god's existence with evidence but there are plenty of ideas of Gods which would make falsifiable claims. Even more that would be making claims where absence can be seen as evidence. Maybe not proof, but definitely evidence.

-1 points

You're a moron Guitaristdog. Show me one source that you have. You don't have any! you're taking your own lazy behavior and pretending that I'm the one doing it. I gave you sources in the last debate and so did others. Not TYT or MSNBC, we gave you real sources! Go look at them or go find your own you dumbass!

Wrong. Once your personal belief that homosexuality is wrong enters into law it becomes bigotry. Don't wanna be called a hate monger, then keep it out of the law and live and let live.

Whether we want it to happen or not, it's gonna happen. Best to make laws and principles to keep everything in a controlled setting.

This is true, which is why it took the comments to confirm to most pro-equal rights people that they should boycott. As a response Fox News, Huckabee, and every homophobic pastor collaborated to make Aug 1st happen and pretended it was because of free speech. People in favor of free speech would just as soon support a groups right to boycott.

youngidealis(50) Clarified
1 point

You are deserving of a point for proper trash talk sir. But I'm not in the mood now. Maybe later.

0 points

Wow, there's some sad cowards here who like to take away points but give no argument as to why. Would I even get to know if they chose me to be their enemy on this site?

Nudists - Yes I support them, but it as nothing to do with individualism. These particular societal taboos have been chosen and dictated by highly judgmental individuals who had no right to make such claims. If it wasn't vehemently fought by the offended to the point of throwing people in jail, I'm certain that an open vote would slowly but surly reveal the the majority is fine with nudity or doesn't care. Same goes for profanity. And it's not just a nudist's nature to be concerned with, it's everyone's nature. Taboos are an unhealthy part of human cultures.

Necrophiliacs - I caught that type of argument for cannibalism from you, but not for necrophiliacs. The same response from me applies. If the deceased offered their body it's fine, but I would add that someone should step in and stop the situation if there are serious health issues (necrophiliac and/or deceased weren't in their right minds when decision was made) with how long the necrophiliac is wanting to retain the body for sexual use or any other possible health issues that would result.

Should the state guarantee that people can perform such acts? No. But if you are comparing a guarantee to perform these acts with gay marriage then that would be a false analogy. Refusing to give homosexuals equal treatment under the law as it stands is not guaranteeing acts of homosexuality. The practice of homosexuality is already taken care of by the homosexuals themselves, not the state. Discrimination against them and shaming them through the law is what's in dispute. Also, you should try and be less offensive in your comparisons to homosexuals. It's obvious that you are associating an ick-factor to homosexuality by using examples which naturally (without any influence from culture) would engage a gag reflex in most human beings. This is not the case with Nudists and Homosexuals. All of your disgust towards those groups has been taught to you from an early age.

Drug Users - Yeah, they might "think that [their body's autonomy outweighs [their] responsibility to other people," but determining that is hardly a subjective value judgement. Doctors are capable of determining if a person is exhibiting a behavior out of personal choice or due to a symptom of a deeper issue.

For example, my girlfriend is bipolar, and when she's in a low state of mood she often wants to kill herself. I would never help her kill herself like that even though I know she's in a lot of mental pain. I always walk her through these episodes and I always help her get the treatment that she needs to get back to being stable and feeling that life is worth living. If there were no treatments available or reasonably possible, I would have to reconsider this stance and at least wait until a good stable mood before asking her seriously if she would want it all to end.

If she said 'no' in that state of mind, I'd continue to help her through the lows and not let her kill herself. Don't feel bad for me though, because it's actually pretty obvious when she's exhibiting symptoms, and she doesn't fight me much at all about wanting to kill herself. It's sad but it almost makes me laugh at how silly and childish her reasoning gets in that state of mind.

Alcohol isn't extreme, not by a long shot. Alcoholism is very real but rare amongst the general population. It's like driving, it's useful and safe enough for everyone to begin with a sort of earned right to it, but if they misbehave to a certain irresponsible extent with alcohol then they should be kept from it at all costs.

That's what good rehabilitation is for, and for certain drugs which are capable of being experienced without addiction and damage being inevitable, I would make the same argument. If we had descent rehabilitation programs (not 12 step) and descent health coverage for all who have mental health troubles, we could avoid nearly all of the problems that come with all recreational drug use and determine which recreational drugs are safe to use for fun and which drugs really take it too far. There is and will always be a rational line between the two.

Cannibalism - what I'm implying is wrong with cannibalism by that is that it's extremely unhealthy to the individual engaging in it and that it's potentially dangerous to others who come into contact with the cannibal. Look up how dead bodies effected the spread of the black plague. Again, please have the respect to stop comparing things to your ick-reaction to homosexuality. If you find something icky about homosexuality, let's zero in on that and why you feel that way.

"You make it sound like no sane person would generally advocate cannibalism, but this is a subjective moral judgment based on a societal taboo."

No, it's not. Or at least, only an idiot or a psychopath with a craving would make their decision based on taboo. We have a gag reflex that says "YOU WILL GET SICK IF YOU DO THIS!" which stops us, not a social taboo. The social taboo aspect of cannibalism only effects how harshly we are willing to punish someone for cannibalism. Ironically, our early instincts in this country were to sentence the individual to death. Why don't you see taboo as a sickness or at least a wrongful behavior?

I do not make judgments based on taboo. Taboo distracts us from the reality of the situation and makes us do worse things to justify why we think something is wrong. Cannibalism and drug use are dangerous for their own reasons, not because people feel like something is wrong with them. I accuse people who are against homosexuality of being unhealthy in their perspective of the matter.

Namely, there is a lot of information out there to show that it's healthier for homosexuals and homosexuality to be treated as a natural thing and that the taboo against homosexuality has done nothing but physical and emotional harm towards all people, even heterosexuals who have been forced to try too hard to convince others that they are in fact heterosexual.

There is no reason to evaluate if a a homosexual marriage is healthy and unharmful. Each one of the examples you've made have been false analogy, and I've already explained at length why they are false analogy. Please chose to either accept that they are false analogy or pick one and we'll deal with arguing about if it's a false analogy. I ask that you do this, because the length at which you are throwing fallacy after fallacy into your arguments is wasting both of our time. Just pick one and let's deal with that.

"That's my whole point, that there cannot be any real moral and societal foundations in a liberalistic society."

My counterpoint is that you can say the same of any claims to morality by the same argument. I don't think you've actually found a counterpoint to the liberal premise to morals that you are giving. But aside from that, to use that as justification for deontological claims to morality is an argument from ignorance, because by that argument your position is just as weak.

As an atheist, I can't reasonably make the argument that just because a God can't be proven to be consistent, therefore religious people get their morals from squirrels. That's an argument from ignorance. You should try reading The Moral Landscape, by Sam Harris. In philosophy, ethics have been talked about to death, making many counterpoints to many logical premises of what various people claim to be true ethics. Just because we don't have a system of what ethics is that we can agree on doesn't mean that we shouldn't engage in ethical action and discussion of ethical behavior.

There are plenty of grounds where all theories of ethical truth converge, and those positions are where preservation of the individual also leads to preservation of the group. The liberal stance on homosexuality is for your benefit as well as for the benefit of the greater society. What we can't get past is the taboo that keeps people from seeing that it's better for them.

Your examples are false analogies with Homosexuality for the same reasons that they are false analogies for Heterosexuality. Only Heterosexuality would be a fair comparison to Homosexuality.

Ok, so, same question about liberal ideology. Do you have a clear argument about what's wrong with it?

youngidealis(50) Clarified
1 point

Actually, the majority of the poor are voting for none of those things mentioned. I'm poor but my reasons for wanting the top 2% to offer something for jobs and education comes more from a side of me that hated being held down in my own family as a kid. Idiots tend to be poor and they tend to be authoritarian and they also tend to be conservative. My parents are poor and hard working, and my parents are idiots.

I know this isn't Geeks vs Nerds, but you deserve a point for trash talk in my book.

Actually, a better third party would form and lead by skepticism and efficiency. The democrat party is outdated in it's idea of progressive stances. I'm thinking a Humanist Party might do the trick.

This is a very little unknown liberal politician I assume? I don't know who he is, but you know who he sounds a lot like? Bush.

I would argue that all people should have the right to vote, but they should be given a clear option to abstain and they should read and take a quiz on some objective facts regarding each issue. If they can't show a clear knowledge of the facts at let's say, a 70% success, then their vote for the issues they failed on the quiz shouldn't count. If you don't research an issue, you shouldn't vote. FYI, you can abstain on any ballot by leaving any issue blank that you aren't knowledgeable about.

I'm waiting for our family and friend structures to allow for tribal agreements and unions that offer babies to be had, raised, and adopted by anyone who wants them, as well as for large homes or apartment complexes that people share and live in and fuck as often as they'd like.

I'm not completely arguing from Ben's argument, but I feel I can answer the ethical concerns that you made here.

Nudists - There actually isn't any harm nor anything wrong that's done by nudists. There is however harm done to the society at large for holding on to these irrational taboos against sex, sexuality, and human genitalia. People deny their human nature and refuse to explore their bodies or even sometimes masturbate simply because of this taboo. Did you know that scientists have even revealed third trimester fetus's to masturbate?

Necrophiliacs - Here there is a harm that is done by the necrophiliac. Even if you would say that no harm is done to the deceased owner of the dead body, it can then be looked at as a form of damaging property which belongs to the next of kin or plot holders who agreed to keep the body in the ground for one reason or another. The point is that ethically, even in a utilitarian or consequentialist perspective, it amounts to having sex with someone else's property.

Drug users - Depending on the drug and the motivations, drug users can be seen as acting with suicidal behavior and in most cases they are not in their right minds. I would be for helping people commit suicide in a peaceful manner if they were honestly making the decision themselves, but there is also a relative line where a person cannot be seen as being in their right mind enough to not be stopped from self destructive behavior. Such issues can be dealt with in a matter that concerns that line in the same way that such is decided in hospitals for medical decisions.

Cannibalism - There are ethical cases where with or without permission, cannibalism was a person's only chance to survive. In those cases, as well as voluntary cases, the same argument for drug users can be made. Someone should just verify that decisions were made by people who were not losing their minds before allowing such things to take place.

The argument that you are making can easily be used on any and all behavior. That if you can't come up with ethical problems for all behaviors then you can't support (insert questionable behavior of choice). For example, we could say the same about heterosexual behavior.

It's an argument from ignorance. We don't know how to ethically condemn all questionable behaviors, therefore homosexuality must be wrong. Homosexuality only has to answer to the consequences of homosexuality. If you think it's bad, then the burden of proof is on you to explain what makes it bad.

2 points

What's wrong with liberals exactly? Could you describe what's wrong with liberals without parroting what neo-nazis would say about Jews? I mean can you really make an objective argument for what you're saying?

youngidealis(50) Clarified
1 point

Soon enough you'll be able to expand your mind with extra parts and to surf the internet with your mind. Nothing boring about that.

3 points

Actually, Science supports the atheist position (doesn't prove, only supports) by the evidence that we don't see a deity or a sign of some form of spiritual essence where we would expect to find such things. The lack of evidence can sometimes be evidence if evidence would be expected to be there. The majority of theological claims would suggest that there would be at least some objective evidence to support them, but there are none.

I would lean on something more humanist or progressivist as being more important than majority rule, but not so much liberalism, though in this society, I think liberalism is more needed than what people assume to be the majority.

That said, I'm observing that either a majority is liberal or that liberal views are taking over the majority. It's not just with politics but with all issues. Political vote rigging through voter ID laws and misinformation in the cable media has led to it seeming like the liberal perspective is small or declining, but it's not.

I trust that in a true democracy, humanist views would take hold and lead everything. The ability to communicate is key, and a lot of conservative positions remain in favor of taboo and censorship on the main points that we need to talk about. Like a real sex education for adolescents. It would do a load of good to teach the philosophy of physics vs metaphysics as well IMHO.

The textbook definition of liberal describes someone who desires fast change within the society at large. You can pride yourself on your own ignorance and pretend that it's all a big game of us vs them, but you would still just be ignorant for it.

-2 points
youngidealis(50) Clarified
1 point

Good mosque example. I think a better analogy though would be just burning down a Church while saying that it's to build a second Mosque.

I say this, because they already have their Mosque (the right to Marry "traditionally").

If it was about personal opinion, that would be great. People could just have philosophical conversations about the issue and leave out the part where they openly support organizations that try to use legislation to discriminate against homosexual couples.

Once it enters law and actively defies the right to separation of Church and State, it becomes way more than opinion. It becomes a voice for bigotry in the law. Would you think it's just a matter of opinion if someone presents a law that says that Christians are not allowed to marry? It would be fiercely criticized and discredited too. What's the difference?

People who oppose equal rights for homosexuals are fiercely criticized and discredited because every point that they've made has been proven to be objectively false and they still put their hands on their ears and keep shouting their ignorance. Go on, talk. I want to hear what your opinion is and why you don't support equal rights.

"Chick-fil-a didnt do anything wrong, the CFO gave his opinion, calm down."

No, he did not just give his opinion, he gave his profits to organizations which promote active and legalized discrimination towards homosexuals. Stop ignoring that fact.

"Minor? Dude are you serious? Loosing your job because the company can't pay you is a little more than minor, especially in an economy like this. Also, this results in less people spending therefore hurting other business that aren't involved."

You're out of your mind if you think it's in any way more significantly damaging that gay rights activists pushed towards such a possibility with a boycott than it would be significantly damaging due to the severe negligence that a business would have to have in order to let their need for excess profits to go towards discrimination to cause their business to fail.

But let's take this argument one step further. None of the jobs at Chick-fil-a are more important than the equal rights of the gay community. If it went out of business tomorrow, it would be far less damage than the accumulation of injustices that have been happening for over a century and continue to happen towards the LGBTQI community today.

"Really? And do we have any evidence of this? Just because someone sues over something doesn't mean it happened, most law suits over being fired are fabricated and were made for the sole purpose of getting money. "

You are such an ignorant denier. Go teach yourself. I've given you links and so have others. Google is your friend, go look for the facts before you spew more false claims.

"Just" because people are getting settlements for their legal claims of discrimination and "just" because Chick-fil-a admitted that they don't like gays, and "just" because they've been denying employees who are in same sex relationships from engaging on their company retreats, that doesn't "prove" that they're a company that discriminates? How stupid are you?

"I'm more gay marriage (and know plenty more gay and bi people than you) but the difference is I don't throw a temper tantrum when someone uses their free speech and gives their opinion on an issue."

First of all, you don't know me. I don't have close friends who are gay, but I've engaged with activist groups on the matter and I've listened to the many perspectives that are out there. My girlfriend is bi too. But for the umpteenth time, you cannot use your friends or people who are close to you who are a part of a minority as a justification to think that you can speak for them.

BTW, on the point of homophobia, it doesn't strike you as odd how many more women can come out as bi than males? That's what homophobia is, it's ingrained in our culture. Look it up. Learn to read more than just your facebook home page.

"... but the difference is I don't throw a temper tantrum when someone uses their free speech and gives their opinion on an issue."

Now you have a temper tantrum defense for your position? I've been pointing out the flaws with your arguments and I've been pointing out exactly why this is an issue of bigotry. Those who are on the fence as you claim to be should leave the conversation because it has nothing to do with you.

That's not taking away your free speech, that's advising you on what rational argumentation is. You've been showing plenty of emotion in this debate all while pretending that you don't even have a dog in this fight.

I have every reason to be angry at people who try to discriminate against my fellow human beings. If we had a fair legal system I could care less about debating with you and be happy in the countless lawsuits that would ensue because people are being denied their equal rights.

Go educate yourself about something, anything, on this issue and then get back to me.

youngidealis(50) Clarified
1 point

Sorry, I forgot your first statement by the time I wrote that last question. Just ignore it.

Instead, hows about we ask the same question hypothetically? You gave some really good examples of this "tactic" that you don't like, but I have yet to come up with a situation in which people would be "for traditional marriage" in any political sense, but not be pushing for homosexuals to have equality in the law in the same breath.

I don't know about anyone else here but I've been making it a point to not say that ALL people were homophobic for going to Chick-fil-a. Where did you hear someone say otherwise?

No one is trying to take away "traditional marriage." The people who are saying that they support traditional marriage are really saying that they don't want homosexuals to have the same rights as they do.

There's nothing else to support politically about "traditional marriage" than that. You dislike homosexuality but you want to live and let live, then have a seminar, have a conversation, preach what you think is right. But push for legislation to deny homosexuals from getting equal rights, and you're a bigot, plain and simple. Bigots don't usually think that they are bigots. There's a ton of people out there who try to say, "I'm not racist, but I don't like black people." Own up to what your position is, whatever that may be.

Homophobia is more of a background cultural issue which is why it's easy to fling around. It's like the psychological tests that showed that even African Americans can show to have more negative feelings towards people of color than towards people who are white. People of all colors show similar results in those studies. It's therefore likely a subconscious problem within our culture.

Homophobia shows up in the same way. You should take the label as a challenge to prove to yourself that you aren't subconsciously afraid of gay people. Consider your reaction to a gay couple kissing in public vs a straight couple doing the exact same thing. Homophobia is ingrained in our culture, especially among males.

And if I may, there is nothing I want more than for people who are being bigoted to come out and have the conversation. If you have a position that doesn't ask for unequal treatment but still disagrees, then offer it. There's no silencing going on here. Talk. What do you think is different about homosexuality than heterosexuality (if you do in fact think they are different)?

"BIGOT means your against a RACE, last time I checked GAYS aren't a race!"

First entry on google:

big·ot   [big-uht]

noun

a person who is utterly intolerant of any differing creed, belief, or opinion.

Go look something up and learn SOMETHING NEW before your next post, please. That's just lazy.

"Marriage is not a right, not everyone has a right"

I agree, marriage itself has little to do with rights... Until you put marriage into law, then EQUALITY becomes the right that marriage laws should concern themselves with.

"until very recently in human history, marriage has always been when a man and women come togeather to start a family."

Again, go educate yourself. This statement is objectively false.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_same-sex_unions

"to act assume that everyone will just automatically accept the idea and understand and to say everyone who doesn't is a homophobe is very niave."

Who assumed any such thing? I'm out doing what I can to inform ignorant people of what they don't realize about homosexuality now while they seem to want to talk about it. What does anything more than the hope that a few minds will be changed have anything to do with it? I was once on the fence on this issue. Then I went to college and saw all the facts that disproved the lies I was taught in Christianity and all was better. Life actually made sense for a change.

"Wrong, supporting Traditional family values doesn't mean you are against gay family values and hate them, hating someone does not mean not agreeing with their life style."

Correct, disagreeing with what a person does with their lives is not hate necessarily, TRYING TO MAKE LAWS TO ENFORCE YOUR BELIEFS ON OTHERS IS! If you fell for the political spin that Supporting Family Values is just giving your opinion and you really leave it as that, just an opinion, then you're not a hate monger, you're just an idiot.

But the fact remains that you are here. You are against letting the law allow for gay marriage to be recognized as nothing different from any other marriage and you're trying to pretend that what you, Guitaristdog, are saying it's just a matter of supporting free speech. You're making excuses and using false claims to do it.

[b]My girlfriends bi and I was in the GSA during all 4 years of high school, dont say I hate gays and bis lol. Again, I am for gay marriage being legalized.[/b]

Then you must just still be a kid learning these things. I reiterate that knowing someone who is a part of a minority, even being in love with them does not give you the right to speak for them. What the hell was that above supposed to mean that you support "gay marriage" as "gay marriage?" You imply that you still don't want to call them the same thing right?

"Why? Because gays have all the rights straights do except for marriage, mainly because up until very recently gay marriage wasnt even an idea, you cant expect everyone to get it all of a sudden."

You are seriously missing some important gears here dude. Gays don't have the right to see their spouses in hospitals. They also don't have the right to adopt. I'm talking about in the US, not foreign nations. Civil unions are also not recognized by every state. Insurance companies get to deny homosexual couples the same rights that they would give heterosexual couples. The Defense of Marriage Act is still in play despite being recognized as unconstitutional by many federal courts. Lets not also forget how many minors are forced into gay camps to be physically and psychologically abused just because their parents think that being gay is a disease that you have to cure.

Homosexuals are being discriminated in the law TODAY and will continue to be until they are accepted as the same thing in the law, whatever you wanna call it. Whether you mean to or not, you are making excuses for your ignorance.

"I did, funny thing is that none of my gay or bi friends really care, one of them even went to the appreciation day."

You are amongst a lot of out of the loop individuals when it comes to gay rights in this country. It's way more than just a word. Google what gay rights activist groups are saying, not what your facebook friends are saying.

"Considering most people who are mad about chick-fil-a heard about it through facebook, there is alot of misinformation going around. And by the wya, your not supposed to downvote someone for disagreeing with you, you down vote them for making bad arguments."

I'm downvoting people who are making bad arguments because they are misinformed and not arguing against the points made by the other side. I've left a few untouched because I think they make a good point considering where they might be coming from, but you for example are arguing with Strawmen IOW false information to say that there is a problem where there isn't one. If it's because you haven't done your due diligence and researched or at least looked at some of the links posted here to comment about them, I understand, but I still voted you down for taking a harsh stand on something that you know nothing about.

You see, this isn't about free speech, it's about your feelings on gay marriage.

Look at it this way, with all of the noise you made about bigger issues being out there, consider for one moment just how much more work congress would have to go through over "just a word" to specify in every case for every possible case that the same rights are applied to homosexuals as they are applied to straights.

These specifications need to go in every time that someone makes a benefit or a responsibility in the law towards married couples. That means that every time someone leaves it out because of an error or the more likely case that they are a BIGOT gay rights groups have another battle on their hands to battle congress with.

I don't give a fuck what you want to call it in the law, just call them the same thing because they deserve the same rights and we SHOULD stop wasting our time on this issue and just do the right thing once and move forward.

Me: "If that's not what you mean, then what did you mean exactly?

Really?"

You: "You should try getting your news somewhere else besides TheYoungTurks, MSNBC and facebook."

Could you try starting with a rational response to the question? Then, and only then, could you list the news sources that you trust? I don't trust anything on msnbc except Rachael Maddow and I don't trust facebook claims or any claims for that matter without researching them first.

"Yes I don't think its a big issue, why? Because we have a debt in the trillions the is getting bigger at a faster rate, taxes are getting higher, we are in multiple wars, we have an over filled prison system, a raging war on drugs, an economy that is tanking and the government is trying to take away our liberties, and you think MARRIAGE is a big deal? AS for "marrying someone you love" marriage is not all about love, really, if you think it is then you have obviously never read a history book or experienced any other culture besides ours."

I would summarize that every one of these issues is a big deal in that the problem is misinformation being taken in by idiots and powerful people corrupting our social structure. If we can't get people to agree on what an issue is about then we can't get their attention for anything and the US is doomed to fail. Now's a time to start making your "told ya so" signs ready.

Also, if you don't give a rat's ass about this issue compared to others and that's your contention, then quit arguing about it. Go find a debate about those other topics and leave this one alone.

"Why should it matter to me? Well I do care about it and have sympathy for gays but I (unlike most of mainstream america) understand that there a are bigger more important issues and that ruining a business (and all the employee's jobs) over the CEO's opinion is irrational."

If CFA became ruined because of a boycott over marriage rights, it's leadership would have to consider that their donations are more important than their bonuses long before it went that far. We're taking away thrift spending money that's all. If they went out of business it would be because they were such bad business owners that they decided to go down with the ship and take everyone else down with them.

That's their fault for making their business become a political engine. That's business and that's what an investment is all about, taking risks, making loads of cash when you win, and falling on your ass if you lose.

WTF do you think a boycott is? I for one never told people to stop going who enjoyed the food and would have gone already. I don't like it and alongside millions of others, I won't go. You can go. I won't stop you.

But if you went on 8/1 as a part of a protest, then especially if you are trying to say that you did so over free speech, then you're wrong. No one was saying that you couldn't speak freely as an idiot, we're just using the same right to say that you're being an idiot.

Assface, The problem with your argument is that Boycotting is just as much of a right to use as a form of protest as donating money. You may as well be carrying a sign along side the Phelps family that says "God Hates F.a.g.s!" because you fear that the pressure from the opposing protesters is going to effectively deny them the right to protest.

See Matt Dillahunty on that one. He's an atheist who's pledged many times over that he would stand next to the Phelps in protest against laws that would deny them their right to free speech if ever he saw them, and to that point I would agree.

You might be a minority within a minority who has yet to get this point, but I assure you that the majority of people who went to Chick-fil-a on 8/1 went there because their homophibic pastors or their favorite form of misinformed media told them to, giving them the excuse that it was about free speech.

It's not. No laws are being suggested or made to take away CFA's right to donate. CFA is being punished by the people it's hurt and offended by their actions, not by the law. Unless you of course count the discrimination lawsuits.

youngidealis(50) Clarified
0 points

Speaking for myself, this particular preference of lobbies. We need a few people to get into power and turn their profits against all the corruption that's going on in this country.

-1 points

And their money goes towards pushing their beliefs into law. What part of that don't you understand?

I already do boycott Exxon for that very reason.

This is how boycotts work. A company does something wrong and they get backlash. The employees get a minor sting which can sooner be blamed on the company for doing something that's deserving of protest then to blame the protesters. Even if it is harmful to employees who never wanted to be involved, it's a minor sting and it's a part of life. Your boss sucks, look for more work. The time it would take to bring Chick-fil-a down with a boycott is way more than long enough to find other work, even in a bad economy like this one.

People who have been working for Chick-fil-a have already been complaining about how they are treated while working for Chick-fil-a. They have been denied being part of couples retreats offered by Chick-fil-a and among other discrimination issues they've already been sued for firing people who didn't want to engage in their prayers at meetings.

You're right, marriage isn't a human right. Being treated equally by the law however is a right. You're just deflecting. Come on out and say what you really believe. Let's talk about your basis for that.

You seem then to either misunderstand what these keywords mean or to be in utter denial of the other points being made here that more is being done than Chick-fil-a and it's supporters just giving their opinions.

"Supporting Family Values" is spin for "Supporting Legalized Discrimination." If you are saying that you understand that Supporting Family Values = Pushing Legislation For Unequal Rights, then I completely disagree with your statement that there's nothing wrong with it. How you could think that and say that it's not hate or discrimination would be beyond me if that's the case.

If that's not what you mean, then what did you mean exactly? I also didn't put words in your mouth. I gave a few hypothetical cases that would apply to anyone "If" they fit those profiles respectively. I admit I forgot to use "If" in the sentence that you quoted, but it was implied as in, "do this extreme thing if that's what you like to do."

Also, having friends or claiming that you have friends who are a part of a discriminated minority is not a point. It might help you feel better but to people listening to you try and use it in an argument sounds like you are parroting what bigots would say as their first defense. You might not mean to or you might actually be hateful in your actions but you've convinced yourself that you aren't, using your friends as proof.

It's hard to say for sure either way. But what can be said is that you having gay friends will never allow you to speak for gay people. Being gay doesn't even give you a place to speak for all gay people. The majority of gay people however can offer useful information about gay people, though nothing can be said as universally true about gay people. Personally, I'm not gay and I don't have gay friends. Inequality just happens to infuriate me like that.

That said, I would suggest you politely ask your gay friends what they think about the issue to get a more genuine perspective of why this is a topic for debate. I have yet to see an openly gay person (or other LGBTQI individual) argue for Chick-fil-a, but it's not impossible considering how much spin and misinformation is out there in the media. I'll say that only from what I can tell so far, they would not have the majority of LGBTQI people in agreement with them if they did.

0 points

Go ahead and preach that you don't like homosexuality all you want Yay free speech, yay free country! The reasons for why you would have actually been studied and it turns out that our American culture has a clear fear of being accused of being gay or having any association with homosexuality. That's what can make you homophobic.

If you're not homophobic but you don't think people are naturally gay then you'd have a clear argument for why you think it's wrong. It also wouldn't be because you think an invisible deity says it's wrong, that's just an excuse to hate what you don't understand.

The part where HATE comes in is when you push for legislation that will mistreat others just because you disagree with the existence of people on the other side. There are no laws being pushed to say that equal rights only apply to those who are not Christians. You can disagree without trying to push your beliefs through law.

If someone tries to discriminate against others directly through law it's not because they simply disagree, it's because they HATE others for not being they way that they are. That's hate, that's homophobia and straddling the line is a narrow path if it can be done. If you've got a case for someone who walks that line and is actively being protested against, let's hear it.

Exactly how is labeling someone as "hateful" or "discriminating" damaging or dangerous? Seriously, paint a picture for me of a case where someone is called a "bigot," turns out that they aren't a bigot, and then loads of damage occurs as a result.

Is it any more damage than would be done if let's say someone preached about a religion that told people how to act and that they are evil if they don't follow everything that religion says is true? What about a religion that encourages holy war and actual hate towards people for their sexual orientation or the color of their skin? Or shames, punishes, and kills people for making scientific progress because it's "witchcraft?" And then suddenly, it somehow turns out that, oops, that religion it seems was wrong all along?

Which is more dangerous really? What should be taken with more precaution? Saying that you know the meaning of life and that you're going to force others to live by that same belief even though you can't prove it, or accusing someone of being hateful or discriminating?

If you need me to prove to you that Chick-fil-a money goes directly to organizations which push for anti-gay legislation, then please have the courage to be clear that that is what you are skeptical about and that if you found such a thing that you would switch sides on this issue. You should also do your own due diligence and read up on the matter.

http://religion.blogs.cnn.com/2012/08/03/chick-fil-a-controversy-shines-light-on- companys-charitable-giving/

"The comments sparked a tsunami of criticism from gay rights advocates and their allies, with a same-sex kiss day at Chick-fil-A restaurants nationwide scheduled for Friday. (Supporters rallied around the chain Wednesday, with an event dubbed Chick-fil-A Appreciation Day.)

But gay rights groups appear even more concerned about Chick-fil-A’s charitable giving, most of which is funneled through WinShape. The group received more than $8 million from Chick-fil-A in 2010, the most recent years for which tax records are available.

A fact sheet about Chick-fil-A recently issued by the Human Rights Campaign, the country’s largest gay rights group, aims its ire mostly at WinShape.

The fact sheet, titled “Chick-fil-A anti-gay: Company funnels millions to anti-equality groups,” says that the “popular fast food chain has donated millions to groups that demonize (lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender) people on a daily basis.”

The document enumerates what it calls Chick-fil-A’s “shocking donations” to evangelical groups such as the Fellowship of Christian Athletes and Focus on the Family.

Other gay rights groups have also zeroed in on WinShape’s donations.

A 2011 report from Equality Matters, an arm of the liberal group Media Matters Action Network, said the restaurant’s “charitable division has provided more than $1.1 million to organizations that deliver anti-LGBT messages and promote egregious practices like reparative therapy that seek to ‘free’ people of being gay.""

Not all companies throw vast amounts of money towards inhumane causes like shaming and abusing young teens (minors) for what they naturally feel and calling it "therapy." What they do in those camps is in no way scientifically justified and amounts to psychological torture.

Nor do all companies take a stand against the equal treatment of a minority through legislation. Focus On The Family is a group which has actively fought against the equal treatment of homosexuals through legislation in the name of their idea of God. That's not a free speech issue, that's a Separation of Church and State issue. You can't just throw out people's constitutional rights when it suits your argument and ignore those same rights when the same reasoning backfires.

Do you still think that it's about free speech when abuse of children and legalized discrimination is on the table? If someone held you against your will and mistreated you and shamed you for who and what you are, would you think, "well, that's just their free speech talking?"

Please respond whatever your position is after being informed of this. I'd really like to know if your next step will be finding a new excuse to be bigoted or if it will be to do the right thing and just admit that Chick-fil-a is out of line and deserves to be boycotted to the extreme extent that it's getting, if not worse.

If you just like their food and wish to abstain from the debate, that's cool too. Mine is a civil protest as is the gay community and it's supporters. I'm not going to judge low level employees or regular customers who don't care about the issue. Hell I feel bad for employees who care about the issue. I don't expect them to throw their jobs away.

youngidealis(50) Clarified
1 point

I understand your plight. I am atheist too, but I'm protesting them. I don't expect people to jump when I think they should. If you were going there anyway and you have no stake in the argument, by all means go. I could care less.

That said, I think the reasoning of the other person might have been that as an atheist you should be against the union of Church and State and that you should understand what it's like being a discriminated and ignored minority. We do get far fewer beatings than homosexuals though, so I guess that would make it difficult to completely relate to.

youngidealis(50) Clarified
1 point

I actually went in and asked for water and a whole lot of sauces. I've heard some people will be doing a gay kiss in in protest.

It's not about free speech. I applaud the man for coming out and opening up the conversation again. The pro gay rights movement is pushing for the issue to be talked about and to dispute the claim that any of this hate mongering belongs in legislation.

Therefore, it's not about free speech. No one's telling him to shut up, they are saying that the money should not go towards the promotion of hate and discrimination. It's about discrimination in the law and it's about separation of church and state. You are naive and misinformed to think it's about free speech sir.

Actually, those people can and probably will file lawsuits against the CEO who spoke on the subject directly to make up for their losses. Therefore, only the people who made the stupid decision to push their bigotry publicly will be hurt in the end. Or rewarded if the bigots come out of the wood works and show enough support

2 points

Whatever opinion you have, if you go to Chick-fil-A because you like them and this issue doesn't matter to you enough not to eat there, by all means, go, have a nice day, I have no beef with you.

If however you went there on Aug 1st because you wanted to support "free speech" or because you can admit that you are anti-gay rights, then you ARE in fact a naive and/or horrible person.

I love free speech and I hope that every bigot in the country becomes more outspoken with their desire to make laws that discriminate against people they don't understand because they are different. I want this conversation to continue so that you would stop burying your heads in the sand and letting this hate legislation slip on by without a second thought. I protest Chick-fil-a because I am pro separation of church and state and because they throw money at legislation to push their religious agenda.

I am straight. I didn't choose to be straight, and because I don't have my head up my own ass, I can see clearly that homosexual people have more in common with me than they have that's different. I also understand the logic and scientific data which shows they are better off being recognized and treated as healthy people with safe, natural, mutually consenting sexual practices.

What's more, if the justification of why homosexuality is wrong is because of the old testament, read your bible. In the same passages against gay marriage it says not to eat shellfish. Are you pushing for bans or boycotts on cocktail shrimp? I didn't think so. Quit being such a bunch of hypocrites and stop pushing your religion on people who don't care enough about it to already join your church of their own accord.



Results Per Page: [12] [24] [48] [96]