First  Prev  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  11  12  13  Next  Last
The Old Homosexuality/Bisexuality as Choice debate..
Posted 12/18/11 , edited 12/18/11

Syndicaidramon wrote:


DomFortress wrote:

So don't try to pretend that you're open-minded. When the fact is you're proactively defending and justifying an "unjust, inept, and corrupt system" called the ex-gay movement.

System justification isn't the same as acquiescence, explains Aaron C. Kay, a psychologist at Duke University's Fuqua School of Business and the Department of Psychology & Neuroscience, who co-authored the paper with University of Waterloo graduate student Justin Friesen. "It's pro-active. When someone comes to justify the status quo, they also come to see it as what should be."

Reviewing laboratory and cross-national studies, the paper illuminates four situations that foster system justification: system threat, system dependence, system inescapability, and low personal control.(citation)

So here's how it works; to you, your "homosexuality is a choice, just like how heterosexuality is a choice" circular logic system was under the threat of my argument. Your perception of how human sexuality is a choice is depended on your circular logic to derive itself. You can't escape from this circular logic system, because that would mean you were wrong. And you can't control just how bad you feel about yourself being wrong. Therefore you should just proactively justifying your circular logic system as the status quo.

Funny how your circular logic is preventing yourself from choosing the alternative that sets the homosexuals free from injustice; sexual orientation isn't a choice.

Before I reply on any of the other stuff, I'm going to ask you something.
Since you are obviously more educated than me (at least in psychology and stuff like that), if I do have a circular logic... and that goes for any case of any topic, how do I go about spotting this and how do I break free of it?
I don't want to go into tangent and completely went off topic, so I'll use your own circular logic about homosexuality as the case in point.

In your case, this bad feeling due to how others pointing out that your circular-logic system could be wrong, is the fear of being seen wrong by the rest of the society. Because fear itself as an emotion is closely related to our individual fight or flight respond, and our fear conditioning socialization process, within the context of how we humans are social animals through evolutionary biology. In other words, self-righteousness is a learned cooperative behavior, in a psychosocial environment that's dominated by the culture of god/superiority complex.

So why do we get stuck in this feeling of being right? One reason, actually, has to do with a feeling of being wrong. So let me ask you guys something -- or actually, let me ask you guys something, because you're right here: How does it feel -- emotionally -- how does it feel to be wrong? Dreadful. Thumbs down. Embarrassing. Okay, wonderful, great. Dreadful, thumbs down, embarrassing -- thank you, these are great answers, but they're answers to a different question. You guys are answering the question: How does it feel to realize you're wrong? Realizing you're wrong can feel like all of that and a lot of other things, right? I mean it can be devastating, it can be revelatory, it can actually be quite funny, like my stupid Chinese character mistake. But just being wrong doesn't feel like anything.

I'll give you an analogy. Do you remember that Loony Tunes cartoon where there's this pathetic coyote who's always chasing and never catching a roadrunner? In pretty much every episode of this cartoon, there's a moment where the coyote is chasing the roadrunner and the roadrunner runs off a cliff, which is fine -- he's a bird, he can fly. But the thing is, the coyote runs off the cliff right after him. And what's funny -- at least if you're six years old -- is that the coyote's totally fine too. He just keeps running -- right up until the moment that he looks down and realizes that he's in mid-air. That's when he falls. When we're wrong about something -- not when we realize it, but before that -- we're like that coyote after he's gone off the cliff and before he looks down. You know, we're already wrong, we're already in trouble, but we feel like we're on solid ground. So I should actually correct something I said a moment ago. It does feel like something to be wrong; it feels like being right.

So this is one reason, a structural reason, why we get stuck inside this feeling of rightness. I call this error blindness. Most of the time, we don't have any kind of internal cue to let us know that we're wrong about something, until it's too late. But there's a second reason that we get stuck inside this feeling as well -- and this one is cultural. Think back for a moment to elementary school. You're sitting there in class, and your teacher is handing back quiz papers, and one of them looks like this. This is not mine, by the way. So there you are in grade school, and you know exactly what to think about the kid who got this paper. It's the dumb kid, the troublemaker, the one who never does his homework. So by the time you are nine years old, you've already learned, first of all, that people who get stuff wrong are lazy, irresponsible dimwits -- and second of all, that the way to succeed in life is to never make any mistakes.

We learn these really bad lessons really well. And a lot of us -- and I suspect, especially a lot of us in this room -- deal with them by just becoming perfect little A students, perfectionists, over-achievers. Right, Mr. CFO, astrophysicist, ultra-marathoner? You're all CFO, astrophysicists, ultra-marathoners, it turns out. Okay, so fine. Except that then we freak out at the possibility that we've gotten something wrong. Because according to this, getting something wrong means there's something wrong with us. So we just insist that we're right, because it makes us feel smart and responsible and virtuous and safe.

---- from "Kathryn Schulz: On being wrong"

Archie Cochrane is a dude, although Archie Cochrane is a dude. I'm not even telling you the story because I think we should be running more carefully controlled randomized trials in all aspects of public policy, although I think that would also be completely awesome. I'm telling you this story because Archie Cochrane, all his life, fought against a terrible affliction, and he realized it was debilitating to individuals and it was corrosive to societies. And he had a name for it. He called it the God complex. Now I can describe the symptoms of the God complex very, very easily. So the symptoms of the complex are, no matter how complicated the problem, you have an absolutely overwhelming belief that you are infallibly right in your solution.

Now Archie was a doctor, so he hung around with doctors a lot. And doctors suffer from the God complex a lot. Now I'm an economist, I'm not a doctor, but I see the God complex around me all the time in my fellow economists. I see it in our business leaders. I see it in the politicians we vote for -- people who, in the face of an incredibly complicated world, are nevertheless absolutely convinced that they understand the way that the world works. And you know, with the future billions that we've been hearing about, the world is simply far too complex to understand in that way.

---- from "Tim Harford: Trial, error and the God complex"

This is how the power of human culture itself as a system can have over us as individuals; our mainstream cultural biases about who we are give us a collective identity of what we should be, otherwise it'll make us all fearful of the consequence of an alternative. In other words, the cultural practice of rampant fear-mongering without moral oversight, is the sign of an oppressive thus evil system that demands compliance and obedience from its subjects, by the system designers manipulating their subjects through preexisting human social process and precognition priming of new and unfamiliar social situations.

So the Lucifer effect, although it focuses on the negatives -- the negatives that people can become, not the negatives that people are -- leads me to a psychological definition. Evil is the exercise of power. And that's the key: it's about power. To intentionally harm people psychologically, to hurt people physically, to destroy people mortally, or ideas, and to commit crimes against humanity. If you Google "evil," a word that should surely have withered by now, you come up with 136 million hits in a third of a second.

.... This is the foundation of all of social science, the foundation of religion, the foundation of war. Social psychologists like me come along and say, "Yeah, people are the actors on the stage, but you'll have to be aware of what that situation is. Who are the cast of characters? What's the costume? Is there a stage director?" And so we're interested in, what are the external factors around the individual -- the bad barrel? And social scientists stop there, and they miss the big point that I discovered when I became an expert witness for Abu Ghraib. The power is in the system. The system creates the situation that corrupts the individuals, and the system is the legal, political, economic, cultural background. And this is where the power is of the bad-barrel makers.

.... So what are the seven social processes that grease the slippery slope of evil?
1)Mindlessly taking the first small step.
2)Dehumanization of others.
3)De-individuation of Self.
4)Diffusion of personal responsibility.
5)Blind obedience to authority.
6)Uncritical conformity to group norms.
7)Passive tolerance to evil through inaction or indifference.


And it happens when you're in a new or unfamiliar situation. Your habitual response patterns don't work. Your personality and morality are disengaged. "Nothing is easier than to denounce the evildoer; nothing more difficult than understanding him," Dostoyevksy tells us. Understanding is not excusing. Psychology is not excuse-iology.
---- from "Philip Zimbardo shows how people become monsters ... or heroes"

And right there is the key, as in you need to learn a different precognition process whenever you're introduced to a new and unfamiliar social situation; critical thinking skill. In other words, you have to master both skepticism and observation. Your mind is a terrible thing to waste, especially when your society seems like a prison.

So when we meet in my philosophy class in his prison and I say, "In this class, we will discuss the foundations of ethics," Tony interrupts me. "What are you going to teach me about right and wrong? I know what is wrong. I have done wrong. I am told every day, by every face I see, every wall I face, that I am wrong. If I ever get out of here, there will always be a mark by my name. I'm a convict; I am branded 'wrong.' What are you going to tell me about right and wrong?"

So I say to Tony, "Sorry, but it's worse than you think. You think you know right and wrong? Then can you tell me what wrong is? No, don't just give me an example. I want to know about wrongness itself, the idea of wrong. What is that idea? What makes something wrong? How do we know that it's wrong? Maybe you and I disagree. Maybe one of us is wrong about the wrong. Maybe it's you, maybe it's me -- but we're not here to trade opinions; everyone's got an opinion. We are here for knowledge. Our enemy is thoughtlessness. This is philosophy."

And something changes for Tony. "Could be I'm wrong. I'm tired of being wrong. I want to know what is wrong. I want to know what I know." What Tony sees in that moment is the project of philosophy, the project that begins in wonder -- what Kant called "admiration and awe at the starry sky above and the moral law within." What can creatures like us know of such things? It is the project that always takes us back to the condition of existence -- what Heidegger called "the always already there." It is the project of questioning what we believe and why we believe it -- what Socrates called "the examined life." Socrates, a man wise enough to know that he knows nothing. Socrates died in prison, his philosophy intact.

So Tony starts doing his homework. He learns his whys and wherefores, his causes and correlations, his logic, his fallacies. Turns out, Tony's got the philosophy muscle. His body is in prison, but his mind is free. Tony learns about the ontologically promiscuous, the epistemologically anxious, the ethically dubious, the metaphysically ridiculous. That's Plato, Descartes, Nietzsche and Bill Clinton.

So when he gives me his final paper, in which he argues that the categorical imperative is perhaps too uncompromising to deal with the conflict that affects our everyday and challenges me to tell him whether therefore we are condemned to moral failure, I say, "I don't know. Let us think about that." Because in that moment, there's no mark by Tony's name; it's just the two of us standing there. It is not professor and convict, it is just two minds ready to do philosophy. And I say to Tony, "Let's do this."
---- from "Damon Horowitz: Philosophy in prison"

Your circular logic system is the prison that your society has intentionally built for all of us by the affluent power elites. Because the societal status quo is working towards their favor, and they'll defend it by making us to resist any real social change on whatever system that's keeping themselves in power.

When we're threatened we defend ourselves—and our systems. Before 9/11, for instance, President George W. Bush was sinking in the polls. But as soon as the planes hit the World Trade Center, the president's approval ratings soared. So did support for Congress and the police. During Hurricane Katrina, America witnessed FEMA's spectacular failure to rescue the hurricane's victims. Yet many people blamed those victims for their fate rather than admitting the agency flunked and supporting ideas for fixing it. In times of crisis, say the authors, we want to believe the system works.

We also defend systems we rely on. In one experiment, students made to feel dependent on their university defended a school funding policy—but disapproved of the same policy if it came from the government, which they didn't perceive as affecting them closely. However, if they felt dependent on the government, they liked the policy originating from it, but not from the school.

When we feel we can't escape a system, we adapt. That includes feeling okay about things we might otherwise consider undesirable. The authors note one study in which participants were told that men's salaries in their country are 20% higher than women's. Rather than implicate an unfair system, those who felt they couldn't emigrate chalked up the wage gap to innate differences between the sexes. "You'd think that when people are stuck with a system, they'd want to change it more," says Kay. But in fact, the more stuck they are, the more likely are they to explain away its shortcomings. Finally, a related phenomenon: The less control people feel over their own lives, the more they endorse systems and leaders that offer a sense of order.

The research on system justification can enlighten those who are frustrated when people don't rise up in what would seem their own best interests. Says Kay: "If you want to understand how to get social change to happen, you need to understand the conditions that make people resist change and what makes them open to acknowledging that change might be a necessity."
---- from"Why do people defend unjust, inept, and corrupt systems?"
7140 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
23 / NORTH VA
Offline
Posted 12/18/11 , edited 12/18/11
i believe that u have the RIGHT as human beings to pick what ever gender u like. I believe ( but could be wrong) most gay guys were born that way. either way if its a choice or not, i think u should have the right to make ur own decision on who u love.
21034 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
21 / M / Indiana
Offline
Posted 12/18/11 , edited 12/18/11
As, a Psychology major i honestly its a mix of Nature and Nurture. There is undeniable evidence that its more Biological than it is choice.

One such theory is that during pregnancy, some women produce to much estrogen in the womb resulting in an homosexual baby.

Another is that during the development of a males brain, homosexual males develop more of a female oriented brain than a males.

However, there are those homosexuals that choose to be one because it draws attention to themselves.

Also, if you have homosexual in your family, you have a greater chance of being one since homosexuality is now considered genetic.
27 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
23 / M / Silent Hill
Offline
Posted 12/24/11
Debate? It's not a debate, it's been proven pretty clearly that it's not a choice. Hell, you don't even need psychology to prove it, just pose the logical question "Why would you choose to be part of a sexuality you know morally retarded right wingers will harass you about?" The only people who still claim a "Debate" are stuck so far up their own ass they're in danger of choking on their own head, and there's not much you can do about them as lobotomizing them won't work. There wouldn't be a difference in behavior, they already don't think for themselves.
3371 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
23 / M / Pandemonium
Offline
Posted 12/31/11

DomFortress wrote:


Syndicaidramon wrote:


DomFortress wrote:

So don't try to pretend that you're open-minded. When the fact is you're proactively defending and justifying an "unjust, inept, and corrupt system" called the ex-gay movement.

System justification isn't the same as acquiescence, explains Aaron C. Kay, a psychologist at Duke University's Fuqua School of Business and the Department of Psychology & Neuroscience, who co-authored the paper with University of Waterloo graduate student Justin Friesen. "It's pro-active. When someone comes to justify the status quo, they also come to see it as what should be."

Reviewing laboratory and cross-national studies, the paper illuminates four situations that foster system justification: system threat, system dependence, system inescapability, and low personal control.(citation)

So here's how it works; to you, your "homosexuality is a choice, just like how heterosexuality is a choice" circular logic system was under the threat of my argument. Your perception of how human sexuality is a choice is depended on your circular logic to derive itself. You can't escape from this circular logic system, because that would mean you were wrong. And you can't control just how bad you feel about yourself being wrong. Therefore you should just proactively justifying your circular logic system as the status quo.

Funny how your circular logic is preventing yourself from choosing the alternative that sets the homosexuals free from injustice; sexual orientation isn't a choice.

Before I reply on any of the other stuff, I'm going to ask you something.
Since you are obviously more educated than me (at least in psychology and stuff like that), if I do have a circular logic... and that goes for any case of any topic, how do I go about spotting this and how do I break free of it?
I don't want to go into tangent and completely went off topic, so I'll use your own circular logic about homosexuality as the case in point.

In your case, this bad feeling due to how others pointing out that your circular-logic system could be wrong, is the fear of being seen wrong by the rest of the society. Because fear itself as an emotion is closely related to our individual fight or flight respond, and our fear conditioning socialization process, within the context of how we humans are social animals through evolutionary biology. In other words, self-righteousness is a learned cooperative behavior, in a psychosocial environment that's dominated by the culture of god/superiority complex.


Doesn't really answer my question, but okay...

As for the Christian family-scenario, it is indeed a plausible scenario.
According the the info I have, about 80 percent of the citizens in the US are christian. There is no doubt that there are families with parents who hate homosexuality that have a gay son or daughter.
There are plenty of stories about kids who have been kicked out of their homes and into the street because they were gay.

I know an individual personally who had to take a stand when it came to her sexual orientation and wheather or not she would keep it a secret or tell her deeply religious family.

Besides that, I never said sexual orientation was a choice.
However, choosing wheather or not to follow and live a homosexual life is a choice.
If you have a family that will disown you if you choose to live as a homosexual, you can choose to not live that life. In the same way as you can choose to live it.
Posted 12/31/11 , edited 12/31/11

Syndicaidramon wrote:


DomFortress wrote:

I don't want to go into tangent and completely went off topic, so I'll use your own circular logic about homosexuality as the case in point.

In your case, this bad feeling due to how others pointing out that your circular-logic system could be wrong, is the fear of being seen wrong by the rest of the society. Because fear itself as an emotion is closely related to our individual fight or flight respond, and our fear conditioning socialization process, within the context of how we humans are social animals through evolutionary biology. In other words, self-righteousness is a learned cooperative behavior, in a psychosocial environment that's dominated by the culture of god/superiority complex.


Doesn't really answer my question, but okay...

As for the Christian family-scenario, it is indeed a plausible scenario.
According the the info I have, about 80 percent of the citizens in the US are christian. There is no doubt that there are families with parents who hate homosexuality that have a gay son or daughter.
There are plenty of stories about kids who have been kicked out of their homes and into the street because they were gay.

I know an individual personally who had to take a stand when it came to her sexual orientation and wheather or not she would keep it a secret or tell her deeply religious family.

Besides that, I never said sexual orientation was a choice.
However, choosing wheather or not to follow and live a homosexual life is a choice.
If you have a family that will disown you if you choose to live as a homosexual, you can choose to not live that life. In the same way as you can choose to live it.
That's not respecting individual dignity by honoring informed choice. It's child abuse in the form of negligence, caused by the parents' own irrational and yet religiously indoctrinated homophobia. There's nothing to fear about homosexuality when it's a part of the human specie's natural sexual orientation.
3371 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
23 / M / Pandemonium
Offline
Posted 1/1/12 , edited 1/1/12

DomFortress wrote:


Syndicaidramon wrote:


DomFortress wrote:

I don't want to go into tangent and completely went off topic, so I'll use your own circular logic about homosexuality as the case in point.

In your case, this bad feeling due to how others pointing out that your circular-logic system could be wrong, is the fear of being seen wrong by the rest of the society. Because fear itself as an emotion is closely related to our individual fight or flight respond, and our fear conditioning socialization process, within the context of how we humans are social animals through evolutionary biology. In other words, self-righteousness is a learned cooperative behavior, in a psychosocial environment that's dominated by the culture of god/superiority complex.


Doesn't really answer my question, but okay...

As for the Christian family-scenario, it is indeed a plausible scenario.
According the the info I have, about 80 percent of the citizens in the US are christian. There is no doubt that there are families with parents who hate homosexuality that have a gay son or daughter.
There are plenty of stories about kids who have been kicked out of their homes and into the street because they were gay.

I know an individual personally who had to take a stand when it came to her sexual orientation and wheather or not she would keep it a secret or tell her deeply religious family.

Besides that, I never said sexual orientation was a choice.
However, choosing wheather or not to follow and live a homosexual life is a choice.
If you have a family that will disown you if you choose to live as a homosexual, you can choose to not live that life. In the same way as you can choose to live it.
That's not respecting individual dignity by honoring informed choice. It's child abuse in the form of negligence, caused by the parents' own irrational and yet religiously indoctrinated homophobia. There's nothing to fear about homosexuality when it's a part of the human specie's natural sexual orientation.


I completely agree. But that doesn't change anything about the fact that these things do happen.

Posted 1/1/12 , edited 1/1/12

Syndicaidramon wrote:


DomFortress wrote:



I completely agree. But that doesn't change anything about the fact that these things do happen.

It changes everything, because now we've got secular laws and social safety institutions to prevent domestic child abuse. And they don't follow religious dogmas, and the freedom of religious faith isn't sufficient justification for sexual discrimination. Thus the states can force religious organizations to change their dogmatic superstition for the reason of public health and safety.
3371 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
23 / M / Pandemonium
Offline
Posted 1/1/12

DomFortress wrote:


Syndicaidramon wrote:


DomFortress wrote:


Syndicaidramon wrote:


DomFortress wrote:

I don't want to go into tangent and completely went off topic, so I'll use your own circular logic about homosexuality as the case in point.

In your case, this bad feeling due to how others pointing out that your circular-logic system could be wrong, is the fear of being seen wrong by the rest of the society. Because fear itself as an emotion is closely related to our individual fight or flight respond, and our fear conditioning socialization process, within the context of how we humans are social animals through evolutionary biology. In other words, self-righteousness is a learned cooperative behavior, in a psychosocial environment that's dominated by the culture of god/superiority complex.


Doesn't really answer my question, but okay...

As for the Christian family-scenario, it is indeed a plausible scenario.
According the the info I have, about 80 percent of the citizens in the US are christian. There is no doubt that there are families with parents who hate homosexuality that have a gay son or daughter.
There are plenty of stories about kids who have been kicked out of their homes and into the street because they were gay.

I know an individual personally who had to take a stand when it came to her sexual orientation and wheather or not she would keep it a secret or tell her deeply religious family.

Besides that, I never said sexual orientation was a choice.
However, choosing wheather or not to follow and live a homosexual life is a choice.
If you have a family that will disown you if you choose to live as a homosexual, you can choose to not live that life. In the same way as you can choose to live it.
That's not respecting individual dignity by honoring informed choice. It's child abuse in the form of negligence, caused by the parents' own irrational and yet religiously indoctrinated homophobia. There's nothing to fear about homosexuality when it's a part of the human specie's natural sexual orientation.


I completely agree. But that doesn't change anything about the fact that these things do happen.

It changes everything, because now we've got secular laws and social safety institutions to prevent domestic child abuse. And they don't follow religious dogmas, and the freedom of religious faith isn't sufficient justification for sexual discrimination. Thus the states can force religious organizations to change their dogmatic superstition for the reason of public health and safety.


Yeah, but until then, these things will keep happening. And they will probably keep happening to some degree after that as well..
And let's not forget the non-secular countries in the world...
Posted 1/1/12

Syndicaidramon wrote:


DomFortress wrote:

It changes everything, because now we've got secular laws and social safety institutions to prevent domestic child abuse. And they don't follow religious dogmas, and the freedom of religious faith isn't sufficient justification for sexual discrimination. Thus the states can force religious organizations to change their dogmatic superstition for the reason of public health and safety.


Yeah, but until then, these things will keep happening. And they will probably keep happening to some degree after that as well..
And let's not forget the non-secular countries in the world
...
That's no sufficient justification not to pursuit, honor, and defend human dignity and humanity. It's just a fact that we've got our work ahead of us.

So situations have the power to do, through -- but the point is, this is the same situation that can inflame the hostile imagination in some of us, that makes us perpetrators of evil, can inspire the heroic imagination in others. It's the same situation. And you're on one side or the other. Most people are guilty of the evil of inaction, because your mother said, "Don't get involved. Mind your own business." And you have to say, "Mama, humanity is my business."

So the psychology of heroism is -- we're going to end in a moment -- how do we encourage children in new hero courses, that I'm working with Matt Langdon -- he has a hero workshop -- to develop this heroic imagination, this self-labeling, "I am a hero in waiting," and teach them skills. To be a hero, you have to learn to be a deviant, because you're always going against the conformity of the group. Heroes are ordinary people whose social actions are extraordinary. Who act.

The key to heroism is two things. A: you've got to act when other people are passive. B: you have to act socio-centrically, not egocentrically.
---- from "Philip Zimbardo shows how people become monsters ... or heroes"

And the good news about all of this is that the scientists who've been studying motivation have given us this new approach. It's an approach built much more around intrinsic motivation. Around the desire to do things because they matter, because we like it, because they're interesting, because they are part of something important. And to my mind, that new operating system for our businesses revolves around three elements: autonomy, mastery and purpose. Autonomy: the urge to direct our own lives. Mastery: the desire to get better and better at something that matters. Purpose: the yearning to do what we do in the service of something larger than ourselves. These are the building blocks of an entirely new operating system for our businesses.
---- from "Dan Pink on the surprising science of motivation"

So unless your friendship and bond between your homosexual friend doesn't matter to you, you have every reasons you need within yourself to be active. And you are(not) alone in this.
3371 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
23 / M / Pandemonium
Offline
Posted 1/2/12

DomFortress wrote:


Syndicaidramon wrote:


DomFortress wrote:

It changes everything, because now we've got secular laws and social safety institutions to prevent domestic child abuse. And they don't follow religious dogmas, and the freedom of religious faith isn't sufficient justification for sexual discrimination. Thus the states can force religious organizations to change their dogmatic superstition for the reason of public health and safety.


Yeah, but until then, these things will keep happening. And they will probably keep happening to some degree after that as well..
And let's not forget the non-secular countries in the world
...
That's no sufficient justification not to pursuit, honor, and defend human dignity and humanity. It's just a fact that we've got our work ahead of us .

Dude, what the hell? I never said that we shouldn't defend human dignity and humanity. I just said that these things happening is the ugly reality. That doesn't mean I like it or think it shouldn't be changed. You're seeing ignorance where there is none.
Posted 1/2/12 , edited 1/2/12

Syndicaidramon wrote:


DomFortress wrote:


Dude, what the hell? I never said that we shouldn't defend human dignity and humanity. I just said that these things happening is the ugly reality. That doesn't mean I like it or think it shouldn't be changed. You're seeing ignorance where there is none.
"Ugly reality"? Now who was it here that claimed "I like to think that the human race as a whole is getting progressively less ignorant"? 'Less you forget, an idealistic optimist like how yourself claimed to be should ignored the "ugly reality".

I'm a realist, and I'm simply saying reality is subject to change. Therefore ugliness isn't helping you seeing reality for what it is, but rather it's a reflection of how your own subjective inner self perceives reality.

To a worm in horseradish, the world is horseradish -Malcolm Gladwell
3371 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
23 / M / Pandemonium
Offline
Posted 1/2/12 , edited 1/2/12

DomFortress wrote:


Syndicaidramon wrote:


DomFortress wrote:


Dude, what the hell? I never said that we shouldn't defend human dignity and humanity. I just said that these things happening is the ugly reality. That doesn't mean I like it or think it shouldn't be changed. You're seeing ignorance where there is none.
"Ugly reality"? Now who was it here that claimed "I like to think that the human race as a whole is getting progressively less ignorant"? 'Less you forget, an idealistic optimist like yourself claimed to be should ignored the "ugly reality".

I'm a realist, and I'm simply saying reality is subject to change. Therefore ugliness isn't helping you seeing reality for what it is, but rather it's a reflection of how your own subjective inner self perceives reality.

Well I don't ignore it. I've been saying it ever since the beginning. It's something that Does happen in our society, and it's a problem that needs to be fought against.
Just because I like to belive that humanity is getting less ignorant and more secular, doesn't mean I'm blind to the issues of the world.

As for percieving reality, it is something that is subjective for everyone. I hope you don't think you're an exception to that.
And I never said I don't try and see things realisticly, I just said that it's a reality and that it's something most enlightened people find deplorable. Please stop twisting the things I say.

Posted 1/2/12 , edited 1/2/12

Syndicaidramon wrote:


DomFortress wrote:


Well I don't ignore it. I've been saying it ever since the beginning. It's something that Does happen in our society, and it's a problem that needs to be fought against.
Just because I like to belive that humanity is getting less ignorant and more secular, doesn't mean I'm blind to the issues of the world.

As for percieving reality, it is something that is subjective for everyone. I hope you don't think you're an exception to that.
And I never said I don't try and see things realisticly, I just said that it's a reality and that it's something most enlightened people find deplorable. Please stop twisting the things I say.
You first, by yourself not edit out a portion of my reply just to suit your own narrative.

You do try and see things realistically? Ever since the beginning? As in here where you claimed that "Homesxuality is a choice. In the same way that heterosexuality is a choice"? Whereas afterward you went on the defensive, until you stopped fighting with the fact of how human sexual orientation isn't a choice, but yourself lied here about how you "never said sexual orientation was a choice". So am I not an exception to perceive reality subjectively? And what's that got to do with your claim of myself "twisting the things" you said? Or are you "blind to the issues of the world", which is how you're subjecting your own perception with your own lies. Just like how you weren't suggesting to fight against the religious dogma of homosexual discrimination "since the beginning", when you were actually suggesting that for homosexuals who choose to be subjected under the said discrimination, is a responsible result of having "free will" for themselves.

So are you a "hero in waiting" for your homosexual friend and the rest of humanity, or what? It's time for you to learn what it takes to have self-respect, by yourself admitting to your own fault. Due to your own poor choice of making up excuses for yourself.
3371 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
23 / M / Pandemonium
Offline
Posted 1/2/12 , edited 1/2/12

DomFortress wrote:


Syndicaidramon wrote:


DomFortress wrote:


Well I don't ignore it. I've been saying it ever since the beginning. It's something that Does happen in our society, and it's a problem that needs to be fought against.
Just because I like to belive that humanity is getting less ignorant and more secular, doesn't mean I'm blind to the issues of the world.

As for percieving reality, it is something that is subjective for everyone. I hope you don't think you're an exception to that.
And I never said I don't try and see things realisticly, I just said that it's a reality and that it's something most enlightened people find deplorable. Please stop twisting the things I say.
You first, by yourself not edit out a portion of my reply just to suit your own narrative.

You do try and see things realistically? Ever since the beginning? As in here where you claimed that "Homesxuality is a choice. In the same way that heterosexuality is a choice"? Whereas afterward you went on the defensive, until you stopped fighting with the fact of how human sexual orientation isn't a choice, but yourself lied here about how you "never said sexual orientation was a choice". So am I not an exception to perceive reality subjectively? And what's that got to do with your claim of myself "twisting the things" you said? Or are you "blind to the issues of the world", which is how you're subjecting your own perception with your own lies. Just like how you weren't suggesting to fight against the religious dogma of homosexual discrimination "since the beginning", when you were actually suggesting that for homosexuals who choose to be subjected under the said discrimination, is a responsible result of having "free will" for themselves.

So are you a "hero in waiting" for your homosexual friend and the rest of humanity, or what? It's time for you to learn what it takes to have self-respect, by yourself admitting to your own fault. Due to your own poor choice of making up excuses for yourself.

I have never ever claimed that homosexual orientation is a choice. If you think I have, then you have grossly misinterpreted the things I've said.
The only thing I ever said was that choosing to live a homosexual lifestyle is a choice. For many, it's a given, but for many people, as we know, it's not that simple. And in those cases, it becomes a choice one has to make. Like in the scenario of having a family that will disown you if you choose to live that life.

I never said orientation was a choice. Ever.

And yes, I didn't suggest fighting religious dogma of homosexual discrimination, because I thought it was pretty obvious that that's what we should do. I said I agreed with you, didn't I? Do I really have to spell out every single detail for you to understand?
First  Prev  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  11  12  13  Next  Last
You must be logged in to post.