Homophobia by any other name

[Black Dog]

I actually cringe every time some one uses the term. I don't call BD a homophobe because I cannot see into his brain and know if he is. People do overuse the term, and I would be the last person to argue otherwise.

I hope DB knows that, despite his attitudes about gays and GM, I do have a ton of respect for him. I do understand his frustration with the usage of the word. I am frustrated at times with the usage of the word. I see it in it's current form as being similar to the word "racist", which is another word I cringe at every time it is thrown out.

Now Red, you know darn well I consider you one of the better posters here and a friend. I would hope I would never take a discussion with you as something derogatory to myself and visa versa to you.

 

[Black Dog]

I just think we're both going to have to accept not understanding each other because the above bolded statement makes zero sense with me combined with the notion of supporting Civil Unions between gay people as supporting civil unions between gay people is condoning the coupling of homosexuals and thus stating homosexuality is "acceptable", something you've specifically said is a reason why you don't want the government to allow gay marriage.

Zyph, it is easier and yet more complex than I can even explain, let alone expect you or anyone really to understand it as well as I, because it is me, lol.

 

[Tucker Case]

I did not say anything like that. I said "Because this country is made up of people who's morals come from religion." and I qualified it with "We are country with the vast majority of the population religious and a secular government."

76.5% of American adults are Christian (52% Protestant; 24.5% Catholic).

The numbers of people who are religious are irrelevent when it is unknown if a person's morality actually stems from their religion or not.

I can prove that a significant portion of those 76.5% Christians do not adhere to a Christian morality as described by the bible. All one has to do is talk about the percent of Americans who favor Abortion or SSM.

If all 76.5% had their moral beliefs dictated by tehir religion, the maximum support that these issues could achieve is 23.5% (actually, it'd be lower because I'm not counting other religious people into the morality debate)

Just because people belong to a Christian religion doesn't mean that thier morality comes from Christianity.

Thus, you haven't actually proven that "this country is made up of people who's morals come from religion".

 

[Your Star]

That's the thing though.

You CAN use your religious beliefs to base laws on. What you can't do though is make a law enforce a religious belief.

I don't see how basing laws on religious belief isn't making a law to enforce a religious belief.

You can say "Due to my religious beliefs I think Murder is immoral so I will vote in favor of this measure that will cause the law to act harsher towards murder in hopes of detering it"

What you can't say is "Due to my religious beliefs I think murder is immoral so I will create a law stating 'An individual shall be sentenced in x ways if they commit murder due to it being a sin in the eyes of jesus christ, our lord'".



In one case you are passing a secular law based on your personal morals that are built upon religious beliefs. The law forces in no way any endorsement of any specific or even broadly defined religion.

In the second case you're passing a religious law based on your personal morals that are built upon religious beliefs. This law forces an endorsement of a specific or broadly defined religion by acknowledging in the law that its bad due to it offending "The lord jesus christ".

I can sort of understand this, but there is a secular reason to not allow murder, that is in the state's interest, in regards to SSM, there is none. Atleast that I can see.

There is NOTHING in the constitution that suggests an individual can not vote or advocate for things based on their religion. Doing so is absolutely no different than advocating for it due to your belief in Platonic or Hobbesian philosophy. One can easily vote for things regarding murder, censorship, welfare, health care, immigration, abortion, gay marriage, drunk driving, and school education all based off of morals that are created in them due to their religion....yet you can't pick and choose and say "When they do that for abortion and gay marriage its unconstitutional but if they do it for health care and welfare its okay".



Not all arguments against gay marriage are based on religious beliefs. You may THINK or FEEL that they're rooted in that, but that doesn't change the fact that an argument can be made against it without even touching religion. You may think its a POOR argument, but that doesn't change that argument from existing.

Simply because some people may argue for Welfare based on secular reasonings doesn't make it any different than the gay marriage debate. It, just like gay marriage, can be argued for and agaisnt based on secular and non-secular reasons. We are entitled, by the constitution, to practice our religion (or lack of religion) and that's a wonderous thing...and one such practice is allowing it to guide our morals and thus our choices for the country. What it doesn't allow is passing of laws that specifically enact or establish a religion under the government.



But people don't have ONLy a religious argument against gay marriage, not as an overrall thing. And if you are not talking overral, but specific to individuals, are you seriously suggesting someone stating that "My morals, taught by the book of our Lord the Bible, state that we should help our fellow man. I believe that many people are unlucky and downtrodden and my morals say we should help them. As such, I am in support of Welfare because it helps those that are less fortunante" that such a stance is "unconstitutional" because they are basing it off their morals which are based off religion?

Our constitution in and of itself was voted for by some of the founders of our country specifically due to their morals that were shaped by their religious beliefs. Some of our earliest laws that are still on the books were shaped by religious beliefs. There is nothing in the constitution that limits an individual on HOW they are allowed to come to a conclussion about an issue they wish to support, there are only limitations on what the GOVERNMENT may actually do.

Not allowing gay marriage establishes a religion no more than not allowing murder does.

I just don't get this at all. I just can't see how being anti-SSM because your religion says so, isn't trying to force, and impose other people to follow their religion through law.

 

[Your Star]

The numbers of people who are religious are irrelevent when it is unknown if a person's morality actually stems from their religion or not.

I can prove that a significant portion of those 76.5% Christians do not adhere to a Christian morality as described by the bible. All one has to do is talk about the percent of Americans who favor Abortion or SSM.

If all 76.5% had their moral beliefs dictated by tehir religion, the maximum support that these issues could achieve is 23.5% (actually, it'd be lower because I'm not counting other religious people into the morality debate)

Just because people belong to a Christian religion doesn't mean that thier morality comes from Christianity.

Thus, you haven't actually proven that "this country is made up of people who's morals come from religion".

Well, it is also irrelevant, because not all of those Christians even believe in the same thing. IE, not all Christians believe homosexuality is wrong, not all Christians believe abortion is wrong.

 

[Black Dog]

The numbers of people who are religious are irrelevent when it is unknown if a person's morality actually stems from their religion or not.

I can prove that a significant portion of those 76.5% Christians do not adhere to a Christian morality as described by the bible. All one has to do is talk about the percent of Americans who favor Abortion or SSM.

You are trying to deal in moral absolutes. Even I admit that is not viable nor can it really be applied to anyone who reads the same text. So no that argument does not work.

If all 76.5% had their moral beliefs dictated by tehir religion, the maximum support that these issues could achieve is 23.5% (actually, it'd be lower because I'm not counting other religious people into the morality debate)

Just because people belong to a Christian religion doesn't mean that thier morality comes from Christianity.

Thus, you haven't actually proven that "this country is made up of people who's morals come from religion".

I have, you are trying to again use moral absolutes which do not apply to anyone, or anything because we are all different and read things differently.

Religious people tend to get their moral principals from their religion in all or part or even none. That is logical to assume. Your position is not.

PS I never said anything about the majority of people getting anything from the Bible. You need to read my original post and not the condensed one.

 

[Black Dog]

Well, it is also irrelevant, because not all of those Christians even believe in the same thing. IE, not all Christians believe homosexuality is wrong, not all Christians believe abortion is wrong.

This is true, it does not however make my statement any less true or accurate.

 

[Tucker Case]

Religious people tend to get their moral principals from their religion in all or part. That is logical to assume. Your position is not.

First, you stated "his country is made up of people who's morals come from religion."

You have not proven that. My position is that this is unproven. Not only is my position logical, it is also undeniably factual. You are basing your argument on an unproven assumption.

Your assumption is also illogical.

It relies on the "appeal to probability" fallacy.

 

[Zyphlin]

I don't see how basing laws on religious belief isn't making a law to enforce a religious belief.

Enforcing a law because you feel its moral due to your religion is not the establishment of a religion. It is not unconstitutional for someone to vote to keep murder legal simply because they do so because they view it as a sin.

I can sort of understand this, but there is a secular reason to not allow murder, that is in the state's interest, in regards to SSM, there is none. Atleast that I can see.

Its not "that you can see", its "That you accept". However you, or me, or any singular person is no the arbiter of what is or isn't a legitimate point. There have been PLENTY of reasons put forward for SSM other than simply "Its a sin". I know because even on this board I've specifically put forward some. You may think they're "weak", you may think they're "not good enough", you may think "They're not reasonable", you may think "they're not important". None of that magically makes them go away though. You disagreeing or feeling a point isn't worthy is not the same as those points not being made.

Maintaining tradition IS a point that in and of itself does not have to do with religion. Not taking the time, effort, and monetary means to redo the law and the potential pitfalls of such a change is a non-religious reason. Stating a state interest in promoting the best potential home for families to spur such thing is a reason without religion. And indeed, even MORALLY feeling that way CAN be a reason absent of religion. Now are there definite flaws with every one of those reasons? Absolutely! Are there ways to argue the exact opposite of all those reasons? Absolutely.

The same could be said for providing welfare.

I just don't get this at all. I just can't see how being anti-SSM because your religion says so, isn't trying to force, and impose other people to follow their religion through law.

If you don't allow gays to marry...are you being christian? Does two gay people not becoming married mean they worship jesus christ? Does someone not marrying two women mean that they believe in the words of the bible?

The bible says to not kill. By not killing because its against the law is the government making us follow religion?

No.

If I say (hypothetical here) "Due to the teachings of Plato I believe it is immoral for a man and a man to become united as it is against the very nature of man kind and thus wholey unnatural and wrong" is that somehow okay because its to do with philosophy not religion but if I say "Due to the teachings of Jesus I believe it is immoral for a man and a woman to become united as its against the very nature of man kind and thus wholely unnatural and wrong."? Is one okay because its based in philosophy and one because its based in religion?

The constitution does not dictate how one forms their moral code. No where in the constitution does it deny people the ability to vote based on their morals. And in no way does it insinuate that a law that falls in line with a religious belief is the same as endorsing said religion.

I think in this we simply have a deep and fundamental different understanding of what the constitution says, means, or should say where in one case I believe the constitution forbids the state from establishing a religion and in your case it appears you believe it forbids people from allowing their religion to guide or influence them in any way when it comes to anything regarding government. I don't think there's going to be a rectification of views nor do I think either of us is going to come to understand the others better through conversation so perhaps anything further would be better reserved for debate than convo.

 

[Zyphlin]

First, you stated "his country is made up of people who's morals come from religion."

Tucker, in the same paragraph Blackdog goes on to state that it is not made up of ONLY religious people. Additionally, Blackdog doses not state their morals ONLY come from religion. For example, I'm not highly religious, but my moral code as a youth was greatly came from religion and that has a subsequent impact on my current moral code. While it'd be incorrect to suggest that my morals come ONLY from religion, it would be equally incorrect to suggest my morals don't come from religion in general simply because I'm not 100% against abortion and in favor of gay marriage.

I do not think its a stretch to suggest that people who identify themselves as religious have their morals, at least to an extent, influenced by their religion be it as a youth or actively participation in it. Perhaps its to varying degrees for different people, but i'd dare say you would find less than a 10% of those 80% or so religious people stating that their morals came from ZERO percent of their religion. Indeed, your suggestion that somehow they DON'T get their morals from their religion simply because some don't encompass all the morals of said religion seems to be a more difficult to believe point.

While stating that it is an absolute fact may seem illogical, I think its FAR more logical to suggest that its of high probability than it is of low probability that the morals of most of the people in this country who identify themselves as religious come, at least in some part, from religion.

 

[Black Dog]

First, you stated "his country is made up of people who's morals come from religion."

It is true in relation to the question I was responding to...

http://www.debatepolitics.com/loft/85981-homophobia-any-other-name-7.html#post1059109128

You have not proven that. My position is that this is unproven. Not only is my position logical, it is also undeniably factual. You are basing your argument on an unproven assumption.

No it's not.

Your assumption is also illogical.

It relies on the "appeal to probability" fallacy.

I am not saying that. Look at my edit.

 

[Goshin]

So the fundamental problem with this term "homophobia" is that we aren't using the same dictionary? :doh



Well, that's disheartening.

 

[Tucker Case]

Tucker, in the same paragraph Blackdog goes on to state that it is not made up of ONLY religious people. Additionally, Blackdog doses not state their morals ONLY come from religion. For example, I'm not highly religious, but my moral code as a youth was greatly came from religion and that has a subsequent impact on my current moral code. While it'd be incorrect to suggest that my morals come ONLY from religion, it would be equally incorrect to suggest my morals don't come from religion in general simply because I'm not 100% against abortion and in favor of gay marriage.

It wouldn't be incorrect to say your morals do not come from religion. It would actually be 100% correct to say that.

What would be incorrect is to say that your morals are not influenced by religion.

It may seem like a superficial difference in terminology, but it has a significant difference in meaning.

A personal moral code is a complete thing in and of it's self, it isn't just a bunch of singular beliefs.

To claim that a persons moral code comes from religion means that the total code is not just influenced by religion, but instead stems from religion.

Such a claim requires true evidence, not just correlative assumptions based on an appeal to probability.

In order to make such a claim, one must provide evidence that the moral code of the majority of people is more than just influenced by their religion.

I do not think its a stretch to suggest that people who identify themselves as religious have their morals, at least to an extent, influenced by their religion be it as a youth or actively participation in it. Perhaps its to varying degrees for different people, but i'd dare say you would find less than a 10% of those 80% or so religious people stating that their morals came from ZERO percent of their religion. Indeed, your suggestion that somehow they DON'T get their morals from their religion simply because some don't encompass all the morals of said religion seems to be a more difficult to believe point.

Influenced by religion, yes, coming from religion, no.

While stating that it is an absolute fact may seem illogical, I think its FAR more logical to suggest that its of high probability than it is of low probability that the morals of most of the people in this country who identify themselves as religious come, at least in some part, from religion.

The whole statement needs to be looked at and all of the words used must be considered in order to realize that not only is the statement illogical, it is also inaccurate.

Such fallacious reasoning provides a personal comfort in a belief system, but it is smoke and mirrors based on equivocal language. "Come from" means something entirely different than "Influenced by".

To give an analogy to explain the massive difference: The the gravitational force that affects the moon is influenced by the gravitational pull from of a single grain of sand. The gravitational force that affects the moon does not come from the gravitational pull from a single grain of sand.

Wen terms like "come from" are used to make an argument, but what is meant by that is not actually "come from" the argument is equivocal, and thus, illogical.

 

[Zyphlin]

LOL...9 out of 10 times I'd say your post was intellectual pompousness of someone nitpicking technicalities and taking issues literally in a relaxed and friendly atmosphere rather than actually looking at context and dealing with what the person is obviously meaning. Choosing to instead focus on a strawman created by taking the words absolutely literally and ignoring context and atmosphere rather than actually addressing the point that is being made.

However, in this case...it actually highlights an interesting dichotemy in this thread. You are doing with Blackdogs words the exact same thing Blackdog is doing with the "homophobia" line. Much like Blackdog with "homophobia, rather than looking at it and accepting common vernacular through context rather than assuming that someone is meaning things in a literalistic and clinical way regardless of context. Which I think is actually a good example for Blackdog as to why perhaps, as much as a word like that bothers them, they should take a step back at times and look at the person saying it, the words around it, and whats being expressed and think if perhaps the person is using the more common usage of it rather than the technical definition.

It shows the importance of both words AND context, as it is often difficult to realize what the person listening to you will truly look at or what the person speaking to you is actually meaning. It also I think is the root of many disagreements or issues at times I think. The belief, sometimes subconsious, that what seems obvious, logical, or correct to us must somehow be the same things the other person thinks, and thus if they are doing something opposite of those things they are doing it clearly to purposefully or ignorantly be the opposite of obvious, logical, and correct. However, depending on how the individual is viewing a conversation...adversarially, academically, casually, positively, etc...various words, statements, or notions can have completely different appearances and meanings.

"Come from" rather than "influenced by" is common vernacular for synonymous statements. When posting in a message board, especially in an area that is not somewhere when people are expecting to have to tip toe around their words in fear of someone latching onto a small technicality and turning it into a bludgeoning stick to beat them upside the head, sometimes the more conversational ways of stating thinsg will occur than academic ways. Its not unusual for someone to suggest that "Their basketball skills come from their father", but that doesn't generally mean that literally every bit of their skills came directly from their father. Or to say "My personality came from my parents", again, is reasonble to suggest that the persons personality was not handcrafted specifically and wholey in all ways by their parents.

While I understand the technical difference there in the official use of the words, the context mixed with common usage mixed with a relaxed location makes it rather apparent to me the meaning behind them. Nothing Blackdog stated in any way suggested to me that he believes that every religious person in the country follows their religious texts morals and ethics 100% all the in the exact same way, which seems to be what you're suggesting must be the case because of how he used the words. CONTEXT, and frankly logical thinking to me when considering the location and the conversation up until the point that you intejrected, shows me the intent behind it was more along the lines of your statement of "influenced" but the person simply was using conversational language rather than academic.

 

[Tucker Case]

LOL...9 out of 10 times I'd say your post was intellectual pompousness of someone nitpicking technicalities and taking issues literally in a relaxed and friendly atmosphere rather than actually looking at context and dealing with what the person is obviously meaning. Choosing to instead focus on a strawman created by taking the words absolutely literally and ignoring context and atmosphere rather than actually addressing the point that is being made.

The context in this case was as a defense of his position. If the terminology difference creates an equivocal fallacy, it is important to clear up the fallacy by making it a more accurate statement.

When he provided demographical data to support that statement, it provided contextual proof that the fallacy was being assumed as accurate.

However, in this case...it actually highlights an interesting dichotemy in this thread. You are doing with Blackdogs words the exact same thing Blackdog is doing with the "homophobia" line. Much like Blackdog with "homophobia, rather than looking at it and accepting common vernacular through context rather than assuming that someone is meaning things in a literalistic and clinical way regardless of context. Which I think is actually a good example for Blackdog as to why perhaps, as much as a word like that bothers them, they should take a step back at times and look at the person saying it, the words around it, and whats being expressed and think if perhaps the person is using the more common usage of it rather than the technical definition.

In this case, I actualy agree with Blackdog that the homophobia label is used equivocally as a way to demonize anyone who disagrees with the pro-homosexuality position.

Even when words may be intended to mean something different than they actually mean based on context, there is still a danger to using words incorrectly because the specific meanings will influence the wa that peopel perceive teh statemnt/argument/label.

To use the term "homophobia" to describe a person who is personally opposed to gay marriage and believes homosexuality to be immoral, but doesn't fear ot loathe homosexuals as people is a disservice to both sides. Its like the boy who cried wolf. If one labels people who merely believe different things as being homophobes, then true homopobes will seem like less of a problem.

It shows the importance of both words AND context, as it is often difficult to realize what the person listening to you will truly look at or what the person speaking to you is actually meaning. It also I think is the root of many disagreements or issues at times I think. The belief, sometimes subconsious, that what seems obvious, logical, or correct to us must somehow be the same things the other person thinks, and thus if they are doing something opposite of those things they are doing it clearly to purposefully or ignorantly be the opposite of obvious, logical, and correct. However, depending on how the individual is viewing a conversation...adversarially, academically, casually, positively, etc...various words, statements, or notions can have completely different appearances and meanings.

This is why semantics are such a huge part of logic. Most people commit the fallacy of equivocation inadvertently. They use a colloquial meaning of a word and then in subsequent statements they will slowly get further and further from the colloquial usage and more towards the precise definition.

That's what ended up happening with Blackdog's argument. In order to prove the statemnt that the country is made up of people who's morality comes from religion, he provided religious demographical data. At that point, it went from a colloqual use of "come from" (meaning influenced by) and actually became quite literal.

That is also part of the context. When I was viewing the debate, it was after such evidence was provided. Thus, I did not see a colloquial use of "comes from" but a very precise literal use of the term in the context of the debate.

"Come from" rather than "influenced by" is common vernacular for synonymous statements.

And if the defense presented for the statemnt was a defense of "influenced by" instead of an a priori assumption that self-labeling as religious means that it is assured that the morality will stem from that religion, there wouldn't have been a problem.

Plus, if he had said "This country has a significant population of people who's morality comes from religion", there also wouldn't have been a problem.

But when the statement is taken as a whole, where the coutnry is made up of people who's morality comes from religion, and the evidence to prove this statement is demographical data, the argument is more than just a colloquial usage synonomous ot "influenced by."

When posting in a message board, especially in an area that is not somewhere when people are expecting to have to tip toe around their words in fear of someone latching onto a small technicality and turning it into a bludgeoning stick to beat them upside the head, sometimes the more conversational ways of stating thinsg will occur than academic ways. Its not unusual for someone to suggest that "Their basketball skills come from their father", but that doesn't generally mean that literally every bit of their skills came directly from their father. Or to say "My personality came from my parents", again, is reasonble to suggest that the persons personality was not handcrafted specifically and wholey in all ways by their parents.

But, even in the colloquial sense, to say "my personality comes from my parents" also implies that the parents were the primary influence and that said person's personality will be practically identical to one of their parents personalities or as a combined variant. Typically, peopel will say "My perosnality comes from my other/father" though, meaning that they associate even more heavily with a single parent. In such cases, one expects the associated parent to have a near identical personality, not just a few similarities.

While I understand the technical difference there in the official use of the words, the context mixed with common usage mixed with a relaxed location makes it rather apparent to me the meaning behind them. Nothing Blackdog stated in any way suggested to me that he believes that every religious person in the country follows their religious texts morals and ethics 100% all the in the exact same way, which seems to be what you're suggesting must be the case because of how he used the words.

See, that's not what I'm suggesting at all. I'm saying that if he's going to make a statemnt like that, he needs to provide actual evidence of it's reality instead of providing demographical data and making the assumption that it is true.

I've provided solid evidence which suggests it MAY not be true. Using the precise definition of "comes from", my evidence proves it to be untrue.

In a debate, it becomes very important to point out fallacious argumetns, especially when they are the foundation of all of the sunsequent arguments.

Here we have a prima facie assumption that is taken as true which may not be so.

We do not actually know if the fact that someone is religious means that their morality is primarily influenced by religion (in the context, "comes from" being used colloquially would at least mean that the thing is a primary influence instead of a secondary or even tertiary influence).

I'm challenging the prima facie assumption, because I personally believe it to be false.

CONTEXT, and frankly logical thinking to me when considering the location and the conversation up until the point that you intejrected, shows me the intent behind it was more along the lines of your statement of "influenced" but the person simply was using conversational language rather than academic.

The context is precisely why I pointed out the fallacy to begin with. He priovided demographical data to suport that point proving that there is an unproven prima facie assumption present in the argument. Thus, pointing out the unproven prima facie assumption, providing evidence that the unproven prima facie assumption may be false, and requiring proof that it isn't false is the only appropriate "next step" to the debate.

My position has been that the whole time. If there is evidence provided that this prima facie assumption is indeed correct, it must be provided.

However, if the prima facie assumption is not suported by actual evidence, and instead the opposition is expected to accept the prima facie assumption without question, the debate cannot progress.

It'll stem down to "I don't believe your prima facie assumption is correct and here's why...." and "Well, I believe it is and I reject your evidence that shows it may be false without providing evidence that it is correct."

My position is the former. I have provided reasoning for it being an incorrect assumption. The response is "That's an illogical assumption to make." (i.e. I reject your evidence that shows it may be false). Of course, I'm not making the assumption that it is false, just that it may potentially be false.

My assumption is actually the only logical one in the absence of evidence proving the assumption to be true.

 

[Zyphlin]

an equivocal fallacy,

fallacy of equivocation

That's what ended up happening with Blackdog's argument.

When I was viewing the debate,

the argument

In a debate, it becomes very important to point out fallacious argumetns, especially when they are the foundation of all of the sunsequent arguments.

The context is precisely why I pointed out the fallacy to begin with.

Tucker, I understand and actually agree with much of what you said. But I believe the above is the disconnect. While there's been disagreements in this thread between people, to me I've not seen people so much attempting to counter other peoples points but to better explain their own thoughts and views. I wasn't viewing Blackdog or anyones comments in the eyes of a debate or argument, where argumentative fallacies are key, but as a discussion where people were attempting to explain themselves. I wasn't reading it with an eye of ways to degrade their argument, or counter their argument, or poke holes in their argument, because I didn't see arguments...I saw people stating what their thoughts are and discussing why they thought it that way.

I agree with a lot of what you're saying with regards to a debate, but my initial mindset when viewing any thread in this area is not debate, or argument, or proving people wrong but highlighting my own point. It would be telling blackdog that to you that information doesn't state what Blackdog says because for you to have something "come from" religion would require it to be completely made up from that religion and as such you view it differently. But instead you told blackdog he was wrong, he was illogical, and attempted to counter him as if this was a debate. Thus my confusion and my comments with regards to you, and in part about the tone and context.

I've, personally, got less issue with common phrasing and attempting to get context out of that to understand a persons point...even if I disagree with it...during a discussion where as in a debate I'd be leaping onto that obvious hole with ferocity as you did.

For the most part, while people disagreed with people in this thread, it seemed that their disagreement was more aimed at stating why they felt different rather than why the other person was wrong. Yours specifically seemed to be aimed at not explaining why you disagree, but aimed specifically at telling Blackdog they were wrong and illogical. Thus the disconnect. Which is normal and I think something that'll take some getting use to...I did it myself with the minor and quick interjection regarding the religious country comment.

 

[Tucker Case]

Tucker, I understand and actually agree with much of what you said. But I believe the above is the disconnect. While there's been disagreements in this thread between people, to me I've not seen people so much attempting to counter other peoples points but to better explain their own thoughts and views. I wasn't viewing Blackdog or anyones comments in the eyes of a debate or argument, where argumentative fallacies are key, but as a discussion where people were attempting to explain themselves. I wasn't reading it with an eye of ways to degrade their argument, or counter their argument, or poke holes in their argument, because I didn't see arguments...I saw people stating what their thoughts are and discussing why they thought it that way.

I agree with a lot of what you're saying with regards to a debate, but my initial mindset when viewing any thread in this area is not debate, or argument, or proving people wrong but highlighting my own point. It would be telling blackdog that to you that information doesn't state what Blackdog says because for you to have something "come from" religion would require it to be completely made up from that religion and as such you view it differently. But instead you told blackdog he was wrong, he was illogical, and attempted to counter him as if this was a debate. Thus my confusion and my comments with regards to you, and in part about the tone and context.

I've, personally, got less issue with common phrasing and attempting to get context out of that to understand a persons point...even if I disagree with it...during a discussion where as in a debate I'd be leaping onto that obvious hole with ferocity as you did.

For the most part, while people disagreed with people in this thread, it seemed that their disagreement was more aimed at stating why they felt different rather than why the other person was wrong. Yours specifically seemed to be aimed at not explaining why you disagree, but aimed specifically at telling Blackdog they were wrong and illogical. Thus the disconnect. Which is normal and I think something that'll take some getting use to...I did it myself with the minor and quick interjection regarding the religious country comment.

Ah. Then it seems I have misunderstood the context here to some degree. My appologies. I saw it as a debate.

TO hopefully explain my error to some degree, I know that my own personal traits are such that I tend to jump at fallacious reasoning when I see it.

I do not do this so much to change a person's mind about what they believe as much as it stems from my own personal preferences about developing and questionign my own beliefs.

I rarely will tell someone that they are wrong in their beliefs.

I don't think Blackdog is wrong to oppose gay marraige or believe that homosexuality is a sin, for example.

But I often challenge the reasoning a person puts forth for a set of beliefs if I see a fallacy present in the reasoning.

If you look at a large proportion of the debates I have, they often revolve around challenging people's primary reasoning for their beliefs instead of trying to convince them to have the same beliefs as I do about the topic.

If someone presents reasoning that I personally disagree with, but is without any fallacies that I can see, I usually won't challenge them on it at all.

But I'll also challenge people who's conclusions I agree with if I see that they are using fallacious reasoning.

In essence, in this case, I was disagreeing with Blackdog's reasoning, while I have no problems with him having the beliefs he does regarding SSM and homosexuality as a sin.

Perhaps it is because I have a personal inability to truly understand his position because I get stuck on the fallacy. He can explain why he believes as he does, but while that fallacy is present, I'm incapable of putting myself "into" that frame of thinking.

But, since I have misunderstood the nature of the discussion, I offer my appologies for turning it into a debate and Ill step out of it.

 

[Black Dog]

Ah. Then it seems I have misunderstood the context here to some degree. My appologies. I saw it as a debate.

TO hopefully explain my error to some degree, I know that my own personal traits are such that I tend to jump at fallacious reasoning when I see it.

I do not do this so much to change a person's mind about what they believe as much as it stems from my own personal preferences about developing and questionign my own beliefs.

I rarely will tell someone that they are wrong in their beliefs.

I don't think Blackdog is wrong to oppose gay marraige or believe that homosexuality is a sin, for example.

But I often challenge the reasoning a person puts forth for a set of beliefs if I see a fallacy present in the reasoning.

If you look at a large proportion of the debates I have, they often revolve around challenging people's primary reasoning for their beliefs instead of trying to convince them to have the same beliefs as I do about the topic.

If someone presents reasoning that I personally disagree with, but is without any fallacies that I can see, I usually won't challenge them on it at all.

But I'll also challenge people who's conclusions I agree with if I see that they are using fallacious reasoning.

In essence, in this case, I was disagreeing with Blackdog's reasoning, while I have no problems with him having the beliefs he does regarding SSM and homosexuality as a sin.

Perhaps it is because I have a personal inability to truly understand his position because I get stuck on the fallacy. He can explain why he believes as he does, but while that fallacy is present, I'm incapable of putting myself "into" that frame of thinking.

But, since I have misunderstood the nature of the discussion, I offer my appologies for turning it into a debate and Ill step out of it.

Maybe this will help...

I know your opposition of SSM comes from a religious reason, but the thing is religious arguments aren't applicable in this case. Why should a secular institution be forced to be limited by a religion? Especially in a secular country. - Your Star

To which I replied...

Because this country is made up of people who's morals come from religion. Morals are a part of our society and in some cases like censorship are indeed law.

We are not a secular country, this is a misnomer. We are country with the vast majority of the population religious and a secular government. - Blackdog

The problem was you came in saw only part of my response and responded to it out of context. I mentioned that you should go back and read the original response, I don't know if you did or not.

Now Zyph and Red both assumed I said something I did not, much like you. Red said...

This is not true. I am not religious, and I make up a part of this country. My morals count too. - Redress

To which I replied...

Do you honestly think that is what I was saying red? - Blackdog

Then to clarify my position, I made the post saying I was being taken out of context to which Red replied...

I do not think I did take you out of context. It appeared to say that you felt the morals of this country came from religion, which is false. - Redress

I responded saying...

I did not say anything like that. I said "Because this country is made up of people who's morals come from religion." and I qualified it with "We are country with the vast majority of the population religious and a secular government." - Blackdog

The graph was to show that we are indeed a country with a majority that identifies itself as religious. Not to show the majority gets it's morals directly from religion.

Instead of looking at what I responded too, I think people were responding to what I said and not even regarding what I was responding to.

Nothing to apologies for Tucker, just one of those things most of us have done here, lol.

 

[Tucker Case]

Maybe this will help...

I know your opposition of SSM comes from a religious reason, but the thing is religious arguments aren't applicable in this case. Why should a secular institution be forced to be limited by a religion? Especially in a secular country. - Your Star

To which I replied...

Because this country is made up of people who's morals come from religion. Morals are a part of our society and in some cases like censorship are indeed law.

We are not a secular country, this is a misnomer. We are country with the vast majority of the population religious and a secular government. - Blackdog

The problem was you came in saw only part of my response and responded to it out of context. I mentioned that you should go back and read the original response, I don't know if you did or not.

Now Zyph and Red both assumed I said something I did not, much like you. Red said...

This is not true. I am not religious, and I make up a part of this country. My morals count too. - Redress

To which I replied...

Do you honestly think that is what I was saying red? - Blackdog

Then to clarify my position, I made the post saying I was being taken out of context to which Red replied...

I do not think I did take you out of context. It appeared to say that you felt the morals of this country came from religion, which is false. - Redress

I responded saying...

I did not say anything like that. I said "Because this country is made up of people who's morals come from religion." and I qualified it with "We are country with the vast majority of the population religious and a secular government." - Blackdog

The graph was to show that we are indeed a country with a majority that identifies itself as religious. Not to show the majority gets it's morals directly from religion.

Instead of looking at what I responded too, I think people were responding to what I said and not even regarding what I was responding to.

Nothing to apologies for Tucker, just one of those things most of us have done here, lol.

To me, (and others) it appeared that you were saying "We are not a secular country, this is a misnomer. We are country with the vast majority of the population religious and a secular government" to provide evidence for the claim "Because this country is made up of people who's morals come from religion" in the context of the discussion.

You have two statements that are true in the following:

Because this country is made up of people who's morals come from religion. Morals are a part of our society and in some cases like censorship are indeed law.

We are not a secular country, this is a misnomer. We are country with the vast majority of the population religious and a secular government.

The first true statement is: Morals are a part of our society and in some cases like censorship are indeed law.

That one isn't even debatable, IMO. (BTW, I would say that this statement was the best possible response to Your Star's question)

The second statement that is true is: We are not a secular country, this is a misnomer. We are country with the vast majority of the population religious and a secular government

That one is somewhat more debatable in nature than the first (because the presence of many different religions could itself be a sign of a "secular" population when the population is viewed as a whole because the population itself is "not overtly or specifically religious" by virtue of diversity. This is, of course, assuming that the various sects of Christianity are considered distinct, but similar, religions), but one could say that this is, to some degree, a true statement.

But the first statement made in the post, the one that is used to answer the specific question is: Because this country is made up of people who's morals come from religion.

Is very debatable, and in my opinion, false, because of two terms "Made up" and "come from" give it more meaning than what is true or can be deduced from the true statements contained within the post.

Now, if the statement was "Because this country has a significant population of people who's morals come from religion." OR "Because this country is made up of people who's morals are possibly influenced by religion", I would not have challenged it's accuracy. In such an instance, the subsequent true statements would have supported the validity of the first statement.

I don't believe you were saying that non-religious people's morality doesn't count, but I do think you were overstating the importance of religious morality.

The way you worded the statement was, in many ways, dismissive of non-religious influences on an individual's morality because it appears to place greater importance on the religious influence than what is readily observable.

I do not think this was an intentional dismissal, but it does explain why people are taking it a different way than you intended.

I think my take on it was because I was looking at what you were responding to and taking the statement out to it's logical conclusion.

To explain, I actually agree with you that "Morals are a part of our society and in some cases like censorship are indeed law." (This belief was actually a huge factor in the development of my anti-federalist philosophy)

I would also agree that a significant portion of our society does have a morality that comes from religion, and thus, religious morality does deserve some consideration when making laws.

Where the problem with your reasoning came in for me was that, by seemingly overstating the importance of religious morality, it appeared that you were also overstating the degree of consideration that religious morality should receive when making laws while inadvertently dismissing the degree of consideration non-religious morality should receive when making laws.

Especially given the context of the debate regarding religious morality and the making of a specific law.

To me, the logical conclusion of the argument about the make-up of the country, and the importance of taking morality into consideration, is that the most common morality should have the most consideration. By overstating the commonness of one morality, it gives a greater importance to it's consideration, especially when one claims that the country is made up of that type of morality (In such a case, it provides a reasoning behind promoting federal laws as opposed to just local laws, but that is a digression)

Now, it's entirely possibly I went further with the argument than you ever would have gone with that foundation. But that's one of the reasons I go after what I perceive of as flawed reasoning. I tend to take the reasoning provided out to it's logical extreme. (Essentially, it's a form of hypothesis testing)

Now, this can come across like a strawman argument, and if done incorrectly it can very well be a strawman, but what differentiates it from one is that it always uses the reasoning provided to take things to the extreme, which then exposes the flaw in the reasoning. Then, instead of arguing about the logical extreme, one uses their knowledge of that flaw to rebut the reasoning as provided in the original argument, instead of debating against the extreme.

I only described the logical extreme above to show where the flaw in the reasoning/hypothesis can be seen, not to claim that this was the position you were promoting nor was it done to claim that your ultimate conclusions were wrong.

I hope that explains where and why I (and others) were misunderstanding your positions.

 

[Black Dog]

To me, (and others) it appeared that you were saying "We are not a secular country, this is a misnomer. We are country with the vast majority of the population religious and a secular government" to provide evidence for the claim "Because this country is made up of people who's morals come from religion" in the context of the discussion.

You have two statements that are true in the following:



The first true statement is: Morals are a part of our society and in some cases like censorship are indeed law.

That one isn't even debatable, IMO. (BTW, I would say that this statement was the best possible response to Your Star's question)

The second statement that is true is: We are not a secular country, this is a misnomer. We are country with the vast majority of the population religious and a secular government

That one is somewhat more debatable in nature than the first (because the presence of many different religions could itself be a sign of a "secular" population when the population is viewed as a whole because the population itself is "not overtly or specifically religious" by virtue of diversity. This is, of course, assuming that the various sects of Christianity are considered distinct, but similar, religions), but one could say that this is, to some degree, a true statement.

But the first statement made in the post, the one that is used to answer the specific question is: Because this country is made up of people who's morals come from religion.

Is very debatable, and in my opinion, false, because of two terms "Made up" and "come from" give it more meaning than what is true or can be deduced from the true statements contained within the post.

Now, if the statement was "Because this country has a significant population of people who's morals come from religion." OR "Because this country is made up of people who's morals are possibly influenced by religion", I would not have challenged it's accuracy. In such an instance, the subsequent true statements would have supported the validity of the first statement.

I don't believe you were saying that non-religious people's morality doesn't count, but I do think you were overstating the importance of religious morality.

The way you worded the statement was, in many ways, dismissive of non-religious influences on an individual's morality because it appears to place greater importance on the religious influence than what is readily observable.

I do not think this was an intentional dismissal, but it does explain why people are taking it a different way than you intended.

I think my take on it was because I was looking at what you were responding to and taking the statement out to it's logical conclusion.

To explain, I actually agree with you that "Morals are a part of our society and in some cases like censorship are indeed law." (This belief was actually a huge factor in the development of my anti-federalist philosophy)

I would also agree that a significant portion of our society does have a morality that comes from religion, and thus, religious morality does deserve some consideration when making laws.

Where the problem with your reasoning came in for me was that, by seemingly overstating the importance of religious morality, it appeared that you were also overstating the degree of consideration that religious morality should receive when making laws while inadvertently dismissing the degree of consideration non-religious morality should receive when making laws.

Especially given the context of the debate regarding religious morality and the making of a specific law.

To me, the logical conclusion of the argument about the make-up of the country, and the importance of taking morality into consideration, is that the most common morality should have the most consideration. By overstating the commonness of one morality, it gives a greater importance to it's consideration, especially when one claims that the country is made up of that type of morality (In such a case, it provides a reasoning behind promoting federal laws as opposed to just local laws, but that is a digression)

Now, it's entirely possibly I went further with the argument than you ever would have gone with that foundation. But that's one of the reasons I go after what I perceive of as flawed reasoning. I tend to take the reasoning provided out to it's logical extreme. (Essentially, it's a form of hypothesis testing)

Now, this can come across like a strawman argument, and if done incorrectly it can very well be a strawman, but what differentiates it from one is that it always uses the reasoning provided to take things to the extreme, which then exposes the flaw in the reasoning. Then, instead of arguing about the logical extreme, one uses their knowledge of that flaw to rebut the reasoning as provided in the original argument, instead of debating against the extreme.

I only described the logical extreme above to show where the flaw in the reasoning/hypothesis can be seen, not to claim that this was the position you were promoting nor was it done to claim that your ultimate conclusions were wrong.

I hope that explains where and why I (and others) were misunderstanding your positions.

Instead of asking me "what do you mean" you said I was flat out wrong and took it to the extreme. I mistakenly assumed that people would know I was speaking figuratively as obviously we have non-religious people in this country. Instead of asking for clarification people like Red and yourself attacked it as wrong. I assumed incorrectly about how it would be taken.

This is one of the things that kills me about message boards. No one asks, they just attack. I do it as well, and it sucks.

 

[Tucker Case]

Instead of asking me "what do you mean" you said I was flat out wrong and took it to the extreme. I mistakenly assumed that people would know I was speaking figuratively as obviously we have non-religious people in this country. Instead of asking for clarification people like Red and yourself attacked it as wrong. I assumed incorrectly about how it would be taken.

This is one of the things that kills me about message boards. No one asks, they just attack. I do it as well, and it sucks.

I'm now very confused. What is it about the following that is an "attack"?

The numbers of people who are religious are irrelevent when it is unknown if a person's morality actually stems from their religion or not.

I can prove that a significant portion of those 76.5% Christians do not adhere to a Christian morality as described by the bible. All one has to do is talk about the percent of Americans who favor Abortion or SSM.

If all 76.5% had their moral beliefs dictated by tehir religion, the maximum support that these issues could achieve is 23.5% (actually, it'd be lower because I'm not counting other religious people into the morality debate)

Just because people belong to a Christian religion doesn't mean that thier morality comes from Christianity.

Thus, you haven't actually proven that "this country is made up of people who's morals come from religion".

I ask because I really have no clue how that can be viewed as an attack, nor do I know of how I misrepresented what you had said with it thus requiring further clarification on it.

 

[Goshin]

The context in this case was as a defense of his position. If the terminology difference creates an equivocal fallacy, it is important to clear up the fallacy by making it a more accurate statement.

When he provided demographical data to support that statement, it provided contextual proof that the fallacy was being assumed as accurate.



In this case, I actualy agree with Blackdog that the homophobia label is used equivocally as a way to demonize anyone who disagrees with the pro-homosexuality position.

Even when words may be intended to mean something different than they actually mean based on context, there is still a danger to using words incorrectly because the specific meanings will influence the wa that peopel perceive teh statemnt/argument/label.

To use the term "homophobia" to describe a person who is personally opposed to gay marriage and believes homosexuality to be immoral, but doesn't fear ot loathe homosexuals as people is a disservice to both sides. Its like the boy who cried wolf. If one labels people who merely believe different things as being homophobes, then true homopobes will seem like less of a problem.





This is why semantics are such a huge part of logic. Most people commit the fallacy of equivocation inadvertently. They use a colloquial meaning of a word and then in subsequent statements they will slowly get further and further from the colloquial usage and more towards the precise definition.

That's what ended up happening with Blackdog's argument. In order to prove the statemnt that the country is made up of people who's morality comes from religion, he provided religious demographical data. At that point, it went from a colloqual use of "come from" (meaning influenced by) and actually became quite literal.

That is also part of the context. When I was viewing the debate, it was after such evidence was provided. Thus, I did not see a colloquial use of "comes from" but a very precise literal use of the term in the context of the debate.






And if the defense presented for the statemnt was a defense of "influenced by" instead of an a priori assumption that self-labeling as religious means that it is assured that the morality will stem from that religion, there wouldn't have been a problem.

Plus, if he had said "This country has a significant population of people who's morality comes from religion", there also wouldn't have been a problem.

But when the statement is taken as a whole, where the coutnry is made up of people who's morality comes from religion, and the evidence to prove this statement is demographical data, the argument is more than just a colloquial usage synonomous ot "influenced by."





But, even in the colloquial sense, to say "my personality comes from my parents" also implies that the parents were the primary influence and that said person's personality will be practically identical to one of their parents personalities or as a combined variant. Typically, peopel will say "My perosnality comes from my other/father" though, meaning that they associate even more heavily with a single parent. In such cases, one expects the associated parent to have a near identical personality, not just a few similarities.



See, that's not what I'm suggesting at all. I'm saying that if he's going to make a statemnt like that, he needs to provide actual evidence of it's reality instead of providing demographical data and making the assumption that it is true.

I've provided solid evidence which suggests it MAY not be true. Using the precise definition of "comes from", my evidence proves it to be untrue.

In a debate, it becomes very important to point out fallacious argumetns, especially when they are the foundation of all of the sunsequent arguments.

Here we have a prima facie assumption that is taken as true which may not be so.

We do not actually know if the fact that someone is religious means that their morality is primarily influenced by religion (in the context, "comes from" being used colloquially would at least mean that the thing is a primary influence instead of a secondary or even tertiary influence).

I'm challenging the prima facie assumption, because I personally believe it to be false.



The context is precisely why I pointed out the fallacy to begin with. He priovided demographical data to suport that point proving that there is an unproven prima facie assumption present in the argument. Thus, pointing out the unproven prima facie assumption, providing evidence that the unproven prima facie assumption may be false, and requiring proof that it isn't false is the only appropriate "next step" to the debate.

My position has been that the whole time. If there is evidence provided that this prima facie assumption is indeed correct, it must be provided.

However, if the prima facie assumption is not suported by actual evidence, and instead the opposition is expected to accept the prima facie assumption without question, the debate cannot progress.

It'll stem down to "I don't believe your prima facie assumption is correct and here's why...." and "Well, I believe it is and I reject your evidence that shows it may be false without providing evidence that it is correct."

My position is the former. I have provided reasoning for it being an incorrect assumption. The response is "That's an illogical assumption to make." (i.e. I reject your evidence that shows it may be false). Of course, I'm not making the assumption that it is false, just that it may potentially be false.

My assumption is actually the only logical one in the absence of evidence proving the assumption to be true.

Hmm. Tucker-man make'um Goshin's head hurt. Goshin go away and get aspirin now, come back later after heap-big think. :mrgreen:

 

[Black Dog]

I'm now very confused. What is it about the following that is an "attack"?

Darn it Tucker, why do you make me have to think?

I meant taking what I said to the extreme, rather than asking me what I meant.

I ask because I really have no clue how that can be viewed as an attack, nor do I know of how I misrepresented what you had said with it thus requiring further clarification on it.

This hopefully will help clear this up.

In order to prove the statemnt that the country is made up of people who's morality comes from religion, he provided religious demographical data. At that point, it went from a colloqual use of "come from" (meaning influenced by) and actually became quite literal.

I did not provide the data to show the country is made up of "people who's morality comes from religion."

It was a direct reply to this statement from Red "I do not think I did take you out of context. It appeared to say that you felt the morals of this country came from religion, which is false."

I replied with the post you took issue with...

"I did not say anything like that. I said "Because this country is made up of people who's morals come from religion." and I qualified it with "We are country with the vast majority of the population religious and a secular government." - Blackdog

The graph was to show that we are indeed a country with a majority that identifies itself as religious. Not to show the majority gets it's morals directly from religion.

So I figured you did not see or take into account what I was responding to, or just flat out misunderstood why I used the graph.

 

[Schweddy]

Good to see you posting on politics Vauge, and I hope you do so more often. If that is the only benefit of The Loft, it alone would make it worthwhile to me.

I will try to post more often. Thank you for helping me feel welcome.

"Why would I choose to be gay? Since I came out, I have been run out of my hometown, lost my good job, been thrown out of my chosen church and publicly condemned there, lost all my old friends, have people in the neighborhood I live in tell their kids that they cannot come near my house, was disowned by my mother who rarely talks to me and then is usually condemning.

"If being gay was a choice, I would never, ever have chosen it. I knew that things would be very bad, but it is what I am. There was not a choice in whether I was gay, the only choice I had was whether to hide it and be miserable, or admit it and be treated like **** but have a chance someday of happiness."

Thankfully, my mom has since found happiness in a close to 15 year relationship now, and things are not nearly so bad for gay people as it was.

That is a question only she can answer. Why did she feel the need to announce?

There is never a good time to admit or claim being better than anyone else. It certainly won't happen without repercussions regardless of the topic and subject matter.

What business of it is anyone else other than their own and their partners?

 

[Redress]

I will try to post more often. Thank you for helping me feel welcome.


That is a question only she can answer. Why did she feel the need to announce?

There is never a good time to admit or claim being better than anyone else. It certainly won't happen without repercussions regardless of the topic and subject matter.

What business of it is anyone else other than their own and their partners?

In my mom's case, it was because she was married to my dad. It was a mistake on her part, but she did not at the time realize what her feelings meant yet(this was very early 70's and the topic of homosexuality was much different then) and she did like my dad and thought that was love and meant a marriage. Other than that, my mother has never particularly "announced" being gay, unless you count living with another woman as "announcing". On the other had, she does not hide it either.