Crazy Christian Lady on Homosexuality

Post Reply New Topic

You and I do not identify with one another, but we are both members of WP. Your argument that "anti-bigots" aren't bigots by twisting the definition of a group fails.

In any case, I wasn't trying to be taken too literally. I just wanted to point out that there is a fundamental problem with your idea (besides it being immoral). It doesn't define bigot, and the dictionary definition would include the perpetrators of the massacre as victims.

WRT open- vs. closed-mindedness: there is no real moral problem with being relatively more or less flexible with your opinions. In any case, if you are advancing closed-mindedness as an alternative for bigotry, keep in mind that you haven't defined that either. And that you seem to be pretty closed-minded about this.

WRT reversed positions: if someone who otherwise would fit into the "closed-minded" or "bigoted" slots had changed their mind on immigration and teen driving, would that mean they don't get shot now?

But fundamentally, my main problem with your idea is that it resembles Hitler's idea about the Jews. Basically, he decided that he had a problem with a certain group of people, and that they should be rounded up and shot. So that's what he did.

I identify with you as a member of WP. Furthermore, never argued that the definition of a group excluded anti-bigots from being bigots, argued that the definition of "anti-" is a null set if it includes the suffixed term; anti-x = not x.



Then find a word that can be defined satisfactorily, if the one offered is inadequate. The definition of group specified "as a racial or ethnic group", and since bigot is not a group in that sense, one could not be a bigot for treating them with hatred or intolerance. In this case, it is love and tolerance for all people that dictates the intolerant and hateful be rounded up and shot. Eliminating those who actively support hatred and intolerance is very moral, as it benefits everyone else.



OMG. Was explicitly advancing open-mindedness; obvious now that cognitive dissonance has caused responses to an esoteric interpretation of statements advancing open-mindedness as a mandate, not a choice. Inflexibility of views is a moral issue, as it is this inflexibility that leads to open, uncontrolled violence -- terrorism, wars, and genocide.



Don't think either of those issues rises to the level of bigotry, again the point was missed. Point was that holding opinions or prejudices is poor form in the first place, only to be accepted in the absence of useful data supporting a factual conclusion on the issue. Bigots are by definition inflexible (close-minded) on the target of their bigotry, ergo do not accept useful data if the factual conclusion does not agree with the prejudice. Racists believe that Africans are more closely related to cro-magnons than humans, sexists believe that women are incapable of reasoning, zealots believe that Muslims are agents of Satan trying to destroy God's people, and homophobes believe that homosexuality is a choice. Were one of these people to change his or her mind on the issue in question, yes, it would mean they don't need to be shot. For that matter, given the basic rights of the accused, no one who held a bigoted view privately, without speaking it, would ever be at risk unless grosser actions of prejudice were displayed.



There we have it! Not that the idea wouldn't benefit the 90%+ who are not bigots, not that killing a human is absolutely immoral under all circumstance, but that it very loosely resembles Nazi (blaming Hitler and not the poor Germans who physically rounded them up and killed them?) actions against Jews, Roma, homosexuals, and Christians who opposed the Reich. The difference is that none of those groups openly promulgated hatred for others based on genetic or cultural qualities. Bigotry is not a culture, race, gender, age group, sexual orientation, religion, or political group. Suppose the only protected group left to be claimed is that bigots are mentally disabled in open-mindedness and tolerance. If we should let them live because they are disabled, this conversation has continued merit. Otherwise, still unconvinced that killing the hatemongers is wrong on an individual or societal level.

One more thing: In total agreement about the whole evolution v. creation thing being inane, a short and sweet summary of the whole silly mess. So I also identify with you as someone who gets the truth about God and being.

Likewise. In case it isn't clear elsewhere -- I'm objecting to your opinions, not you.

Non- and Anti- mean different things. For example: a non-scientist is not neccesarily anti-science.

The problem isn't so much with the definition of the word being vague as the concept behind it. You used several words and phrases to refer to this concept, but it's too vague. You talk about closed-mindedness and make it sound like inflexibility of opinion is what you want to shoot people for, then you talk about bigotry, and refer to ethnic groups, then you talk about hating. These various things may overlap occasionally, but they aren't the same.

I think quibbling over what does or doesn't count as a group, ignoring what the word group normally means, is silly.

If benefit to the majority is what makes morality moral, then Hitler's genocide was moral. After all, all the personal posessions that were stolen, all the gold teeth ripped from people's heads -- all of it became other people's personal possesions, thus benefiting them financially. Besides, according to Hitler, the Jews were just dragging everyone else down anyway.

If the penalty for being closed-minded is being shot, that *is* a mandate.

Inflexibility of views may have a statistical correlation of some kind with violence, but so do many other things. Like being male. Want to make ownership of a penis punishable by death?

Well what *does* rise to that level?

In my opinion, having an opinion is a good thing. What's your opinion?

That sounds at least vaguely plausible -- Africa is the birthplace of humanity, thus it could be argued that they retain certain genetic aspects, making them more closely related to cro-magnons than average for a human. I wouldn't say that makes them less or even substantially different, but that may be my anti-racist bias speaking, rather than a rational opinion. And I'm unwilling to change my mind about this -- quite closed-minded, as a matter of fact. So should I be shot for closed-mindedness, or for forming an opinion without sufficient rational basis?

Anti-female sexists believe that women are capable of reasoning -- just to a lesser degree. Again, there is scientific evidence that females, on average, have a lesser spatial reasoning ability than males. I might counter that, on average, females are better at verbal reasoning and multitasking. They might counter that scientific reasoning relies more on spatial reasoning than verbal, so males are still better. Without time to research it and create a counter-argument, I am left with no rational basis for my opinion. Thus I have once again proven myself worthy of being shot, since I am being both irrational and inflexible.

Do you mean zionists? Regardless, there is even more evidence for this point of view. The Quran and the hadith both, IIRC, authorize holy war (jihad, or "struggle") to spread Islam. Also, there are quite a few unflattering references to Jews, due to Mohammed's being opposed by a group of them. Throughout history, Muslims have, according to Islamic law, treated Jews and Christians as somewhat second-class citizens, and forbidden them to proseletyze.

This is not exactly my view, however, but I think this view is very easily supported by a number of Quran quotations, as well as the history of a very large fraction of the world over the past 1400 years or so. I base my dissention from this view on my friendship with a Muslim about a decade ago. He was quite a nice guy and we got along quite well. Again, my view is supported less with facts than with prejudice, and I am not willing to change it lightly.

I object to the useless, meaningless, frivolous, and thoughroughly stupid word "homophobe". Please see my rant earlier in this thread for details, if you care.

In the last couple of years, I've come down to the conclusion that sexual orientation probably isn't flexible enough to be changed. I came to this conclusion based mostly on the fact that the arguments from one side seemed more coherent than the other side. Of course, I didn't really listen to the contents of the arguments, or look at any scientific evidence at all. I have no solid evidence for my conclusion at all. I am quite mystified that you think this is a thouroughly settled question, with no scientific dissent or even room for doubt.

In any case, *every* sexual act (homosexual or otherwise) involves a choice, with the obvious exception of rape (which doesn't really affect the question we're dealing with). This bit doesn't belong with the others, at least not worded as it is.

When you started talking about rounding up people and shooting them, I was expecting something like the Holocaust. I wasn't expecting the Spainish Inquisition. But then Nobody expects the Spainish Inquisition!

What do you do to make sure the conversion is genuine? Torture them a bit? What if there's the slightest doubt in your mind that they may not be telling the truth? More torture? Or execution? What if a wife shows up and begs for mercy? Do you tell her that it's really in society's best interest to torture and/or kill her husband, because he is a dirty bigot, and thus susceptible to a statistical likelihood that he might one day insult someone for no adequate reason, or even offend someone? Or does she get tossed into the dungeon too, for being a dirty bigot-lover?

Rights of the accused? In a pogrom? This isn't the trial of a single individual; according to your definitions so far, the numbers would number in the tens, if not hundreds of millions in the US alone. A really loose definition could catch everybody. (And you thought that prisons were crowded now! )

Societal level? As in, say, Iran? As in, "Bomb, bomb, bomb, Bomb, bomb, Iran", except not as a joke?

Individual level? So, lynch mobs are okay? As long as they tell people that it was only bigots that they were viciously murdering in their orgy of hate?

So ethnic cleansing isn't okay, but ideological cleansing is?

Defining which groups can and can't be discriminated against doesn't differentiate you from Hitler. According to Hitler, discriminating against Jews is okay, discriminating against Aryans is not. Discriminating against non-Nazi political parties was fine by Hitler, discriminating against Nazis was not.

In my view, saying "persons in category X should be rounded up and shot" is wrong for all values of X.

No, but an anti-scientist is necessarily a non-scientist. Not all non-bigots are anti-bigot, but all anti-bigots are non-bigot. Was pointing to inclusion in the explicit definition, not a totality of the term.



Of course it would be, were the very definition of the term bigot not to hang on a qualified use of the term; the alternative is to use "group" to describe "more than one", in which case someone who was intolerant of mass murderers would be a bigot, too.



The country of Germany was destroyed, not to be restored, somewhat intact, until 45 years after Hitler's death. The majority suffered horribly, as intellectual, political, and social freedoms were rolled over in service to a war that left a nation relatively devoid of young males for the second time in as many generations. How Hitler's bigotry plays into the discussion of killing bigots is beyond me, unless all Jews were bigoted against non-Jews, which they weren't and aren't.



No, the being shot is a social judgment. The mandate to being open-minded is from morality: being close-minded leads to immorality. Never suggested that close-mindedness was sufficient cause for execution, anyway. If a counter-example is available, where being close-minded leads to moral behavior, would be delighted to hear it.

Inflexibility of views may have a statistical correlation of some kind with violence, but so do many other things.

This is not about statistical correlation, this is about causation. Like fuel, oxygen, and ignition being requisite to combustion, close-mindedness is a necessary part of anti-social (immoral) violence - it is the fuel, hatred is the oxygen, and incitement is the ignition. As for being shot headwise, all incitement, some hatred, and little or no close-mindedness qualifies.



The definition of the word "bigot" includes those to whom it applies. Certainly those who espouse hatred, incite violence, and teach intolerance rise to that level; as previously stated, one's thoughts are one's own, inviolable.



Don't have an opinion; best evidence suggests that opinions are between held by most, with effects ranging from worthless to counter-productive. Explanation of a positive value to opinion is in order, and beseeched.



It is not plausible, and cannot be rationally argued; this is why opinion is to be avoided whenever possible. Africans are homo sapiens sapiens, genetically speaking, and no more related to cro-magnon than any other human. To take it as fact, or article of faith, is an act of bigotry. To teach this, at least doubly so.


Of course not. How absurdist. It isn't a bias, and it isn't an opinion, Africans are not less or substantially different than non-Africans. Further, being unwilling to adopt the false over the demonstrably true is not, and can never be, close-minded. Open-mindedness only applies to things that can actually be; one cannot be open-minded about resisting gravity by will alone.



Science is not the beginning and end of reasoning, is it? Science deals with that which is demonstrably true -- testable in reproducible situations. One can accept the weight of science as is, without adding personal opinion to the mix, and not be sexist, racist, etcetera. None of the proposals lead to the sexist conclusion that women are less fully human, unless a series of erroneous and indefensible assumptions are tagged on.



First, no inflexibility, as acceptant of facts loosely supportive of counter-argument. Second, no irrationality, as it is not a matter of opinion: on average, women have better verbal reasoning, men have better spatial reasoning. Last, never offered an opinion -- good job!

So far, this mostly shows how far apart my idea of shooting the bigots is from your idea of the same.



No, meaning people who think that one religion speaking of God and another are ever incompatible. Muslim zealots who believe that Christians and Jews are against God are equally ignorant.



Sure, sounds like God to me. Problem is that most people, inside and outside Islam, think of jihad as being one group of God followers against the others. In reality, jihad is more like "crusade" -- it is a loaded term meant to describe spiritual warfare against Godlessness.



Jesus lived in the Roman Empire, but most of his criticism was also of Jews. God told the Jews to kill all the Canaanites, for what that's worth.



Christians have, throughout history, discouraged proseletyzation by Muslims; as for which has been more tolerant of the practice of the other's religion, Muslims were usually more tolerant of Christians than vice versa, at least until the collapse of the Ottoman Empire.



What it is based on is irrelevant, more or less. This all drives home the concept that being open-minded excludes one from being a bigot, as well as from being close-minded. Presenting an open-minded assessment of reasons for intolerance, the conclusion was in favor of tolerance; this is not about prejudice or opinion, but the nature of the facts. The facts do not support zealotry of any faith, any more than the support nationalism for any citizenry; facts do not support things which are not true, and intolerance is a false doctrine with negative consequences, so it is not sufficiently supported to be taken as knowledge, and acted upon with prejudice and inflexibility.

For the record, presenting one's stated view with a shortage of facts does not make one's argument irrational, it is a straw man. Had the argument included all the factual details of friendship with a Muslim, including conversations, it is dubious that the flimsy recollections of Muslim anti-Jewish rhetoric would be similarly compelling to a rational mind.



Cheerfully withdrawn! Replace with "people who do not think that homosexuals deserve equal respect, or the full rights of personhood extended to heterosexuals". However, it could be that aboce reference to "zealots" could have read "Islamophobes", as it could be seen as an irrational fear of Muslims. Have equally good reasons for choosing the term "homophobe", despite its "fear of man" denotation.



Again, the demerits of opinionation. The coherence of the arguments is rationally conclusive. It is little wonder that the well-settled nature of the subject would be mystifying, IFF one to had not looked at any of the solid, scientific evidence. The subject is past the point of reasonable doubt, but not religious dogma! Homosexuality is a latent genetic characteristic brought on by acute competition for heterosexual mates, and is present in most mammals.



Yes, and unless it is rape, that choice is not anyone else's business, unless it is an issue of violation of trust, i.e. infidelity. The assertion that society has a prerogative to allow discrimination against that choice seems offensive on a yet more basic level than the religion issue, as sexual reproduction is part and parcel to human biology, whereas church is not.



Darn tootin'!



What sort of medieval quackery have we here? These suggestions put you much more in doubt than all prior responses, a little scary, to be honest. Never said conversion, just repentance, statement of the iniquity in one's bigotry, the injustice of spreading hatred for the "other", and acceptance that these views must not be acted upon or even shared. Absolutely in the camp of take their word for it, unless some crime was commited -- arson, murder, even discriminatory hiring are all punishable under existing laws. Would not dream of torturing someone, unless that individual personally tortured me, and even then would probably grant mercy in a swift death.



If she is not a bigot, and her husband will not cease to act the bigot, who cares? Wouldn't say squat. It is not at all about insult or offense, for what it's worth, think everyone should be allowed to freely insult and offend each other. It is about the fuel to feed a fire of violence against the target of the bigotry, like clearing dead timber and dry brush from a forest. This is purely in the mind of putting a preventatice end to human on human violence, except in crimes of passion, which is a category of violence still quite insolvent to my mind.



It is the individual trial of perhaps millions, possibly even ten or more million, certainly not over a hundred million, based on openly bigoted action and speech against a recognized group. As for definitions, continue to assert that cognitive dissonance has grossly distorted the stated position. We are talking about active bigots: those that preach, teach, spread, and act on irrational and inflexible prejudice against a particular group. As stated, those who think and say such things alone, or exclusively in the company of like-minded individuals, have virtually nothing to fear, just as people who rape and kill in private have virtually nothing to fear. Would consider invoking a right of self-defense, that a Jew seeing 20 Nazis preaching hate on the courthouse steps has the same right to use deadly force as a person threatened with a gun, but that obviously won't play here.

Far as the prisons go, never suggested housing them any longer than a speedy trial would dictate. Having seen what intolerance can do -- the Holocaust, a plethora of African genocides, racial slavery, repression in Tibet, bombing of gay night clubs, the attacks of 09/11/01, what merit is there in preserving the life of those who would do it next if allowed? Far better to regret having killed the next Hitler than to regret having not killed the next Hitler.



No. As in: not wrong for an individual harmed to do to an individual who caused or incited it, nor wrong for society to do to all individuals who cause or incite it. Much more like Israel's extra-judicial killing of public figures in Palestine who call for destruction of Israel and the Jewish people; in fact, just that policy, only broader, and with no extraneous civilian casualties.



No. Individual right being the right of self-defense, e.g. a Jew shooting someone painting a swastika and "Die Jew Scum" on his home. Societal being the "social contract" model, that by living in our society one agrees not to attempt its destruction with hate speech and crimes. Ability to misinterpret this growing to legendary status...



This "question" is so loaded as to not merit a response. Not murder, not vicious, not motivated by hate, and certainly not "tell people". As long as it is only bigots? That is my standard, and my criticism of the Israeli Defense Force's actions in Palestine.



Only if tolerance is mistakenly considered to be an ideology and not a virtue, and intolerance considered an ideology and not a vice. Talk about using a word in a sense other than the normal one... If cleansing society of those who would see ethnic or religious cleansing, or the subjugation of women to the status of property, is not a good thing, than it must be a good thing to allow more of it to occur. If that leaves a better taste... again, the dangers of an opinion!



That is plainly absurd, given the whole rest of this discussion. If one cannot differentiate between Hitler and execution of his ilk, one has a near absolutist view against the death penalty. As previously stated, could have summed this all up with "against the taking of human life", as that view is worthy of much respect, even if it is flawed.



Yes, that much was obvoius a long time ago. That being said, still insist that "null set" is incorrect. Value of X approximately equal to "bigot" (and marginal equivocacy thereof) is a valid solution, and not the only one in the set*.

Given 6.5 billion humans and counting, someone is going to go without; right now, it is mostly women and children, most of whom are also victims of one or more forms of bigotry. Starvation being slow, cruel, and painful, execution by firearm being fast, humane, and relatively painless, it seems obvious that the least immoral act would be to execute those who are causing women and children to suffer and pass the food, water, clothing, and shelter on.

*Agreed that original statement is wrong for most values X. Would also exempt values: "murderer", "serial rapist/molester", and "slaver". Want to defend those three, too? Eagerly awaiting a response... haven't had an earnest debate in years.

Any form of bigotry is evil, and the most evil form of bigotry is the one that the bigot denies having. One should determine their own prejudices before investigating and exposing the prejudices of others.

My attitude toward homosexuals and homosexuality is very similar. The act of homosexual love is repugnant to me, but these people are human beings and I can't harden my heart against them. Love the sinner, hate the sin. We're all sinners, anyway.

If you read the story carefully, you'll find the narrator, that Crazy Christian Lady, never stopped loving her son. Mothers love their sons unconditionally. If I came to my own mother with the news that I was gay, I know she would not reject me. Mothers can't do that.

Well god made us all different, what would you do if you were like that.

I don't know. I really don't.

Well we can never understand what god realy wants, his inteligence is as large as the universe and all that. We humans don't even know what we want.

Ever read the Bible?

I have read a bit but I lose interest, I am not going to base my idea of god on a book that I am not sure exactley its origins and could have been altered by anyone. My other thought is that I don't want to get in gods good graces by reading the bible, I would rather earn it by being a good person. One of the things I hate most is when people try to say that are better as they read the bible, some say that the bible is open to interpretation not get in a bible war.

I didn't realize that the Bible was a Wikipedia article.

You can't be a better person w/o reading the Bible. Yes, it has been altered over time, but the message of its contents remains the same.

Oh, but it is, Orwell!

http://www.lolcatbible.com/index.php?title=Main_Page

But on a more serious note, there are some cases where it is believed that the Bible has been tampered with, such as with the Comma Johanneum, which is a corruption that was found in many bibles until recently when it was discovered to not be in the original text and removed.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comma_Johanneum

I just take the Bible for what it is. The book I hold in my hands when I read it. Once yuo start suspecting everything of being a fake, the loony-bin isn't far off.