Gay Nightclub mass shooting -- Orlando, Florida

[Boris]

It provides historical context and shows that oppression and violence towards this segment of society is not as isolated as your post indicated.

Historical context is not the argument here bud but nice try.

 

[Stoked]

Historical context is not the argument here bud but nice try.

When you present it as an isolated incident it gains relevance bud.

 

[Boris]

When you present it as an isolated incident it gains relevance bud.

I am sure [MENTION=1988]Stoked[/MENTION] and [MENTION=84]moevillini[/MENTION] are true. Gay violence an mass shootings happen all the time because Hitler.

 

[FalseFlagg K]

So a Christian, a homosexual and an extremist muslin jihadist walk into a bar ....

 

[♪alt13]

- Find me a single politician/journalist/speaker with any public venue who wines about politicizing tragedies that isn't trying to advance a political agenda of their own with said tragedy
- the latter part of this excerpt is in zero disagreement with any of my posts in this thread. Feel free to post proof that asserts otherwise

The second half of that post is a statement against politicizing the tragedy. You have to see that.

What the **** are you talking about?

You don't need a history lesson. You understood the point. You are simply side stepping. I see no reason to repeat it.

Your point about choiceness attributes being exploited for stigmatization is a great one (tons of examples, as you've mentioned). However, you're wrong in terms of how it pertains to homosexuality. The immorality of homosexuality of course is the reason for its centuries-long smearing & concealment-- however, why is it considered immoral? Particularly in the past century, the treatment of homosexuality as a non-natural condition, and something that one isn't born with, was one of if not THE main justification behind why it was considered so dissonant with a healthy natural human being. THAT was what my post was asserting. You're talking past that point and attacking points that I never really proposed. Bizarre.

This is so messy it's just lazy.

1) These rationalizations for hate grew out of an already declared moral bad. They were not the cause of it.(srsly circular logic bro)

2) It was considered an innate defect by the medical community. Hence the mental illness classification. To say otherwise is either revisionism or ignorance. LINK

3) I fully understand the point that you were trying to make. It's a bad and a dangerous argument to make.

Examples?

I cannot think of a human behavior that we could not attribute to some form of fatalism.

Another bizarre point made. I never, ever said that homosexuality would be in any way intrinsically immoral if it was a behaviour that was chosen. Insisting that my points made above necessitate this conclusion is facile

No, you tried to make the point, or at least seemed to, that because they are born that way it is moral. That's a bad argument. That's not how we develop morals. Further, it's dangerous because if you begin using that argument, and skip any moral argument based on who we are, then it is too easy for people to take that argument and declare people defective and subhuman. Which is precisely what happened in the last century all over the world.

 

[Gameface]

@dalamon, what I don't like about the "born that way" argument is that it implies that if it were a choice it would be the less desirable choice so no one in their right mind would make such a bad choice. But since it isn't their fault we should have sympathy for them because they have to live with their poor circumstance. We don't need for it to not be a choice for it to be a perfectly moral decision. They aren't hurting anyone. They aren't causing any harm. No one is being forced to act against their will. So it's not immoral for them to be gay. It's that simple.

 

[Siro]

There is no such thing as choice. It is thus irrelevant to whether something is or isn't moral. Quite simple really.

 

[babe]

There is no such thing as choice. It is thus irrelevant to whether something is or isn't moral. Quite simple really.

Life is choice. It's that simple, really.

 

[Siro]

Life is choice. It's that simple, really.

Not really. But I wasn't addressing spiritualists, as there would be no point in discussing the matter any further.

 

[Hekate]

There is no such thing as choice. It is thus irrelevant to whether something is or isn't moral. Quite simple really.

Spoken like a true fatalist.

 

[Joe Bagadonuts]

There is no such thing as choice. It is thus irrelevant to whether something is or isn't moral. Quite simple really.

So you're saying that the gunman killed all the people in Orlando because he had to? He didn't make a choice? The morality is irrelevant?

 

[Siro]

So you're saying that the gunman killed all the people in Orlando because he had to? He didn't make a choice? The morality is irrelevant?

Morality is a set of rules that we come up with, and collectively enforce, to make our lives better. It is relevant to the goal of making human life better.

Choice is an illusion of subjective experience. An input is processed through a computing network via the laws of physics, and an output is produced. The brain itself has no power over the laws of physics. The processing structure is the result of genetics, life experience, and quantum randomness. So it is incidental. The laws of physics necessitate that each output be so. In the case of choice, once the information goes down the pipeline, a signal is sent between the unconscious and conscious part of the brain that a "choice" was made.

But no such thing could happen, because there is only the machine and the mechanics. And the latter shapes the former, and not the other way around.