Vylo

Black people do it to each other all the time .

That reminds me how in my high school we once decided to have racial slur kickball, I think part of the game was to see how much you knew or could guess about someone's ethnicity. Well everyone remembered mine as I heard "kick the ball WOP1" and "you diry kraut". The situation was so bizarre I missed the ball from laughing so hard. We were reluctant when the black people in our class got up there, due to stigma towards such things but in the end we ended up slamming them as well.

Racism was considered to be an obsolete and ridiculous ideal in that high school, so we thought nothing of tossing a racial slur at someone playfully. We met no malise by it. Despite I never heard open racial comments in my other school, they had race riots. I think restricting speech and keeping a lid on your confusing towards other people's ethnicity, can just cause it to fester. I also believe that when someone takes offense to an innocent poke at their background, it is because their are afraid it might be true.

People need to stop taking these race issues so seriously and to laugh off comments and try to educate others about their history and correct misconceptions. It is only when people are unable to learn and accept other races in society that trouble is really in the air.

Nowhere357

I understand. Notice, however, that in effect you had permission from the "victims". If this is the situation, then there is no problem, of course.

Lacking permission, it becomes a verbal assault, if the "victim" feels that it is a verbal assault.

This argument fails, because they give each other permission.

This fails, because "meaning no harm" and "causing no harm" are seperate things.

This is true, but "it's okay to talk to people about it" does not imply "it's okay to insult people about it''. So this argument fails.

This can be true, but of course not always. And this comment seems relevant only if the gay person is in denial. I fail to see how this makes a difference in whether or not it's okay to slur and ridicule.

This also is true, but irrelevant to the question of whether it's okay to make the comments. Why should the fact that people have to deal with bigotry, mean that it's okay for people to behave like bigots?

I think you've stated your position well, and I don't think you're a bigot. But I've refuted each of the reasons you gave for justification. Well, except for the case where permission is given, of course, there's no serious problem I can see with that. (Some minor problems, though - it might decrease sensitivity to the words, making them more likely to be used inappropriately, and it might influence others (children come to mind) to use the words inappropriately, for example.)

This leaves us with the situation of saying or doing derogatory things, without permission. Given that peoples entire lives are being made miserable by the current state of affairs, we should respect their right to be free from verbal (and physical and mental) abuse.

This is not like poking fun at the size of someone's nose. Which is rude enough especially to a stranger, but people rarely commit suicide over jabs like that, and gangs rarely torture and kill people over such a thing, and the government doesn't deny basic rights to big-nosed people, and neighbors rarely vandalize your property for such reasons, and so on and so on. This is not the case with homosexuality.

Am I making my point?

Vylo

I see your point, however I think that misunderstand that I am speaking in all cases of either having permission, or indicating to the person that you are just joking around with them. I just think people take things to seriously.

Nowhere357

Matthew Sheppard.

This is serious.

yguy

Actually, yes.

At about age 13, I was playing basketball with some guys when a black kid and a white kid were doing some good-natured trash talking. They were so caught up in it that the black kid called the white kid "nigguh" and the white kid reciprocated. I froze, hoping to God no one would make an issue of it. No one did, because everybody had enough brains to know the white kid was just BSing. No harm, no foul.

Vylo

Nowhere I understand your concern, but perhaps if those children did not take matthew's lifestyle as such a serious threat to them, they would not have done their crime.

Nowhere357

Whew, you scared me for a minute. Yguy, in affect, permission was granted. All of my arguments here still stand. Of course you know that it is not all right to call black people that name - else why did you freeze?

Now, you admit you'll insult others if they don't mind. Will you also NOT insult others, if they DO mind? And do you assume a stranger does mind, when first you meet, or instead will you assume the stranger does not mind? How exactly does this work for you?

Nowhere357

What in your view is the solution (other than the victims should lighten up)?

Vylo

To tolerate each each, and each other 's opinions. People are entitled to their opinion, even if that means detesting your life style. It is only when they act in an injust manner that we need to be concerned.

Bill Snedden

I'll take that as a statement of your inability to counter by argument or evidence.

You may further take it as a statement of fact. The distinction between fact and value is well known in moral philosophy and by argument and evidence has shown itself dispositive in vitiating "nature-based" moral arguments since its first elucidation (of which I'm aware) by Hume.

To disprove it, all you need do is provide one "is" that leads ineluctably to an "ought." Shouldn't be too hard, right?

Nice word salad. I'd suggest a slightly tangy French dressing as that should actually add some taste to an otherwise bland, and in the context of this discussion, meaningless statement.

If you have no idea what constitutes a "homosexual lifestyle", why do you keep bringing up things that might constitute it?

We've already conclusively demonstrated that promiscuous sex is not equivalent to nor a necessary component of homosexuality. You've already been asked nicely many, many times to stop using this dishonest tactic and yet you continue to dissemble.

I can only conclude that you have no interest whatsoever in the truth, whatever it may be, and are more interested in slandering those with whom you disagree.

More of your dishonest slander. You must know that this is irrelevant, yet you continue this disgraceful tactic. Isn't there a commandment about "bearing false witness?"

Of course it does, you simply don't want to see it or admit it because your entire argument is an ad-hoc rationalization to convince yourself that your primitive emotive feelings regarding what you see as a distasteful behavior are in fact the violation of some "biological moral imperative."

That French dressing should go nicely with this word salad as well...

1) Freudian egotism is not the "source" of homosexuality. The practice and recognition of the orientation predates Freud by many centuries.

2) Homosexuality is not a "concept rooted in egotism" any more or less than Heterosexuality.

3) Whether or not the current culture is "toxic to the nuclear family" has nothing necessarily to do with the ethics of homosexual behavior.

Immaterial and irrelevant.

You must be assuming that everyone with whom you discuss a topic follows your own practice. I do not.

I have provided evidence and argument that conclusively vitiates your attempt to base a moral system on biology. You have provided no defense. Which position is, in reality, dogmatic? The one that uses reason and argument or the one that puts its metaphorical fingers in its metaphorical ears and shouts, "I can't hear you, nyah, nyah?"

I don't and have never done that. You've either misconstrued what I've written (which wouldn't be surprising) or you're a liar.

I define morality and ethics in terms of the consequences of human actions and whether or not they contribute to or are detrimental to human flourishing.

You, on the other hand, are the one attempting to define morality in terms of a biological act: procreation. I should think that people in glass houses...

And no one would know better than you...

None of that militates in any way against anything in my statement above. "Homosexuality" simply does not translate into "irresponsible behavior" regardless of what language you're speaking. You have constantly attempted to connect the two and you've failed utterly. Will you never abandon this slanderous and dishonest tactic?

Let me see if I understand. You have no idea what "homosexual lifestyle" or "homosexual contact" mean and yet you have the temerity to argue that they're immoral? Can you seriously expect us to accept that you believe what you're saying?

If you don't understand what you're arguing against, why should we bother to assume that you even have the capability to construct a valid argument? Not to mention that so far you've completely failed to do so.

You're completely wrong, but of course that's no surprise.

Not even touching the fact that you've based your entire argument on a narrow view of Aristotelian ethics, and that the study of ethics has progressed considerably in the centuries since Aristotle's death, you assume without argument that formal and final causes cannot exist within moral agents themselves. This is a false assumption (and btw, it's "efficient", not "essential" cause).

If humans are ends in themselves, then they are also the formal and final causes of their own lives. True moral agents seek self-actualized purpose rather than derive it from without. In that respect they are also the formal cause of their own purpose (by working it out).

Your dependence upon Aristotle also falls prey to G.E. Moore's famous "open question". Why should we consider this "good?" I would go further and say that by discarding even the possibility that humans can determine their own ethical goals, you necessarily distance yourself from even the ability to answer the query successfully.

Love? But, of course, that has no place in your moral system, which is dictated solely by the duty to reproduce.

And this response further illustrates that you see no place for love in human relationships. I find that sad.

You may not be able to see how traditional vows serve any purpose because you seem to believe that love plays no part in a commitment between two people absent a desire to procreate. I don't see any reason to believe that true. Mike and Rob and Dave and Susan all love each other and have decided to bond themselves in recognition of that love and the benefits they obtain mutually from such a practice. As true moral agents, they have as much access to formal and final causes as any other humans.

You assume without argument that "pursuit of mutual self-interest" is all that's involved or that "faith, hope, and charity" cannot also be seen as "mutual self-interests".

You have yet to delineate any morally relevant differentiating characteristics between Mike and Rob and Susan and Dave. Indeed, it seems you condemn them both. If so, it would appear that sexuality is of no moral relevance in determining the status of human relationships. Why then do you persist in your argument?

Regards,

Bill Snedden