5 ms·

> We're talking morality as perceived by others and the very real consequences that can flow from remaining consistent in one's moral perspective, while the res

by byuu 12y ago

> We're talking morality as perceived by others and the very real consequences that can flow from remaining consistent in one's moral perspective, while the rest of the community's view shifts I understand what you're saying, and I would certainly be outraged if Mozilla fired a CEO for supporting equal rights. The problem is you seem to view everything as relative shades of gray worthy of equal merit. This is patently false. There is a such thing as clear, objective, unambiguous, right and wrong in this world. Slavery? Wrong. Misogyny? Wrong. Anti-miscegenation? Wrong. Segregation? Wrong. Bigotry over sexual orientation? Wrong. What do these all share? Immutable human traits that cannot be changed nor chosen, that harm no one. They're examples of hatred and derision, of treating others as "lesser" human beings instead of as equals. Now if you want to discuss something like abortion ... we can have a really meaningful conversation, because there are no perfect solutions to these problems. One's rights trample on another's, and vice versa. This is not such a case. I don't care what the popular opinion is at any given time, what Eich did was absolutely reprehensible. > Gay marriage is the question of whether the government should subsidize or sponsor that behavior in the same way it subsidizes and sponsors heterosexual behaviors As always, if it were about kids and reproduction, we wouldn't allow infertile and senior couples to marry. The government should clearly not be subsidizing relationships at all, but since it is, it must do so fairly. Even our insane Supreme Court realized this vis-a-vis DOMA. The 14th amendment is very clear.

eropple 12y ago
I had a pretty fiery response queued up, and my browser crashed. I'm glad you posted instead. Thank you for your eloquence.
cookiecaper 12y ago
I'm going to let PG do the legwork for me here: >I suspect the only taboos that are more than taboos are the ones that are universal, or nearly so. Murder for example. But any idea that's considered harmless in a significant percentage of times and places, and yet is taboo in ours, is a good candidate for something we're mistaken about. Again, from his essay on taboos. [1] Most everything you've cited as an objective wrong was practically universally considered an objective good nary 60 years ago. The morality around slavery was so murky that a years-long civil war was fought between the opposing sides on that issue. Are we just supposed to believe that everyone that lived south of the Mason-Dixon line was naturally insipid, evil, and amoral? As PG states, unless it's universally regarded as evil across all (or nearly all) civilizations, it's very likely that a particular taboo does not cross into the "objectively evil" territory. Slavery has been pretty widespread throughout human history, so that should clue you in that there are possible morally sympathetic readings of it (which usually hinge on the belief that the enslaved group is naturally inferior and couldn't survive without the master group). >As always, if it were about kids and reproduction, we wouldn't allow infertile and senior couples to marry. I disagree based on two important elements. Heterosexual couples could become fertile at any time; you never know when infertility will reverse itself if the couple is otherwise healthy and under 40. Post-menopausal women or other permanently sterile heterosexual partners are OK because they are examples that reinforce the need for permanent heterosexual coupling and family structure, even if they are unable to produce children on their own, and secondarily, they can provide a natural parenting context with male-female parental duality, as biologically mandated, if they ever obtain a ward. Homosexual sexual activity can never result in reproduction and can not provide the male-female parental duality that is necessary to produce a child by natural means. Marriage is really about all of society, and not really about the couple that gets married. It is fine for one to believe that gay marriage is beneficial, but it's not fine to pretend like there is no change in the behavior endorsed and that opposition is based solely on discriminatory motives. Whatever you say you are, or whatever you actually are, heterosexual coupling and homosexual coupling are two different behaviors that could have differing ramifications on society as a whole. Thus, the cost-benefit is worthy of some consideration, and differing opinions are fine, even using a standard that disallows all "discriminatory" rationale (which standard can't really be considered an objective good either). I'm not really trying to escalate this into a debate on gay marriage, but I think it's important to delineate the logic that gay rights campaigners fight hard to obscure. Gay rights advocates don't want a conversation to get started; they just want everyone to believe that their opponents are naturally evil, so they go around and make a frowny face until it gets people like Brendan Eich kicked out of jobs, and they can then point at Eich and say "He was so evil he got fired! Only evil people would dare oppose us". Perhaps you don't believe a male-female parental duality is important. Perhaps you don't believe that marriage is an institution that deserves state protection or benefits. Perhaps you don't see any meaning in the evolutionary imperative that children can only be produced by opposite-sex partners. All of this is well and good. You are welcome to your beliefs. The important thing is to accept that others are welcome to their beliefs too, even if they differ from yours, and that that doesn't automatically make them "lesser human beings" (or "bigots", the currently popular shorthand). >The government should clearly not be subsidizing relationships at all, but since it is, it must do so fairly. Even our insane Supreme Court realized this vis-a-vis DOMA. The 14th amendment is very clear. The 14th Amendment is anything but "very clear", and again, the fact that there have been so many differing interpretations of it is evidence that its meaning and implications are debatable by reasonable persons. It's a bad, broad law. [1] http://www.paulgraham.com/say.html http://www.paulgraham.com/say.html
- byuu 12y ago
  > Most everything you've cited as an objective wrong was practically universally considered an objective good nary 60 years ago Again, it doesn't matter what the popular opinion was on this. PG stops at murder. I stop at looking at other human beings as inferior life forms based on immutable traits. I am supremely confident that in 60 years, my specific views won't be viewed as bigoted by future generations. > Are we just supposed to believe that everyone that lived south of the Mason-Dixon line was naturally insipid, evil, and amoral? Everyone that lived south of the Mason-Dixon and believed that black people were property? Which would be a majority, but certainly not every single person in the south then? Yes. Yes they were. > which usually hinge on the belief that the enslaved group is naturally inferior and couldn't survive without the master group Black people seemed to be subsisting just fine in Africa before being dragged over here on slave ships. > you never know when infertility will reverse itself if the couple is otherwise healthy and under 40 So you support banning marriage after the age of 40 then, got it. > Post-menopausal women or other permanently sterile heterosexual partners are OK because they are examples that reinforce the need for permanent heterosexual coupling and family structure, even if they are unable to produce children on their own ... or not. What an unbelievable load of horse shit you are spewing. I can't honestly believe you typed that with a straight face. If you're going to be this fatuous, then I'm not even going to bother with the rest of your post. But just so you don't claim this is an ad hominem attack: the APA (and most every other unbiased organization that have studied this issue in depth) disagrees with your bigoted narrative: http://www.apa.org/monitor/2010/10/adopted-children.aspx http://www.apa.org/monitor/2010/10/adopted-children.aspx It doesn't matter anyway, you've already lost on this issue. The USSC is going to reverse the last 17 states holding out this summer. You can go pout about it with the anti-miscegenation crowd.
  - eropple 12y ago
    It does blow my mind something fierce that "but but it might be you next time" is a serious argument in this. I'm not bigoted, I default to inclusion. Unless we have a serious uprising of the regressive right, I have nothing to fear. And I have much more to fear if they come to power than "Ed said nice things about gay people."
  - 12y ago

by byuu 12y ago

eropple 12y ago

I had a pretty fiery response queued up, and my browser crashed. I'm glad you posted instead. Thank you for your eloquence.

cookiecaper 12y ago

I'm going to let PG do the legwork for me here: >I suspect the only taboos that are more than taboos are the ones that are universal, or nearly so. Murder for example. But any idea that's considered harmless in a significant percentage of times and places, and yet is taboo in ours, is a good candidate for something we're mistaken about. Again, from his essay on taboos. [1] Most everything you've cited as an objective wrong was practically universally considered an objective good nary 60 years ago. The morality around slavery was so murky that a years-long civil war was fought between the opposing sides on that issue. Are we just supposed to believe that everyone that lived south of the Mason-Dixon line was naturally insipid, evil, and amoral? As PG states, unless it's universally regarded as evil across all (or nearly all) civilizations, it's very likely that a particular taboo does not cross into the "objectively evil" territory. Slavery has been pretty widespread throughout human history, so that should clue you in that there are possible morally sympathetic readings of it (which usually hinge on the belief that the enslaved group is naturally inferior and couldn't survive without the master group). >As always, if it were about kids and reproduction, we wouldn't allow infertile and senior couples to marry. I disagree based on two important elements. Heterosexual couples could become fertile at any time; you never know when infertility will reverse itself if the couple is otherwise healthy and under 40. Post-menopausal women or other permanently sterile heterosexual partners are OK because they are examples that reinforce the need for permanent heterosexual coupling and family structure, even if they are unable to produce children on their own, and secondarily, they can provide a natural parenting context with male-female parental duality, as biologically mandated, if they ever obtain a ward. Homosexual sexual activity can never result in reproduction and can not provide the male-female parental duality that is necessary to produce a child by natural means. Marriage is really about all of society, and not really about the couple that gets married. It is fine for one to believe that gay marriage is beneficial, but it's not fine to pretend like there is no change in the behavior endorsed and that opposition is based solely on discriminatory motives. Whatever you say you are, or whatever you actually are, heterosexual coupling and homosexual coupling are two different behaviors that could have differing ramifications on society as a whole. Thus, the cost-benefit is worthy of some consideration, and differing opinions are fine, even using a standard that disallows all "discriminatory" rationale (which standard can't really be considered an objective good either). I'm not really trying to escalate this into a debate on gay marriage, but I think it's important to delineate the logic that gay rights campaigners fight hard to obscure. Gay rights advocates don't want a conversation to get started; they just want everyone to believe that their opponents are naturally evil, so they go around and make a frowny face until it gets people like Brendan Eich kicked out of jobs, and they can then point at Eich and say "He was so evil he got fired! Only evil people would dare oppose us". Perhaps you don't believe a male-female parental duality is important. Perhaps you don't believe that marriage is an institution that deserves state protection or benefits. Perhaps you don't see any meaning in the evolutionary imperative that children can only be produced by opposite-sex partners. All of this is well and good. You are welcome to your beliefs. The important thing is to accept that others are welcome to their beliefs too, even if they differ from yours, and that that doesn't automatically make them "lesser human beings" (or "bigots", the currently popular shorthand). >The government should clearly not be subsidizing relationships at all, but since it is, it must do so fairly. Even our insane Supreme Court realized this vis-a-vis DOMA. The 14th amendment is very clear. The 14th Amendment is anything but "very clear", and again, the fact that there have been so many differing interpretations of it is evidence that its meaning and implications are debatable by reasonable persons. It's a bad, broad law. [1] http://www.paulgraham.com/say.html http://www.paulgraham.com/say.html

byuu 12y ago
> Most everything you've cited as an objective wrong was practically universally considered an objective good nary 60 years ago Again, it doesn't matter what the popular opinion was on this. PG stops at murder. I stop at looking at other human beings as inferior life forms based on immutable traits. I am supremely confident that in 60 years, my specific views won't be viewed as bigoted by future generations. > Are we just supposed to believe that everyone that lived south of the Mason-Dixon line was naturally insipid, evil, and amoral? Everyone that lived south of the Mason-Dixon and believed that black people were property? Which would be a majority, but certainly not every single person in the south then? Yes. Yes they were. > which usually hinge on the belief that the enslaved group is naturally inferior and couldn't survive without the master group Black people seemed to be subsisting just fine in Africa before being dragged over here on slave ships. > you never know when infertility will reverse itself if the couple is otherwise healthy and under 40 So you support banning marriage after the age of 40 then, got it. > Post-menopausal women or other permanently sterile heterosexual partners are OK because they are examples that reinforce the need for permanent heterosexual coupling and family structure, even if they are unable to produce children on their own ... or not. What an unbelievable load of horse shit you are spewing. I can't honestly believe you typed that with a straight face. If you're going to be this fatuous, then I'm not even going to bother with the rest of your post. But just so you don't claim this is an ad hominem attack: the APA (and most every other unbiased organization that have studied this issue in depth) disagrees with your bigoted narrative: http://www.apa.org/monitor/2010/10/adopted-children.aspx http://www.apa.org/monitor/2010/10/adopted-children.aspx It doesn't matter anyway, you've already lost on this issue. The USSC is going to reverse the last 17 states holding out this summer. You can go pout about it with the anti-miscegenation crowd.
- eropple 12y ago
  It does blow my mind something fierce that "but but it might be you next time" is a serious argument in this. I'm not bigoted, I default to inclusion. Unless we have a serious uprising of the regressive right, I have nothing to fear. And I have much more to fear if they come to power than "Ed said nice things about gay people."
- 12y ago