Mello Dude Posted March 31, 2015 Share Posted March 31, 2015 Oh, so now you can read minds also? I understand that someone can and is born gay. To sit here on a public forum, build a strawman, and then accuse me of saying or even IMPLYING something that "I" didn't say is a tad unfair wouldn't you say? So, as a society are we never to discriminate on behavior then? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chaddyt Posted March 31, 2015 Share Posted March 31, 2015 So HERE we have an Indiana business owner calling in to a radio show and admitting that he's discriminated against gays for religious reasons. He feels the number of customers coming into his Strictly HeteroTM restaurant will outweigh those he turns away, yet for some reason isn't willing to shout the name of his business from the rooftops to promote his Homosexual FreeTM dining experience. How does this law NOT protect what he's done? 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MarimbaManiac Posted March 31, 2015 Share Posted March 31, 2015 (edited) Your words are your own, I'm just following them to their logical conclusion (which by the way isn't a strawman fallacy, just FYI). By saying that discriminating on someone based on their 'innate behavior' (your words) is less severe than discriminating on race you're saying that it is (or at least in this example) socially acceptable or more appropriate. Discrimination based on someone's intrinsic characteristics is unacceptable, especially when medical science is reaching consensus that it isn't either a mental illness or a behavior that the person is choosing. The abuse that LGBT community experiences is real, the discrimination that they did not ask for or deserve is real, the murders, kidnappings, disrespect, beatings, arrests, and hate filled glances are real. The fact that they have to defend against lawmakers who seek to strip them of their civil rights (whether it be marriage, access to public accommodations, or freedom) is very real even today, whether or not there is a mark on their skin letting you see that clearly. Edited March 31, 2015 by MarimbaManiac 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
corpsband Posted March 31, 2015 Share Posted March 31, 2015 Your words are your own, I'm just following them to their logical conclusion (which by the way isn't a strawman fallacy, just FYI). By saying that discriminating on someone based on their 'innate behavior' (your words) is less severe than discriminating on race you're saying that it is (or at least in this example) socially acceptable or more appropriate. Discrimination based on someone's intrinsic characteristics is unacceptable, especially when medical science is reaching consensus that it isn't either a mental illness or a behavior that the person is choosing. The abuse that LGBT community experiences is real, the discrimination that they did not ask for or deserve is real, the murders, kidnappings, disrespect, beatings, arrests, and hate filled glances are real. The fact that they have to defend against lawmakers who seek to strip them of their civil rights (whether it be marriage, access to public accommodations, or freedom) is very real even today, whether or not there is a mark on their skin letting you see that clearly. What's getting confused here are the discrimination and it's consequences. I'm sure you'll agree that the consequences of racial discrimination were far more severe than the consequences of LGBT discrimination if only due to the sheer volume and severity of crimes committed on it's behalf. OTOH what Mello Dude is ignoring is that -- as an act of discrimination in and of itself -- there *is* no difference. Acts against any class ( be it race, religion or sexual identity) are all of the same nature and should be rejected with the same vehemence. The fact that the historical scales of impact are different (and they objectively are) makes no difference. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mello Dude Posted March 31, 2015 Share Posted March 31, 2015 You are making a strawman. Let me enlighten you. Strawman: A straw man is a common reference argument and is an informal fallacy based on false representation of an opponent's argument.[1] To be successful, a straw man argument requires that the audience be ignorant or uninformed of the original argument.The so-called typical "attacking a straw man" argument creates the illusion of having completely refuted or defeated an opponent's proposition by covertly replacing it with a different proposition (i.e., "stand up a straw man") and then to refute or defeat that false argument ("knock down a straw man") instead of the original proposition. Now, to go back on what you mentioned earlier and have sidestepped and built strawmen to cover. I will make this blunt and simple for you (even though you did mention this) black people can not merely hide in plain sight. This is why is is NOT the same at all. All the chaff you have thrown does not abate this simple fact. Now if you wish to debate WHY human beings are different from mere animals, you may not want to go there. Oh, BTW, I am against this law but the arguments being put forth are so silly that this cannot be allowed to stand without serious debate IMHO. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mello Dude Posted March 31, 2015 Share Posted March 31, 2015 What's getting confused here are the discrimination and it's consequences. I'm sure you'll agree that the consequences of racial discrimination were far more severe than the consequences of LGBT discrimination if only due to the sheer volume and severity of crimes committed on it's behalf. OTOH what Mello Dude is ignoring is that -- as an act of discrimination in and of itself -- there *is* no difference. Acts against any class ( be it race, religion or sexual identity) are all of the same nature and should be rejected with the same vehemence. The fact that the historical scales of impact are different (and they objectively are) makes no difference. I haven't gotten that far yet corpsband. :) I am simply pointing out that black plight vs gay rights is not in the same ballpark and this constant comparisson needs to be corrected and filed away in the circular file folder. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MarimbaManiac Posted March 31, 2015 Share Posted March 31, 2015 You are making a strawman. Let me enlighten you. Strawman: Now, to go back on what you mentioned earlier and have sidestepped and built strawmen to cover. I will make this blunt and simple for you (even though you did mention this) black people can not merely hide in plain sight. This is why is is NOT the same at all. All the chaff you have thrown does not abate this simple fact. Now if you wish to debate WHY human beings are different from mere animals, you may not want to go there. Oh, BTW, I am against this law but the arguments being put forth are so silly that this cannot be allowed to stand without serious debate IMHO. Thank you for enlightening me on your ability to use google. Although besides that I'm afraid your efforts were lost on me as fallacious reasoning was covered in the first stages of my Philosophy degree, but I digress... Unfortunately the straw man fallacy doesn't apply here, as you are making statements that are implying additional scrutiny. By stating that behavioral discrimination is somehow diminished in regards to racial discrimination you are implying that the specific behavior we are discussing is either somehow controllable or able to be mitigated by the person who's behavior is being discriminated against. Similar to your newest comment regarding human and animals, you're throwing out tangential implications all over the place and covering them up by hiding behind the fact that you're not plainly coming out and saying these things (ironically similar to this law and its creators). Your vague arguments are leaving you open for interpretation by those who you're addressing (which again, ironically is similar to the law we're discussing don't you think?). That being said, as I stated earlier there are many LGBT people who can not hide in plain sight, especially those with a gender identity that doesn't fit the norm. So yes that can be analogous to racial relations. Also, and most importantly by belaboring that point you are again implying that in order to avoid discrimination LGBT Americans should hide to avoid discrimination. That alone is a form of discrimination as no one should be forced to hide their own innate characteristics in order to avoid beatings, arrests, murder, etc. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
xandandl Posted March 31, 2015 Share Posted March 31, 2015 I find it of interest and a bit curious that while those against the new Indiana law are equating it as a civil rights issue similar to the Black segregation of earlier decades, the Blacks don't seem to think that. These recent developments may shed some light rather than just heat. http://www.newsmax.com/US/presbyterians-blacks-gay-marriage-Anthony-Evans/2015/03/30/id/635200/ http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2015/03/29/34k-black-and-latino-churches-cut-ties-with-presbyterian-usa-after-same-sex-marriage-approval/ http://anglicanmainstream.org/black-pastors-called-silver-bullet-against-gay-marriage/ Most difficult it seems is the plight of the Black person who is homosexual of whom there may be some in drum corps. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
corpsband Posted March 31, 2015 Share Posted March 31, 2015 I haven't gotten that far yet corpsband. :) I am simply pointing out that black plight vs gay rights is not in the same ballpark and this constant comparisson needs to be corrected and filed away in the circular file folder. I think you're talking past each other and just wanted to point it out. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mello Dude Posted March 31, 2015 Share Posted March 31, 2015 (edited) duplicate Edited March 31, 2015 by Mello Dude Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts