|
|
|
|
|
 |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |
Date: 9/28/2009 12:36:00 PM
From Authorid: 15157
I think that lady Sally is sadly mistaken about the difference in Transgendered people and Homosexuals.  |
Date: 9/28/2009 2:04:00 PM
From Authorid: 19613
Unsurprisingly, I would vote for Novotny.  |
|
Date: 9/28/2009 6:35:00 PM ( Admin )
Homophobe Kern to face transgender challenger... How did Kern person ever get elected to anything. -Rad. |
Date: 9/28/2009 9:35:00 PM
From Authorid: 54444
its a crap shot. Eagles may soar, but weasels don't get sucked into jet engines.  |
Date: 9/28/2009 9:59:00 PM
From Authorid: 62798
Brittany without a doubt...p.s. i live in ok  |
Date: 9/29/2009 6:02:00 AM
From Authorid: 2030
People are free to vote for whoever they want. Also candidates are free to have their own beliefs and opinions.  |
|
Date: 9/29/2009 9:14:00 AM
From Authorid: 19613
Right ^ And people are free to vote against people with idiotic opinions. Freedom, woo! |
Date: 9/29/2009 10:34:00 PM
From Authorid: 62220
People are entitled to their beliefs. and ps: just because you may not like homosexuals does NOT make you a homophobe-that's stereotyping and discriminatory!  |
|
Date: 9/30/2009 9:37:00 AM
From Authorid: 11240
Right, Starlit Bunny. What I don't understand is why they can't seem to field a candidate somewhere in-between these two extremes . . . you know, where most people reside. God Bless.  |
|
Date: 9/30/2009 5:15:00 PM
From Authorid: 19613
There’s nothing extreme about not being homophobic (and yes, if you don‘t like gay people in general, that makes you homophobic the same way not liking black or white people in general makes you a racist). Presumably one wouldn’t want a candidate who is perfectly balanced between “racist” and “not-racist”. |
Date: 9/30/2009 6:59:00 PM
From Authorid: 16376
I think not liking homosexuals is the definition of a homophobe...LOL. But in all seriousness, I do believe that people are entitled to their own opinions. I don't think everyone should have to agree with homosexuality, but I do still think it is important to have respect for others as human beings, even if you don't agree with how they live their lives.  |
|
Date: 10/1/2009 10:22:00 AM
From Authorid: 11240
DP, I just spent a few minutes re-reading our discussion on the post SC put up re: Sally Kern stating the "Homosexual Agenda" was more of a threat to our country than Islaamic terrorists. Do you remember that one? If you need the cite, just ask. In that discussion I clearly pointed out to you how differentiations in classifying human beings results in discriminating treatment, either in favor of those being differentiated or against those being differentiated. It is my position that the vast majority of people (those in between the two polar ends, or extremes) do not have as their overriding need to be governed a desire to differentiate people AT ALL. That's because they understand that we are all just people. Human being = Human being. Homosexual human being does not = human being. Why? Because a differentiation has been added into the second equation which renders the statement not equal. We could do the same thing with race. Human being = Human being White human being does not = human being. Why? Because a differentiation has been added into the second equation which render the statement not equal. NOT ALL HUMAN BEINGS HAVE THE SAME (equal) DIFFERENTIATIONS THAT CAN APPLY TO THEM. Therefore, a candidate who can be seen as someone who can govern within the realm of "Human being = Human being" -- instead of needing to differentiate ANY subset of Human beings -- is the one most people would find the most desirable, as they ALL fall into the category of Human being. God Bless. |
|
Date: 10/1/2009 1:47:00 PM
From Authorid: 19613
These are concepts we’re talking about, not numbers. You don’t change the fact that a man is a human being by stipulating that he is also white. In any case, a non-discriminatory candidate would be a candidate who is neither homophobic (which means Kern fails) nor heterophobic. I don’t know for certain about Novotny, but in the absence of evidence to the contrary I think it’s fair to assume that she is neither. |
|
Date: 10/1/2009 3:39:00 PM
From Authorid: 11240
Sorry to throw the math concepts at you, DP. My mistake. I know you think equality is some sort of esoteric, philosophical concept, and not a provable math concept. As far as supporting this opponent of Sally Kern, because you are of the belief that she must reside in-between a heterophobic and a homophobic, you are forgetting that they both reside in Oklahoma. Just a quick look at commentary from there indicates that it is a conservative district in which they are running. God Bless. |
|
Date: 10/1/2009 4:14:00 PM
From Authorid: 19613
Equality is a concept wherever it is applied. You can’t “show” me equality; it’s not a physical thing. Therefore it’s a concept, one which has different applications depending upon the context. Those characteristics which all humans share are the basis for the claim that they should be treated equally. They may not share these characteristics in the same way, but they pass a common threshold. This has nothing to do with whether the district is conservative or not. Being conservative does not excuse homophobia (nor indeed, would being liberal excuse heterophobia). |
|
Date: 10/2/2009 9:11:00 AM
From Authorid: 11240
"Those characteristics which all humans share are the basis for the claim that they should be treated equally. They may not share these characteristics in the same way, but they pass a common threshold." Do you care to expound on this gem???!!! You do understand that "equal" and "same" are synonymous, so with you referring to only one in the negative, you've negated the two concepts from being equal! That common threshold you speak of refers to how we were all CREATED (human seed permeates human egg). Period. "Those characteristics which all humans share" consist of what? beyond how we were all created. Please enlighten the world. . . As to this election, you're right. Being conservative does not excuse Sally Kerns personal views espoused in non-governmental settings. But neither does it espouse voting for someone that isn't conservative. God Bless. |
|
Date: 10/2/2009 11:10:00 AM
From Authorid: 19613
Is this the first time you’ve come across the concept that all humans should be treated equally because of their shared human nature? I’m saying nothing particularly novel here. And please do not put words in my mouth. The fact that all humans were conceived by the same kind of biological process does not entail why we should be treated with equal dignity and respect. To answer your question then, there are certain elements of human nature which are common to all human beings. Different people will give different names to these features, some may include features which others omit, but they all more or less say the same thing. Human beings are rational animals, we are self-aware, pleasure-seeking/pain-avoiding creatures who are constantly forming and revising our conceptions of ‘the good life’. Some humans posses these qualities to a greater degree than others, for example, children are normally less mentally developed than adults, and adults themselves vary in the extent to which they are self-reflective and rational. Regardless of these differences, even small children pass the threshold of personhood to the extent that the constitute persons of equal moral worth with the rest of humanity. |
|
Date: 10/3/2009 9:42:00 AM
From Authorid: 11240
DP, you make a general "equality" statement,and then go on to use words which connote "unequal" in your attempt to justify your "concept of equality". Just a few examples: "different", "omit", "more or less", "greater degree", "vary". God Bless. |
|
Date: 10/3/2009 2:44:00 PM
From Authorid: 19613
I refer you to my final sentence, in the previous comment. Once a certain threshold has been passed, additional differences have no bearing upon whether individuals ought to be treated as equals. |
Date: 10/4/2009 9:08:00 AM
From Authorid: 11240
Please define "certain threshold".  God Bless. |
|
Date: 10/4/2009 9:36:00 AM
From Authorid: 19613
Okay, but it’s not going to be a philosophically rigorous definition, which would take a bit of time to spell out clearly. Broadly speaking then, an individual who possesses self-awareness, who is capable of forming and revising their conception of ‘the good life’, one with mental competence to the extent that he or she is able to comprehend and exercise civil and political liberties, who is self-reflective about their actions and motivations, passes this threshold. |
|
Date: 10/4/2009 10:19:00 AM
From Authorid: 11240
So, DP, to take your last two comments in concert, are you saying that those that do not pass this "certain threshold" have no expectation of being treated "equally"? God Bless. |
|
Date: 10/4/2009 1:05:00 PM
From Authorid: 19613
Perhaps you could rephrase, I’m not entirely certain what you’re asking. |
|
Date: 10/4/2009 9:02:00 PM
From Authorid: 11240
Well, DP, you've made a statement: "Once a certain threshold has been passed, additional differences have no bearing upon whether individuals ought to be treated as equals." I am understanding you to say that any type of differences one may have will vary from individual to individual. Those differences have no bearing (are of no importance) in determining whether each individual who has come upon this "certain threshold" should be treated with equality. And then you defined this "certain threshold". So, I ask you about those who have not attained this level of threshold. Because what I see you seem to be saying is that those who have not crossed over this certain threshold should be allowed special, or more restricted, or different treatment (in all those just mentioned terms, not equal  ) based on their differences. For example, mentally disabled people, children, those in a coma, should be allowed to invoke their lack of attaining that "certain threshold" -- i.e., below level of possessing self-awareness, or the inabilty of forming and revising their conception of 'the good life, or their mental incompetence, or their inability to empathize -- as a difference from those who have attained that "certain threshold" in their expectaion of how they are treated.Thus, those people who do not attain that "certain threshold" expect, as do society as a whole, that the differences which are present which make those people unable to be at that "certain threshold" are entitled to be treated specially, aka differently, based upon their having differences from those who can be described by you as "an individual who possesses self-awareness, who is capable of forming and revising their conception of ‘the good life’, one with mental competence to the extent that he or she is able to comprehend and exercise civil and political liberties, who is self-reflective about their actions and motivations, passes this threshold". Correct? God Bless. |
|
Date: 10/4/2009 9:30:00 PM
From Authorid: 19613
More or less, yes. |
|
Date: 10/5/2009 7:24:00 AM
From Authorid: 11240
DP, more "equal treatment" for some and less for others? I am not sure what that is supposed to mean. Can you expound? God Bless. |
|
Date: 10/5/2009 11:16:00 AM
From Authorid: 19613
Your assessment of my position is more or less correct, allowing the caveat that my position as laid out above is not philosophically rigorous, i.e. that it would need to be pinned down and elaborated upon in a few areas before it could be used as the basis for stronger claims about equality. It is sufficient, I think, for the purposes of this discussion. |
|
Date: 10/6/2009 7:46:00 AM
From Authorid: 11240
So, you are retracting this statement you made: "Once a certain threshold has been passed, additional differences have no bearing upon whether individuals ought to be treated as equals." Because your claim there is such thing as this "certain threshold", (certain connoting "Known" yet you'll not be definitive in what that threshold could actually be, leaving it (that door) wide open for your own brand of better or different or special treatment for whomever you feel has not quite reached that threshold, clearly does not resemble being "treated as equals", since the equal quality is up in the air. God Bless. |
|
Date: 10/6/2009 7:56:00 AM
From Authorid: 19613
No, I’m not retracting anything. I stand by the general principles outlined above, but I’m acknowledging that they made need to be fleshed out, or modified slightly in order for them to be made secure (in the same way one might say ‘we should have free speech’, while allowing that there may be additional premises required, for example that one should not have the right to yell ‘fire’ in a crowded theatre under certain circumstances). I think the qualities I outlined above provide a good idea as to where the boundary would be drawn, and whether and to what extent we might allow exemptions, and whether and to what extent a degree of arbitrariness will be entailed. For example, the age of consent exists because we judge children as being unequal to adults in terms of their capacity to consent to sexual acts. This is only a general principle however; in practice there may be some children who are mature enough to consent, and there may be adults who have passed the legal threshold but who remain too immature to know what they’re getting themselves into. These are facts which have to be taken into account when deciding public policy, however it is unlikely that the law will be able to operate beyond general principles in this particular area (hence, a degree of arbitrariness will be necessary.) |
|
Date: 10/6/2009 8:49:00 AM
From Authorid: 11240
This "caveat" of yours -- "in practice there may be some children who are mature enough to consent" -- sounds like a Roman Polanski or NAMBLA defense . . . God Bless. |
|
Date: 10/6/2009 11:04:00 AM
From Authorid: 19613
Do you think a switch goes off inside a child’s head at midnight on their sixteenth birthday (or whatever the particular age of consent happens to be in your area) such that they suddenly become mature enough to have sex? If you’ll notice, I said above that “it is unlikely that the law will be able to operate beyond general principles in this particular area”. I did not think I needed to elaborate on that, but apparently I do: the fact that some mature children will fall below the age of consent does not outweigh the need to have clear guidelines and protections in law, for all children, hence a need for a single age of consent. In practise there is no way to objectively test whether the child in question presents an exceptional case, and even if there were, the danger that this would encourage predators is too great. |
|
Date: 10/6/2009 3:52:00 PM
From Authorid: 11240
Honestly, DP, this is the way your ideas are coming across to me: Prior to this last comment or yours, your last stated comment said, "hence, a degree of arbitrariness will be necessary". For something to be "arbitrary" is for it to NOT be regulated by fixed rule or law; so then when I point out that having such a degree of arbitrariness available gives rise to a defense for people such as Roman Polanski or NAMBLA, you act as if that is just fine, except that there is an objective age limit which is necessary -- not to protect CHILDREN! -- but to PROTECT PREDATORS so that they know that that defense (children were mature enough) isn't readily available, so be careful .God Bless. |
|
Date: 10/6/2009 4:23:00 PM
From Authorid: 19613
I can see why you might be confused. The sort of arbitrariness (“Determined by chance, whim, or impulse, and not by necessity, reason, or principle” I was referring to in the case of a law setting down the age of (sexual) consent is to do with the specific point at which the line is drawn. Some countries draw the line at one age, while other countries choose differently. Some countries raise or lower the age over time. My point is that, since one does not magically become mature enough to have sex the moment the clock strikes 12 on the day of their 16th birthday or whatever, the place where the line is drawn will inevitably fail to neatly divide the mature from the immature. Nevertheless, such lines must be drawn. So, we can use reason to determine that there ought to be a line drawn, and we can use reason to narrow down the options somewhat (we wouldn’t seriously consider setting the bar at 5 or 50 for example) but the final decision to draw the line in a certain place, will be arbitrary, to some extent (why 16 and not 17 or 15? 16 and a half? And so on). |
Date: 10/6/2009 8:24:00 PM
From Authorid: 55967
I'd have to find out a LOT more about the candidates and what they stood for, and not base my vote on this. And that article is as biased as they come.  |
|
Date: 10/7/2009 12:51:00 PM
From Authorid: 19613
Would you vote for a candidate who was a racist but had otherwise good policies that you agreed with? |
|
Date: 10/7/2009 4:03:00 PM
From Authorid: 11240
Oh, I am not confused, DP. I thoroughly understand that you comprehend that there must be an age of consent legislated, you just feel that age is an arbitrary measure of consent. God Bless. |
|
Date: 10/7/2009 4:40:00 PM
From Authorid: 55967
DP, no, but being a racist is quite another matter. I do not equate bigotry or particularly racism with disagreement on the nature of sexual orientation. I do believe that you do, and that you have come to that a long time ago, but I don't have the time to do a Deb Debate with you (which usually seems to happen when the both of you hit a debate). One thing though, in skimming your exchanges with Deb, I noticed the issue of equality being brought up. That is what I am really saying myself. |
|
Date: 10/7/2009 4:55:00 PM
From Authorid: 55967
Okay, real quick...there are several reasons why I do not equate bigotry or particularly racism with a disagreement in sexual orientation, but I'll lay one out here. With bigotry and/or racism, it is necessary to have a certain prejudice on some level with someone else as a person, because of who they are and how they are born. That is not a prerequisite for someone who disagrees with absolute acceptance of all sexual orientations; such a person can have total acceptance of all people with no prejudice. |
|
Date: 10/7/2009 6:38:00 PM
From Authorid: 19613
Arbitrary to a degree. Do you disagree? Or do you believe that something physically changes in a person upon the stroke of midnight such that they suddenly become mature enough to consent? |
|
Date: 10/7/2009 6:43:00 PM
From Authorid: 19613
Gypsyhawk: You’ve hit the nail on the head, I think. For me, racism and homophobia are two branches of the same tree. What if I were to say that I disagree with being black? That I disagree with the ‘black lifestyle’? In any case, you may accept gay people as equals while believing that being gay is wrong, but Ms. Kern’s past comments clearly belie an underlying prejudice. |
|
Date: 10/7/2009 6:44:00 PM
From Authorid: 19613
That should be *do you agree*? |
Renasoft is the proud sponsor of the Unsolved Mystery Publications website.
See: www.rensoft.com Personal Site server, Power to build Personal Web Sites and Personal Web Pages
All stories are copyright protected and may not be reproduced in any form, except by specific written authorization
52140 Category:(Debate) Created:(9/28/2009 11:21:00 AM)