Demonizing people

Discussion in 'Religion' started by Sorcerer, Feb 24, 2014.

  1. Magical Realist Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    12,881
    Because Syne thinks gay people are sick and twisted individuals who are addicted to perverted sexual behavior. Strange that I'm gay and haven't had sex in around 15 years. So much for the gay sex addict stereotype.
     
  2. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  3. Syne Sine qua non Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    3,515
    I have not vilified any group, you have simply made a straw man of my analogies. The point is that people are capable of condemning behavior, of just about any sort, without necessarily demonizing the people who commit said behavior. IOW, just because someone thinks some behavior is wrong does not mean that they condone violence against people who behave so.

    I have been making comparisons of things people think is wrong not homosexuality is criminal, or whatever your straw man may be.

    And I am entitled to hold whatever opinions I like, regardless of how much you may disagree with them.
     
  4. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  5. Balerion Banned Banned

    Messages:
    8,596
    Gambling addiction is typically defined as continued gambling in spite of the negative impact it has on a person's life, which is why many people choose to refer to it as "problem gambling." Also, studies have shown that gambling addiction is not all that different from drug addiction. Both of these facts make it difficult to accept your analogy.

    There are several problems with this. First and foremost, it's simply a fact that terms like "addict" have negative connotations; there is an implication of weakness, as well as the assumption that their behavior is in some way wrong. So condemning the actions while not condemning the person seems impossible, especially when you continually liken homosexuality to "vice" behaviors such as gambling and drug use. Secondly, you say that these behaviors don't hurt anyone, but drug abuse and problem gambling by definition hurt people. Even if the only victim is the person themselves, someone is bringing harm upon themselves through their actions. On the other hand, homosexuality actually is victimless. Those who suffer as a result of being gay suffer because of the actions of others, not because of anything they did wrong.

    But people who do not believe there is anything wrong with homosexuality are not basing it merely on a feeling, but on reason. Not only does it not hurt anyone, but the alternatives--repression, conversion--are always harmful, and potentially fatal. So there seems to be no good reason to accept your feeling that homosexuality is immoral as valid. You'd have to explain what makes it so, but you've balked at every attempt.
     
  6. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  7. Magical Realist Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    12,881
    Sure you have. You just compared being gay to being a gambling addict. That is vilifying gay people, as if being gay were some addiction that is against one's nature that had to be overcome. Own your bigotry.

    If the behavior is part of who a person is, then yes condemning their behavior IS condemning the person as well. It'd be like me saying I think the religious behavior of a religious person is delusional and weakminded, but then claiming that I don't mean that to apply to the religious person themselves. That's ridiculous. Gay behavior is part of who a gay person is. By demonizing that you are automatically demonizing gay people.

    There's a hundred different ways you could have made that analogy. But you intentionally picked the two that compared gay people to being criminals and gambling addicts. I hardly think that was accidental.

    And you will be held to the same Sciforums rules of hatespeech and stereotyping you hold everyone else to. You think being a mod exempts you from that? Think again..
     
  8. Balerion Banned Banned

    Messages:
    8,596
    Your analogies themselves were straw men, because homosexuality is not analogous to problem gambling, nor is it an addiction of any kind.

    You can't blame people for suspecting nefarious motives. Comparing homosexuality to obviously damaging behavior, learned behavior that could ultimately be avoided to the betterment of the individual. This is standard homophobic rote.

    No one suggested otherwise.

    However, you should be prepared for how those opinions reflect on you. Don't act offended when people suspect that you're a bigot.
     
  9. Aqueous Id flat Earth skeptic Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    6,152
    Somehow this thread turned into demonizing the mod who split it off from the prior topic to purportedly address religious demonization (of women/gays). Oh, wait, that's not right. You folks were just condemning the behavior. Huge difference, isn't there, esp. when considered from the high ground.

    That would leave the religions perpetuating the same/similar offenses guilty as charged. And, as many of them purport to include sins of omission, consipiracy and just plain hating on people, we have to lump the guilty thinking in with guilty behavior.

    So far the jury here is not going to acquit. Maybe the insanity defense will be raised. When the shoe is on the other foot, and the haters are on trial before a judge who happens to be lesbian, maybe all that religion will come home to roost.
     
  10. Randwolf Ignorance killed the cat Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    4,182
    We can only fervently fantasize. Maybe there really is a benevolent God and all this will come to pass...

    O, that the tyrants and oppressors should taste hellfire for all eternity. *hmph*
     
  11. Balerion Banned Banned

    Messages:
    8,596
    Nah. We don't punisher haters here. We promote them to moderator!
     
  12. Syne Sine qua non Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    3,515
    Again, the analogy is about what people may condemn, not a direct comparison of the examples given. You cannot deny that all example behavior is condemned, by someone, and that this condemnation does not necessarily lead to demonizing the person. That is the only point the analogy was intended to make.

    Uh, you would have to show me where I ever compared homosexuality to drug use.

    That is just it, you obviously have a different opinion on what is right and wrong, so you assume the condemned are not in the wrong. That is to be expected.

    But a personal weakness does not make the person fundamentally evil or immoral. It is very far from impossible to condemn behavior while sympathizing with the sufferer of such behavior.

    But am I to take it that you think no one has the right to state their opinion about what is right or wrong if, what, it differs from yours?

    I am having trouble parsing that first sentence. Maybe you can take another stab at it.

    I have explained why elsewhere, but I am not generally interested in convincing anyone else. Freedom of belief is paramount, including yours.

    "Again, the analogy is about what people may condemn, not a direct comparison of the examples given. You cannot deny that all example behavior is condemned, by someone, and that this condemnation does not necessarily lead to demonizing the person. That is the only point the analogy was intended to make."

    In my experience, primarily with heterosexuals (men and women), those who most claim/demonstrate their sexuality as central to their identity are the most insecure about their sexuality. It is generally called overcompensation. I suppose that never occurs with homosexuals though. :bugeye:

    You saying "I think" is clearly a statement of opinion, and so long as you are not using it as a hasty generalization of a group or individual there is nothing wrong with it. Personally, I find many specific religious behaviors to be delusional and weak-minded. I do not think that participating in these devalues the person or otherwise condemns them. Just because they may display some weak-minded behavior does not necessarily mean they are generally weak-minded.

    So no, I do not accept that condemning behavior, no matter how intrinsic to their identity they self-report it to be, must be conflated with a hasty generalization of demonizing the person.

    You do get the difference, right? You can condemn specific behavior, but you can only demonize the person in their entirety. Even if you condemn the weakness in the person that contributes to the behavior, you are not denying that they may still have virtues otherwise.

    No, there is not. Since the analogy was about things people condemn it is not possible to exclude condemned behavior, and you would be making this straw man of any other condemned behavior I used. Yes, homosexuality could have been left out of it, except it was a direct response to Sorcerer's comment about "demonizing gay people".

    As explained above, specific behavior can be condemned with any stereotyping at all. That opinion does not, in itself, say anything further about the people who display such behavior.

    Or is saying you think it is wrong for people to wear white after Labor Day somehow hate-speech or stereotyping? Opinions will differ. Learn to live with it.

    "Again [ad infinitum], the analogy is about what people may condemn, not a direct comparison of the examples given. You cannot deny that all example behavior is condemned, by someone, and that this condemnation does not necessarily lead to demonizing the person. That is the only point the analogy was intended to make."

    And since my analogies were never attributed as being argued by anyone else, they could not possibly be straw men.

    In point of fact, I did not compare "homosexuality", as an orientation. I made an analogy of "homosexual activity". But I guess you subscribe quite heavily to the notion that "you are what you do", huh? Personally, I think there is a significant difference between who a person is and what actions they may take. I believe that, regardless of the vicissitudes of life, people are generally well-intending (whatever they believe that to be).

    I would not blame you for making a mountain out of a molehill any more than I would blame a dog for chasing a cat. I can try to correct it, but I cannot blame you for acting in your nature. After all, you probably believe yourself incapable of changing your own mind.

    So you cannot condemn behavior without demonizing the person?
     
  13. Syne Sine qua non Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    3,515
    Funny, I do not feel demonized.
     
  14. Magical Realist Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    12,881
    Reported for more bigoted stereotyping of gay people. This is becoming quite a pattern for you isn't it homophobe?
     
  15. Syne Sine qua non Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    3,515
    Yeah, I got that report.

    First, I made an anecdotal statement (i.e. "In my experience") about heterosexuals. Let us see, nothing there about homosexuals.

    Second, I made a sarcastic statement that this does not occur with homosexuals. Let us see, I did mention homosexuals, but how that can be construed as stereotyping is beyond me. Looks like more of an excuse for name-calling.
     
  16. Balerion Banned Banned

    Messages:
    8,596
    But in the examples given, there absolutely is a negative connotation associated to the person, which I have pointed out. This seems to be the largest point you miss. Condemnation of the act seems to go hand-in-hand with condemnation of the person, especially in something like homosexuality, which is by all accounts an immuatable quality. Unlike problem gambling, drug use, or criminal behavior, which all seem to be learned behaviors or the result of certain environmental pressures, homosexuality isn't something that can be "fixed." This makes sympathy problematic, because as the behavior persists, sympathy tends to run out. So in practical application, it seems that it probably is impossible to separate condemnation of the deed from condemnation of the person.

    I didn't say you did. I said you compare it to vice behaviors, and provided two examples of vice behaviors.

    There is no assumption; I base my assessment of the "condemned" on a specific criteria.

    That depends on who you ask. Given the propensity for oppression of homosexuality, and violence towards them, sympathy for the "sufferer" seems to be uncommon. I can't recall you ever showing any sympathy for their plight.

    Please explain what gave you that impression. Otherwise, you're just baiting.

    Wasn't difficult, Syne. People base their positive (or even apathetic) opinions of homosexuality on more than just feelings. They base those opinions on reason. Logic.

    Expected cop-out. Hopefully you'll do better in the thread you invited me to create.
     
  17. Syne Sine qua non Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    3,515
    Anything condemned by someone is likely to have some negative connotation, so it is impossible to make an analogy about condemnation without such examples. The only disconnect here seems to be that you simply do not condemn homosexual activities and presume that homosexuality is an "immutable quality". And? Nothing unexpected there.

    Unfounded generality based on one such behavior.

    Sure, but I generally eschew sympathy. Sympathy of the "sufferer" cannot be too uncommon, seeing as gay marriage is moving forward. But even without any sympathy, condemning a behavior does not necessitate demonizing the person.

    And?
     
  18. Balerion Banned Banned

    Messages:
    8,596
    Then you admit your argument is defeated. That was...unexpected.

    Whether I think it's an immutable quality or no, homosexuals don't seem to be leaving the flock, so what you end up with is a sinner who can't stop sinning, and therefore losing whatever sympathy they had from the condemner.

    Not at all.

    And skip right to the demonization? I thought you said you don't condemn the individual...

    You seem to be confusing "Sympathy of the sufferer" with constitutional law. While I don't discount the sea change in how homosexuality is viewed in this country, even people opposed to it are beginning to realize that the constitution will undermine their efforts to oppress whenever it reaches the highest courts.

    I'm confused. Above, you seem to admit to exactly the opposite. Now you've changed your mind?

    Your earlier contention was that disputes over right and wrong is based on feelings, and as such one must lend credence to the opposing view. I attempted to correct your position by pointing out that there are reasoned arguments for why homosexuality is not wrong, and that it isn't reducible to "feelings".
     
  19. Beer w/Straw Transcendental Ignorance! Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    5,510
    I demonized a forum member to the point where I felt I might be loosing my humanity.

    He was so dumb and I wanted to make him realize he was so dumb. I went on a crusade to make his brain explode half a world away.

    Hopefully I can check myself in the future...
     
  20. wellwisher Banned Banned

    Messages:
    5,160
    Don't atheist demonize religion and do the same things, or is the dual standard in effect so this is different by their own definition? This entire article is about demonizing all of religion because someone dared to speak out against the propaganda. Jesus would say you can see the speck in the other person's eye but not the log in your own eye.

    We should change the tax code to exempt religion from having to pay for the social mops needed to prop up immorality. If all behavior is relative, their should not be extra social costs to prop up immorality, and the liberals should be willing yo pay their own tab. If there is extra social cost, such behavior is not relative. Inferior plus extra cost equals an illusion of relative.

    If we place moral and immoral on a scale, these do not weigh the same, so they are not equal. The side with immorality requires so much more propping up. Why do you think it takes a circus of propaganda and force law to prop up homosexuality? Without mops it is not sustainable.
     
  21. Randwolf Ignorance killed the cat Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    4,182
    For more on wellwisher's fascinating "mop" theory, see here.
     
  22. Magical Realist Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    12,881
    That's the bigoted stereotype. As if gay people don't get something you happen to believe, which is false anyway. Gay people identify with their orientation in exactly the same sense that straight people do when they speak of their lovers, spouses, dating, or family. So ofcourse it partially defines who they are. How can it not?
     
  23. TheHun Registered Member

    Messages:
    91
    We don’t demonize religion. We study them, compare them, analyze them, and yes there are times when we laugh about them, too. But in order to demonize them we would actually have to believe in demons and such. We don’t, though, so we just think them irrational and at times dangerous.

    Wow, was not aware that liberals are tax exempt. Also did not know, that religious entities, which are tax exempt are now volunteering to pay said tax so that liberals can just incur “social costs”. What again are those social costs associated with homosexuality? And the rest of this gobbledygook means what again?

    What are you ranting on about here? Morality vs. immorality, yeah whatever, but what exactly constitutes those terms. So homosexuality is immoral, but pedophilia (usually committed by heterosexuals, often married fathers, or celibate priests) that’s moral, right? And how does one “prop up” homosexuality?
     

Share This Page