Demonizing people

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

  1. Bells Staff Member

    Messages:
    23,366
    Basic and intrinsic human rights is now propaganda?

    Religious organisations are tax exempt, in that they don't pay tax. Which is why they are so wealthy and why the heads of such religions are able to afford private jumbo jets and multiple million dollar homes. Not to mention they often qualify for payments from the State, money that comes from people and organisations (including homosexuals no less) actually paying their tax and contributing financially to the betterment of society. So one could question why rich religious organisations can remain tax exempt while people living on or below the poverty line still have to keep paying tax. How or why is this moral?

    Liberals do. Religious organisations do not.

    Considering it is the side with what you deem to be immorality that is paying their taxes through the nose and religious organisations do not do so even voluntarily and instead, prefer to make money and not contribute to society, perhaps you can explain why organisations which demonise and abuse homosexuals and who are often propped up by tax dollars paid for by homosexuals and heterosexuals, should be allowed to enjoy the comforts of their exemptions? For example, why should these individuals be allowed to maintain a tax exempt status?


    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!




    They are abusive and offensive. They demonise and harass homosexuals and their families, not to mention anyone they deem to be a worthy target. Everyone they do target for abuse pay tax dollars that allow these people to be allowed to stand on a nice clean street, and enjoy the services that tax dollars often pay for - such as police protection, emergency hospital or paramedic care, fire brigade. Is this moral? Should a homosexual person be forced to pay tax to allow these individuals to stand on the street to spout hatred and hateful and bigoted propaganda? How exactly is this moral? How is this equal? I would say the side that is immoral and that is propped up are the ones who enjoy tax exemptions while benefiting from the tax paid by those they abuse and demonise and terrorise.
     
  2. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  3. quinnsong Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,621
    HaHaHa!

    I shall christen my mop WELLWISHER and it shall cure all that ails me! Should I look at a woman and think now that is a pretty woman and even ponder what it would be like to be a homosexual, I shall grab my mop and all will be right in God's Kingdom! I can assure you welllwisher religion needs all the mops for themselves. Nope not one mop to spare because of the immorality in their own house.
     
  4. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  5. exchemist Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    9,414
    Bingo.
     
  6. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



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

    Messages:
    3,515
    Where did this little fiction of yours happen? And what argument do you imagine defeated? I said from the beginning that the analogy was about condemnation, and anyone should have been capable of realizing that anything condemned can have negative connotation. State the obvious much?

    Same goes for many other condemned behaviors. For instance, many alcoholics never do really make it on the wagon for any significant length of time, and most addicts consider themselves such for life, regardless of their term of sobriety. But society still views substance abuse as a "disease", and only demands punitive measures when specific laws are broken.

    I have known several alcoholics who were otherwise very likeable people. Like I have repeatedly said, they have other virtues that make them unlikely to be wholly demonized. Same goes for homosexuals.

    False dilemma. Sympathy and demonizing are not the only options. No sympathy is required to simply recognize that the person has other virtues.

    You seem to think that the two are completely divorced in a representational government. :facepalm:

    Yes, I agree...you do seem confused. Nowhere have I conceded your false dilemma of sympathy or demonizing.

    No, that was a specific response to Kittamaru saying that homosexuality is "how one innately feels". So this is another false dilemma of yours. Just because a person feels a certain way about something does not preclude those feelings being based on or justified by reason. People can have more than just a strictly emotional or strictly rational response to any given thing. Very often, most responses are a mixture of both.

    My reply was to Kittamaru saying homosexuality is "how one innately feels", not why people in general think it is not wrong. How one "innately feels" usually does not need any justification whatsoever. So you have interjected a straw man.

    You do know what sarcasm is, right? Sarcasm means that I actually do think anything occurring in heterosexuals can also occur in homosexuals. I actually do agree that "gay people identify with their orientation in exactly the same sense that straight people do". That was actually my point, which you completely missed.

    So where was the stereotyping again?

    So aside from the vacuous accusation, you seem to be saying that people do not make more of their sexuality in order to compensate for sexual or general insecurity. Yet:

    The term is used surprisingly often in everyday language. "He's/She's probably just overcompensating for something," is a phrase often used by people to suggest that a person is indulging in excesses in one area of their lives in order to hide insecurities about other aspects of their lives. - http://psychology.about.com/od/cindex/g/compensation.htm

    Overcompensation is a defense mechanism, where defense is only necessary due to a feeling of insecurity. Try arguing that actual point made instead of playing the victim.
     
  8. James R Just this guy, you know? Staff Member

    Messages:
    34,419
    Syne:

    I'm confused. I admit that I haven't read the whole thread, so please direct me to the right place if you've already answered this.

    You say you don't condemn homosexuals, but rather homosexual behaviours.

    I am wondering what specific behaviours you are thinking of. Could you please list a few, and explain why you think they are wrong?
     
  9. Magical Realist Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    12,881
    Red herring since you have failed to establish that being defined my one's sexual orientation, which is something society pretty much does to gay people already whether they are out or in the closet, constitutes some sort of overcompensation. It isn't. It's simply accepting and living with the label that society already puts on people who happen to be attracted to the same sex. Noone is overcompensating for anything by identifying as gay. It's an identity society and culture imposes on them usually in negative terms. It thus becomes enormously cathartic to come out and own that label thus turning it into a net positive. The pariah of being a fag or a homo thus becomes the pride of being gay. "In your face society!"
     
  10. Syne Sine qua non Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    3,515
    Yes, I have specified "sexual activity with the same gender", by which I would primarily mean sex acts. As soon as I can spare the time, I will be answer why in this thread: http://www.sciforums.com/showthread.php?140988-An-Aside-Regarding-Homosexuality
     
  11. Syne Sine qua non Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    3,515
    I have already said that this defense mechanism works the same, regardless of orientation. I even gave a purely heterosexual example. You have done nothing to either disprove this defense mechanism nor to prove that it does not occur in homosexuals. You seem to talking about the overcompensation done by just about any minority, but insecurity and overcompensation are the same regardless of motivation.
     
  12. Magical Realist Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    12,881



    Since you were targeting gay people specifically as overcompensating because they define themselves by their sexuality, yes you were talking about gay people. Here's what you said:


    So quit backpeddling to cover your ass. And you have failed to show how defining oneself by one's sexuality means you are overcompensating. You just asserted they are with no logic or evidence that this is so at all. I now logically show that defining oneself by one's sexuality..in the case of gay people who you were targeting with your intitial comment...has nothing to do with overcompensating for anything. Perhaps you'd like to argue your point now? I won't hold my breath though.
     
  13. Syne Sine qua non Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    3,515
    How can I possibly be "targeting gay people" when I did not say that overcompensation was any different for any orientation? Did you completely miss where I specifically said "primarily with heterosexuals"? I know seeing red can interfere with reading, but damn.

    Apparently you do not know the definition of overcompensation. Here you go:

    over·com·pen·sa·tion
    : excessive compensation; specifically : excessive reaction to a feeling of inferiority, guilt, or inadequacy leading to an exaggerated attempt to overcome the feeling ​

    When one's sexuality is exaggerated to the point of becoming central to one's identity, overcompensation is not a stretch. And again, this goes for any orientation. Most healthy adults are able to strike a balance between aspects of their identity where no one aspect will dominate the others.
     
  14. Magical Realist Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    12,881
    Take ownership of your claims. You said based on your experience with heterosexuals, those who most claim/demonstrate their sexuality as central to their identity are overcompensating. That refers to gay people since we were obviously talking about gay people. Then you even say this doesn't occur to gay people, confirming this is who you are referring to. Are you now denying you were not saying gay people are overcompensating for their insecurity? Then why did you bring it up?

    Like I already pointed out, when you have been discriminated against and slandered for being a member of a class most your life, you take ownership of that membership and assert it with pride, thus undoing the stigma that society has attached to it. People who identify as gay aren't asserting that sex is central to their identity. They are asserting that they are themselves in spite of society's attempts to force them not to be. It is healthy and therapeutic and socially-bonding with other gay people. It has nothing to do with overcompensating for anything. The insecure approach would be to continue to hide in the closet and pretend you are not gay.
     
  15. Aqueous Id flat Earth skeptic Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    6,152
    The implicit indictment is that all gays are exhibitionists, when in fact the social conservatives who oppose gays are distinguishing themselves as voyeurs.
     
  16. Syne Sine qua non Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    3,515
    No, that refers to everyone, hetero or homosexual. That is why I gave a heterosexual example. I am saying that ANYONE who makes their sexuality such a central part of their identity is overcompensating, just like the exaggeration of any aspect of one's identity over all others.

    Womanizers and other heterosexuals who make sexuality so central to their identity are equally compensating. So while I can see why you would want to make this strictly about homosexuality, and take offense, it is a general observation of behavior regardless of orientation.

    But it seems you prefer to argue some accusation instead of actually trying to disprove that the sexuality-centric homosexual identity has anything to with overcompensation. Hell, even just on the basis of being a minority, overcompensation is likely.

    As I just said, that is simply minority overcompensation.
     
  17. Magical Realist Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    12,881
    No it isn't. It's affirming what society has already seen fit to ostracize you for. That isn't overcompensating for anything, and certainly not in the sense of a ladies' man taking pride in being something of a gigolo. You need to distinguish sexual activity from sexual orientation. They aren't the same thing.
     
  18. Syne Sine qua non Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    3,515
    Okay, we will just have to take your word on that then.

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!



    I have repeatedly said that I condemn the behavior, i.e. "activity".

    Sexual behavior, or sexual activity, differs from sexual orientation and alone does not define someone as an LGBT individual. Any person may be capable of sexual behavior with a person of the same or opposite sex, but an individual knows his or her longings—erotic and affectional—and which sex is more likely to satisfy those needs.

    It is necessary to draw a distinction between sexual orientation and sexual behavior. Not every person with a homosexual or bisexual orientation is sexually active. A person’s sexual orientation does not tell us if she/he is sexually active nor does it define her/his specific sexual behaviors.
    - http://www4.ncsu.edu/~bsscott2/GenderDefinitions.htm
     
  19. Balerion Banned Banned

    Messages:
    8,596
    It isn't homosexuals who are making their sexuality central to their identity. Bigots are the ones who do that. Gay Pride is a reaction to the blanket condemnation of gays and their "lifestyle", not a result of insecurity. The insecurity is wholly on the other side.
     
  20. Balerion Banned Banned

    Messages:
    8,596
    He presented a reasoned argument. You, meanwhile, seem to think "because I said so" should suffice.

    And you've repeatedly failed to explain why. Despite offering to do exactly that, on the condition that I start a new thread. Well, I did. Yet still you dodge.

    Talk about insecure!
     
  21. Syne Sine qua non Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    3,515
    No, he presented opinion without any support, just as you have, where I have actually supported what I have said with definitions/references.

    No dodge, just time constraints. If you really want a reply, the sooner you quit wasting my time replying to your other posts the sooner you will get it. Or am I just suppose to let all the other posts slide in the meantime? Not happening. Get over it.
     
  22. Balerion Banned Banned

    Messages:
    8,596
    We both know that this isn't true. He explained in detail what gay pride is, while you dismissed it with a baseless "It's minority overcompensation."

    My question came long before the stuff you're replying to now, especially (and necessarily) in the "Aside" thread. Get on with it, or admit you're just talking shit.
     
  23. Syne Sine qua non Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    3,515
    Yes, because explanations "in detail" must necessarily be true, huh?
     

Share This Page