Homophobia - Double Standards?

[Gutfright]

It is a right if you have the relevant licensing etc, as you are legally permitted to do it, and others are not legally permitted to prevent you doing so other than by the framework provided in law for that purpose.

So the right to drive is temporary, conditional and can be revoked by the authorities at any time?

What you have just described is a privilege, not a right.

 

[AlterEgo]

And you missed the point entirely by sticking "right to" in front. I think you need to look up utilitarianism or deontology and then come back to me, because right now this sounds like babby's first attempt at philosophy, with a load of Dunning-Kruger thrown in...

In particular your definition of "happiness" is spectacularly sub-par.

When I'm criticising the very concept of rights, crowbarring what I'm saying into being about rights makes it look like you started typing without really reading what I wrote.

To be honest, this is a forum about trains, and I suspect your attempts to discuss concepts like deontology or the Dunning-Kruger effect might be better off discussed elsewhere - if you were looking for an even debate, of course.

 

[TheKnightWho]

To be honest, this is a forum about trains, and I suspect your attempts to discuss concepts like deontology or the Dunning-Kruger effect might be better off discussed elsewhere - if you were looking for an even debate, of course.

Of course - it's just somewhat frustrating when someone so completely mangles your point that they think it's the very thing you're rejecting.

 

[Harbornite]

To be honest, this is a forum about trains, and I suspect your attempts to discuss concepts like deontology or the Dunning-Kruger effect might be better off discussed elsewhere - if you were looking for an even debate, of course.

To be honest, this is the general discussion section where you are free to discuss other topics. Why else would we have this on the forum? :roll:

 

[Bletchleyite]

So the right to drive is temporary, conditional and can be revoked by the authorities at any time?

Only for reasons specified in law, not for a laugh.

FWIW, though, it has little to do with my point.

 

[Esker-pades]

Again, words are just words, maybe you have trouble with dealing them as a kid but we're all adults here right?

If someone goes into depression because some idiot says "Arsenal are gay" on the bus then I think that person needs some serious psychological help.

Bullying is entirely different because you are mixing words with threats. Bullying at work may mean you lose your job, bullying at school could mean you get beaten up, all these things have consequences

Opinions are NOT actions, opinions DO NOT have consequences. Just grow up and accept that all people are different. You have to accept the bigots as much as you want them to accept you.

If you can't accept other peoples opinions then how do you expect them to accept your sexuality/religion/beliefs etc?

Pity the idiot, don't hate them. Otherwise you are just contributing to this poisonous climate of hate that pervades our country.

Freedom of expression is just that, you're expressing yourself. You are exercising your right to an opinion. You can say whatever you want whenever you want, just not wherever you want.

When there is no action and no threat attached, I can't see any problem.

But all the rules of "wherever" are completely murky due to the unwritten rules that I've already alluded to.

Here's something I wrote on internet trolls and free speech that is relevant:

To be fair, no man died to allow future generations of men to be utter tits to other.
"Oh, but it's free speech. Men died to allow me to kill other people all over the world because I find it funny" - the troll argument. Could sound stupid now it's written literally.
Trolls display the very worst part of free speech, and demonstrate very well that it's not a good idea and thus eroding it. Every time someone trolls another, free speech is eroded as censorship has to take place to protect the victim.
And, it can only go further; trolling only gets worse as the internet expands into more and more of the idiots who think it's a good idea or don't appreciate that it's a human on the other side of the wires.
Trolls don't protect free speech and they aren't doing the wishes of a bygone era. It's just a cancer on the side of free speech.
Free speech can only be protected if used responsibly. Like alcohol. Stop getting drunk on it, sober up and introduce yourself to society.

 

[Gutfright]

In particular your definition of "happiness" is spectacularly sub-par.

I can see where this is headed...

It's headed to you concluding "That word doesn't mean what everybody thinks it means. It doesn't mean what the dictionary says it means. Only my unique definition of that word is correct."

It wouldn't be the first time you've used that argument. I don't see why you have to constantly invent new meanings for words that already exist. Why not just use the accepted definitions?

When I'm criticising the very concept of rights, crowbarring what I'm saying into being about rights makes it look like you started typing without really reading what I wrote.

Funnily enough, that's exactly what happened. I had a sort of hallucination which made me see the word "rights" where you wrote "principles". It was weird.

 

[Esker-pades]

Seeing as this thread is about homophobia, I wonder how people here would react if they were on a train when they heard some football fans having the following conversation:

"Arsenal are just gay this season"
"Yeah, their defense are playing like a bunch of poofs"
"That Koscielny is such a faggot, he needs to man up"

Would you tell the police? Lecture the football fans about their lack of sensitivity? Or shrug your shoulders and let 'em get on with it?

I'd just live and let live because:

1) It's not much to do with me (I don't support Arsenal ).

2) It's their opinion, and calling the police just on that would just be violating their freedom of speech.

Here's the problem right here. Casual homophobia. It's endemic in society. It's something that happens quite a lot because most people aren't educated enough. Using "gay" or any other synonym of it is endemic in society because it's accepted as an insult, but it is casually homophobic. It's the most annoying type of homophobia as any reaction is considered an over-reaction. Anything one says in response is countered by "it's just banter" or words to that effect, leaving an awkward situation involving a bunch of "mates" laughing at someone who has called out something that just isn't right. So, the answer is education. Educate people that using "gay" or "faggot" as an insult like "****" is wrong.

EDIT:
Just to note, the word "tw4t" was censored, yet "faggot" wasn't.

 

[61653 HTAFC]

Didn't realise I was opening such a can of worms! For the record, the double standard I was alluding to was on the part of society at large, along with the media.

With regard to freedom of speech, sometimes people forget that many rights come with responsibilities too. If you exercise your right to free-speech but in the process violate the rights of another human being to live free from persecution, you've crossed a line. In the examples I gave in the OP, Gray has probably crossed that line but Souter has not (in terms of laws or rules they're required to abide by).

In funding "gay cure" organizations though, one could argue that that is similar to funding terrorist groups- enforced "gay cure" treatments being a clear violation of human rights. Not quite Da'esh, but both persecute LGBTQ people based on a subjective interpretation of religious doctrine albeit one far more extreme than the other.

 

[AlterEgo]

To be honest, this is the general discussion section where you are free to discuss other topics. Why else would we have this on the forum? :roll:

Well we are free to discuss whatever we like. I'm just saying that if I wanted a discussion on deontology, RailUK wouldn't be the place I'd go. It was just a gentle reminder of the boundaries of the playing field, that's all.

 

[TheKnightWho]

I can see where this is headed...

It's headed to you concluding "That word doesn't mean what everybody thinks it means. It doesn't mean what the dictionary says it means. Only my unique definition of that word is correct."

It wouldn't be the first time you've used that argument. I don't see why you have to constantly invent new meanings for words that already exist. Why not just use the accepted definitions?



Funnily enough, that's exactly what happened. I had a sort of hallucination which made me see the word "rights" where you wrote "principles". It was weird.

Nope. I even clarified happiness to mean "in the general sense of the word", which is generally understood to be referring to utilitarianism - especially since this is a discussion about ethics. Your ignorance is no substitute for an argument, unfortunately, and saying that I'm using a unique definition whilst saying the dictionary is the arbiter is not only incredibly ignorant, but also arrogant too: the dictionary is not prescriptive.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

Well we are free to discuss whatever we like. I'm just saying that if I wanted a discussion on deontology, RailUK wouldn't be the place I'd go. It was just a gentle reminder of the boundaries of the playing field, that's all.

In fairness, there was a reason I wasn't throwing jargon around until I felt the need to clarify to someone that I'm not just making things up as I go along.

 

[Gutfright]

Nope. I even clarified happiness to mean "in the general sense of the word", which is generally understood to be referring to utilitarianism - especially since this is a discussion about ethics. Your ignorance is no substitute for an argument, unfortunately, and saying that I'm using a unique definition whilst saying the dictionary is the arbiter is not only incredibly ignorant, but also arrogant too: the dictionary is not prescriptive.

Utilitarianism is concerned with the greatest happiness of the greatest number, therefore the definition of the word "happiness" is utilitarianism?

I suppose the definition of the word "money" is capitalism, then?

You're free to use that definition of the word if you want, you're free to ignore the dictionary and ignore the definitions that everybody else uses.

Then, when people misunderstand your point because you've randomly decided a word should have a completely different definition of your own choosing, you are free to act as though this is the other people's fault for being too thick, or ignorant, or whatever other ad hominem you want to throw around.

And I'm free to argue that doing all of that isn't very constructive.

If you meant utilitarianism, perhaps you should have said utilitarianism?

Just a thought...

 

[TheKnightWho]

Utilitarianism is concerned with the greatest happiness of the greatest number, therefore the definition of the word "happiness" is utilitarianism?

I suppose the definition of the word "money" is capitalism, then?

You're free to use that definition of the word if you want, you're free to ignore the dictionary and ignore the definitions that everybody else uses.

Then, when people misunderstand your point because you've randomly decided a word should have a completely different definition of your own choosing, you are free to act as though this is the other people's fault for being too thick, or ignorant, or whatever other ad hominem you want to throw around.

And I'm free to argue that doing all of that isn't very constructive.

If you meant utilitarianism, perhaps you should have said utilitarianism?

Just a thought...

I think that is about the worst piece of logic I've ever seen. I said I was alluding to it, not that happiness and utilitiarianism are synonymous. Seriously - you're getting desperate at this stage.

Like I said: your ignorance is not an argument. I have already explained why I didn't use jargon, and that's because I was getting at the idea through ordinary language, but your pigheadedness and refusal to admit you could be wrong about anything (or desire to blame me when you are) forced me to do otherwise.

As for your comments on ad hominem - accusing me of thinking others are thick does not mean I somehow used an ad hominem argument: it's not a fancy way of saying "insult".

 

[Gutfright]

As for your comments on ad hominem - accusing me of thinking others are thick does not mean I somehow used an ad hominem argument: it's not a fancy way of saying "insult".

So your snide little comments about Dunning-Kruger are not ad hominem attacks then?

This is why I enjoy our little chats so much. I love it when you argue yourself into a corner and then masterfully use everything in your toolbox o' sophistry to try to squirm out of it. Your sheer tenacity, and the creativity behind your excuses are genuinely impressive at times.

Everyone you've ever disagreed with online knows how fond you are of ad hominem arguments. Everyone who has read this thread knows that you have used ad hominem arguments. You know it. I know it.

But go ahead, deny that you use ad hominem arguments. This should be good...

 

[Harbornite]

Well we are free to discuss whatever we like. I'm just saying that if I wanted a discussion on deontology, RailUK wouldn't be the place I'd go. It was just a gentle reminder of the boundaries of the playing field, that's all.

The only boundaries are the forum rules. Anything goes here, providing it abides by these.


Also I think gutfright and theknightwho should get a room. They might enjoy it!

 

[J-2739]

Also I think gutfright and theknightwho should get a room. They might enjoy it!

"Might"

 

[Gutfright]

Also I think gutfright and theknightwho should get a room. They might enjoy it!

Are you being homophobic?

Not cool, dude. Not cool.

 

[TheKnightWho]

So your snide little comments about Dunning-Kruger are not ad hominem attacks then?

This is why I enjoy our little chats so much. I love it when you argue yourself into a corner and then masterfully use everything in your toolbox o' sophistry to try to squirm out of it. Your sheer tenacity, and the creativity behind your excuses are genuinely impressive at times.

Everyone you've ever disagreed with online knows how fond you are of ad hominem arguments. Everyone who has read this thread knows that you have used ad hominem arguments. You know it. I know it.

But go ahead, deny that you use ad hominem arguments. This should be good...

You misinterpreting me is not arguing myself into a corner. You consistently refuse to admit that you ever misinterpret what I'm saying, and then pigheadedly tell me what I'm arguing. It's extremely tiresome. At least in this thread you've admitted that so had to change your tack to that I wasn't being clear enough.

And no - your justification for describing my argument as ad hominem was that I apparently think I'm more intelligent than other people. I'm not sure you actually know what the term means in that case... It doesn't mean insult - it means an argument that relies on someone being wrong because of their identity. Firstly, I don't see that anywhere in this thread. Secondly, it's not a formal logical fallacy because identity is often relevant. Sorry, but it's obvious you don't know how to use the term correctly.

 

[Gutfright]

And no - your justification for describing my argument as ad hominem was that I apparently think I'm more intelligent than other people. I'm not sure you actually know what the term means in that case...

Your snide little comments about Dunning-Kruger are not ad hominem arguments then?

You were saying that my arguments had a cognitive bias which made them percieve themselves as being better than they actually were. You weren't saying that about me personally. No siree Bob!

I guess that means that arguments have brains, and they're capable of self-perception?

 

[Harbornite]

Are you being homophobic?

Not cool, dude. Not cool.

Free speech!


On a serious note, if you think that it's homophobic to suggest that two people arguing online should meet in person and have a discussion, then you are a very strange individual. I suggest you look up the definition of homophobia...

 

[Gutfright]

On a serious note, if you think that it's homophobic to suggest that two people arguing online should meet in person and have a discussion, then you are a very strange individual.

That's not what "get a room" usually means.

The phrase has a different connotation, one which is based more on doing the horizontal Mambo than on having a discussion.

 

[TheKnightWho]

Your snide little comments about Dunning-Kruger are not ad hominem arguments then?

You were saying that my arguments had a cognitive bias which made them percieve themselves as being better than they actually were. You weren't saying that about me personally. No siree Bob!

I guess that means that arguments have brains, and they're capable of self-perception?

Look up ad hominem: it does not mean what you think it means. Thinking you have cognitive bias is not the reason I think they're wrong - it's why I think you came up with them.

 

[AlterEgo]

Look up ad hominem: it does not mean what you think it means.

But:

saying the dictionary is the arbiter is not only incredibly ignorant, but also arrogant too: the dictionary is not prescriptive

...right?

 

[Gutfright]

Look up ad hominem: it does not mean what you think it means. Thinking you have cognitive bias is not the reason I think they're wrong - it's why I think you came up with them.

Based on what evidence, though?

I haven't given you a self-assessment of my own abilities, so there is no logical reason for you to assume that Dunning-Kruger applies.

Your entire line of reasoning seems to be "How dare this arrogant little peon talk to me? He's got a bloody nerve, interrogating my arguments as though his intellect was anywhere near as stratospherically high a level as mine is. The only reason he thinks he has the right to look for flaws in my argument is because he must have a cognitive bias which makes him believe that he's somehow my equal"

That's all fine, you've clearly got Narcissistic Personality Disorder but never mind.

It is amusing when you call other people arrogant and condescending, though.

 

[J-2739]

But:



...right?

Wiktionary?

 

[TheKnightWho]

Based on what evidence, though?

I haven't given you a self-assessment of my own abilities, so there is no logical reason for you to assume that Dunning-Kruger applies.

Your entire line of reasoning seems to be "How dare this arrogant little peon talk to me? He's got a bloody nerve, interrogating my arguments as though his intellect was anywhere near as stratospherically high a level as mine is. The only reason he thinks he has the right to look for flaws in my argument is because he must have a cognitive bias which makes him believe that he's somehow my equal"

That's all fine, you've clearly got Narcissistic Personality Disorder but never mind.

It is amusing when you call other people arrogant and condescending, though.

No - based on the fact that you launched into this conversation by saying I was making things up as I go along, and then accusing me of not explaining myself well enough when I explain to you that I was actually alluding to well-established philosophical concepts but that I was avoiding using jargon. After all - which is it? Am I being obscure and arcane, or am I being too simplistic? Has it occurred to you that I think you don't know what you're on about because you firstly misunderstood my argument, secondly accused me of not explaining it well enough, and when I showed that wasn't the case you attacked me for being arrogant?

It's nothing to do with who I think you are, and everything to do with the fact that you consistently attack my arguments with the assumption that I clearly have no idea what I'm talking about, and that I must be using sophistry to disagree with you because there's no way anyone could legitimately disagree with you! I would advise you to read the Dunning-Kruger article, because that kind of self-assurance is exactly what it's referring to.

The fact that you're using a long-winded way of saying "no you!" when it comes to cognitive biases says a lot. I've not got NPD because I think that you can't dismiss most of academic ethics with a bit of condescension and your own brand of common-sense.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

But:



...right?

Have you got a better definition? I said it's not the arbiter, not that it's random. I use ad hominem to mean saying that an argument is wrong because of the identity of the arguer because it's a more useful definition than attacking the person and not the argument - because we already have a word for that: insulting.

 

[Gutfright]

No - based on the fact that you launched into this conversation by saying I was making things up as I go along, and then accusing me of not explaining myself well enough when I explain to you that I was actually alluding to well-established philosophical concepts but that I was avoiding using jargon.

Except that your accusation of Dunning-Kruger came before I pointed out that your argument could have been worded better.

Unless you're psychic, that means you made your diagnosis, and then you looked for evidence to support it. A classic example of confirmation bias.

It's nothing to do with who I think you are, and everything to do with the fact that you consistently attack my arguments with the assumption that I clearly have no idea what I'm talking about

You're being over sensitive.

When I encounter an argument I'll often interrogate it for any potential flaws. Don't take it personally.

And maybe try to avoid making so many assumptions about my motives, too.

 

[TheKnightWho]

Except that your accusation of Dunning-Kruger came before I pointed out that your argument could have been worded better.

Unless you're psychic, that means you made your diagnosis, and then you looked for evidence to support it. A classic example of confirmation bias.



You're being over sensitive.

When I encounter an argument I'll often interrogate it for any potential flaws. Don't take it personally.

And maybe try to avoid making so many assumptions about my motives, too.

Given your argument not only misunderstood me but launched into what you thought it was without any evidence you'd even read it, I wasn't far wrong.

And yes - we all interrogate arguments for potential flaws; that's the point of discussion. That was never the issue here.

 

[AnonymousUser1]

Unless someone is threatening someone or a group directly, it's not hate speech in my opinion.
Souter funding a cure, how is that a problem, many people want to have childern, and a traditional life, it's not being forced on people by Souter. Somehow I expect some wouldn't see issue with the opposite were that true.
Andre Gray's comment, don't know who he is or what he said, but like I said above, if there's no threat, lies etc, what's the problem?

<snip>.

you cannot 'cure' sexuality or gender identity issues ...

generally it's those who fear LGBT people making claims aobut people wanting to be 'cured ' ...

you are on a slippery slope at present where your ignorance may be outweighed by your loack of ever having questioned the the heteronormative cultural position in the UK

 

[Bletchleyite]

Cure is a bad word, but I wouldn't rule out a future situation where you could change sexuality medically. This might actually be helpful for people who feel they are trapped in the wrong body, and if it exists denying them it would be as bad as refusing to accept the sexuality of someone who is accepting of it.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk