Notices
Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 12
Results 101 to 179 of 179

Thread: Is the LGBT movement all that?

  1. #101  
    Forum Masters Degree
    Join Date
    Apr 2014
    Posts
    592
    Quote Originally Posted by Harold14370 View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Paleoichneum View Post
    Harold. Why specifically re you equating a pride event to nudity? They are not the same thing at all.
    I was only commenting on the sentence in bold which says that people only have a right not to be detained and forced to watch something offensive. This is clearly false, or so I think most would agree. There are some acts that are and should be prohibited in public.
    I was commenting on a post that implied it was the obligation of people not to offend others. I may have generalized too much, but in most cases it falls in you if you are offended.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  2. #102  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Pennsylvania
    Posts
    8,822
    Quote Originally Posted by SowZ37 View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Harold14370 View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Paleoichneum View Post
    Harold. Why specifically re you equating a pride event to nudity? They are not the same thing at all.
    I was only commenting on the sentence in bold which says that people only have a right not to be detained and forced to watch something offensive. This is clearly false, or so I think most would agree. There are some acts that are and should be prohibited in public.
    I was commenting on a post that implied it was the obligation of people not to offend others. I may have generalized too much, but in most cases it falls in you if you are offended.
    Then can you explain the general principles under which offensive behavior should or should not be prohibited in public? I think that was the question you were asked.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  3. #103  
    Forum Professor
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Posts
    1,094
    .
    Last edited by Stanley514; September 6th, 2017 at 10:45 PM.
    Antislavery
    Reply With Quote  
     

  4. #104  
    Forum Masters Degree
    Join Date
    Apr 2014
    Posts
    592
    Quote Originally Posted by Harold14370 View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by SowZ37 View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Harold14370 View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Paleoichneum View Post
    Harold. Why specifically re you equating a pride event to nudity? They are not the same thing at all.
    I was only commenting on the sentence in bold which says that people only have a right not to be detained and forced to watch something offensive. This is clearly false, or so I think most would agree. There are some acts that are and should be prohibited in public.
    I was commenting on a post that implied it was the obligation of people not to offend others. I may have generalized too much, but in most cases it falls in you if you are offended.
    Then can you explain the general principles under which offensive behavior should or should not be prohibited in public? I think that was the question you were asked.
    If it's blatantly threatening or qualifies as a form sexual assault/harassment. Those are the only times when I think it should be prohibited. If I offend you without threatening or assaulting you, (sexual or otherwise,) that's your problem.

    Quote Originally Posted by Stanley514 View Post
    So, gay parades are intended to make "homophobs" change their mind and think about gays positively?
    No, it isn't about the homophobes. It's about the homosexuals themselves. It's like with the civil rights movements. It was about black people taking their rights for themselves. They weren't begging to be giving the rights. They were taking them. So gay pride parades are no more about converting homophobes than sit ins were about making racist people not racist. It's about saying to people we are here, we are not going away, and we aren't ashamed. And by the way, the argument, "I agree with your goals, but you are going about it too fervently and at the wrong time. What you are doing is actually making people more racist." was one of the biggest arguments that whites used against the civil rights movement and marches. MLK said such moderates were a bigger roadblock than true racists. People say the same things about the gay rights movement. History repeats itself.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  5. #105  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Pennsylvania
    Posts
    8,822
    Quote Originally Posted by SowZ37 View Post

    If it's blatantly threatening or qualifies as a form sexual assault/harassment. Those are the only times when I think it should be prohibited. If I offend you without threatening or assaulting you, (sexual or otherwise,) that's your problem.
    Then as in the previous example, a person has a right to expose himself in public if it is done in a non-threatening manner?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  6. #106  
    Forum Masters Degree
    Join Date
    Apr 2014
    Posts
    592
    Quote Originally Posted by Harold14370 View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by SowZ37 View Post

    If it's blatantly threatening or qualifies as a form sexual assault/harassment. Those are the only times when I think it should be prohibited. If I offend you without threatening or assaulting you, (sexual or otherwise,) that's your problem.
    Then as in the previous example, a person has a right to expose himself in public if it is done in a non-threatening manner?
    If he flashes someone or exposes himself towards specific people, that's threatening. It is even classified as sexual assault. As for someone just walking around casually in the nude? There's health concerns with that, and in a crowd they are likely to brush their genitals against people which would also be sexual assault. And directing their genitals towards specific people in a suggestive manner would be incredibly easy. So they should probably at least wear briefs. Otherwise, yeah, I'm fine with it. The most anyone should be required to wear in public is briefs. The law in New York that allows women to walk around topless and bra-less, for example, is one I support.

    Nudity laws deciding how much skin needs to be covered up because of public sensibilities are wrong and, in practice, almost always if not always misogynistic. If nudity laws exist just because of sensibilities, then why wouldn't mandated burka laws be okay? The culture mandating burka's might be more sensitive than other's.
    Last edited by SowZ37; August 25th, 2014 at 08:15 PM.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  7. #107  
    Forum Professor
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Posts
    1,094
    .
    Last edited by Stanley514; September 6th, 2017 at 10:45 PM.
    Antislavery
    Reply With Quote  
     

  8. #108  
    Forum Masters Degree
    Join Date
    Apr 2014
    Posts
    592
    Quote Originally Posted by Stanley514 View Post
    No, it isn't about the homophobes. It's about the homosexuals themselves. It's like with the civil rights movements. It was about black people taking their rights for themselves. They weren't begging to be giving the rights. They were taking them. So gay pride parades are no more about converting homophobes than sit ins were about making racist people not racist. It's about saying to people we are here, we are not going away, and we aren't ashamed. And by the way, the argument, "I agree with your goals, but you are going about it too fervently and at the wrong time. What you are doing is actually making people more racist." was one of the biggest arguments that whites used against the civil rights movement and marches. MLK said such moderates were a bigger roadblock than true racists. People say the same things about the gay rights movement. History repeats itself.
    Do black people conduct their demonstrations across entire U.S. annually and up to now? And what would be if any group of people in U.S. who claims to be oppressed at some point of history would conduct annual nationwide scale demonstrations? For example in the beginning of of 20-th century there were laws passed by congress which mentioned Southern and Eastern Europeans as people of a "secondary sort" to "American Identity"...
    They conducted their demonstrations for as long as it took to be equal citizens. That point is completely irrelevant until the day that gays are not second class citizens. When European immigrants were secondary citizens, I would fully support their demonstrations.

    You haven't made an argument yet, you just asked if it is okay for other groups to do the same thing in similar circumstances. The answer is yes. It is.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  9. #109  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Pennsylvania
    Posts
    8,822
    Quote Originally Posted by SowZ37 View Post
    If he flashes someone or exposes himself towards specific people, that's threatening. It is even classified as sexual assault. As for someone just walking around casually in the nude? There's health concerns with that, and in a crowd they are likely to brush their genitals against people which would also be sexual assault. And directing their genitals towards specific people in a suggestive manner would be incredibly easy. So they should probably at least wear briefs. Otherwise, yeah, I'm fine with it. The most anyone should be required to wear in public is briefs. The law in New York that allows women to walk around topless and bra-less, for example, is one I support.

    Nudity laws deciding how much skin needs to be covered up because of public sensibilities are wrong and, in practice, almost always if not always misogynistic. If nudity laws exist just because of sensibilities, then why wouldn't mandated burka laws be okay? The culture mandating burka's might be more sensitive than other's.
    Suppose I were to relieve myself in the front yard, and a family drives by with little girls in the car. I'm not threatening anybody, and didn't even know the car was coming. I'm on my own property, so I won't be touching anybody. Okay, or not okay?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  10. #110  
    Forum Masters Degree
    Join Date
    Apr 2014
    Posts
    592
    Quote Originally Posted by Harold14370 View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by SowZ37 View Post
    If he flashes someone or exposes himself towards specific people, that's threatening. It is even classified as sexual assault. As for someone just walking around casually in the nude? There's health concerns with that, and in a crowd they are likely to brush their genitals against people which would also be sexual assault. And directing their genitals towards specific people in a suggestive manner would be incredibly easy. So they should probably at least wear briefs. Otherwise, yeah, I'm fine with it. The most anyone should be required to wear in public is briefs. The law in New York that allows women to walk around topless and bra-less, for example, is one I support.

    Nudity laws deciding how much skin needs to be covered up because of public sensibilities are wrong and, in practice, almost always if not always misogynistic. If nudity laws exist just because of sensibilities, then why wouldn't mandated burka laws be okay? The culture mandating burka's might be more sensitive than other's.
    Suppose I were to relieve myself in the front yard, and a family drives by with little girls in the car. I'm not threatening anybody, and didn't even know the car was coming. I'm on my own property, so I won't be touching anybody. Okay, or not okay?
    I already admitted exposing your genitals is probably not okay, that briefs should be the minimum, and urinating or defecating in your front yard is unhealthy regardless. But the only reason should be health and assault. If exposing your genitals is sexual assault, we can prohibit it. That the mother thinks it is inappropriate for her children to see something is not a reason. So you could go outside in a silky pink bikini. You know how many mothers think their children shouldn't see transgendered people? If 'indecency' and 'offense' are reasons to ban a thing, than transgendered and inter racial couples holding hands can be banned in public on the whims of the populace. What's your standard for banning things if not 'is it assault?'
    Reply With Quote  
     

  11. #111  
    Forum Radioactive Isotope Paleoichneum's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    Washington State, USA
    Posts
    4,564
    Quote Originally Posted by Harold14370 View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by SowZ37 View Post
    If he flashes someone or exposes himself towards specific people, that's threatening. It is even classified as sexual assault. As for someone just walking around casually in the nude? There's health concerns with that, and in a crowd they are likely to brush their genitals against people which would also be sexual assault. And directing their genitals towards specific people in a suggestive manner would be incredibly easy. So they should probably at least wear briefs. Otherwise, yeah, I'm fine with it. The most anyone should be required to wear in public is briefs. The law in New York that allows women to walk around topless and bra-less, for example, is one I support.

    Nudity laws deciding how much skin needs to be covered up because of public sensibilities are wrong and, in practice, almost always if not always misogynistic. If nudity laws exist just because of sensibilities, then why wouldn't mandated burka laws be okay? The culture mandating burka's might be more sensitive than other's.
    Suppose I were to relieve myself in the front yard, and a family drives by with little girls in the car. I'm not threatening anybody, and didn't even know the car was coming. I'm on my own property, so I won't be touching anybody. Okay, or not okay?
    Harold, name as SPECIFIC PRIDE event that is public where you have seen public nudity. If you have not or can not, STOP with the insulting and very very distastful association of gays with public flashing/public defecation/etc. Its F-ing demeaning to me as a gay man.
    If more of us valued food and cheer and song above hoarded gold, it would be a merrier world. -Thorin Oakenshield

    The needs of the many outweigh the need of the few - Spock of Vulcan & Sentinel Prime of Cybertron ---proof that "the needs" are in the eye of the beholder.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  12. #112  
    Forum Professor
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Posts
    1,094
    .
    Last edited by Stanley514; September 6th, 2017 at 10:46 PM.
    Antislavery
    Reply With Quote  
     

  13. #113  
    Forum Masters Degree
    Join Date
    Apr 2014
    Posts
    592
    Quote Originally Posted by Stanley514 View Post
    If any kind of public demonstrations are allowed than how would you feel about anti-homosexual demonstrations?
    For example people who dislike gays will organize marches and will carry placates with slogans and some ugly pictures in which it is said how disgusting they find homosexual relations and will put such huge placates on every corner of a city including the front of your house?
    They will not make any calls to suppress "gay rights", just show how disgusting sexual acts between homosexuals they find? Or cry it is a terrible sin in their religion and that all gays will go to hell, etc? And will conduct such propaganda everywhere and on the daily basis?
    Those do happen. I've seen them, in fact. And I think they're disgusted, but should be legally allowed.

    The differences are, of course, too numerous to count. Firstly, marching for yourself is morally superior to marching against someone else. Making a statement about your own identity and spreading hate about others are very different things. Anyone who isn't insane should be able to distinguish the difference. Secondly, making a big march about being a marginalized group is a tool to fight for equal rights/treatment. Making a big march about being an advantaged group isn't quite the same. Straight white male pride marches would be the most advantaged people shoving in everyone else's faces how advantaged they are. There is a moral high ground to telling people, loudly, the injustices that happen to them. That being said, I have no problem with white people celebrating specific parts of their heritage or culture. A second generation German immigrant friend hosting a public Oktoberfest party is cool with me.

    I mentioned above that the demonstrations by marginalized groups are okay, not that all demonstrations are okay.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  14. #114  
    Forum Professor
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Posts
    1,094
    .
    Last edited by Stanley514; September 6th, 2017 at 10:46 PM.
    Antislavery
    Reply With Quote  
     

  15. #115  
    Forum Masters Degree
    Join Date
    Apr 2014
    Posts
    592
    Quote Originally Posted by Stanley514 View Post
    I mentioned above that the demonstrations by marginalized groups are okay
    Who will then decide who is marginalized group and who is not?
    You are asking me to make a moral judgement. Clearly, I am going to judge for myself. If you think different groups are marginalized, you will make your own moral judgement which I may disagree with. I'm not going to appoint a council.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  16. #116  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Pennsylvania
    Posts
    8,822
    Quote Originally Posted by SowZ37 View Post
    I already admitted exposing your genitals is probably not okay, that briefs should be the minimum,
    Why not?
    and urinating or defecating in your front yard is unhealthy regardless.
    I didn't say defecating. Your're moving the goalpost. Urine is not unhealthy.
    But the only reason should be health and assault. If exposing your genitals is sexual assault, we can prohibit it. That the mother thinks it is inappropriate for her children to see something is not a reason.
    Is it sexual assault? Why would you call it that?
    So you could go outside in a silky pink bikini. You know how many mothers think their children shouldn't see transgendered people? If 'indecency' and 'offense' are reasons to ban a thing, than transgendered and inter racial couples holding hands can be banned in public on the whims of the populace. What's your standard for banning things if not 'is it assault?'
    I didn't ask about a pink bikini. I am not proposing a standard, only pointing out that your argument is flawed.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  17. #117  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Pennsylvania
    Posts
    8,822
    Quote Originally Posted by Paleoichneum View Post
    Harold, name as SPECIFIC PRIDE event that is public where you have seen public nudity. If you have not or can not, STOP with the insulting and very very distastful association of gays with public flashing/public defecation/etc. Its F-ing demeaning to me as a gay man.
    I didn't say anything about any pride event. I am taking issue with a specific fallacious argument made by SowZ37. The fact that you are gay has no bearing on the discussion.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  18. #118  
    Forum Radioactive Isotope Paleoichneum's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    Washington State, USA
    Posts
    4,564
    Quote Originally Posted by Harold14370 View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Paleoichneum View Post
    Harold, name as SPECIFIC PRIDE event that is public where you have seen public nudity. If you have not or can not, STOP with the insulting and very very distastful association of gays with public flashing/public defecation/etc. Its F-ing demeaning to me as a gay man.
    I didn't say anything about any pride event. I am taking issue with a specific fallacious argument made by SowZ37. The fact that you are gay has no bearing on the discussion.
    The entirety of the arguments are in relation to who offensive something (pride events in this thread) are before they are to be banned. The only time defecation has been brought up has been to associate it with pride events. The continued discussion of it is perpetuating that association. Period.
    If more of us valued food and cheer and song above hoarded gold, it would be a merrier world. -Thorin Oakenshield

    The needs of the many outweigh the need of the few - Spock of Vulcan & Sentinel Prime of Cybertron ---proof that "the needs" are in the eye of the beholder.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  19. #119  
    Forum Radioactive Isotope Paleoichneum's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    Washington State, USA
    Posts
    4,564
    Quote Originally Posted by Stanley514 View Post
    If any kind of public demonstrations are allowed than how would you feel about anti-homosexual demonstrations?
    For example people who dislike gays will organize marches and will carry placates with slogans and some ugly pictures in which it is said how disgusting they find homosexual relations and will put such huge placates on every corner of a city including the front of your house?
    They will not make any calls to suppress "gay rights", just show how disgusting sexual acts between homosexuals they find? Or cry it is a terrible sin in their religion and that all gays will go to hell, etc? And will conduct such propaganda everywhere and on the daily basis?
    They are most certainly already happening. So your supposed outrage is not viable, again. And they are legally protected in the places they happen at, which arrests/lawsuits if they are disrupted.
    What country are you from again?
    If more of us valued food and cheer and song above hoarded gold, it would be a merrier world. -Thorin Oakenshield

    The needs of the many outweigh the need of the few - Spock of Vulcan & Sentinel Prime of Cybertron ---proof that "the needs" are in the eye of the beholder.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  20. #120  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Pennsylvania
    Posts
    8,822
    Quote Originally Posted by Paleoichneum View Post
    The entirety of the arguments are in relation to who offensive something (pride events in this thread) are before they are to be banned. The only time defecation has been brought up has been to associate it with pride events. The continued discussion of it is perpetuating that association. Period.
    You can believe what you want, but I have no idea what goes on at a gay pride event, and the only mention of defecation I saw was in SOWZ37's response to my post. I was reading the thread with no intention of commenting until a logical fallacy jumped off the page and smacked me in the face. Now, I could not illustrate the fallacy by referring to something that actually occurs at a gay pride events, because obviously SowZ37 is not shocked by those things. Yes, ultimately it does pertain to gay pride events, but what I am addressing is the philosophical or political basis of laws against behavior which the general community finds offensive.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  21. #121  
    Forum Masters Degree
    Join Date
    Apr 2014
    Posts
    592
    Quote Originally Posted by Harold14370 View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by SowZ37 View Post
    I already admitted exposing your genitals is probably not okay, that briefs should be the minimum,
    Why not?
    and urinating or defecating in your front yard is unhealthy regardless.
    I didn't say defecating. Your're moving the goalpost. Urine is not unhealthy.
    But the only reason should be health and assault. If exposing your genitals is sexual assault, we can prohibit it. That the mother thinks it is inappropriate for her children to see something is not a reason.
    Is it sexual assault? Why would you call it that?
    So you could go outside in a silky pink bikini. You know how many mothers think their children shouldn't see transgendered people? If 'indecency' and 'offense' are reasons to ban a thing, than transgendered and inter racial couples holding hands can be banned in public on the whims of the populace. What's your standard for banning things if not 'is it assault?'
    I didn't ask about a pink bikini. I am not proposing a standard, only pointing out that your argument is flawed.
    I have said the standard for banning 'indecency' should be sexual assault or threatening. That is my entire argument. If you disagree, what is a better standard? You keep calling my argument fallacious, yet I think it is far more consistent than whatever you are advocating. You need an actual standard that you can apply consistently,not just allow society to decide what's offensive. If you disagree with that premise, why? I've been consistent in my arguments and philosophy.

    I didn't move the goalpost because I also addressed urine. I actually have no problem with casual nudity other than hygiene, though someone who is nude could so easily brush up against someone or direct their genitals to someone else in a threatening manner that allowing full nudity may be more trouble than it is worth. Regardless, if urinating in public is not sexual assault, yes, it should be just fine. If we determine that it is a form of sexual assault, it shouldn't be allowed. But it probably isn't sexual assault and doing so on your own property should not be illegal.

    You have yet to show the fallacy in my argument. You may disagree with the premise, but I'm entirely consistent. If it isn't assault, (or a threat or unhealthy,) it should be allowed. I made an incorrect statement talking about that as if it were law, there are decency laws, but personally I disagree with them.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  22. #122  
    Forum Professor
    Join Date
    Aug 2013
    Location
    San Diego
    Posts
    1,970
    Quote Originally Posted by Stanley514 View Post
    If any kind of public demonstrations are allowed than how would you feel about anti-homosexual demonstrations?
    Don't like them, but they should be just as legal.
    For example people who dislike gays will organize marches and will carry placates with slogans and some ugly pictures in which it is said how disgusting they find homosexual relations and will put such huge placates on every corner of a city including the front of your house?
    You have just described the Westboro Baptists to a tee.
    Or cry it is a terrible sin in their religion and that all gays will go to hell, etc? And will conduct such propaganda everywhere and on the daily basis?
    Again, you're describing what the Westboro Baptists do every day. And such propaganda is protected under the First Amendment.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  23. #123  
    Forum Professor
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Posts
    1,094
    .
    Last edited by Stanley514; September 6th, 2017 at 10:46 PM.
    Antislavery
    Reply With Quote  
     

  24. #124  
    Forum Masters Degree
    Join Date
    Apr 2014
    Posts
    592
    Quote Originally Posted by Stanley514 View Post
    I have said the standard for banning 'indecency' should be sexual assault or threatening.
    If I no make mistake posting porno images in public places is prohibited in some if not in majority of U.S. states.
    Does it qualify as a sexual assault or threatening? Should they be allowed?
    Is displaying pornographic images a form of sexual assault? Exposing someone to nude persons having sex very well might qualify. Just nude images, though? You'd have to own the property, first of all. And most homeowners associations and business districts would have private agreements against such things even if they were legal. But unless nude images are a form of sexual assault, no, they shouldn't be illegal if you own the property and aren't violating agreements. I'll ask again. What standard would you use to say these things should be illegal?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  25. #125  
    Time Lord
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Posts
    8,046
    [QUOTE=billvon;581531]
    Quote Originally Posted by Pong View Post
    If individuals marry freely as an entirely personal matter, then it's no business of society or government, or maybe even their families. So let them have their private thing. You don't ask state officials to endorse your taking turns changing the kitty litter or sharing breakfast in bed, either. That's none of their business. It's only others' business where others have something to gain from the coupling.
    Agreed - and ideally government should only get involved in setting up a civil union between any two people. Beyond that people can marry or not in any way they choose. The reason that doesn't work now is that there are all sorts of legal rights that married people have that people in civil unions do not - and thus the need to make gay marriage legal.
    I'd like to see the USA go a slightly different direction.

    Let the government set up "civil union" , but not "marriage". Absolutely prohibit the use of the word "marriage" from being used any legal proceeding.

    "Marriage" can then become the exclusive domain of religion. They already have "holy matrimony", but I'd like to also give them "marriage", because not many people make use of the term "holy matrimony". But most people say the word "marriage" when they really mean "holy matrimony", so combining the terms would eliminate a lot of confusion.

    Do this, and the government can wash its hands of most of the affair. Nobody has to worry that the government is legislating "love". And most of the religious right's objection to allowing gay people to "marry" would be gone. Religions would be free to marry people who have no civil union, or dissolve marriages in spite of a civil union being in place.

    The law is basicaly only saying who owns what, and who gets custody of the children. It's not trying to play god. It's not trying to tell people what to believe. Only what to do.


    The beef I have with champions for gay marriage, is they propose it solely on the grounds that gay people too can be romantically bonded. Well sure, but why cheapen marriage for the argument? It's a bad argument.
    Marriage is not "cheapened" by including gays any more than it is "cheapened" by including interracial marriages.
    Yeah. It's cheapened by allowing the law to mess with it.

    And the law is cheapened by letting non-legal entities pretend to preside over a legal affair.

    Quote Originally Posted by Pong View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Lynx_Fox View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Pong View Post
    The beef I have with champions for gay marriage, is they propose it solely on the grounds that gay people too can be romantically bonded. Well sure, but why cheapen marriage for the argument? It's a bad argument.
    Most don't limit their argument as you've characterized it...
    Okay, conceded. My fear is that in redefining marriage to accommodate mere lovers, we empty it of meaning. It then means whatever anybody wants it to mean. I rather think this a good time to reflect on how marriage has evolved over the last centuries and decide - as a society - what we want it to be. And I think marriage is as malleable to deliberate engineering as other aspects of life like employment, childrearing, education and retirement. Give marriage teeth.
    Or better yet, take away all of its teeth.

    A civil union can be defined to accommodate mere lovers, while marriage retains its full dignity by being removed entirely from the hands of law makers, and put entirely into the hands of the people who ought to be defining it (society in general and/or religion.)

    But the civil union becomes the only institution that carries the force of law. The penalty for mistreating "marriage" would be social ostracization or other kinds of non-legal pressure.


    Quote Originally Posted by stander-j
    I think the problem with that sentiment is that there is no such thing as "cheapening" the institution of marriage. Marriage has practical values, yes - but those benefits aren't going to disappear from "traditional marriages" just because other people are also using the word "marriage" to describe their partnerships. Even so, "Marriage," is a word we apply to an array of customs and practices that differ from culture to culture. As a consequence, marriage and its perceived value is going to differ from culture-to-culture.
    Like, inheritance and divorce may be handled within the couples' religions. And society at large shouldn't meddle, since marriage may mean anything a smaller group or couple want it to mean.
    That would create a problem if two people from different faiths were to marry.

    The law gets to avoid getting caught in the middle of the mess if all it is addressing is their "civil union", but not their "marriage".

    Religions may have quite a lot to say about "marriage", but they have nothing to say about "civil unions".
    Some clocks are only right twice a day, but they are still right when they are right.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  26. #126  
    Forum Professor
    Join Date
    Aug 2013
    Location
    San Diego
    Posts
    1,970
    Quote Originally Posted by kojax View Post
    I'd like to see the USA go a slightly different direction.

    Let the government set up "civil union" , but not "marriage". Absolutely prohibit the use of the word "marriage" from being used any legal proceeding.

    "Marriage" can then become the exclusive domain of religion. They already have "holy matrimony", but I'd like to also give them "marriage", because not many people make use of the term "holy matrimony". But most people say the word "marriage" when they really mean "holy matrimony", so combining the terms would eliminate a lot of confusion.

    Do this, and the government can wash its hands of most of the affair. Nobody has to worry that the government is legislating "love". And most of the religious right's objection to allowing gay people to "marry" would be gone. Religions would be free to marry people who have no civil union, or dissolve marriages in spite of a civil union being in place.

    The law is basicaly only saying who owns what, and who gets custody of the children. It's not trying to play god. It's not trying to tell people what to believe. Only what to do.
    That also works quite well, and I'd support that (provided that no rights are actually removed along with the term "marriage.")
    Reply With Quote  
     

  27. #127  
    Forum Radioactive Isotope Paleoichneum's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    Washington State, USA
    Posts
    4,564
    Quote Originally Posted by Stanley514 View Post
    I have said the standard for banning 'indecency' should be sexual assault or threatening.
    If I no make mistake posting porno images in public places is prohibited in some if not in majority of U.S. states.
    Does it qualify as a sexual assault or threatening? Should they be allowed?
    No it is not considered assault. Your question is wholly irrelevant to Pride events.

    And you have yet to answeer my questions posed to you already....
    If more of us valued food and cheer and song above hoarded gold, it would be a merrier world. -Thorin Oakenshield

    The needs of the many outweigh the need of the few - Spock of Vulcan & Sentinel Prime of Cybertron ---proof that "the needs" are in the eye of the beholder.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  28. #128  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Pennsylvania
    Posts
    8,822
    Quote Originally Posted by SowZ37 View Post
    I have said the standard for banning 'indecency' should be sexual assault or threatening. That is my entire argument.

    If you disagree, what is a better standard? You keep calling my argument fallacious, yet I think it is far more consistent than whatever you are advocating. You need an actual standard that you can apply consistently,not just allow society to decide what's offensive. If you disagree with that premise, why? I've been consistent in my arguments and philosophy.
    If society doesn't decide what's offensive, who does?
    I didn't move the goalpost because I also addressed urine. I actually have no problem with casual nudity other than hygiene, though someone who is nude could so easily brush up against someone or direct their genitals to someone else in a threatening manner that allowing full nudity may be more trouble than it is worth. Regardless, if urinating in public is not sexual assault, yes, it should be just fine. If we determine that it is a form of sexual assault, it shouldn't be allowed. But it probably isn't sexual assault and doing so on your own property should not be illegal.
    So now you've decided I can pee in the front yard with cars going by?
    You have yet to show the fallacy in my argument. You may disagree with the premise, but I'm entirely consistent. If it isn't assault, (or a threat or unhealthy,) it should be allowed. I made an incorrect statement talking about that as if it were law, there are decency laws, but personally I disagree with them.
    You are taking a very extreme position, I think. Paleo became indignant at the idea that exposing oneself in public might occur at a gay pride event, so I think he would find it offensive, but now you are saying it would be all right?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  29. #129  
    Forum Masters Degree
    Join Date
    Apr 2014
    Posts
    592
    Quote Originally Posted by Harold14370 View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by SowZ37 View Post
    I have said the standard for banning 'indecency' should be sexual assault or threatening. That is my entire argument.

    If you disagree, what is a better standard? You keep calling my argument fallacious, yet I think it is far more consistent than whatever you are advocating. You need an actual standard that you can apply consistently,not just allow society to decide what's offensive. If you disagree with that premise, why? I've been consistent in my arguments and philosophy.
    If society doesn't decide what's offensive, who does?
    I didn't move the goalpost because I also addressed urine. I actually have no problem with casual nudity other than hygiene, though someone who is nude could so easily brush up against someone or direct their genitals to someone else in a threatening manner that allowing full nudity may be more trouble than it is worth. Regardless, if urinating in public is not sexual assault, yes, it should be just fine. If we determine that it is a form of sexual assault, it shouldn't be allowed. But it probably isn't sexual assault and doing so on your own property should not be illegal.
    So now you've decided I can pee in the front yard with cars going by?
    You have yet to show the fallacy in my argument. You may disagree with the premise, but I'm entirely consistent. If it isn't assault, (or a threat or unhealthy,) it should be allowed. I made an incorrect statement talking about that as if it were law, there are decency laws, but personally I disagree with them.
    You are taking a very extreme position, I think. Paleo became indignant at the idea that exposing oneself in public might occur at a gay pride event, so I think he would find it offensive, but now you are saying it would be all right?
    Stop dodging. I've explained my position and it is consistent. If you are not assaulting others in some fashion, another persons sensibilities should not allow them to violently stop you from engaging in a peaceful activity. (Passing a law forcing you not to be nude on your front law is saying that you are willing to use violent force to enforce such a law.) If we deem that exposing ones genitals is sexual assault, we can morally stop it. Otherwise, stopping it is an oppressive act of violently forcing one persons values on another, peaceful person.

    Society is is allowed to deem whatever it wants as offensive. That does not give it a right to enforce those sensibilities as law.
    Now would you please stop dodging and state your actual position. Does 'most people find it offensive' merit a law banning something? If not, what are you trying to say?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  30. #130  
    Forum Professor
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Posts
    1,774
    Quote Originally Posted by SowZ37 View Post
    Society is is allowed to deem whatever it wants as offensive. That does not give it a right to enforce those sensibilities as law.
    What about racial abuse? That is illegal isn't it? If I call someone a **** based on a racial characteristic is that not just giving offense based on their sensibilities?

    Doesn't society have discretion in what laws it sees fit to protect various sensitivities (sensibilities ?)among its sub groups? These laws are not set in stone either.

    In Germany there are laws regarding holocaust denial .On the face of it that is unscientific and antidemocratic as we should a priori allow all opinions to compete but I think we presently consider their rights of expression in that regard not worth as much as the extra suffering (=offense) they cause to the victims and their family (there may be additional reasons for the law but I would hope that is a major component to it)).
    Reply With Quote  
     

  31. #131  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Pennsylvania
    Posts
    8,822
    Quote Originally Posted by SowZ37 View Post

    Stop dodging. I've explained my position and it is consistent.
    I think you flip-flopped because you originally said that people had to wear briefs as a minimum. Then you changed that because I backed you into a corner, so now you are taking an extremists position. I'm happy now. I've made my point.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  32. #132  
    Forum Masters Degree
    Join Date
    Apr 2014
    Posts
    592
    Quote Originally Posted by Harold14370 View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by SowZ37 View Post

    Stop dodging. I've explained my position and it is consistent.
    I think you flip-flopped because you originally said that people had to wear briefs as a minimum. Then you changed that because I backed you into a corner, so now you are taking an extremists position. I'm happy now. I've made my point.
    No you haven't. I've said nothing of the sort. You are intentionally misrepresenting me in an effort to refuse to answer a question, or skimming my posts and claiming they are inconsistent without giving them a god read. It's cowardly if the former, a poor way to debate if the latter, and intellectually dishonest either way. In the post with the briefs I indicated that I personally don't have much a problem with nudity, but it is probably easier and the least trouble to just require briefs to avoid gray areas. You tried to pin me down on the gray areas, and what I said was, "If it's sexual assault, then ban it. If not, then no." I gave my preference, that nudity doesn't bother me from a legal standpoint, but didn't make an absolute statement on if nudity could qualify as sexual assault. I intentionally made a point, multiple times, to say that some definitions classify that as sexual assault. And society has to deem what is and isn't sexual assault. I used that language over and over and you ignored it time and time again. I never said that nudity can't be defined as a sexual crime. I wouldn't define it as such, but if the government wants to keep things clean, (figuratively and literally speaking,) it's easiest to define nudity in public as a sex crime. I challenge you and anyone who cares to re-read my posts. The stance is consistent throughout, you didn't back me into a corner, you just refused to address the issue head on and slung mud at me. You haven't made a firm stance that society can outlaw things based on what it finds gross, but your agenda in implying that is quite transparent. Why not just commit to a position? Perhaps because your position is equally extremist?

    You still refuse to answer any of the questions posed to you and just drop in and demand answers to hypothetical scenarios but don't respond to any critique against your arguments.

    To clarify once again, if society outlaws full nudity on the grounds of it being sexual assault, I'm okay with that even if I wouldn't classify it as such. Anything more than covering the genitals is a violation of their rights, anything less than requiring briefs would probably be more trouble than its worth. Not necessarily because it is wrong to flash your genitals, but because it is so close to that line that it becomes very difficult. Mandating briefs is the simplest solution, though perhaps a slightly oppressive one. If society outlaws full nudity just because it is indecent, yes, I will oppose it.


    Quote Originally Posted by geordief View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by SowZ37 View Post
    Society is is allowed to deem whatever it wants as offensive. That does not give it a right to enforce those sensibilities as law.
    What about racial abuse? That is illegal isn't it? If I call someone a **** based on a racial characteristic is that not just giving offense based on their sensibilities?

    Doesn't society have discretion in what laws it sees fit to protect various sensitivities (sensibilities ?)among its sub groups? These laws are not set in stone either.

    In Germany there are laws regarding holocaust denial .On the face of it that is unscientific and antidemocratic as we should a priori allow all opinions to compete but I think we presently consider their rights of expression in that regard not worth as much as the extra suffering (=offense) they cause to the victims and their family (there may be additional reasons for the law but I would hope that is a major component to it)).
    I find all such laws inherently immoral and think they cause more harm than good. Allow the truth to stand up against lies. When the government tries to stamp out lies, it can add false validity. I believe this despite the fact that the Whetstines are German Jews. Let holocaust deniers speak their stupidity. If it can't be spoken in the open, it can't be refuted in the open.
    Last edited by SowZ37; August 26th, 2014 at 11:26 PM.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  33. #133  
    Forum Masters Degree
    Join Date
    Apr 2014
    Posts
    592
    *delete, double post*
    Reply With Quote  
     

  34. #134  
    Time Lord
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Posts
    8,046
    Quote Originally Posted by Paleoichneum View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Stanley514 View Post
    I have said the standard for banning 'indecency' should be sexual assault or threatening.
    If I no make mistake posting porno images in public places is prohibited in some if not in majority of U.S. states.
    Does it qualify as a sexual assault or threatening? Should they be allowed?
    No it is not considered assault. Your question is wholly irrelevant to Pride events.

    And you have yet to answeer my questions posed to you already....
    It's certainly illegal to show pornography to a minor. The internet has kind of worn that rule down a bit, but most sites which specialize in pornographic material still at least require the user to say they are 18 or older. Not many of them still run a credit card for proof or anything like that, but that used to be common also.

    ...... Please don't ask me how I know that....

    So if participants in a gay march are wearing clothing that would count as nudity or pornography in a public place where minors are likely to be present, there would certainly be a problem with that.


    Quote Originally Posted by geordief View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by SowZ37 View Post
    Society is is allowed to deem whatever it wants as offensive. That does not give it a right to enforce those sensibilities as law.
    What about racial abuse? That is illegal isn't it? If I call someone a **** based on a racial characteristic is that not just giving offense based on their sensibilities?

    Doesn't society have discretion in what laws it sees fit to protect various sensitivities (sensibilities ?)among its sub groups? These laws are not set in stone either.

    In Germany there are laws regarding holocaust denial .On the face of it that is unscientific and antidemocratic as we should a priori allow all opinions to compete but I think we presently consider their rights of expression in that regard not worth as much as the extra suffering (=offense) they cause to the victims and their family (there may be additional reasons for the law but I would hope that is a major component to it)).
    That there is shaky ground. "Offensive" is a very bad criteria to use when limiting the freedom of speech, because almost anything can be considered offensive by some standard or another. A dictator might think it is "offensive" for people to object to his/her political decisions. A democrat might think that Republican political views on an issue like war, or the death penalty are offensive. Or a Republic might think a Democrat's political views about abortion or..... well... homosexuality... are offensive.

    But exposing a minor to pornographic images can be seen as a form of sexual abuse. The basis for prohibiting it is fundamentally different.
    Some clocks are only right twice a day, but they are still right when they are right.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  35. #135  
    Forum Masters Degree
    Join Date
    Apr 2014
    Posts
    592
    Quote Originally Posted by kojax View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Paleoichneum View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Stanley514 View Post
    I have said the standard for banning 'indecency' should be sexual assault or threatening.
    If I no make mistake posting porno images in public places is prohibited in some if not in majority of U.S. states.
    Does it qualify as a sexual assault or threatening? Should they be allowed?
    No it is not considered assault. Your question is wholly irrelevant to Pride events.

    And you have yet to answeer my questions posed to you already....
    It's certainly illegal to show pornography to a minor. The internet has kind of worn that rule down a bit, but most sites which specialize in pornographic material still at least require the user to say they are 18 or older. Not many of them still run a credit card for proof or anything like that, but that used to be common also.

    ...... Please don't ask me how I know that....

    So if participants in a gay march are wearing clothing that would count as nudity or pornography in a public place where minors are likely to be present, there would certainly be a problem with that.
    Yep. And if that was outlawed, it should be entirely on the basis of 'did a sexual abuse occur.' Not, 'is this considered indecent.'
    Reply With Quote  
     

  36. #136  
    Forum Professor
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Posts
    1,774
    Quote Originally Posted by SowZ37 View Post
    Let holocaust deniers speak their stupidity
    .
    I would be pleasantly surprised if they were stupid .You think they really believe it. They will use an impression of idiocy to their own advantage. It is chip away here ,get an "adherent" there .... (even discussing it on this forum is probably to their advantage -"no publicity is bad publicity" )
    Reply With Quote  
     

  37. #137  
    Forum Masters Degree
    Join Date
    Apr 2014
    Posts
    592
    Quote Originally Posted by geordief View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by SowZ37 View Post
    Let holocaust deniers speak their stupidity
    .
    I would be pleasantly surprised if they were stupid .You think they really believe it. They will use an impression of idiocy to their own advantage. It is chip away here ,get an "adherent" there .... (even discussing it on this forum is probably to their advantage -"no publicity is bad publicity" )
    Regardless of if they are stupid, what they are speaking is stupidity. In my experience, there's a decent balance of stupid and non stupid among them, (just like the rest of the world.) But like any group that believes nonsense, there's a higher percentage of stupid among holocaust deniers than the general populace. It takes a serious suspension of critical thinking skills to buy into something so nonsensical. Sometimes very intelligent people fall into it, but more often it is the weak willed and slow. That's my experience.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  38. #138  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Pennsylvania
    Posts
    8,822
    Quote Originally Posted by SowZ37 View Post
    To clarify once again, if society outlaws full nudity on the grounds of it being sexual assault, I'm okay with that even if I wouldn't classify it as such.
    Why would you be okay with it? It has nothing to do with sexual assault.
    Anything more than covering the genitals is a violation of their rights,
    I think you have jumped the shark with this extremist position.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  39. #139  
    Forum Professor
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Posts
    1,774
    They don't need to deny the obvious they only need to chip away at the edges. "Bad things happen in war"etc etc .Things which are true but diminish the shock we should all feel still.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  40. #140  
    Forum Masters Degree
    Join Date
    Apr 2014
    Posts
    592
    Quote Originally Posted by Harold14370 View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by SowZ37 View Post
    To clarify once again, if society outlaws full nudity on the grounds of it being sexual assault, I'm okay with that even if I wouldn't classify it as such.
    Why would you be okay with it? It has nothing to do with sexual assault.
    Anything more than covering the genitals is a violation of their rights,
    I think you have jumped the shark with this extremist position.
    I think your position is far more extreme than mine.

    See how useless it is when I just make unsupported claims of my opinion while ignoring the actual discussion entirely?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  41. #141  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Pennsylvania
    Posts
    8,822
    Quote Originally Posted by SowZ37 View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Harold14370 View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by SowZ37 View Post
    To clarify once again, if society outlaws full nudity on the grounds of it being sexual assault, I'm okay with that even if I wouldn't classify it as such.
    Why would you be okay with it? It has nothing to do with sexual assault.
    Anything more than covering the genitals is a violation of their rights,
    I think you have jumped the shark with this extremist position.
    I think your position is far more extreme than mine.

    See how useless it is when I just make unsupported claims of my opinion while ignoring the actual discussion entirely?
    I haven't actually taken any position. All I'm doing is pointing out that your absolutist argument leads to an absurd conclusion. Namely, that people have a right to go around in public without any clothes on. This is something that hardly anybody believes, probably even you, but you are stubbornly clinging to it so you won't lose an argument.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  42. #142  
    Forum Masters Degree
    Join Date
    Apr 2014
    Posts
    592
    Quote Originally Posted by Harold14370 View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by SowZ37 View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Harold14370 View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by SowZ37 View Post
    To clarify once again, if society outlaws full nudity on the grounds of it being sexual assault, I'm okay with that even if I wouldn't classify it as such.
    Why would you be okay with it? It has nothing to do with sexual assault.
    Anything more than covering the genitals is a violation of their rights,
    I think you have jumped the shark with this extremist position.
    I think your position is far more extreme than mine.

    See how useless it is when I just make unsupported claims of my opinion while ignoring the actual discussion entirely?
    I haven't actually taken any position. All I'm doing is pointing out that your absolutist argument leads to an absurd conclusion. Namely, that people have a right to go around in public without any clothes on. This is something that hardly anybody believes, probably even you, but you are stubbornly clinging to it so you won't lose an argument.
    Patently false. I'm a pretty staunch libertarian and hold that anything that isn't violent shouldn't be responded to with violence. All laws are inherently violent and violence is not an appropriate response to defend people's sensibilities. If it is ruled that exposing someone to nudity is a form of sexual assault, as I believe the law does, then there can be moral grounds for outlawing it. Shaky moral ground, but it is a gray area either way. The ground are still preventing assault. What other possible consistent grounds could there be? Stop playing dumb and name an alternative value other than an arbitrary, "Whatever seems reasonable." I find your implications that what the public finds offensive can be grounds for banning it incredibly absurd and your refusal to answer anyone's direct questions to you also very stubborn. Your 'not taking a position' is a transparent tactic to discredit someone else without opening yourself up to criticism.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  43. #143  
    Forum Professor
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Posts
    1,774
    Quote Originally Posted by Harold14370 View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by SowZ37 View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Harold14370 View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by SowZ37 View Post
    To clarify once again, if society outlaws full nudity on the grounds of it being sexual assault, I'm okay with that even if I wouldn't classify it as such.
    Why would you be okay with it? It has nothing to do with sexual assault.
    Anything more than covering the genitals is a violation of their rights,
    I think you have jumped the shark with this extremist position.
    I think your position is far more extreme than mine.

    See how useless it is when I just make unsupported claims of my opinion while ignoring the actual discussion entirely?
    I haven't actually taken any position. All I'm doing is pointing out that your absolutist argument leads to an absurd conclusion. Namely, that people have a right to go around in public without any clothes on. This is something that hardly anybody believes, probably even you, but you are stubbornly clinging to it so you won't lose an argument.
    I don't want to join this argument but just to observe that the lack of all clothes seems to me less provocative than a slight rearrangement of the clothes from the norm.

    For example in a culture where the whole (female) body is normally covered up I have little doubt that the glimpse or suspicion of a glimpse of any part at all would be wildly exciting. It is a paradox that defeats the purpose of those trying to conceal the human body I would say.

    On the other hand what could be more offputting and initially hilarious than bumping into a bunch of nudists ?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  44. #144  
    Forum Masters Degree
    Join Date
    Apr 2014
    Posts
    592
    Quote Originally Posted by geordief View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Harold14370 View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by SowZ37 View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Harold14370 View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by SowZ37 View Post
    To clarify once again, if society outlaws full nudity on the grounds of it being sexual assault, I'm okay with that even if I wouldn't classify it as such.
    Why would you be okay with it? It has nothing to do with sexual assault.
    Anything more than covering the genitals is a violation of their rights,
    I think you have jumped the shark with this extremist position.
    I think your position is far more extreme than mine.

    See how useless it is when I just make unsupported claims of my opinion while ignoring the actual discussion entirely?
    I haven't actually taken any position. All I'm doing is pointing out that your absolutist argument leads to an absurd conclusion. Namely, that people have a right to go around in public without any clothes on. This is something that hardly anybody believes, probably even you, but you are stubbornly clinging to it so you won't lose an argument.
    I don't want to join this argument but just to observe that the lack of all clothes seems to me less provocative than a slight rearrangement of the clothes from the norm.

    For example in a culture where the whole (female) body is normally covered up I have little doubt that the glimpse or suspicion of a glimpse of any part at all would be wildly exciting. It is a paradox that defeats the purpose of those trying to conceal the human body I would say.

    On the other hand what could be more offputting and initially hilarious than bumping into a bunch of nudists ?
    Bumping into a group that outlaws public inter-racial relations or transgenders because their society finds such things offensive and indecent, and what if children see it? (Minus the hilarity.)
    Reply With Quote  
     

  45. #145  
    Forum Radioactive Isotope Paleoichneum's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    Washington State, USA
    Posts
    4,564
    Quote Originally Posted by kojax View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Paleoichneum View Post
    No it is not considered assault. Your question is wholly irrelevant to Pride events.

    And you have yet to answer my questions posed to you already....
    It's certainly illegal to show pornography to a minor. The internet has kind of worn that rule down a bit, but most sites which specialize in pornographic material still at least require the user to say they are 18 or older. Not many of them still run a credit card for proof or anything like that, but that used to be common also.

    ...... Please don't ask me how I know that....

    So if participants in a gay march are wearing clothing that would count as nudity or pornography in a public place where minors are likely to be present, there would certainly be a problem with that.
    What clothing is considered pornography simply by wearing it? I cant think of any, and I have never seen anything resembling porn or sex at a pride parade/event in my years going to one.

    Have YOU actually been to a pride event?

    Quote Originally Posted by kojax View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by geordief View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by SowZ37 View Post
    Society is is allowed to deem whatever it wants as offensive. That does not give it a right to enforce those sensibilities as law.
    What about racial abuse? That is illegal isn't it? If I call someone a **** based on a racial characteristic is that not just giving offense based on their sensibilities?

    Doesn't society have discretion in what laws it sees fit to protect various sensitivities (sensibilities ?)among its sub groups? These laws are not set in stone either.

    In Germany there are laws regarding holocaust denial .On the face of it that is unscientific and antidemocratic as we should a priori allow all opinions to compete but I think we presently consider their rights of expression in that regard not worth as much as the extra suffering (=offense) they cause to the victims and their family (there may be additional reasons for the law but I would hope that is a major component to it)).
    That there is shaky ground. "Offensive" is a very bad criteria to use when limiting the freedom of speech, because almost anything can be considered offensive by some standard or another. A dictator might think it is "offensive" for people to object to his/her political decisions. A democrat might think that Republican political views on an issue like war, or the death penalty are offensive. Or a Republic might think a Democrat's political views about abortion or..... well... homosexuality... are offensive.

    But exposing a minor to pornographic images can be seen as a form of sexual abuse. The basis for prohibiting it is fundamentally different.
    Again, what specific examples do you have of pornography or sex happening in public at a pride event?
    If more of us valued food and cheer and song above hoarded gold, it would be a merrier world. -Thorin Oakenshield

    The needs of the many outweigh the need of the few - Spock of Vulcan & Sentinel Prime of Cybertron ---proof that "the needs" are in the eye of the beholder.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  46. #146  
    Time Lord
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Posts
    8,046
    Quote Originally Posted by Paleoichneum View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by kojax View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Paleoichneum View Post
    No it is not considered assault. Your question is wholly irrelevant to Pride events.

    And you have yet to answer my questions posed to you already....
    It's certainly illegal to show pornography to a minor. The internet has kind of worn that rule down a bit, but most sites which specialize in pornographic material still at least require the user to say they are 18 or older. Not many of them still run a credit card for proof or anything like that, but that used to be common also.

    ...... Please don't ask me how I know that....

    So if participants in a gay march are wearing clothing that would count as nudity or pornography in a public place where minors are likely to be present, there would certainly be a problem with that.
    What clothing is considered pornography simply by wearing it? I cant think of any, and I have never seen anything resembling porn or sex at a pride parade/event in my years going to one.

    Have YOU actually been to a pride event?
    I don't know what they actually wear. I'm just saying that hypothetically, some outfits a person could choose to wear would be considered pornography.

    Mostly just outfits that don't cover the genitals, or for women, outfits that don't cover the nipples. If you've seen the kinds of bikinis people are wearing these days at beaches and public swimming pools, then you know that pretty much any outfit that covers those items is fine to wear.

    But no. I've never been to a gay pride event. Nor do I plan to attend one. I'm glad that I have the freedom to opt not to attend them. I doubt I would enjoy the experience.


    Quote Originally Posted by kojax View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by geordief View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by SowZ37 View Post
    Society is is allowed to deem whatever it wants as offensive. That does not give it a right to enforce those sensibilities as law.
    What about racial abuse? That is illegal isn't it? If I call someone a **** based on a racial characteristic is that not just giving offense based on their sensibilities?

    Doesn't society have discretion in what laws it sees fit to protect various sensitivities (sensibilities ?)among its sub groups? These laws are not set in stone either.

    In Germany there are laws regarding holocaust denial .On the face of it that is unscientific and antidemocratic as we should a priori allow all opinions to compete but I think we presently consider their rights of expression in that regard not worth as much as the extra suffering (=offense) they cause to the victims and their family (there may be additional reasons for the law but I would hope that is a major component to it)).
    That there is shaky ground. "Offensive" is a very bad criteria to use when limiting the freedom of speech, because almost anything can be considered offensive by some standard or another. A dictator might think it is "offensive" for people to object to his/her political decisions. A democrat might think that Republican political views on an issue like war, or the death penalty are offensive. Or a Republic might think a Democrat's political views about abortion or..... well... homosexuality... are offensive.

    But exposing a minor to pornographic images can be seen as a form of sexual abuse. The basis for prohibiting it is fundamentally different.
    Again, what specific examples do you have of pornography or sex happening in public at a pride event?
    Just to avoid the cycle of "you didn't answer my question", I have no idea what people wear at pride events.

    I was simply discussing what basis one might use to limit clothing choices. It's right to limit those choices on the mere basis of "good taste". It has to be something more.

    If gay pride events don't involve wearing clothing that would be pornographic in nature, then I see no problem with letting them wear those clothes in their march. Gay marchers are certainly not the only people who wear sexualized clothing in public. There's also Comic conventions, where people often show up dressed like superheroes or superheroines - which in the case of some comic book heroes/heroines - means they're not wearing very much.

    However, there are also certain outfits that would typically only be worn by a stripper in a club that has no windows, and which cards all people coming through the door to prevent minors from entering. I'd really rather not go into too much specific detail about what exactly they do or don't wear...... or how I know this....
    Some clocks are only right twice a day, but they are still right when they are right.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  47. #147  
    Forum Professor
    Join Date
    Aug 2013
    Location
    San Diego
    Posts
    1,970
    Quote Originally Posted by kojax View Post
    If gay pride events don't involve wearing clothing that would be pornographic in nature, then I see no problem with letting them wear those clothes in their march. Gay marchers are certainly not the only people who wear sexualized clothing in public. There's also Comic conventions, where people often show up dressed like superheroes or superheroines - which in the case of some comic book heroes/heroines - means they're not wearing very much.
    And events like Mardi Gras, where "pornographic" levels of nudity are common.

    From my experience, "pornography" at events like Mardi Gras is far more common than "pornography" in gay pride parades - although you can find examples in gay pride parades if you look hard enough,
    Reply With Quote  
     

  48. #148  
    Forum Masters Degree
    Join Date
    Apr 2014
    Posts
    592
    Quote Originally Posted by kojax View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Paleoichneum View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by kojax View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Paleoichneum View Post
    No it is not considered assault. Your question is wholly irrelevant to Pride events.

    And you have yet to answer my questions posed to you already....
    It's certainly illegal to show pornography to a minor. The internet has kind of worn that rule down a bit, but most sites which specialize in pornographic material still at least require the user to say they are 18 or older. Not many of them still run a credit card for proof or anything like that, but that used to be common also.

    ...... Please don't ask me how I know that....

    So if participants in a gay march are wearing clothing that would count as nudity or pornography in a public place where minors are likely to be present, there would certainly be a problem with that.
    What clothing is considered pornography simply by wearing it? I cant think of any, and I have never seen anything resembling porn or sex at a pride parade/event in my years going to one.

    Have YOU actually been to a pride event?
    I don't know what they actually wear. I'm just saying that hypothetically, some outfits a person could choose to wear would be considered pornography.

    Mostly just outfits that don't cover the genitals, or for women, outfits that don't cover the nipples. If you've seen the kinds of bikinis people are wearing these days at beaches and public swimming pools, then you know that pretty much any outfit that covers those items is fine to wear.

    But no. I've never been to a gay pride event. Nor do I plan to attend one. I'm glad that I have the freedom to opt not to attend them. I doubt I would enjoy the experience.


    Quote Originally Posted by kojax View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by geordief View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by SowZ37 View Post
    Society is is allowed to deem whatever it wants as offensive. That does not give it a right to enforce those sensibilities as law.
    What about racial abuse? That is illegal isn't it? If I call someone a **** based on a racial characteristic is that not just giving offense based on their sensibilities?

    Doesn't society have discretion in what laws it sees fit to protect various sensitivities (sensibilities ?)among its sub groups? These laws are not set in stone either.

    In Germany there are laws regarding holocaust denial .On the face of it that is unscientific and antidemocratic as we should a priori allow all opinions to compete but I think we presently consider their rights of expression in that regard not worth as much as the extra suffering (=offense) they cause to the victims and their family (there may be additional reasons for the law but I would hope that is a major component to it)).
    That there is shaky ground. "Offensive" is a very bad criteria to use when limiting the freedom of speech, because almost anything can be considered offensive by some standard or another. A dictator might think it is "offensive" for people to object to his/her political decisions. A democrat might think that Republican political views on an issue like war, or the death penalty are offensive. Or a Republic might think a Democrat's political views about abortion or..... well... homosexuality... are offensive.

    But exposing a minor to pornographic images can be seen as a form of sexual abuse. The basis for prohibiting it is fundamentally different.
    Again, what specific examples do you have of pornography or sex happening in public at a pride event?
    Just to avoid the cycle of "you didn't answer my question", I have no idea what people wear at pride events.

    I was simply discussing what basis one might use to limit clothing choices. It's right to limit those choices on the mere basis of "good taste". It has to be something more.

    If gay pride events don't involve wearing clothing that would be pornographic in nature, then I see no problem with letting them wear those clothes in their march. Gay marchers are certainly not the only people who wear sexualized clothing in public. There's also Comic conventions, where people often show up dressed like superheroes or superheroines - which in the case of some comic book heroes/heroines - means they're not wearing very much.

    However, there are also certain outfits that would typically only be worn by a stripper in a club that has no windows, and which cards all people coming through the door to prevent minors from entering. I'd really rather not go into too much specific detail about what exactly they do or don't wear...... or how I know this....
    Topless women are not considered pornographic in some states. Laws banning topless women are inconsistent an sexist, allowing men to go topless. Once again proving how arbitrary and without any real basis other than, "we find it offensive," decency laws are. Of course, there's a long history of decency laws being oppressive, hateful, hate mongering things so this is no surprise.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  49. #149  
    Forum Radioactive Isotope Paleoichneum's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    Washington State, USA
    Posts
    4,564
    Quote Originally Posted by kojax View Post
    I don't know what they actually wear. I'm just saying that hypothetically, some outfits a person could choose to wear would be considered pornography.

    Mostly just outfits that don't cover the genitals, or for women, outfits that don't cover the nipples. If you've seen the kinds of bikinis people are wearing these days at beaches and public swimming pools, then you know that pretty much any outfit that covers those items is fine to wear.

    But no. I've never been to a gay pride event. Nor do I plan to attend one. I'm glad that I have the freedom to opt not to attend them. I doubt I would enjoy the experience.

    ------
    Just to avoid the cycle of "you didn't answer my question", I have no idea what people wear at pride events.

    I was simply discussing what basis one might use to limit clothing choices. It's right to limit those choices on the mere basis of "good taste". It has to be something more.

    If gay pride events don't involve wearing clothing that would be pornographic in nature, then I see no problem with letting them wear those clothes in their march. Gay marchers are certainly not the only people who wear sexualized clothing in public. There's also Comic conventions, where people often show up dressed like superheroes or superheroines - which in the case of some comic book heroes/heroines - means they're not wearing very much.

    However, there are also certain outfits that would typically only be worn by a stripper in a club that has no windows, and which cards all people coming through the door to prevent minors from entering. I'd really rather not go into too much specific detail about what exactly they do or don't wear...... or how I know this....
    So your argument for limiting Pride events is based on a hypothetical, omg they MAY show a penis at some point (btw please look at the definition of pornography), and I may get uncomfortable.

    Show me your history of actively trying to get Mardi gras and St Patrick's day (along with all major league cheer leaders) outlawed, as they are showing a hell of a lot more then what one sees at a Pride event.

    You say you would never attend one, yet you admit you dont even know what happens at one. What do you think is happening at them?

    Really your going after Comic con's? There NO con go-ers that show in your mythical pornographic clothing, as they know full well they would NOT get let in. I've been to Emerald city CC and PAXX and not seen anything that rational humans would try to make illegal.

    I'll be blunt. Pride events are NOT strip shows, and its offensive that people feel it is an acceptable thing to compare me and my bf to porn.
    If more of us valued food and cheer and song above hoarded gold, it would be a merrier world. -Thorin Oakenshield

    The needs of the many outweigh the need of the few - Spock of Vulcan & Sentinel Prime of Cybertron ---proof that "the needs" are in the eye of the beholder.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  50. #150  
    Time Lord
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Posts
    8,046
    Quote Originally Posted by Paleoichneum View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by kojax View Post
    I don't know what they actually wear. I'm just saying that hypothetically, some outfits a person could choose to wear would be considered pornography.

    Mostly just outfits that don't cover the genitals, or for women, outfits that don't cover the nipples. If you've seen the kinds of bikinis people are wearing these days at beaches and public swimming pools, then you know that pretty much any outfit that covers those items is fine to wear.

    But no. I've never been to a gay pride event. Nor do I plan to attend one. I'm glad that I have the freedom to opt not to attend them. I doubt I would enjoy the experience.

    ------
    Just to avoid the cycle of "you didn't answer my question", I have no idea what people wear at pride events.

    I was simply discussing what basis one might use to limit clothing choices. It's right to limit those choices on the mere basis of "good taste". It has to be something more.

    If gay pride events don't involve wearing clothing that would be pornographic in nature, then I see no problem with letting them wear those clothes in their march. Gay marchers are certainly not the only people who wear sexualized clothing in public. There's also Comic conventions, where people often show up dressed like superheroes or superheroines - which in the case of some comic book heroes/heroines - means they're not wearing very much.

    However, there are also certain outfits that would typically only be worn by a stripper in a club that has no windows, and which cards all people coming through the door to prevent minors from entering. I'd really rather not go into too much specific detail about what exactly they do or don't wear...... or how I know this....
    So your argument for limiting Pride events is based on a hypothetical, omg they MAY show a penis at some point (btw please look at the definition of pornography), and I may get uncomfortable.
    I haven't taken the position that gay pride events should be banned. I'm just looking at what limitations should be imposed upon them when they are conducted.

    This is a much more interesting question for demonstrations. All demonstration have parameters. For example, violence. If a demonstration were to become violent, then the police would break it up. But other kinds of legality are also important to consider.

    Clearly gay pride marches deserve the same tolerance as any other kind of march. But only the same tolerance. Not greater tolerance. Not less tolerance. Exactly the same. Whatever kinds of behavior would be illegal in any other march needs to be illegal in a gay march. Whatever kinds of behavior would be tolerated in any other march, needs to be tolerated in a gay march.


    Show me your history of actively trying to get Mardi gras and St Patrick's day (along with all major league cheer leaders) outlawed, as they are showing a hell of a lot more then what one sees at a Pride event.
    Again, I am only interested in equality between causes. If gay marchers in New Orleans want to march bare naked, I see no problem with that, because New Orleans has a uniquely tolerant view of public nudity compared with most of the rest of the USA.

    So long as marchers in all other causes are free to commit equally "indecent" acts in the same venue, I don't see any problem with it.

    However, different venues have different standards, and so you can't justify behaving a certain way in one venue just because it is ok in another venue.


    You say you would never attend one, yet you admit you dont even know what happens at one. What do you think is happening at them?
    This is not an issue relevant to the discussion, so I'll only explain this to you once. I have Asperger's syndrome. It would bother me because of my disability.

    It's not a moral thing. I shouldn't have brought it up.

    I'm just saying that, so long at attendance is voluntary, the question of who might be offended is irrelevant to whether a march should be allowed or not. I don't disapprove of gay pride marches. I would only disapprove if I thought they were receiving special treatment that other kinds of marches are not given.


    Really your going after Comic con's? There NO con go-ers that show in your mythical pornographic clothing, as they know full well they would NOT get let in. I've been to Emerald city CC and PAXX and not seen anything that rational humans would try to make illegal.
    I'm simply comparing gay marches with other situations where people wear bizarre clothing. I'm saying that whatever we tolerate at a comic con or at a swimming pool should be tolerated in a gay march.

    The best way to make sure things are equal is to find "apples to apples" comparisons. Comparing a comic convention to a gay march is about as close to "apples to apples" as I can think of right now. It's not a perfect comparison, but it's at least a comparison of two situations where the participants might (or might not) wear sexualized clothing in public.


    I'll be blunt. Pride events are NOT strip shows, and its offensive that people feel it is an acceptable thing to compare me and my bf to porn.
    It's more accurate to say that Pride events may or may not be strip shows, depending on whether the participants choose to make them so or not.

    I think most of the time they choose not to. But I don't know because I never go to them. If one of them did degenerate into a strip show, and in a venue where strip shows are not allowed, then it would be fine for the police to break it up (if they are tactful enough not to do so violently.)

    But like any other event, they are what the participants make them.
    Some clocks are only right twice a day, but they are still right when they are right.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  51. #151  
    Forum Radioactive Isotope Paleoichneum's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    Washington State, USA
    Posts
    4,564
    Quote Originally Posted by kojax View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Paleoichneum View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by kojax View Post
    I don't know what they actually wear. I'm just saying that hypothetically, some outfits a person could choose to wear would be considered pornography.

    Mostly just outfits that don't cover the genitals, or for women, outfits that don't cover the nipples. If you've seen the kinds of bikinis people are wearing these days at beaches and public swimming pools, then you know that pretty much any outfit that covers those items is fine to wear.

    But no. I've never been to a gay pride event. Nor do I plan to attend one. I'm glad that I have the freedom to opt not to attend them. I doubt I would enjoy the experience.

    ------
    Just to avoid the cycle of "you didn't answer my question", I have no idea what people wear at pride events.

    I was simply discussing what basis one might use to limit clothing choices. It's right to limit those choices on the mere basis of "good taste". It has to be something more.

    If gay pride events don't involve wearing clothing that would be pornographic in nature, then I see no problem with letting them wear those clothes in their march. Gay marchers are certainly not the only people who wear sexualized clothing in public. There's also Comic conventions, where people often show up dressed like superheroes or superheroines - which in the case of some comic book heroes/heroines - means they're not wearing very much.

    However, there are also certain outfits that would typically only be worn by a stripper in a club that has no windows, and which cards all people coming through the door to prevent minors from entering. I'd really rather not go into too much specific detail about what exactly they do or don't wear...... or how I know this....
    So your argument for limiting Pride events is based on a hypothetical, omg they MAY show a penis at some point (btw please look at the definition of pornography), and I may get uncomfortable.
    I haven't taken the position that gay pride events should be banned. I'm just looking at what limitations should be imposed upon them when they are conducted.

    This is a much more interesting question for demonstrations. All demonstration have parameters. For example, violence. If a demonstration were to become violent, then the police would break it up. But other kinds of legality are also important to consider.

    Clearly gay pride marches deserve the same tolerance as any other kind of march. But only the same tolerance. Not greater tolerance. Not less tolerance. Exactly the same. Whatever kinds of behavior would be illegal in any other march needs to be illegal in a gay march. Whatever kinds of behavior would be tolerated in any other march, needs to be tolerated in a gay march.
    You are making a hypothetical that is far beyond what actually happens, to the point where it's ludicrous. The problem is the events are painted with exactly this type of hypothetical by people that have never actually been to one, and then that hypothetical is treated as gospel truth and acted upon by opponents.

    Quote Originally Posted by kojax View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Paleoichneum View Post

    Show me your history of actively trying to get Mardi gras and St Patrick's day (along with all major league cheer leaders) outlawed, as they are showing a hell of a lot more then what one sees at a Pride event.
    Again, I am only interested in equality between causes. If gay marchers in New Orleans want to march bare naked, I see no problem with that, because New Orleans has a uniquely tolerant view of public nudity compared with most of the rest of the USA.

    So long as marchers in all other causes are free to commit equally "indecent" acts in the same venue, I don't see any problem with it.

    However, different venues have different standards, and so you can't justify behaving a certain way in one venue just because it is ok in another venue.
    But your hypothetical is treating the Pride events as having the worst of the asserted acts happening in it and your basing your arguments on that rather then the reality you have never experienced.

    Quote Originally Posted by kojax View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Paleoichneum View Post

    You say you would never attend one, yet you admit you dont even know what happens at one. What do you think is happening at them?
    This is not an issue relevant to the discussion, so I'll only explain this to you once. I have Asperger's syndrome. It would bother me because of my disability.

    It's not a moral thing. I shouldn't have brought it up.

    I'm just saying that, so long at attendance is voluntary, the question of who might be offended is irrelevant to whether a march should be allowed or not. I don't disapprove of gay pride marches. I would only disapprove if I thought they were receiving special treatment that other kinds of marches are not given.
    your argument fails, as the events are always voluntary, always,

    Quote Originally Posted by kojax View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Paleoichneum View Post

    Really your going after Comic con's? There NO con go-ers that show in your mythical pornographic clothing, as they know full well they would NOT get let in. I've been to Emerald city CC and PAXX and not seen anything that rational humans would try to make illegal.
    I'm simply comparing gay marches with other situations where people wear bizarre clothing. I'm saying that whatever we tolerate at a comic con or at a swimming pool should be tolerated in a gay march.

    The best way to make sure things are equal is to find "apples to apples" comparisons. Comparing a comic convention to a gay march is about as close to "apples to apples" as I can think of right now. It's not a perfect comparison, but it's at least a comparison of two situations where the participants might (or might not) wear sexualized clothing in public.
    How specifically do you equate the two, given you have no experience with a pride event?

    Quote Originally Posted by kojax View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Paleoichneum View Post

    I'll be blunt. Pride events are NOT strip shows, and its offensive that people feel it is an acceptable thing to compare me and my bf to porn.
    It's more accurate to say that Pride events may or may not be strip shows, depending on whether the participants choose to make them so or not.

    I think most of the time they choose not to. But I don't know because I never go to them. If one of them did degenerate into a strip show, and in a venue where strip shows are not allowed, then it would be fine for the police to break it up (if they are tactful enough not to do so violently.)

    But like any other event, they are what the participants make them.
    That is a rather absurd argument, ANYTHING could possibly become a strip show. Pride events are NOT strip shows in the way you are asserting. Stop making the assertion otherwise. You are arguing against something you have no experience with at all, and its resulting is you making very poor assertions.

    Show me specific examples of Pride events turning into porn shows........
    If more of us valued food and cheer and song above hoarded gold, it would be a merrier world. -Thorin Oakenshield

    The needs of the many outweigh the need of the few - Spock of Vulcan & Sentinel Prime of Cybertron ---proof that "the needs" are in the eye of the beholder.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  52. #152  
    Forum Junior anticorncob28's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2013
    Location
    Nebraska, USA
    Posts
    214
    The law in New York that allows women to walk around topless and bra-less, for example, is one I support.
    I agree with it too. I find it sexist that men can publicly show their nipples but women can't. That's why as a male I never go swimming and always avoid any circumstance where I am seen shirtless. I find it odd how most women don't mind the double standard, especially non-androphilic women.
    UNIVERSAL TRUTHS:
    1) There are no universal truths, other than this one.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  53. #153  
    Time Lord
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Posts
    8,046
    Quote Originally Posted by Paleoichneum View Post

    You are making a hypothetical that is far beyond what actually happens, to the point where it's ludicrous. The problem is the events are painted with exactly this type of hypothetical by people that have never actually been to one, and then that hypothetical is treated as gospel truth and acted upon by opponents.

    You're ignoring my objectives and inventing insidious ones to give yourself an enemy you don't have.

    The reason I set the standard for misbehavior far outside the reach of what actually happens is precisely to make it clear that unless a gay pride event gets that far out of hand - there is no basis to prevent them.

    I'm telling any conservative reader that

    1- Yes they would be justified in intervening for the sake of public decency.

    2 - But.... only IF there was a public decency issue.

    It's a classic diplomatic strategy. Get the aggressive party to agree on what triggers would justify them acting aggressively. Then wait for them to agree. Then after they agree, you point out that the trigger is not present.



    Quote Originally Posted by Paleoichneum View Post

    But your hypothetical is treating the Pride events as having the worst of the asserted acts happening in it and your basing your arguments on that rather then the reality you have never experienced.
    So essentially I'm arguing that a gay pride event should only be prevented on the basis of decency issues, if and only if, a condition were to occur that is not present?

    And you have a problem with that? I would think you would agree with it, since it is essentially saying exactly that gay pride events shouldn't be illegal.

    Quote Originally Posted by kojax View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Paleoichneum View Post

    You say you would never attend one, yet you admit you dont even know what happens at one. What do you think is happening at them?
    This is not an issue relevant to the discussion, so I'll only explain this to you once. I have Asperger's syndrome. It would bother me because of my disability.

    It's not a moral thing. I shouldn't have brought it up.

    I'm just saying that, so long at attendance is voluntary, the question of who might be offended is irrelevant to whether a march should be allowed or not. I don't disapprove of gay pride marches. I would only disapprove if I thought they were receiving special treatment that other kinds of marches are not given.
    your argument fails, as the events are always voluntary, always,
    That would be very unfortunate for me, if I had intended to argue against holding gay pride events.

    Quote Originally Posted by kojax View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Paleoichneum View Post

    Really your going after Comic con's? There NO con go-ers that show in your mythical pornographic clothing, as they know full well they would NOT get let in. I've been to Emerald city CC and PAXX and not seen anything that rational humans would try to make illegal.
    I'm simply comparing gay marches with other situations where people wear bizarre clothing. I'm saying that whatever we tolerate at a comic con or at a swimming pool should be tolerated in a gay march.

    The best way to make sure things are equal is to find "apples to apples" comparisons. Comparing a comic convention to a gay march is about as close to "apples to apples" as I can think of right now. It's not a perfect comparison, but it's at least a comparison of two situations where the participants might (or might not) wear sexualized clothing in public.
    How specifically do you equate the two, given you have no experience with a pride event?
    It's an apples to apples comparison because I'm comparing apples from one event with apples from another. It's not because the events are both apples.


    Quote Originally Posted by Paleoichneum View Post

    That is a rather absurd argument, ANYTHING could possibly become a strip show. Pride events are NOT strip shows in the way you are asserting. Stop making the assertion otherwise. You are arguing against something you have no experience with at all, and its resulting is you making very poor assertions.

    Show me specific examples of Pride events turning into porn shows........
    You're right to say that anything could possible become a strip show. That is exactly right.

    And the authorities need to wait to intervene until it does. So long as gay pride events don't become strip shows (and it appears that they don't have a history of doing so) there is no basis for authoritarian intervention.

    I try to be very impartial in these kinds of discussions. And it may at times appear that I'm being so callous that I am arguing for the other side - when in fact I am being equally insensitive to the other side also. I am not foolish enough to believe there are only two ways to look at things.
    Some clocks are only right twice a day, but they are still right when they are right.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  54. #154  
    Malignant Pimple shlunka's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Location
    Dogbox in front of Dywyddyr's house.
    Posts
    1,784
    Quote Originally Posted by anticorncob28 View Post
    The law in New York that allows women to walk around topless and bra-less, for example, is one I support.
    I agree with it too. I find it sexist that men can publicly show their nipples but women can't. That's why as a male I never go swimming and always avoid any circumstance where I am seen shirtless. I find it odd how most women don't mind the double standard, especially non-androphilic women.
    I wonder where this leaves men with gynecomastia...
    Reply With Quote  
     

  55. #155  
    Forum Radioactive Isotope Paleoichneum's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    Washington State, USA
    Posts
    4,564
    Quote Originally Posted by kojax View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Paleoichneum View Post

    You are making a hypothetical that is far beyond what actually happens, to the point where it's ludicrous. The problem is the events are painted with exactly this type of hypothetical by people that have never actually been to one, and then that hypothetical is treated as gospel truth and acted upon by opponents.

    You're ignoring my objectives and inventing insidious ones to give yourself an enemy you don't have.

    The reason I set the standard for misbehavior far outside the reach of what actually happens is precisely to make it clear that unless a gay pride event gets that far out of hand - there is no basis to prevent them.

    I'm telling any conservative reader that

    1- Yes they would be justified in intervening for the sake of public decency.

    2 - But.... only IF there was a public decency issue.

    It's a classic diplomatic strategy. Get the aggressive party to agree on what triggers would justify them acting aggressively. Then wait for them to agree. Then after they agree, you point out that the trigger is not present.



    Quote Originally Posted by Paleoichneum View Post

    But your hypothetical is treating the Pride events as having the worst of the asserted acts happening in it and your basing your arguments on that rather then the reality you have never experienced.
    So essentially I'm arguing that a gay pride event should only be prevented on the basis of decency issues, if and only if, a condition were to occur that is not present?

    And you have a problem with that? I would think you would agree with it, since it is essentially saying exactly that gay pride events shouldn't be illegal.

    Quote Originally Posted by kojax View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Paleoichneum View Post

    You say you would never attend one, yet you admit you dont even know what happens at one. What do you think is happening at them?
    This is not an issue relevant to the discussion, so I'll only explain this to you once. I have Asperger's syndrome. It would bother me because of my disability.

    It's not a moral thing. I shouldn't have brought it up.

    I'm just saying that, so long at attendance is voluntary, the question of who might be offended is irrelevant to whether a march should be allowed or not. I don't disapprove of gay pride marches. I would only disapprove if I thought they were receiving special treatment that other kinds of marches are not given.
    your argument fails, as the events are always voluntary, always,
    That would be very unfortunate for me, if I had intended to argue against holding gay pride events.

    Quote Originally Posted by kojax View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Paleoichneum View Post

    Really your going after Comic con's? There NO con go-ers that show in your mythical pornographic clothing, as they know full well they would NOT get let in. I've been to Emerald city CC and PAXX and not seen anything that rational humans would try to make illegal.
    I'm simply comparing gay marches with other situations where people wear bizarre clothing. I'm saying that whatever we tolerate at a comic con or at a swimming pool should be tolerated in a gay march.

    The best way to make sure things are equal is to find "apples to apples" comparisons. Comparing a comic convention to a gay march is about as close to "apples to apples" as I can think of right now. It's not a perfect comparison, but it's at least a comparison of two situations where the participants might (or might not) wear sexualized clothing in public.
    How specifically do you equate the two, given you have no experience with a pride event?
    It's an apples to apples comparison because I'm comparing apples from one event with apples from another. It's not because the events are both apples.


    Quote Originally Posted by Paleoichneum View Post

    That is a rather absurd argument, ANYTHING could possibly become a strip show. Pride events are NOT strip shows in the way you are asserting. Stop making the assertion otherwise. You are arguing against something you have no experience with at all, and its resulting is you making very poor assertions.

    Show me specific examples of Pride events turning into porn shows........
    You're right to say that anything could possible become a strip show. That is exactly right.

    And the authorities need to wait to intervene until it does. So long as gay pride events don't become strip shows (and it appears that they don't have a history of doing so) there is no basis for authoritarian intervention.

    I try to be very impartial in these kinds of discussions. And it may at times appear that I'm being so callous that I am arguing for the other side - when in fact I am being equally insensitive to the other side also. I am not foolish enough to believe there are only two ways to look at things.
    Too be honest, you are taking your position much further out of the realm of what happens, and using such convoluted arguments, that unless you are pressed and explain whats happening, any lay reader would assume you are arguing against pride events.

    KISS is important in cases such as this, where unjustified hypothesizing on extremes that do not happen just muddy the water.

    Pride events are NOT stip shows, they do NOT become them, or become porn. Even hypothetical suggestion that they do is damaging to LGBT rights and personally very offensive to me.

    Its better to argue based on reality rather then inventing arguments.
    If more of us valued food and cheer and song above hoarded gold, it would be a merrier world. -Thorin Oakenshield

    The needs of the many outweigh the need of the few - Spock of Vulcan & Sentinel Prime of Cybertron ---proof that "the needs" are in the eye of the beholder.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  56. #156  
    Time Lord
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Posts
    8,046
    Quote Originally Posted by Paleoichneum View Post

    Too be honest, you are taking your position much further out of the realm of what happens, and using such convoluted arguments, that unless you are pressed and explain whats happening, any lay reader would assume you are arguing against pride events.
    This is how science works. You lay out a framework. Some criteria by which you can measure things.

    Until you have a criteria it is useless to discuss how well you think that criteria is satisfied.


    KISS is important in cases such as this, where unjustified hypothesizing on extremes that do not happen just muddy the water.

    Pride events are NOT stip shows, they do NOT become them, or become porn. Even hypothetical suggestion that they do is damaging to LGBT rights and personally very offensive to me.

    Its better to argue based on reality rather then inventing arguments.
    I'm not the poster who brought up over-sexualized clothing. This was in the OP:

    Quote Originally Posted by TheFosterKid View Post
    Okay, I have nothing wrong with LGBT people. Love is love and I think it's unfair that there are still some countries where same-sex couples can't get married. However, I don't understand the amount of attention that's given to it.

    1. The Pride parades are a good idea in practice. They provide the community a chance to let their voices be heard. But they are way too over-sexualised. Do the marchers really need to be dressed like that? By showing so much skin, they are reinforcing the stereotype that gays are only interested in sex. And I for one would not want my children to have to see people dressed in the street like that. Not because they're a certain sexuality but because I believe in a certain level of decourum.
    I was responding to the OP by laying out a standard by which the situation could be judged. It appears from what you and other posters have added, that according to my criteria the marches are perfectly fine.

    From the sounds of things, they are less sexualized than a comic convention. (Do you want me to post some of the pictures floating around online that have been taken of comic convention participants who come dressed as Vampirella, or Red Sonya, or other half dressed female superheroines?)

    If someone misunderstands me, then I'm happy to add clarification. But I'm not going to simplify or alter my position just because someone else might not be smart enough to understand a complicated position.

    Being allowed to have complicated ideas is one of the benefits of posting in a "science forum".
    Some clocks are only right twice a day, but they are still right when they are right.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  57. #157  
    Forum Radioactive Isotope Paleoichneum's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    Washington State, USA
    Posts
    4,564
    There's a difference between complex thoughts and an argument from absurdity, and your parameter that you are setting is a clear example of the latter. You have taken a position of the farthest out of normality that you can as your starting point. That is the problem, you've set up a false reality of what likely might happen at an event.

    The criteria are already set by the current known and past pride weekends hat happen nation wide, start with them rather then an absurd outlying possibility.

    The ops premise was already shown to be incorrect.
    If more of us valued food and cheer and song above hoarded gold, it would be a merrier world. -Thorin Oakenshield

    The needs of the many outweigh the need of the few - Spock of Vulcan & Sentinel Prime of Cybertron ---proof that "the needs" are in the eye of the beholder.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  58. #158  
    Time Lord
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Posts
    8,046
    Quote Originally Posted by Paleoichneum View Post
    There's a difference between complex thoughts and an argument from absurdity, and your parameter that you are setting is a clear example of the latter. You have taken a position of the farthest out of normality that you can as your starting point. That is the problem, you've set up a false reality of what likely might happen at an event.
    You mean by saying that pride parades should not be stopped legally unless something the farthest out of normality is reached?

    I think you're just arguing to be argumentative.


    The criteria are already set by the current known and past pride weekends hat happen nation wide, start with them rather then an absurd outlying possibility.
    By starting with the absurd possibility, and using that as the criteria to stop them, I am effectively making the idea of stopping them absurd.

    You don't want the idea of stopping them to be absurd?
    Some clocks are only right twice a day, but they are still right when they are right.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  59. #159  
    Forum Radioactive Isotope Paleoichneum's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    Washington State, USA
    Posts
    4,564
    Quote Originally Posted by kojax View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Paleoichneum View Post
    There's a difference between complex thoughts and an argument from absurdity, and your parameter that you are setting is a clear example of the latter. You have taken a position of the farthest out of normality that you can as your starting point. That is the problem, you've set up a false reality of what likely might happen at an event.
    You mean by saying that pride parades should not be stopped legally unless something the farthest out of normality is reached?

    I think you're just arguing to be argumentative.


    The criteria are already set by the current known and past pride weekends hat happen nation wide, start with them rather then an absurd outlying possibility.
    By starting with the absurd possibility, and using that as the criteria to stop them, I am effectively making the idea of stopping them absurd.

    You don't want the idea of stopping them to be absurd?
    No I am not just arguing to argue. Im trying to get you to understand just how damaging your present argument position is, no matter what you mean it to be, is. In biology, one does not set the parameters of a phylogeny test to include every living thing and then expect results that are viable. This is what you have done here, set the scope so wide that your point is comming out as the opposite of what you want.

    Have you tried arguing on the merits of what ACTUALLY happens, and going from there?
    If more of us valued food and cheer and song above hoarded gold, it would be a merrier world. -Thorin Oakenshield

    The needs of the many outweigh the need of the few - Spock of Vulcan & Sentinel Prime of Cybertron ---proof that "the needs" are in the eye of the beholder.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  60. #160  
    Forum Masters Degree
    Join Date
    Apr 2014
    Posts
    592
    I get where Pal is coming from. It'd be as if we were talking about Jews and someone said, "All I'm saying is that Jews should be punished with the same rigor as anyone else for embezzlement and financial corruption." The statement is true, but the association is harmful. Even if that person doesn't believe Jews are more likely to embezzle, and is just using it as one example, drawing the association has its own negative consequences.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  61. #161  
    Time Lord
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Posts
    8,046
    Except nobody knows how many acts of embezzlement and financial corruption are happening, because the culprits often get away with it. But everybody knows how many acts of public indecency are occurring, because they're happening in public.

    There is no real potential for paranoia to get out of hand.

    The only thing that is really opened up by this is the possibility that an agent provocateur might decide to dress indecently and then march in the parade to discredit it. However, I think gay rights marchers are sufficiently organized that they would quickly identify the person, ask them to leave, and then if necessary get a police person to escort them out. I don't think they're very vulnerable to this problem.
    Some clocks are only right twice a day, but they are still right when they are right.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  62. #162  
    Forum Radioactive Isotope Paleoichneum's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    Washington State, USA
    Posts
    4,564
    No possibility of paranoia getting out of hand? Do you watch the new every year when pride season comes up? The arguments you have presented here are the same arguments that are spouted as reasons the pride events should be banned. And almost invariably by people who have no experience with actual pride events.
    If more of us valued food and cheer and song above hoarded gold, it would be a merrier world. -Thorin Oakenshield

    The needs of the many outweigh the need of the few - Spock of Vulcan & Sentinel Prime of Cybertron ---proof that "the needs" are in the eye of the beholder.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  63. #163  
    Your Mama! GiantEvil's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Location
    Vancouver, Wa
    Posts
    1,910
    I don't care what kind of parade it is (hate groups excluded), as long as there is someone riding a firetruck and throwing rootbeer barrel candies to the onlookers then it is a good parade.

    P.S. Mere nudity is not necessarily pornography.
    I was some of the mud that got to sit up and look around.
    Lucky me. Lucky mud.
    -Kurt Vonnegut Jr.-
    Cat's Cradle.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  64. #164  
    Time Lord
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Posts
    8,046
    Quote Originally Posted by GiantEvil View Post
    I don't care what kind of parade it is (hate groups excluded), as long as there is someone riding a firetruck and throwing rootbeer barrel candies to the onlookers then it is a good parade.
    Why do you exclude hate groups? Is it about hating the haters? Would that just make them hate you for hating them for hating you?

    I'd rather have them out expressing themselves, so they can hopefully get it out of their system. If you think they're wrong then you can go to their parades and mock them. Or well..... I'm not sure mocking marchers at a parade is allowed anymore.

    What happens if you go to a pride parade and mock the marchers? Is that legal?
    Some clocks are only right twice a day, but they are still right when they are right.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  65. #165  
    Forum Radioactive Isotope Paleoichneum's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    Washington State, USA
    Posts
    4,564
    Quote Originally Posted by kojax View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by GiantEvil View Post
    I don't care what kind of parade it is (hate groups excluded), as long as there is someone riding a firetruck and throwing rootbeer barrel candies to the onlookers then it is a good parade.
    Why do you exclude hate groups? Is it about hating the haters? Would that just make them hate you for hating them for hating you?

    I'd rather have them out expressing themselves, so they can hopefully get it out of their system. If you think they're wrong then you can go to their parades and mock them. Or well..... I'm not sure mocking marchers at a parade is allowed anymore.

    What happens if you go to a pride parade and mock the marchers? Is that legal?
    Do you have any reason to think its NOT legal still?
    If more of us valued food and cheer and song above hoarded gold, it would be a merrier world. -Thorin Oakenshield

    The needs of the many outweigh the need of the few - Spock of Vulcan & Sentinel Prime of Cybertron ---proof that "the needs" are in the eye of the beholder.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  66. #166  
    Forum Professor
    Join Date
    Aug 2013
    Location
    San Diego
    Posts
    1,970
    Quote Originally Posted by kojax View Post
    What happens if you go to a pride parade and mock the marchers? Is that legal?
    Sure, if you want to stand by the side of the road with a "God Hates Fags" sign that's your right. If you want to try to break up their parade, you might find police having a problem with that.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  67. #167  
    Your Mama! GiantEvil's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Location
    Vancouver, Wa
    Posts
    1,910
    Quote Originally Posted by kojax View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by GiantEvil View Post
    I don't care what kind of parade it is (hate groups excluded), as long as there is someone riding a firetruck and throwing rootbeer barrel candies to the onlookers then it is a good parade.
    Why do you exclude hate groups? Is it about hating the haters? Would that just make them hate you for hating them for hating you?

    I'd rather have them out expressing themselves, so they can hopefully get it out of their system. If you think they're wrong then you can go to their parades and mock them. Or well..... I'm not sure mocking marchers at a parade is allowed anymore.

    What happens if you go to a pride parade and mock the marchers? Is that legal?
    I'm not saying that hate groups shouldn't be allowed to have a parade, I'll just never go. And I'll never eat their candy, unless I've gone and jacked their whole bag of candy. Then the bastards got nothing to throw, and I got a whole bag of candy I took from Hitler babies. Yay!
    I was some of the mud that got to sit up and look around.
    Lucky me. Lucky mud.
    -Kurt Vonnegut Jr.-
    Cat's Cradle.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  68. #168  
    Time Lord
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Posts
    8,046
    Quote Originally Posted by billvon View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by kojax View Post
    What happens if you go to a pride parade and mock the marchers? Is that legal?
    Sure, if you want to stand by the side of the road with a "God Hates Fags" sign that's your right. If you want to try to break up their parade, you might find police having a problem with that.
    Yeah. If you try to break up the parade then you've crossed the line. You're no longer limiting yourself to using speech.

    Where the line seems to get blurry is whenever emotions start flying. I think most homosexual marchers at a pride parade have already heard some religious zealot tell them that god hates them before, so it's unlikely to really draw a violent response.

    You might get a more intense result if you go to a parade celebrating the life of Martin Luther King, and bring a Swastika flag with you. Then you might really get hurt.

    However I like to hope that waving a simple flag doesn't give others a license to be violent and get away with it. A Swastika may not be the majority view these days, but there was a time when a pride parade also wasn't the majority view. We can't label some free speech as "good free speech" and other free speech as "bad free speech". We've already seen what that achieves.

    And just to be clear: I only use the swastika example because it is one that people almost universally would oppose on principle. If I could think of a worse cause (like maybe South Park's "NAMBLA") that would work just as well.
    Some clocks are only right twice a day, but they are still right when they are right.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  69. #169  
    Forum Radioactive Isotope Paleoichneum's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    Washington State, USA
    Posts
    4,564
    Quote Originally Posted by kojax View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by billvon View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by kojax View Post
    What happens if you go to a pride parade and mock the marchers? Is that legal?
    Sure, if you want to stand by the side of the road with a "God Hates Fags" sign that's your right. If you want to try to break up their parade, you might find police having a problem with that.
    Yeah. If you try to break up the parade then you've crossed the line. You're no longer limiting yourself to using speech.

    Where the line seems to get blurry is whenever emotions start flying. I think most homosexual marchers at a pride parade have already heard some religious zealot tell them that god hates them before, so it's unlikely to really draw a violent response.

    You might get a more intense result if you go to a parade celebrating the life of Martin Luther King, and bring a Swastika flag with you. Then you might really get hurt.

    However I like to hope that waving a simple flag doesn't give others a license to be violent and get away with it. A Swastika may not be the majority view these days, but there was a time when a pride parade also wasn't the majority view. We can't label some free speech as "good free speech" and other free speech as "bad free speech". We've already seen what that achieves.

    And just to be clear: I only use the swastika example because it is one that people almost universally would oppose on principle. If I could think of a worse cause (like maybe South Park's "NAMBLA") that would work just as well.
    Waving a flag doesn't, as it is a protected right, as are the parades.
    If more of us valued food and cheer and song above hoarded gold, it would be a merrier world. -Thorin Oakenshield

    The needs of the many outweigh the need of the few - Spock of Vulcan & Sentinel Prime of Cybertron ---proof that "the needs" are in the eye of the beholder.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  70. #170  
    Samurai of Logic Falconer360's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Location
    Somewhere in Washington
    Posts
    378
    Quote Originally Posted by kojax View Post
    We can't label some free speech as "good free speech" and other free speech as "bad free speech". We've already seen what that achieves.
    I partially agree with this, but I also disagree. There is a point where free speech becomes harassment or bullying. The people that have the "God Hates Fags" signs, the swastika flags, etc, are not just stating an opinion. They are trying to demean, belittle, and essentially bully other human beings. Their only message is hatred. So the earlier comparison of them to a pride parade is really comparing apples to oranges. The one is all about hatred and demeaning others while the pride parade is about celebrating/gaining equal rights.
    "For every moment of triumph, for every instance of beauty, many souls must be trampled." Hunter S Thompson

    "It is easy to kill someone with a slash of a sword. It is hard to be impossible for others to cut down"
    - Yagyu Munenori

    "Only a warrior chooses pacifism; others are condemned to it."
    Reply With Quote  
     

  71. #171  
    Forum Radioactive Isotope Paleoichneum's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    Washington State, USA
    Posts
    4,564
    Quote Originally Posted by Falconer360 View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by kojax View Post
    We can't label some free speech as "good free speech" and other free speech as "bad free speech". We've already seen what that achieves.
    I partially agree with this, but I also disagree. There is a point where free speech becomes harassment or bullying. The people that have the "God Hates Fags" signs, the swastika flags, etc, are not just stating an opinion. They are trying to demean, belittle, and essentially bully other human beings. Their only message is hatred. So the earlier comparison of them to a pride parade is really comparing apples to oranges. The one is all about hatred and demeaning others while the pride parade is about celebrating/gaining equal rights.
    *likes*
    If more of us valued food and cheer and song above hoarded gold, it would be a merrier world. -Thorin Oakenshield

    The needs of the many outweigh the need of the few - Spock of Vulcan & Sentinel Prime of Cybertron ---proof that "the needs" are in the eye of the beholder.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  72. #172  
    Forum Masters Degree
    Join Date
    Apr 2014
    Posts
    592
    Quote Originally Posted by Falconer360 View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by kojax View Post
    We can't label some free speech as "good free speech" and other free speech as "bad free speech". We've already seen what that achieves.
    I partially agree with this, but I also disagree. There is a point where free speech becomes harassment or bullying. The people that have the "God Hates Fags" signs, the swastika flags, etc, are not just stating an opinion. They are trying to demean, belittle, and essentially bully other human beings. Their only message is hatred. So the earlier comparison of them to a pride parade is really comparing apples to oranges. The one is all about hatred and demeaning others while the pride parade is about celebrating/gaining equal rights.
    But they should still have the right to free speech. And I'm not calling the kettle black, here. I've had discussions with white supremacists who have no problem saying 90% of my people are traitors to the country and I kept calm. But even if I didn't stay calm, that would have been my right.

    Ultimately, the power of truth is strong. And when you use violence to combat lies, you are diminishing the power of truth. You fight lies with truth, not guns. Truth wins out. It can be bloody. It can be hard. It can take generations. But the truth ultimately wins. If you don't allow holocaust denial, you can't debunk holocaust denial with any sort of intellectual honesty. What you accomplish is giving the hateful view a sort of vogue and unearned legitimacy, especially to young people.

    Also, expressing a hateful idea isn't criminal harassment. Following someone around and impeding their life or putting burning crosses in their yard or intentionally inciting violence, yes, that is and should be illegal.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  73. #173  
    Samurai of Logic Falconer360's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Location
    Somewhere in Washington
    Posts
    378
    Quote Originally Posted by SowZ37 View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Falconer360 View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by kojax View Post
    We can't label some free speech as "good free speech" and other free speech as "bad free speech". We've already seen what that achieves.
    I partially agree with this, but I also disagree. There is a point where free speech becomes harassment or bullying. The people that have the "God Hates Fags" signs, the swastika flags, etc, are not just stating an opinion. They are trying to demean, belittle, and essentially bully other human beings. Their only message is hatred. So the earlier comparison of them to a pride parade is really comparing apples to oranges. The one is all about hatred and demeaning others while the pride parade is about celebrating/gaining equal rights.
    But they should still have the right to free speech. And I'm not calling the kettle black, here. I've had discussions with white supremacists who have no problem saying 90% of my people are traitors to the country and I kept calm. But even if I didn't stay calm, that would have been my right.

    Ultimately, the power of truth is strong. And when you use violence to combat lies, you are diminishing the power of truth. You fight lies with truth, not guns. Truth wins out. It can be bloody. It can be hard. It can take generations. But the truth ultimately wins. If you don't allow holocaust denial, you can't debunk holocaust denial with any sort of intellectual honesty. What you accomplish is giving the hateful view a sort of vogue and unearned legitimacy, especially to young people.

    Also, expressing a hateful idea isn't criminal harassment. Following someone around and impeding their life or putting burning crosses in their yard or intentionally inciting violence, yes, that is and should be illegal.
    Yes they have the right to free speech and to their own opinions. However, that only goes to the extent that it is not damaging to another person. Unfortunately most states do not have laws that deal heavily with the mental/emotional damage that things like KKK rallys or people like the Westboro Baptist Church can have on their targets.

    According to RCW (Washington State Laws) 9A.36.078:
    The legislature also finds that in many cases, certain discrete words or symbols are used to threaten the victims. Those discrete words or symbols have historically or traditionally been used to connote hatred or threats towards members of the class of which the victim or a member of the victim's family or household is a member. In particular, the legislature finds that cross burnings historically and traditionally have been used to threaten, terrorize, intimidate, and harass African Americans and their families. Cross burnings often preceded lynchings, murders, burning of homes, and other acts of terror. Further, Nazi swastikas historically and traditionally have been used to threaten, terrorize, intimidate, and harass Jewish people and their families. Swastikas symbolize the massive destruction of the Jewish population, commonly known as the holocaust. Therefore, the legislature finds that any person who burns or attempts to burn a cross or displays a swastika on the property of the victim or burns a cross or displays a swastika as part of a series of acts directed towards a particular person, the person's family or household members, or a particular group, knows or reasonably should know that the cross burning or swastika may create a reasonable fear of harm in the mind of the person, the person's family and household members, or the group.
    - This is considered Malicious Harassment, which is a class C- Felony under Washington State Laws.

    Further:
    RCW 9A.36.080
    Malicious harassment — Definition and criminal penalty.

    (1) A person is guilty of malicious harassment if he or she maliciously and intentionally commits one of the following acts because of his or her perception of the victim's race, color, religion, ancestry, national origin, gender, sexual orientation, or mental, physical, or sensory handicap:

    (a) Causes physical injury to the victim or another person;

    (b) Causes physical damage to or destruction of the property of the victim or another person; or

    (c) Threatens a specific person or group of persons and places that person, or members of the specific group of persons, in reasonable fear of harm to person or property. The fear must be a fear that a reasonable person would have under all the circumstances. For purposes of this section, a "reasonable person" is a reasonable person who is a member of the victim's race, color, religion, ancestry, national origin, gender, or sexual orientation, or who has the same mental, physical, or sensory handicap as the victim. Words alone do not constitute malicious harassment unless the context or circumstances surrounding the words indicate the words are a threat. Threatening words do not constitute malicious harassment if it is apparent to the victim that the person does not have the ability to carry out the threat.
    And as defined above, a Swastika displayed towards a person of Jewish belief/ancestry intentionally is seen as a threat. This leads me to my point, yes they have the right to voice their opinions but within reason. Using certain words or symbols alone when dealing with someone can be seem legally as a threat and be subject to a Malicious Harassment charge, at least in Washington State. The wording of the RCW makes it so it can be used to protect LGBT people against Malicious Harassment as well.

    Okay sorry went off in a tangent, the thing I was addressing before is that comparing Pride Parades to KKK rallies is an association fallacy. The only thing similar is that they have people that share one opinion (out of the many opinions each person has) walking down the street. I wasn't implying that we should silence klansmen, WBC members, etc. We need to monitor them to make sure they don't cross the line though.

    Personal opinion: I wish we could take all the white supremacists and the like and grind them up and feed them to the fish.
    "For every moment of triumph, for every instance of beauty, many souls must be trampled." Hunter S Thompson

    "It is easy to kill someone with a slash of a sword. It is hard to be impossible for others to cut down"
    - Yagyu Munenori

    "Only a warrior chooses pacifism; others are condemned to it."
    Reply With Quote  
     

  74. #174  
    Forum Masters Degree
    Join Date
    Apr 2014
    Posts
    592
    Quote Originally Posted by Falconer360 View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by SowZ37 View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Falconer360 View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by kojax View Post
    We can't label some free speech as "good free speech" and other free speech as "bad free speech". We've already seen what that achieves.
    I partially agree with this, but I also disagree. There is a point where free speech becomes harassment or bullying. The people that have the "God Hates Fags" signs, the swastika flags, etc, are not just stating an opinion. They are trying to demean, belittle, and essentially bully other human beings. Their only message is hatred. So the earlier comparison of them to a pride parade is really comparing apples to oranges. The one is all about hatred and demeaning others while the pride parade is about celebrating/gaining equal rights.
    But they should still have the right to free speech. And I'm not calling the kettle black, here. I've had discussions with white supremacists who have no problem saying 90% of my people are traitors to the country and I kept calm. But even if I didn't stay calm, that would have been my right.

    Ultimately, the power of truth is strong. And when you use violence to combat lies, you are diminishing the power of truth. You fight lies with truth, not guns. Truth wins out. It can be bloody. It can be hard. It can take generations. But the truth ultimately wins. If you don't allow holocaust denial, you can't debunk holocaust denial with any sort of intellectual honesty. What you accomplish is giving the hateful view a sort of vogue and unearned legitimacy, especially to young people.

    Also, expressing a hateful idea isn't criminal harassment. Following someone around and impeding their life or putting burning crosses in their yard or intentionally inciting violence, yes, that is and should be illegal.
    Yes they have the right to free speech and to their own opinions. However, that only goes to the extent that it is not damaging to another person. Unfortunately most states do not have laws that deal heavily with the mental/emotional damage that things like KKK rallys or people like the Westboro Baptist Church can have on their targets.

    According to RCW (Washington State Laws) 9A.36.078:
    The legislature also finds that in many cases, certain discrete words or symbols are used to threaten the victims. Those discrete words or symbols have historically or traditionally been used to connote hatred or threats towards members of the class of which the victim or a member of the victim's family or household is a member. In particular, the legislature finds that cross burnings historically and traditionally have been used to threaten, terrorize, intimidate, and harass African Americans and their families. Cross burnings often preceded lynchings, murders, burning of homes, and other acts of terror. Further, Nazi swastikas historically and traditionally have been used to threaten, terrorize, intimidate, and harass Jewish people and their families. Swastikas symbolize the massive destruction of the Jewish population, commonly known as the holocaust. Therefore, the legislature finds that any person who burns or attempts to burn a cross or displays a swastika on the property of the victim or burns a cross or displays a swastika as part of a series of acts directed towards a particular person, the person's family or household members, or a particular group, knows or reasonably should know that the cross burning or swastika may create a reasonable fear of harm in the mind of the person, the person's family and household members, or the group.
    - This is considered Malicious Harassment, which is a class C- Felony under Washington State Laws.

    Further:
    RCW 9A.36.080
    Malicious harassment — Definition and criminal penalty.

    (1) A person is guilty of malicious harassment if he or she maliciously and intentionally commits one of the following acts because of his or her perception of the victim's race, color, religion, ancestry, national origin, gender, sexual orientation, or mental, physical, or sensory handicap:

    (a) Causes physical injury to the victim or another person;

    (b) Causes physical damage to or destruction of the property of the victim or another person; or

    (c) Threatens a specific person or group of persons and places that person, or members of the specific group of persons, in reasonable fear of harm to person or property. The fear must be a fear that a reasonable person would have under all the circumstances. For purposes of this section, a "reasonable person" is a reasonable person who is a member of the victim's race, color, religion, ancestry, national origin, gender, or sexual orientation, or who has the same mental, physical, or sensory handicap as the victim. Words alone do not constitute malicious harassment unless the context or circumstances surrounding the words indicate the words are a threat. Threatening words do not constitute malicious harassment if it is apparent to the victim that the person does not have the ability to carry out the threat.
    And as defined above, a Swastika displayed towards a person of Jewish belief/ancestry intentionally is seen as a threat. This leads me to my point, yes they have the right to voice their opinions but within reason. Using certain words or symbols alone when dealing with someone can be seem legally as a threat and be subject to a Malicious Harassment charge, at least in Washington State. The wording of the RCW makes it so it can be used to protect LGBT people against Malicious Harassment as well.

    Okay sorry went off in a tangent, the thing I was addressing before is that comparing Pride Parades to KKK rallies is an association fallacy. The only thing similar is that they have people that share one opinion (out of the many opinions each person has) walking down the street. I wasn't implying that we should silence klansmen, WBC members, etc. We need to monitor them to make sure they don't cross the line though.

    Personal opinion: I wish we could take all the white supremacists and the like and grind them up and feed them to the fish.
    I wouldn't view it as a threat unless they had a weapon or there was a group of the advancing on me. Racists aren't necessarily evil. Most people are racist. Neo Nazis are especially gross since they associate with a real life event,but of course they don't believe in that event. Which is more a sign of brainwashing and intentional ignorance than pure evil. Most wouldn't ever actually attack someone. Just being a racist doesn't make you a bad person. Most white supremacists certainly don't deserve to die. WBC are bad people, because of how much they act on their beliefs, but as far as I know most or none of them have been convicted of attacking someone.

    In the same way, the organizers of white supremacist rallies who poison kids are bad people, but most members are just confused kids who either have broken homes or equally racist parents and are looking for brotherhood and a way to stand out and some purpose. White Supremacy is intentionally crafted to lure these kids in. The leaders are smart and devious and understand that the best way to convince someone of something is to make them want to believe it, not to employ logic.

    The groups start as young as they can, but pounce on teenagers to the highest degree of effectiveness. And most don't ever actually attack someone. In fact, a lot of them would get embarrassed and try to soften their views if I or a black person approached them. Not all, of course, some would love an opportunity to make their leaders proud. But that's just cults 101.

    A lot of people, you might be surprised, joined a white supremacy cult and left in their mid 20s because 'it isn't the same anymore' or 'it's getting to extreme,' and then, over the next five to ten years outside of the cults influence, realize how insane it all was and it can take a lifetime to get over the shame and guilt of being part of such a hateful group. That's an incredibly common story and is part of why white supremacy groups have fewer members in their forties or so. A lot of these kids are victims, really. That doesn't mean they aren't doing bad things, but they aren't all bad people.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  75. #175  
    Forum Professor
    Join Date
    Aug 2013
    Location
    San Diego
    Posts
    1,970
    Quote Originally Posted by Falconer360 View Post
    And as defined above, a Swastika displayed towards a person of Jewish belief/ancestry intentionally is seen as a threat. This leads me to my point, yes they have the right to voice their opinions but within reason. Using certain words or symbols alone when dealing with someone can be seem legally as a threat and be subject to a Malicious Harassment charge, at least in Washington State.
    I disagree. If you directly threaten someone then yes, that is a threat, and is illegal. But a mere symbol is not. Claiming that a swastika is an actual threat, simply because people interpret it that way, opens the door to anyone being able to outlaw anything as long as they see it as a threat. Anti-abortion activism signs? A pregnant woman might fear they would bomb the clinic she was in, so we'd outlaw those. An NRA bumpersticker? A parent might fear that people with such bumperstickers might kill their kids, and thus they represent a threat.

    There has to be a better standard than "outlaw things that make groups of people feel threatened." The law usually draws the line at ACTUAL threats (i.e. "I am going to kill all you Jews") which is a much better standard.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  76. #176  
    Samurai of Logic Falconer360's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Location
    Somewhere in Washington
    Posts
    378
    Quote Originally Posted by SowZ37 View Post
    I wouldn't view it as a threat unless they had a weapon or there was a group of the advancing on me.
    Quote Originally Posted by billvon
    I disagree. If you directly threaten someone then yes, that is a threat, and is illegal. But a mere symbol is not. Claiming that a swastika is an actual threat, simply because people interpret it that way, opens the door to anyone being able to outlaw anything as long as they see it as a threat. Anti-abortion activism signs? A pregnant woman might fear they would bomb the clinic she was in, so we'd outlaw those. An NRA bumpersticker? A parent might fear that people with such bumperstickers might kill their kids, and thus they represent a threat.

    There has to be a better standard than "outlaw things that make groups of people feel threatened." The law usually draws the line at ACTUAL threats (i.e. "I am going to kill all you Jews") which is a much better standard.
    I just posted what I found from my States laws. I too wouldn't find something like a guy walking down the street with a swastika walking down the street. Obviously this law is open to interpretations, afterall that is what lawyers bill top dollar to do. This line
    Therefore, the legislature finds that any person who burns or attempts to burn a cross or displays a swastika on the property of the victim or burns a cross or displays a swastika as part of a series of acts directed towards a particular person, the person's family or household members, or a particular group, knows or reasonably should know that the cross burning or swastika may create a reasonable fear of harm in the mind of the person, the person's family and household members, or the group.
    and this line
    Words alone do not constitute malicious harassment unless the context or circumstances surrounding the words indicate the words are a threat. Threatening words do not constitute malicious harassment if it is apparent to the victim that the person does not have the ability to carry out the threat.
    are the keys to that RCW. So racial slurs and actions (wearing a swastika) can be seen as threats if and only if the the person saying/doing them appears to the victim able to harm them. From my reading of it, it seems that in order for it to be a threat you have to be specifically directing it a person, a family, or a specific group. It can't just be on your car or whatever. And like I said these are just laws in my state.

    As to my earlier comment about fish food, I was half asleep and lacking caffeine when I wrote that and I over generalized. I apologize for that. Some of the people in those groups deserve it, but many are just misguided individuals looking for a place to belong. As for the subject of evil that is a debate for the philosophy subforum.


    Anyways if we want to continue this threat debate we should move it to another thread since it is really off the topic of the LGBT movement.
    "For every moment of triumph, for every instance of beauty, many souls must be trampled." Hunter S Thompson

    "It is easy to kill someone with a slash of a sword. It is hard to be impossible for others to cut down"
    - Yagyu Munenori

    "Only a warrior chooses pacifism; others are condemned to it."
    Reply With Quote  
     

  77. #177  
    Forum Professor Daecon's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2013
    Location
    New Zealand
    Posts
    1,274
    This is the Internet Age.

    The right to free speech should have an amendment about trolling.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  78. #178  
    Time Lord
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Posts
    8,046
    Quote Originally Posted by Falconer360 View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by kojax View Post
    We can't label some free speech as "good free speech" and other free speech as "bad free speech". We've already seen what that achieves.
    I partially agree with this, but I also disagree. There is a point where free speech becomes harassment or bullying. The people that have the "God Hates Fags" signs, the swastika flags, etc, are not just stating an opinion. They are trying to demean, belittle, and essentially bully other human beings. Their only message is hatred. So the earlier comparison of them to a pride parade is really comparing apples to oranges. The one is all about hatred and demeaning others while the pride parade is about celebrating/gaining equal rights.
    There do need to be some limits on the freedom of speech. For example, fraud, or conspiracy to commit a crime (such as murder). But another example would be extortion. Technically a person who threatens to kill you if you don't give him/her all your money is just "speaking".

    However, "demeaning" or "belittling" are examples of things that must be 100% protected, because they're the bread and butter of the right to free speech. A dictator who silences critics by imprisoning them is only doing so because they "demeaned" or "belittled" him. It's unlikely the dictator would imprison someone for praising him/her.

    It would be an awkward double standard to say that it is ok to "demean" or "belittle" government officials, but not ok to "demean" or "belittle" your fellow citizens. It's an even worse standard to require that those who wish to "demean" or "belittle" others must base their criticism on a line of reasoning that you consider to be valid.
    Some clocks are only right twice a day, but they are still right when they are right.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  79. #179  
    Forum Professor
    Join Date
    Aug 2013
    Location
    San Diego
    Posts
    1,970
    Quote Originally Posted by Daecon View Post
    This is the Internet Age.

    The right to free speech should have an amendment about trolling.
    Why? You're free to ignore trolls.
    Reply With Quote  
     

Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 12

Similar Threads

  1. LGBT political chess game
    By Lynx_Fox in forum Politics
    Replies: 11
    Last Post: May 14th, 2012, 01:35 PM
  2. MOTION AND MOVEMENT
    By devrimci_kürt in forum Physics
    Replies: 3
    Last Post: August 20th, 2009, 11:48 AM
  3. movement of light
    By amalgam_0036 in forum Personal Theories & Alternative Ideas
    Replies: 2
    Last Post: July 29th, 2009, 05:38 PM
  4. Hackerspace Movement
    By kingjacob in forum Electrical and Electronics
    Replies: 4
    Last Post: April 18th, 2009, 03:18 AM
  5. DATA MOVEMENT HELP!!!!!
    By aerides in forum Computer Science
    Replies: 3
    Last Post: April 2nd, 2006, 11:13 PM
Bookmarks
Bookmarks
Posting Permissions
  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •