NationStates Jolt Archive

Everyday when I read the paper, I look in the opinions section just because I like seeing what the public is saying. Most opinions are reasonable ones that do not have insults in them or the like. But every once and a while I read an opinion that calls all conservatives "redneck bigots" or all liberals "tree-hugging communists". Now I am a conservative and I am angered greatly at how liberals see people like me to be a bunch of inbred hicks and how my fellow conservatives are treating liberals as if they are a bunch of snobby, anti-Americans. Being that I'm a conservative, I'll focus on the "bigot" insults (Liberals, you can say what you dislike about the communist insults against you, too) I am not a bigot just because I think gay marriage is wrong. I do not hate gays, I hate their behaviors, there's a world of difference. In my religion(Roman Catholicism), I have the right to hate people's actions and behaviors, but not the people themselves. I can neither encourage violence against them, nor would I want to. Just because I believe that the gay lifestyle is wrong doesn't mean I am a bigot, it means my moral standards conflict with theirs. There is nothing wrong with that.

Also, I am not evil for believing abortion and stem-cell research should be banned. It means I see the subjects involved to be life, and thus I equate the two practices with murder. I am not calling for violence against the places or people that practice it or partake in it. I am also not saying I hate people who believe it is the right of women to have abortions. I utterly disagree with that, but I am not going to attack the people who have those opinions.

In my religion(Roman Catholicism), I have the right to hate people's actions and behaviors, but not the people themselves. I can neither encourage violence against them, nor would I want to.
Dude, if gay marriage is illegal, and gay people try to marry each other, the police will come after them and perhaps throw them in jail.
That's violence.

Also, I am not evil for believing abortion and stem-cell research should be banned. It means I see the subjects involved to be life, and thus I equate the two practices with murder. I am not calling for violence against the places or people that practice it or partake in it.
Same deal here.

In before the immense, earth shattering, countless waves of "NO ONE CARES."

Dude, if gay marriage is illegal, and gay people try to marry each other, the police will come after them and perhaps throw them in jail.
That's violence.

OP=pwnd

Okay, well, I hate it when people find out that I'm <insert specific category here> and decide that I inherently must believe something when I definitely don't. And then they treat me badly because they believe I believe something I don't, or they treat me badly when they find out that I don't (because they also belong to said category, or something).

Furthermore, I hate being considered a communist because I'm liberal when dealing with the human/environment side of the spectrum. In my case, it is true that I'm socialist (although many liberals aren't, so it's not a fair assumption, which annoys me), but that is very different from communism - communism deals with government, socialism is just economy. Furthermore, I believe in socialism as the ideal, not as what could realistically work in the world as it stands, so I'd hardly qualify as a communist.

Note that I hate the actions taken against me, not the people themselves. As previously said, there is a world of difference. If you don't know this for yourself, then please trust me on this one.

OP=pwnd

Er... I dunno about pwnd just yet, but it is a good point that was made.

Dude, if gay marriage is illegal, and gay people try to marry each other, the police will come after them and perhaps throw them in jail.
That's violence.


Same deal here.

Not necessarily. It is possible they could only be fined or their marriage not be recognized at all. If gay marriage is illegal and gays attempting to get married are thrown in jail, I would be outraged at that. But merely fining them or not recognizing the marriage isn't violence.

Also, being imprisoned is not violence, it is justice. Violence would be shooting people in the head, beating them, insulting them, harming them in an inhumane way. Prison is meant for rehabilitation and punishment through confinement. I believe abortion is murder, thus, if it was made illegal, I would hope those who continue to practice it are imprisoned, but not harmed in a way that is inhumane. If imprisonment is violence, if I am correctly following your logic, then all of those who are currently incarcerated should be released, right? That wouldn't be too great of an idea now would it?

Everyday when I read the paper, I look in the opinions section just because I like seeing what the public is saying. Most opinions are reasonable ones that do not have insults in them or the like. But every once and a while I read an opinion that calls all conservatives "redneck bigots" or all liberals "tree-hugging communists". Now I am a conservative and I am angered greatly at how liberals see people like me to be a bunch of inbred hicks and how my fellow conservatives are treating liberals as if they are a bunch of snobby, anti-Americans. Being that I'm a conservative, I'll focus on the "bigot" insults (Liberals, you can say what you dislike about the communist insults against you, too) I am not a bigot just because I think gay marriage is wrong. I do not hate gays, I hate their behaviors, there's a world of difference. In my religion(Roman Catholicism), I have the right to hate people's actions and behaviors, but not the people themselves. I can neither encourage violence against them, nor would I want to. Just because I believe that the gay lifestyle is wrong doesn't mean I am a bigot, it means my moral standards conflict with theirs. There is nothing wrong with that.

Also, I am not evil for believing abortion and stem-cell research should be banned. It means I see the subjects involved to be life, and thus I equate the two practices with murder. I am not calling for violence against the places or people that practice it or partake in it. I am also not saying I hate people who believe it is the right of women to have abortions. I utterly disagree with that, but I am not going to attack the people who have those opinions.


I'd like to say one thing, bull shit:)

I agree with you on the stereo-type problem. Politics shouldn't be looked at as black and white but rather gray. Although people have a political stance such as liberal/conservative, many people have views that also fall outside of those boundaries, which people fail to see.

Not necessarily. It is possible they could only be fined or their marriage not be recognized at all...
Surely you can look beyond the few words that merely represent an argument, not flesh it out in its entirety.

You are proposing that the State use its power (ie its ability to use violence to force people to act a certain way) to limit people's ability to marry whoever they want, or abort whatever they want.

You are advocating the use of violence (or threat of violence) against people you have absolutely nothing to do with for no other reason but your conviction that you are somehow right, and they are somehow wrong.

Not necessarily. It is possible they could only be fined or their marriage not be recognized at all. If gay marriage is illegal and gays attempting to get married are thrown in jail, I would be outraged at that. But merely fining them or not recognizing the marriage isn't violence.

Also, being imprisoned is not violence, it is justice. Violence would be shooting people in the head, beating them, insulting them, harming them in an inhumane way. Prison is meant for rehabilitation and punishment through confinement. I believe abortion is murder, thus, if it was made illegal, I would hope those who continue to practice it are imprisoned, but not harmed in a way that is inhumane. If imprisonment is violence, if I am correctly following your logic, then all of those who are currently incarcerated should be released, right? That wouldn't be too great of an idea now would it?

I'd feel pretty insulted if the state didn't regonise my marriage because I was just a wee bit different from a "normal person"

Everyday when I read the paper, I look in the opinions section just because I like seeing what the public is saying. Most opinions are reasonable ones that do not have insults in them or the like. But every once and a while I read an opinion that calls all conservatives "redneck bigots" or all liberals "tree-hugging communists".

Three rules of thumb to live by when talking politics:

- You have every right to your opinion, but so do they
- Generalizations are dangerous

And of course, the golden rule

- Treat others the way you want to be treated.

Surely you can look beyond the few words that merely represent an argument, not flesh it out in its entirety.

You are proposing that the State use its power (ie its ability to use violence to force people to act a certain way) to limit people's ability to marry whoever they want, or abort whatever they want.

You are advocating the use of violence (or threat of violence) against people you have absolutely nothing to do with for no other reason but your conviction that you are somehow right, and they are somehow wrong.
With that same logic, one could say they believe murder is okay, and thus, they shouldn't be charged for it if they were to commit such a crime.

If morals truly are relative as you say, then we should abolish the legal system entirely and allow people to do whatever they want, even kill, rape, or steal. That's barbarism.

I can see where you're coming from, saying since I advocate punishment for such actions, I am advocating violence and am thus hypocritical. However, I am not calling for direct harm through physical means. Its true imprisonment is emotionally violent, however crimes must be punished. All we can do is make the punishments as humane as possible.

Also, to Hobovillia, you make a valid point. What I mean by insulted is directly insulted, for example (No offense is meant here), someone would come up to you and yell in your face "You're a fag!". Not recognizing gay marriage is not meant to insult, but it can be taken that way. If we tried to make everyone happy, no one would be happy.

With that same logic, one could say they believe murder is okay, and thus, they shouldn't be charged for it if they were to commit such a crime.

If morals truly are relative as you say, then we should abolish the legal system entirely and allow people to do whatever they want, even kill, rape, or steal. That's barbarism.
That argument must be as old as time itself.

No, you see, the reason one cannot kill, rape or steal is precisely because morals are relative.
If morals are relative, then no one can tell what is good for a person but that person itself. Which means that only that person itself can make decisions about what to do with itself and how to act towards others.

Which also means that the buck stops as soon as that person wants to use force to prevent another person from being just as free. Killing, raping or stealing are obviously infringements on another person's freedom to act according to the person's morality.

Now, you're telling me that my personal moral problem with you being a Catholic is enough of a reason to persecute you for your choices? Because that is exactly the result of moral absolutism.

I can see where you're coming from, saying since I advocate punishment for such actions, I am advocating violence and am thus hypocritical. However, I am not calling for direct harm through physical means. Its true imprisonment is emotionally violent, however crimes must be punished. All we can do is make the punishments as humane as possible.
Prison is not a non-violent punishment. If one tries to escape from prison, one will likely be subjected to violence. And besides, it's an infringement on the freedom to move around as one chooses.

You've been called a hick before huh? Yeah, it sucks( I'm from Tennessee although I'm a bit more left of center all things considered) Southern jokes seem to be the only "PC" jokes left.The fact is that people are going to generalize dude; that's how political pundits make their living. The best thing you can do is not generalize yourself( and if people are ragging you on social issues change the topic to another one (e.g. global warming. That's DEFINITELY more important in my view than whether two dudes can get hitched)

I agree with you though that opposing gay marriage does not make someone a rabid homophobe; If you think Fred Phelps is a sane human being, then that would be closer to the mark. Lol!

You've been called a hick before huh? Yeah, it sucks( I'm from Tennessee although I'm a bit more left of center all things considered) Southern jokes seem to be the only "PC" jokes left.The fact is that people are going to generalize dude; that's how political pundits make their living. The best thing you can do is not generalize yourself( and if people are ragging you on social issues change the topic to another one e.g. global warming. That's DEFINITELY more important in my view than whether two dudes can get hitched)

Yes! Whenever the conversation gets problematic, you should always start talking about the weather! :D

lol!

Everyday when I read the paper, I look in the opinions section just because I like seeing what the public is saying. Most opinions are reasonable ones that do not have insults in them or the like. But every once and a while I read an opinion that calls all conservatives "redneck bigots" or all liberals "tree-hugging communists". Now I am a conservative and I am angered greatly at how liberals see people like me to be a bunch of inbred hicks and how my fellow conservatives are treating liberals as if they are a bunch of snobby, anti-Americans. Being that I'm a conservative, I'll focus on the "bigot" insults (Liberals, you can say what you dislike about the communist insults against you, too) I am not a bigot just because I think gay marriage is wrong. I do not hate gays, I hate their behaviors, there's a world of difference. In my religion(Roman Catholicism), I have the right to hate people's actions and behaviors, but not the people themselves. I can neither encourage violence against them, nor would I want to. Just because I believe that the gay lifestyle is wrong doesn't mean I am a bigot, it means my moral standards conflict with theirs. There is nothing wrong with that.

Also, I am not evil for believing abortion and stem-cell research should be banned. It means I see the subjects involved to be life, and thus I equate the two practices with murder. I am not calling for violence against the places or people that practice it or partake in it. I am also not saying I hate people who believe it is the right of women to have abortions. I utterly disagree with that, but I am not going to attack the people who have those opinions.

Dude yer soooo gonna get flamed for this....


But hey, I agree with you.

The key thing is "not advocating " A lot of psycho fundamentalist preachers DO get folks riled up, and while maybe not directly saying " Go out and shoot a homosexual" do propagate rabid homophobia.

Frankly I find the conservative campaign against gay marriage fatuous for 2 reasons:

1) Gays are gonna live with each other whether or not they have a marriage licnese.

2) Conservatives say homos. threaten the institution of marriage. Look around man! There's a 50% divorce rate in this country. If you wanna save marriage, start with heteros.

Exactly. Thank-you. That was exactly what I was going to say. To me there is no "moral imperative" involved with gays because (hello) they're not hurting anyone. Is someone who chooses never to marry also a threat to marriage? Should everyone be forced to marry? Of course not. So what does it really matter to you? (unless of course you are gay and trying to suppress it through macho shows of ... but i'm getting off topic here)

Exactly. Thank-you. That was exactly what I was going to say. To me there is no "moral imperative" involved with gays because (hello) they're not hurting anyone. Is someone who chooses never to marry also a threat to marriage? Should everyone be forced to marry? Of course not. So what does it really matter to you? (unless of course you are gay and trying to suppress it through macho shows of ... but i'm getting off topic here)

Yes! There shouldn't be a problem with exercizing freedom unless you are harming someone in the process. Which is not the case here.

*snip*

I agree. There are certain things that are wrong to do no matter what, because they violate the moral calculus.

Jeremy Bentham wrote about the pleasure-pain calculus, where people gauged how good pleasure was, how long it lasted, it's propensity for happening again, etc. This idea of a calculus can be extended to morals.

I believe that to pass the calculus, you need to look at another utlilitarian idea of "greatest good for the greatest number." Is your "moral" idea good for most people? Will your "moral" idea actually be accepted? There are all sorts of questions. Murder and theft always passes the calculus, because if you take the Categorical Imperative, then your murdering and stealing would be acceptable for other people do.

Moral Calculus and Categorical Imperative. Judge whether or not the proposed moral succeeds and is good for the most people, and judge whether or not violations of that moral is going to cause problems.

Now, in terms of political theory, this creates a problem. In the mind of a conservative, legalizing gay marriage doesn't pass the calculus because it has a myriad number of problems attached to it. The opposite is true of a liberal in favor of legalization. In regards to politics, someone has to be wrong.

I know what you're thinking. "Did he just say that some people might be wrong?" Jsut because you have a political idea doesn't make that idea right. It has to pass those same calculi and imperatives. I'll subject myself to flaming to illustrate.

Homosexuality is not morally wrong. Why? Because it does not inherently cause harm to other people. Consenting homosexuals havin homosexual intercourse are not harming anyone else by doing so. They are not forcing other people to have sex with them, they are not trying to split up heterosexual marriages, they are not trying to make everyone gay. Homosexuality passes the calculus with flying colors.

I could keep going, but that'd be boring and noone would read it.

/flameon!

II believe that to pass the calculus, you need to look at another utlilitarian idea of "greatest good for the greatest number."
Meh, I've got no good words to spare for utilitarianism, precisely because it assumes that there is a universal good and a universal bad that you can and should somehow impose upon people.

The problem with using a calculus for policy is that for it to be really accurate, you'd have to ask every person on the planet. And even then you'd still be wrong to use it because you'd have to average things out to find some sort of universal standard. You can't do that, so just let people sort themselves out.

Now, in terms of political theory, this creates a problem. In the mind of a conservative, legalizing gay marriage doesn't pass the calculus because it has a myriad number of problems attached to it. The opposite is true of a liberal in favor of legalization. In regards to politics, someone has to be wrong.
A "liberal" is only in favour of legalisation because it impedes upon personal freedom. Do not confuse liberalism with something from the political left.

Everyday when I read the paper, I look in the opinions section just because I like seeing what the public is saying. Most opinions are reasonable ones that do not have insults in them or the like. But every once and a while I read an opinion that calls all conservatives "redneck bigots" or all liberals "tree-hugging communists". Now I am a conservative and I am angered greatly at how liberals see people like me to be a bunch of inbred hicks and how my fellow conservatives are treating liberals as if they are a bunch of snobby, anti-Americans. Being that I'm a conservative, I'll focus on the "bigot" insults (Liberals, you can say what you dislike about the communist insults against you, too) I am not a bigot just because I think gay marriage is wrong. I do not hate gays, I hate their behaviors, there's a world of difference. In my religion(Roman Catholicism), I have the right to hate people's actions and behaviors, but not the people themselves. I can neither encourage violence against them, nor would I want to. Just because I believe that the gay lifestyle is wrong doesn't mean I am a bigot, it means my moral standards conflict with theirs. There is nothing wrong with that.

Also, I am not evil for believing abortion and stem-cell research should be banned. It means I see the subjects involved to be life, and thus I equate the two practices with murder. I am not calling for violence against the places or people that practice it or partake in it. I am also not saying I hate people who believe it is the right of women to have abortions. I utterly disagree with that, but I am not going to attack the people who have those opinions.

If you read this forum a lot, and you probably have, you'll know that many of the posters here do just as you describe. "Religious nujobs" and "right wing nutjob" are terms that get thrown around quite a bit around here (communist tree hugger isn't used so much, but I'm sure it would on a more conservative forum.). It's a way for people to dismiss what somebody who disagrees with them is saying. If a normal person says that such and such is true, then you'll have to at least listen to them and give them a chance. But if a "gun toting red neck nutjob" or a "communist tree hugging hippie" says something, they obviously have no idea what they're talking about anyway and we can dismiss them immediately. On a side note, that's actually how genocides work. Wiping out human beings is one thing, but killing "tootsie cochroaches" is ok. As long as we categorize them as lower than us.

Many of the posters here are pretty young and I don't think have the maturity to respect people with different beliefs. Already in this thread we're getting combatitive knee-jerk reactions and posters saying things like "op=owned". But it's a webforum and being open minded and respectful with people of different beliefs really can be difficult at times. The adrenaline and hormones can really get pumpin when you read a post that you really disagree with. I understand that.

The one thing we all need to realize is this. We're all in this together. We're all human with families and friends and when it comes to politics, we all want what's best, we just have different ideas on how to achieve what is good. If people are able to keep that in mind, they'll be able to debate people while still showing respect and trying to keep an open mind.

I don't understand how you can hate someone's behaviour and actions and not hate the person themselves. Surely we are defined by what we do and how we behave.

I don't understand how you can hate someone's behaviour and actions and not hate the person themselves. Surely we are defined by what we do and how we behave.
If you know someone is actually different than their actions would show them to be, it is possible. But this is obviously unlikely.

I am not a bigot just because I think gay marriage is wrong. I do not hate gays, I hate their behaviors, there's a world of difference. In my religion(Roman Catholicism), I have the right to hate people's actions and behaviors, but not the people themselves. I can neither encourage violence against them, nor would I want to. Just because I believe that the gay lifestyle is wrong doesn't mean I am a bigot, it means my moral standards conflict with theirs. There is nothing wrong with that.



Actually there is because obviously you have misconceptions about their "behaviors". Gays vary in their behaviors to the point where you can't really assign any single behavior to any group of gay people. It isn't about how they behave, it's about who they are in their heart.

I strongly suggest educating yourself before even considering hating anything or anyone. If you truly did that you'd not find anything to hate. Because you see, it's not about morality at all in the sense you are considering it. The real morality as I see it is to stop being against something you absolutely have no understanding of. It may not involve violence on your part but the mere fact that you and others are against being gay tends to give others who are violent permission to be violent.

It is evidently allowing you to think wrong without really looking into why you got those opinions of gays to begin with. Don't take the easy way out, have valid reasons for your beliefs other than another bigot lead you on this path.

I don't understand how you can hate someone's behaviour and actions and not hate the person themselves. Surely we are defined by what we do and how we behave.

You've got that right! I feel it's just a way to get around the technicality of being against gayness.

And I feel it stems from a lack of education on homosexuality. They'd rather pretend they are morally above gays than actually take the time to get to know them personally.

I am not a bigot just because I think gay marriage is wrong. I do not hate gays, I hate their behaviors, there's a world of difference. In my religion(Roman Catholicism), I have the right to hate people's actions and behaviors, but not the people themselves.... Just because I believe that the gay lifestyle is wrong doesn't mean I am a bigot, it means my moral standards conflict with theirs. There is nothing wrong with that.

Also, I am not evil for believing abortion and stem-cell research should be banned.

But if you hold a prejudice against a group (or their behaviours) does that not make you a bigot? If gay people actually did something bad to you I could understand hating them, but they just want to live their lives and have the same rights as you.

While I am pro choice, I understand your view on abortion. If you see a fetus as a person then opposing abortion is only logical. Opposing stem cell research seems a bit mean spirited though. All they want to do is cure cancer and help disabled people.

The reason people hold stereotypes about conservatives is not because of their views, but because they believe they can force their morals on other people, by banning gay marriage etc. You may hate it, but how dare you even think you have a right to decide how other people can live their lives?

*snip*

As long as you continue to base your morality, choices, and opinions on a religion that was formulated in the Middle Ages as a result of myths in first century Judea, rather than reason, education, etc. then be prepared to be looked down upon by a significant portion of the world population.

I don't understand how you can hate someone's behaviour and actions and not hate the person themselves. Surely we are defined by what we do and how we behave.

Why is this hard for you to understand? My best friend tears herself apart over her stupid ex husband and does some terribly stupid things regarding him. I hate her behavior but I love her dearly.

A person can certainly hate a behavior and still care deeply for someone.

Meh, I've got no good words to spare for utilitarianism, precisely because it assumes that there is a universal good and a universal bad that you can and should somehow impose upon people.

The problem with using a calculus for policy is that for it to be really accurate, you'd have to ask every person on the planet. And even then you'd still be wrong to use it because you'd have to average things out to find some sort of universal standard. You can't do that, so just let people sort themselves out.


A "liberal" is only in favour of legalisation because it impedes upon personal freedom. Do not confuse liberalism with something from the political left.


Well, you won't get any disagreement from me on Benthamite Utlitarianism, but I doubt very much that most normal and rational people would disagree that murder, rape, theft, etc. are bad things and are nearly universally considered so. History has shown us that there are certain human actions that are completely unacceptable, and therefore wrong. I think that constitutes a moral absolute.

And naturally, policy can't apply to everyone on the planet. National sovereignty forbids it. But a theoretically democratic nation has the best chance of being moral and making good policy because it purportedly represents the most people, and natrually what's good for most is good for all. That's where the grey area comes in, and you have to apply that calculus to a decision. It might not be the end-all-be-all, but at least you're thinking critically about it.

In terms of liberalism, I think you might have misread me. I'm socially liberal (to a degree) and fiscally conservative in my views. you won't get any argument from me on how the political left has corrupted liberal thought, or how the political right has turned liberalism into a blanket word for communism and secularism.


(Now, watch as I ty it all back into the main post!)

In any case, you can't really take it personally when people call you names, because as a poster said above, it means that they are just trying to dismiss your views easily without thinking about them. I bet that if you tried to engage someone with opposing views in a debate, and talked in a rational, calm, friendly way, you'd be surprised. Rational discourse is the only way to get stuff done.