nav[aria-label="Primary Navigation"] { padding: 0; & ul { list-style: none; width: 100%; display: flex; flex-direction: row; justify-content: start; align-items: start; gap: 30px; padding: 0; & li { margin: 0; } & ul li { list-style: none; } } }

Child Item

Have we reach peak LGBT nonsense?

antiskeptic

Haven't read the detail but in essence a rugby players career called a halt to because he said gays and various other sinners will go to hell.

Leaving aside his dodgy theology (if God was in the business of excluding sinners from heaven then nobody would "get there"), is this not a case of LGBT sensitivity gone mad?

You are now not allowed to state your belief?

I can understand that some in A&A might rejoice but surely many can see the deeper ramifications: that at another time and place, their own expression of belief might not be of the moment and be condemned for mere expression.

Thin end of a thick wedge, this one.

Find more posts tagged with

Quick Links

Comments

SoundsRight

batgoat wrote: »

Yep if I violated my workplace code of conduct than that would be an automatic breach of my contract. Similar for a load of other documents.

Your contract and a code of conduct are two separate, distinct things. Had he broken his contract he'd be gone already.

batgoat

SoundsRight wrote: »

Your contract and a code of conduct are two separate, distinct things. Had he broken his contract he'd be gone already.

You can break your contract as a result of breaching the code of conduct...

Mark Hamill

recedite wrote: »

No, you don't use an inclusion policy to exclude people, that is a paradox. There is another mechanism available, which requires a bit of authoritarianism. In this case it would be hate speech legislation. But it appears that what Folau posted falls well short of that. Otherwise I'm sure somebody would have charged him with it.

Another link you seem to have trouble reading :rolleyes:.
Try again: paradox of tolerance.
Pay attention to the bit that says:

The paradox of tolerance states that if a society is tolerant without limit, its ability to be tolerant is eventually seized or destroyed by the intolerant.

The paradox is actually of your creation, by way of your logical strawman (changing something tolerant into something tolerant without limit).

Mark Hamill

recedite wrote: »

Unless you can name some other person, then he appears to be the only victim here.

So you are saying because he targeted all LG people that he is not guilty of targeting any specific LG people and therefore he is not guilty at all?

recedite

Mark Hamill wrote: »

So you are saying because he targeted all LG people that he is not guilty of targeting any specific LG people and therefore he is not guilty at all?

Guilty of what exactly?
That's what I was trying to exstablish. Which specific clause, in which specific contract, or inclusion policy, or player code of conduct?
Because waving your fist and shouting "homophobia" is not good enough.

Mark Hamill

recedite wrote: »

Guilty of what exactly?

Mark Hamill wrote: »

So you are saying because he targeted all LG people that he is not guilty of targeting any specific LG people and therefore he is not guilty at all?

antiskeptic

recedite wrote: »

Mark Hamill wrote: »

So you are saying because he targeted all LG people that he is not guilty of targeting any specific LG people and therefore he is not guilty at all?

Guilty of what exactly?
That's what I was trying to exstablish. Which specific clause, in which specific contract, or inclusion policy, or player code of conduct?
Because waving your fist and shouting "homophobia" is not good enough.

Precisely.

At the very least you have a stalemate: inclusion for LGBT (which presumably permits expressions of beliefs associated with same, say marching in a Pride parade). And inclusion for religion (whose beliefs aren't exactly an unknown quantity)

The governing body objection to Folau's expression is making a judgement call on a core element of Christianity: unrepentant sinners go to Hell. That judgement is that the core element isn't true (a Dawkins 7). I mean, if you believed that God existed and is all knowing and good, you can hardly call his decrees homophobic anymore than you can call his decree on adultery 'behind the times'

A Dawkins 7 is hardly inclusionary.

I can understand whats happened though. Inclusion policies aren't thought through and no more reflect reality than do corporate mission statements.

Once the rubber meets the road (with e.g. Folau throwing a spanner in) the 'inclusion policy' is thrown overboard and there's a reversion to mood of the times.

antiskeptic

Mark Hamill wrote: »

recedite wrote: »

Guilty of what exactly?

Mark Hamill wrote: »

So you are saying because he targeted all LG people that he is not guilty of targeting any specific LG people and therefore he is not guilty at all?

.

He issued a warning based on his belief of God's view. Since the jury is out on Gods existence (your personal view isn't particularily relevant) we can't say that the view expressed is homophobic.

Before you wheel out ISIS, let it be known that the problem for free speech is figuring out how to assess whether the root of the claim is true or not.

Deciding based on the mood of the times ("this is hate because the mood of the times says the root isn't true") is problematic.

It means the mood of the times is as right now as the mood of the times was when LGBT was views far more negatively)

Please don't revert to 'society has moved on, its ever onwards and upwards'. That canard is firmly D.O.A.

Mark Hamill

antiskeptic wrote: »

Precisely.

At the very least you have a stalemate: inclusion for LGBT (which presumably permits expressions of beliefs associated with same, say marching in a Pride parade). And inclusion for religion (whose beliefs aren't exactly an unknown quantity)

The governing body objection to Folau's expression is making a judgement call on a core element of Christianity: unrepentant sinners go to Hell. That judgement is that the core element isn't true (a Dawkins 7). I mean, if you believed that God existed and is all knowing and good, you can hardly call his decrees homophobic anymore than you can call his decree on adultery 'behind the times'

A Dawkins 7 is hardly inclusionary.

I can understand whats happened though. Inclusion policies aren't thought through and no more reflect reality than do corporate mission statements.

Once the rubber meets the road (with e.g. Folau throwing a spanner in) the 'inclusion policy' is thrown overboard and there's a reversion to mood of the times.

You seem to need to read this too:
paradox of tolerance

Mark Hamill

antiskeptic wrote: »

He issued a warning based on his belief of God's view. Since the jury is out on Gods existence (your personal view isn't particularily relevant) we can't say that the view expressed is homophobic

Its homophobic regardless of god's existence.

antiskeptic wrote: »

Deciding based on the mood of the times ("this is hate because the mood of the times says the root isn't true") is problematic.

I seem to remember it was pointed out to you in this thread how Christianity has changed wholesale with the mood of the times (slavery, capital punishment for disrespectful children etc.). Did you ignore forget?

antiskeptic wrote: »

It means the mood of the times is as right now as the mood of the times was when LGBT was views far more negatively

No it doesn't. If you drop the emotive strawman of "mood of the times" and call it what it is - societal norms, then we avoid the strawman implying that we only treat people certain ways based on some unconsidered impulse. We are then left with society, as a whole, improving it's treatment of people over time because as we invariably recognise that people should be as free as we want to be.

Bannasidhe

Mark Hamill wrote: »

No it doesn't. If you drop the emotive strawman of "mood of the times" and call it what it is - societal norms, then we avoid the strawman implying that we only treat people certain ways based on some unconsidered impulse. We are then left with society, as a whole, improving it's treatment of people over time because as we invariably recognise that people should be as free as we want to be.

This whole 'mood of the times' suggests some kind of linear timeline where societies moved from intolerant to tolerant as some kind of (presumably 'liberal') secular agenda took hold.

What it ignores is much of the root cause of societal homophobia - in the case of Ireland (and England/Wales) it was Henry VIII. We can actually date it exactly. 1533 The Buggery Act outlawed anal sex. As English rule expanded in Ireland under the later Tudors and the Stuarts such laws began to be enforced.

Previously in Ireland there were only 2 mentions of male homosexuality in the Brehon Laws - i) If a man was unable to sexually satisfy his wife due to his being homosexual she could divorce him, ii) If the man knew prior to marrying that he would be unable to sexually satisfy his wife upon divorce she could keep the house. That's it. That was pre-conquest Ireland's legal stance on male homosexuality. There are no mentions of lesbians as that didn't interfere with property rights/marriage alliances (and perhaps they thought women could 'fake it' better then men

).
English rule brought a lessening of human rights in an Irish context.

A similar situation existed in other British colonies such as India. Societies with no prohibitions against homosexuality had them imposed under colonial British rule.

Institutional homophobia was rooted in fundamentalist and intolerant religious beliefs. As Christianity gained control in Europe - and by extension it's overseas colonies - it brought this homophobia with it.

The argument can be made that when a fundamentalist religious (or political) ideology dominates it enforces intolerance and rather than it being a societal 'norm' it is, in fact, the result of a societal 'ab-norm' where a totalitarian regime has seized control.

smacl

Bannasidhe wrote: »

What it ignores is much of the root cause of societal homophobia - in the case of Ireland (and England/Wales) it was Henry VIII. We can actually date it exactly. 1533 The Buggery Act outlawed anal sex. As English rule expanded in Ireland under the later Tudors and the Stuarts such laws began to be enforced.

Reminds me of a little ditty by Brendan Behan

Don't speak of your Protestant minister,
Nor of his church without meaning or faith,
For the foundation stone of his temple
Was the bollocks of Henry VIII

I don't believe the Catholic church would have been any more tolerant than Henry for all that. If the stated goal of a religion is to grow the number via 'go forth and multiple', and one of your mechanisms for controlling the flock is saying who and when you can have sex with, these pesky homosexuals are a nuisance. Best to consign them to the pit and get the rest of the rabble riled up against them.

Bannasidhe

smacl wrote: »

I don't believe the Catholic church would have been any more tolerant than Henry for all that. If the stated goal of a religion is to grow the number via 'go forth and multiple', and one of your mechanisms for controlling the flock is saying who and when you can have sex with, these pesky homosexuals are a nuisance. Best to consign them to the pit and get the rest of the rabble riled up against them.

Fat Hal was still in the RCC camp in 1533 - and tbh apart from the whole 'The Pope ain't the Boss of me' groove after 1536 when he broke with Rome he remained a Catholic in his beliefs his whole life.

antiskeptic

Mark Hamill wrote: »

Its homophobic regardless of god's existence.

Is it?

How are you defining homophobia (it seems to be a bit of a moveable feast)? Let's say its a fear or hatred of homosexuals? An irrational fear perhaps?

Now, God wouldn't fear homosexuals, would he? Nor does he hate them. He loves sinners (so much so that he goes to extraordinary lengths in the attempt to save them. Heck even Hitler might be saved)

But if a sinner doesn't want God then the sinner goes to a place where God isn't. That's all Hell is: the complete absence of God. It's not nice, but then again, it's the Godly which are the nice things: love, joy, peace, humour, self-sacrifice, bravery, humility, etc.

Could you clarify why you think homophobia in the event God exists. Perhaps occupy the place of a believer for the purposes.

I seem to remember it was pointed out to you in this thread how Christianity has changed wholesale with the mood of the times (slavery, capital punishment for disrespectful children etc.). Did you ignore forget?

So what? The problem is with the changing mood of the times, whoever is changing.

No it doesn't. If you drop the emotive strawman of "mood of the times" and call it what it is - societal norms

Since societal norms are ever changing, you might call them the societal norms of the times. I don't mind.

then we avoid the strawman implying that we only treat people certain ways based on some unconsidered impulse

I didn't intend to mean it was a unconsidered impulse. But it is subject to influence by whoever happens to successfully mobilise. We had a sexual revolution in the sixties, for example and that would be a platform on which to widen the revolution. The present LBGT movement couldn't probably, have taken off if there hadn't been the original sexual revolution.

We are then left with society, as a whole, improving it's treatment of people over time because as we invariably recognise that people should be as free as we want to be.

Which raises the question of whether our being freer is a good or bad thing. A very subjective thing that. You're not going to manage to float such a large claim like the one you've just made on a subjective assumption.

11 year olds able to access hard core porn in a few clicks. There's ever advancing human rights for you.

I'd call it societal abnorms myself.

antiskeptic

Mark Hamill wrote: »

You seem to need to read this too:
paradox of tolerance

Karl Popper wrote:

But we should claim the right to suppress them if necessary even by force; for it may easily turn out that they are not prepared to meet us on the level of rational argument

Clarification sought.

It would be the general stance on this forum that a belief in God is an irrational thing. Is Karl, in one swooping statement, excluding the religious view from his scheme because they don't place rationalism in place of primacy as he does?

Perhaps not. He seems to a bit equivocal on the matter of God. To his credit, he does say:

In a letter unrelated to the interview, he stressed his tolerant attitude: "Although I am not for religion, I do think that we should show respect for anybody who believes honestly."

You know what that sounds like? Yup, like an Australian Rugby Comite "inclusion" policy. Respect, tolerance ... until the moment when you actually start expressing your beliefs.

Something "we should show" ... as if the "we" ought to be the arbitrators. Now you know I'm not one for the majority view makes it right, but the non religious view is am minority in the world. Yet Popper makes it sound as if the religious view needs to come begging bowl in hand to the seat of whichever philosophical faith system Popper has arrived at.

Paradox. But only if you assume your position is correct from the outset: that your version of rational be assumed boss.

smacl

antiskeptic wrote: »

You know what that sounds like? Yup, like an Australian Rugby Comite "inclusion" policy. Respect, tolerance ... until the moment when you actually start expressing your beliefs. Something "we should show" ... as if the "we" ought to be the arbitrators.

Respect for someone's right to hold a religious belief is not the same as having to respect the belief. Similarly, respecting someone's right to express their religious belief does not give carte blanche to that person to trample over anyone else's rights or freedoms, nor for that matter to ignore an employers code of conduct and remain in their employ.

antiskeptic

smacl wrote: »

Respect for someone's right to hold a religious belief is not the same as having to respect the belief.

Of course: I respect your right to hold the philosophical beliefs you hold, even though I don't respect them (in the sense of assigning them the value you assign them).

Similarly, respecting someone's right to express their religious belief does not give carte blanche to that person to trample over anyone else's rights or freedoms

Which is a problem for free speech. Someone is doing the adjudicating and their belief expression (by deciding what their subjects can and cannot say) somehow holds sway.

They have trouble pointing to why they've ascended to the throne however.

nor for that matter to ignore an employers code of conduct and remain in their employ.

The question arises as to whether an employer ought be allowed have such a code: given it discriminates against someone expressing their beliefs. The ever changing mood of the times / societal norms seems to be about it. So long as your surfing the crest of the societal norm wave you're "right".

You can dress it up in flowery, padded language. And you can speak with undertones of self-evidency (ill disguised undertones) But all you have, in terms of hard essence.... is a pair of two's.

Leave aside the problem that saying unrepentant sinners (including some in the inclusion policy) will go to hell isn't expressing either a fear or hatred of homosexuals.

Mark Hamill

antiskeptic wrote: »

Is it?

How are you defining homophobia (it seems to be a bit of a moveable feast)? Let's say its a fear or hatred of homosexuals? An irrational fear perhaps?

Now, God wouldn't fear homosexuals, would he? Nor does he hate them. He loves sinners (so much so that he goes to extraordinary lengths in the attempt to save them. Heck even Hitler might be saved)

But if a sinner doesn't want God then the sinner goes to a place where God isn't. That's all Hell is: the complete absence of God. It's not nice, but then again, it's the Godly which are the nice things: love, joy, peace, humour, self-sacrifice, bravery, humility, etc.

Could you clarify why you think homophobia in the event God exists. Perhaps occupy the place of a believer for the purposes.

Google definition of homophobia. Applies regardless of gods existence. People who dislike or are prejudiced against homosexuals are homophobic. If god dislikes or is prejudiced against them, then god is homophobic. Presumably why many theists don't believe god has a problem with them and dont themselves have a problem with them.

antiskeptic wrote: »

So what? The problem is with the changing mood of the times, whoever is changing.

So you accept that christianity changes with the times?

antiskeptic wrote: »

Which raises the question of whether our being freer is a good or bad thing. A very subjective thing that. You're not going to manage to float such a large claim like the one you've just made on a subjective assumption.

11 year olds able to access hard core porn in a few clicks. There's ever advancing human rights for you.

I'd call it societal abnorms myself.

Mark Hamill wrote:

We are then left with society, as a whole, improving it's treatment of people over time because as we invariably recognise that people should be as free as we want to be.

Well done. In your ridiculous strawmanning, you managed to turn the Golden Rule (repeated throughout the bible by Jesus and others) into children watching porn.

Mark Hamill

antiskeptic wrote: »

Clarification sought.

If you read the argument instead of quote-mining for semantic disagreement then it's pretty clear:

Karl Popper wrote:

If we extend unlimited tolerance even to those who are intolerant, if we are not prepared to defend a tolerant society against the onslaught of the intolerant, then the tolerant will be destroyed, and tolerance with them.

Inclusion policies are not meant to be absolute, because they can't be. In simple terms, you can't include everybody when some people don't want others included. If you must exclude somebody then those people, the intollerant, should be excluded.

antiskeptic

Mark Hamill wrote: »

antiskeptic wrote: »

Clarification sought.

If you read the argument instead of quote-mining for semantic disagreement then it's pretty clear:

Karl Popper wrote:

If we extend unlimited tolerance even to those who are intolerant, if we are not prepared to defend a tolerant society against the onslaught of the intolerant, then the tolerant will be destroyed, and tolerance with them.

Inclusion policies are not meant to be absolute, because they can't be. In simple terms, you can't include everybody when some people don't want others included. If you must exclude somebody then those people, the intollerant, should be excluded.

What isn't clear is whose being intolerant. And who is the 'we' doing the adjudicating on what is intolerant.

The inclusion policy can be argued to be intolerant about someone expressing their belief.

The expression wasn't intolerant: it didn't say homosexuals should be excluded. It didnt say homosexual expression shouldn't be allowed or should be made illegal.

It said what the belief held about unrepentant homosexuals coming before God. Just like the expression of the belief that smokers, though tolerated, face a nasty end.

The beliefs above are arrived at via different means. To suppose the one means valid (empirical evidence about the effects of smoking) and the other (religious belief) invalid is to stake a claim to the supremacy of faith in empiricalism over faith in spiritualism.

A judgement is being made on the veracity of Folaus belief (namely, that it isn't true). Not exactly tolerant. You will find that rationalism and empiricism sit at the root of the judgment. Which brings us back to Popper. His paradox rests on the assumption his philosophical groundings are true / more valid.

Was the view at the time when it was held that homosexuality was not true (i.e. unnatural) tolerant? A judgement was being made on the veracity of the homosexual claim.

robindch

antiskeptic wrote: »

The beliefs above are arrived at via different means. To suppose the one means valid (empirical evidence about the effects of smoking) and the other (religious belief) invalid is to stake a claim to the supremacy of faith in empiricalism over faith in spiritualism.

Or - phrased in English which has a clear, unambiguous and identifiable meaning - you reckon that things for which there is no evidence are as valid as things for which there is evidence.

Where did you acquire this view?

antiskeptic

robindch wrote: »

Or - phrased in English which has a clear, unambiguous and identifiable meaning - you reckon that things for which there is no evidence are as valid as things for which there is evidence.

Or - phrased in English which has clear unambiguous and identifiable meaning: empiricism

Where did you acquire this view?

Where did you acquire this faith

robindch

antiskeptic wrote: »

Where did you acquire this faith

I have noticed over my lifetime that things for which there is evidence are more likely to be accurate than things for which there is no evidence. Feel free to mischaracterise this as "faith" if you wish.

You clearly disagree with this view, so I'm interested to know where you learned the philosophy you are producing here as it's not part of any course on epistemology - the philosophy of knowledge - which I'm aware of.

batgoat

robindch wrote: »

I have noticed over my lifetime that things for which there is evidence are more likely to be accurate than things for which there is no evidence. Feel free to mischaracterise this as "faith" if you wish.

You clearly disagree with this view, so I'm interested to know where you learned the philosophy you are producing here as it's not part of any course on epistemology - the philosophy of knowledge - which I'm aware of.

And the complete faith based can result in parents sending their LGBT teens to conversion therapy. Basically a willingness to endanger and reject their kids for faith.

antiskeptic

The faith is in your philosophically-sourced definition of evidence. Because all you have to go on by way of your (you and people similarily equipped) observations is all you have to go on, its to be expected that you will close-loop. The philosophy derives from the observations.

Philosophies of knowledge presumably seek universality: something governing all people at all times. "This is how anyone knows what they know.

Universality (the need for in order for knowledge to be classed as such) is a presumptive.

Who set that requirement?

Simple enough questions might help illuminate the problem here.

1. Can God (say God of the Bible) exist? Assuming you would say yes (after the usual dancing around on the head of a probability pin) then..

2) Would you agree that in the event he exists, the mechanisms whereby we 'know' (and conclude we know) are God-designed and defined? If so..

3) In the event he exists, can God enable some people to know of a spiritual realm, via another mechanism of his design?

4) Assuming yes, what possible problem for me, just because what I would know thus doesn't fit the mechanisms of knowing available to you?

robindch

^^^ Did you come up with this yourself, or did you find it out from somebody else?

antiskeptic

robindch wrote: »

^^^ Did you come up with this yourself, or did you find it out from somebody else?

Come up with what? Logic statements?

robindch

antiskeptic wrote: »

Come up with what?

...come up with the ideas vaguely specified by the English words which you are posting here in the A+A forum here and on boards.ie.

Are these ideas yours? Or are they somebody else’s?

Please let me know if you find this yes/no question unclear.

smacl

antiskeptic wrote: »

Simple enough questions might help illuminate the problem here.

1. Can God (say God of the Bible) exist? Assuming you would say yes (after the usual dancing around on the head of a probability pin) then..

2) Would you agree that in the event he exists, the mechanisms whereby we 'know' (and conclude we know) are God-designed and defined? If so..

3) In the event he exists, can God enable some people to know of a spiritual realm, via another mechanism of his design?

4) Assuming yes, what possible problem for me, just because what I would know thus doesn't fit the mechanisms of knowing available to you?

Ok, so substitute 'Allah', 'The Force', 'The flying spaghetti monster' or 'Ah Pook' for 'God' in the above, and the logic holds to the same degree. You don't get past point one until you've demonstrated your belief is vaguely credible.

antiskeptic

smacl wrote: »

antiskeptic wrote: »

Simple enough questions might help illuminate the problem here.

1. Can God (say God of the Bible) exist? Assuming you would say yes (after the usual dancing around on the head of a probability pin) then..

2) Would you agree that in the event he exists, the mechanisms whereby we 'know' (and conclude we know) are God-designed and defined? If so..

3) In the event he exists, can God enable some people to know of a spiritual realm, via another mechanism of his design?

4) Assuming yes, what possible problem for me, just because what I would know thus doesn't fit the mechanisms of knowing available to you?

Ok, so substitute 'Allah', 'The Force', 'The flying spaghetti monster' or 'Ah Pook' for 'God' in the above, and the logic holds to the same degree. You don't get past point one until you've demonstrated your belief is vaguely credible.

Look at it logically rather than emotionally/ misdirectionally / confusedly. Let your inner Spock out..

Take step 1 and answer yes or no. If only because it's a yes/no question.

If no, then provide a logical, rather than emotive, misdirective, confused answer.

If it helps at all, know that a 'yes' answer says nothing at all about the likelyhood of God's existence. That horrible prospect can remain having a (completely unsubstantiatable) 0.00001% chance of being true in your own head, if you want it to remain thus.

(pity Dawkins forum has been naturally selected out. There'd have been the chance of asking the 6.7 meister himself!)