Well, supposedly, the study took levels of exercise into account -- and driving to work in the morning would account for 30 minutes of sunlight exposure, without any real exercise.
Are you sure? I was under the impression that car windows filtered out a lot of UV. For example, you won't get sunburn while sitting in a car with your windows rolled up.
If it's UV that matters here, and not simply bright visible light, then being in a car wouldn't do it I suspect.
I responded to what I still think you wrote. My apologies if we're unwittingly talking past each other.
I think there are a few problems that keep your argument from being compelling.
First, you're asserting that something in particular is unjust. But there are many different conceptions of justice. I'm guessing that you and I probably differ on that term in ways that matter for this topic. Unfortunately, I suspect that for both of us, the definition of justice boils down to matters of opinion. Which doesn't leave us much room for common ground on a topic like this.
Second, your argument seems to assume that the only valid reason for a law to proscribe a behavior is if that behavior is harmful to society. The third problem is that, even if you're right about the second issue, there are many different conceptions of what's good for society.
The problem is, we don't have a universally accepted theory about what makes a given law just or unjust to impose on those citizens who don't like it.
Yes, yes we do. Whatever we feel is just is just. Whatever they feel is just is unjust. And so it goes.
There is no spin you can put on a law which treats a specific group as inferior which will make it seem just.
I think you're missing a key aspect of the problem here, which makes this debate so messy. We have a behavior (homosexual conduct) which is largely associated with a group of persons (people who identify as homosexual or bisexual). Laws against homosexual conduct can be reasonably seen as either (a) a limitation which applies uniformly to everyone, or (b) a limitation which targets only a specific group of persons. Depending on which of those views you consider more important affects whether or not you see them as discriminatory of persons.
I think you're saying that to tell one group of people that they can't follow their natural instincts is to demean them, because others (heterosexuals) are allowed to follow their natural instincts with the full support of the legal system (marriage). But if that's your argument, I'm curious where you'd draw the line as to which instincts are protected.
Lack of consent. The end. The vast majority of our common law is rooted in this very concept. We don't need any Gods for this.
You seem to be appealing to a notion of the Good that not everyone shares. At least, I think you are. I'm not really sure what you're taking as axiomatic, vs. what you're building on top of that. What are your premises, and how do you get form them to your conclusion?
I'm not picking on you in particular. It's a problem we all face when having this kind of debate. We all have some foundational principles to which we appeal, and which we can't compellingly defend. So we're really just blowing smoke when we claim to have a logically air-tight moral position with which disagreement implies a deficiency in the other person.
Which is why marriage, as a legal concept, sucks. It involves both government and religion, and that's normally bad for both.
I think there's a good pragmatic argument for separating the two concepts: our society is deeply divided over the issue, and it's not clear that we'd benefit much from having one side or the other win the legislative wrestling match.
There is a lot of obvious bullshit in there that the majority of Christians don't believe or practice.
There are theological reasons for this, but you're under no obligation to become familiar enough with them to weigh their merits.
This guy chose to take up the homophobic stuff, even though many other Christians don't and there is quite a lot of evidence (much of it in the Bible itself) that Jesus was gay or at least bisexual.
Allegations are cheap. Personally, I'm unaware of the evidence pointing in that direction, although you're of course free to interpret it however you choose.
They do not justify harming others, or forcing your own beliefs on them.
You seem comfortable forcing your beliefs about what's moral, and what is valid to legislate, on the proponents of Prop 8. That strikes me as hypocritical.
The fact that he comes to these conclusions through religious beliefs makes them no less oppressive. Neither have any business in a state's constitution.
I think you face a fundamental problem (we all do) in this debate. Our arguments for what should be legislated ultimately depend on our definition of the Good, which is more or less a basic belief for each of us. When we differ on our notions of the ultimate good, we can't necessarily expect to end up at the same conclusions about what is proper to legislate.
Because tolerance it's just tolerating any "thing." It's being against discrimination based on traits a person has no control over.
Most people have accepted that sexual orientation is typically an uncontrollable trait, just as is my desire to sleep with about everything that has a pulse. A key question here is, do we legalize acting upon those urges with the full support of our legal infrastructure.
Slavery was the status quo. Perhaps you want to defend that.
I'm curious: Can you construct an air-tight moral case against slavery? You'd ultimately have to appeal to some concept of The Good that you couldn't prove, I suspect. In which case, you'd be in many ways like the Christians who appeal to (a different) axiomatic definition of The Good.
Under the U.S. Constitution, states must grant equal protection of law to all citizens. That implies making civil marriage available to same-sex couples.
I think you're omitting a key detail : how far does the notion of equality go? That's a crucial point of the debate, and you're not mentioning it.
Does the Consitution's "equal protection" clause imply that siblings can marry? Does is imply polygamy and polyandry? How about rape, since I have a sexual urges to many women who aren't interested in me, but married people have conjugal rights? If I can find a willing mare in heat, do I we have an equal-protection right to marriage?
The fundamental problem, as I see it, is that the Constitution admits many different interpretations of the scope of equal-protection doctrine. No side can argue that his perspective is uniquely justified. And so this is partially a matter of the political views of the Justices of the United States.
Yepp, but those 3 points of you are just "made up" by "orthodox christians" there is no "proof" that this is gods opinion (nor is it based in the bibke or thora).
I don't think anyone has found a logically air-tight argument for, or against, what you're asserting. You're free of course to assert anything you want.
More general summary: Religion is for the stupid...
The following people are / were religious: Blaise Pascal Mother Theresa J.R.R. Tolkein René Descartes Pierre de Fermat Kenneth Miller John Polkinghorne Donald Knuth Freeman Dyson
So I'm curious, do you consider yourself more intelligent than all of them? Or less intelligent than at least one of them?
Christians that hold that view need a STRONG lesson in civics then. Its fine they hold that view, but we are going to constantly remind them it is immoral to force their morality on the rest of us. This is exactly where the religious need to be reminded of what the limits of tolerance are.
Unless you're a uniquely talented moral philosopher, you are unable to define "moral" in a way that all rational persons would accept. So I think you're just kicking the can down the road by saying that you plan to give Christians a lesson.
Based on that set of axioms, it can be completely loving to encourage someone to repent of his sins and choose to follow Jesus. Practicing homosexuality is a sign that someone isn't doing that. It would therefore be unloving or even hateful to affirm homosexual relations.
He didn't "encourage someone to repent". He contributed money to an effort to institutionalize oppression in the law. His actions affected others, so those who disagree are entitled to do the same.
I agree completely. The problem is, we don't have a universally accepted theory about what makes a given law just or unjust to impose on those citizens who don't like it. We all have some laws that strike us as oppressive.
Some see this CEO's advocacy of Prop 8 as oppression. Many Christians see their being forced to support gay marriages (case in point, that wedding cake bakery story from a few months ago) as a form of oppression against them. I see being forced to pay a higher tax rate than Warren Buffet as a form of oppression.
Without a unanimously agreed-upon standard regarding when it's right for a majority to impose its will on the minority, I don't see how we can non-hypocritically single out just a single person or issue in a case like this.
Slashdot Mirror
How else can they be self-righteous?
By having led to the ouster of Mozilla's new CEO?
Well, supposedly, the study took levels of exercise into account -- and driving to work in the morning would account for 30 minutes of sunlight exposure, without any real exercise.
Are you sure? I was under the impression that car windows filtered out a lot of UV. For example, you won't get sunburn while sitting in a car with your windows rolled up.
If it's UV that matters here, and not simply bright visible light, then being in a car wouldn't do it I suspect.
Unless you're a uniquely talented moral philosopher, you are unable to define "moral" in a way that all rational persons would accept.
That's easy. 1 commandment:
Don't be a Dick.
What that one commandment? And, define Dick in a way we'll all agree on.
I responded to what I still think you wrote. My apologies if we're unwittingly talking past each other.
I think there are a few problems that keep your argument from being compelling.
First, you're asserting that something in particular is unjust. But there are many different conceptions of justice. I'm guessing that you and I probably differ on that term in ways that matter for this topic. Unfortunately, I suspect that for both of us, the definition of justice boils down to matters of opinion. Which doesn't leave us much room for common ground on a topic like this.
Second, your argument seems to assume that the only valid reason for a law to proscribe a behavior is if that behavior is harmful to society. The third problem is that, even if you're right about the second issue, there are many different conceptions of what's good for society.
The problem is, we don't have a universally accepted theory about what makes a given law just or unjust to impose on those citizens who don't like it.
Yes, yes we do. Whatever we feel is just is just. Whatever they feel is just is unjust. And so it goes.
There is no spin you can put on a law which treats a specific group as inferior which will make it seem just.
I think you're missing a key aspect of the problem here, which makes this debate so messy. We have a behavior (homosexual conduct) which is largely associated with a group of persons (people who identify as homosexual or bisexual). Laws against homosexual conduct can be reasonably seen as either (a) a limitation which applies uniformly to everyone, or (b) a limitation which targets only a specific group of persons. Depending on which of those views you consider more important affects whether or not you see them as discriminatory of persons.
I think you're saying that to tell one group of people that they can't follow their natural instincts is to demean them, because others (heterosexuals) are allowed to follow their natural instincts with the full support of the legal system (marriage). But if that's your argument, I'm curious where you'd draw the line as to which instincts are protected.
No I don't. The tax man consents to not tax me by trying to maintain his residency and citizenship.
See what I did there?
You seem to be appealing to a notion of the Good that not everyone shares. At least, I think you are. I'm not really sure what you're taking as axiomatic, vs. what you're building on top of that. What are your premises, and how do you get form them to your conclusion?
I'm not picking on you in particular. It's a problem we all face when having this kind of debate. We all have some foundational principles to which we appeal, and which we can't compellingly defend. So we're really just blowing smoke when we claim to have a logically air-tight moral position with which disagreement implies a deficiency in the other person.
Which is why marriage, as a legal concept, sucks. It involves both government and religion, and that's normally bad for both.
I think there's a good pragmatic argument for separating the two concepts: our society is deeply divided over the issue, and it's not clear that we'd benefit much from having one side or the other win the legislative wrestling match.
There are theological reasons for this, but you're under no obligation to become familiar enough with them to weigh their merits.
Allegations are cheap. Personally, I'm unaware of the evidence pointing in that direction, although you're of course free to interpret it however you choose.
You seem comfortable forcing your beliefs about what's moral, and what is valid to legislate, on the proponents of Prop 8. That strikes me as hypocritical.
I think you face a fundamental problem (we all do) in this debate. Our arguments for what should be legislated ultimately depend on our definition of the Good, which is more or less a basic belief for each of us. When we differ on our notions of the ultimate good, we can't necessarily expect to end up at the same conclusions about what is proper to legislate.
I'm certainly not going to defend Christians against selective obedience to Jesus.
Because tolerance it's just tolerating any "thing." It's being against discrimination based on traits a person has no control over.
Most people have accepted that sexual orientation is typically an uncontrollable trait, just as is my desire to sleep with about everything that has a pulse. A key question here is, do we legalize acting upon those urges with the full support of our legal infrastructure.
"It was never okay to eat at Taco Bell." Sincerely, your colon.
Slavery was the status quo. Perhaps you want to defend that.
I'm curious: Can you construct an air-tight moral case against slavery? You'd ultimately have to appeal to some concept of The Good that you couldn't prove, I suspect. In which case, you'd be in many ways like the Christians who appeal to (a different) axiomatic definition of The Good.
It doesn't matter why he acts to shit on gay people, it matters that he does.
I doubt the sees it as shitting on gay people, but who knows? Why don't you get in touch and ask him why he supported Prop 8?
I think you're omitting a key detail : how far does the notion of equality go? That's a crucial point of the debate, and you're not mentioning it.
Does the Consitution's "equal protection" clause imply that siblings can marry? Does is imply polygamy and polyandry? How about rape, since I have a sexual urges to many women who aren't interested in me, but married people have conjugal rights? If I can find a willing mare in heat, do I we have an equal-protection right to marriage?
The fundamental problem, as I see it, is that the Constitution admits many different interpretations of the scope of equal-protection doctrine. No side can argue that his perspective is uniquely justified. And so this is partially a matter of the political views of the Justices of the United States.
It's begging the question to refer to gay marriage as a right. Your'e free to assert that, but you're not really engaging in the debate.
Yepp, but those 3 points of you are just "made up" by "orthodox christians" there is no "proof" that this is gods opinion (nor is it based in the bibke or thora).
I don't think anyone has found a logically air-tight argument for, or against, what you're asserting. You're free of course to assert anything you want.
More general summary: Religion is for the stupid...
The following people are / were religious:
Blaise Pascal
Mother Theresa
J.R.R. Tolkein
René Descartes
Pierre de Fermat
Kenneth Miller
John Polkinghorne
Donald Knuth
Freeman Dyson
So I'm curious, do you consider yourself more intelligent than all of them? Or less intelligent than at least one of them?
Christians that hold that view need a STRONG lesson in civics then. Its fine they hold that view, but we are going to constantly remind them it is immoral to force their morality on the rest of us. This is exactly where the religious need to be reminded of what the limits of tolerance are.
Unless you're a uniquely talented moral philosopher, you are unable to define "moral" in a way that all rational persons would accept. So I think you're just kicking the can down the road by saying that you plan to give Christians a lesson.
My apologies for not being clear on that.
Fair point. I was arguing against the Interweb's general attacks on this guy, rather than OkCupid's particular message.
He didn't "encourage someone to repent". He contributed money to an effort to institutionalize oppression in the law. His actions affected others, so those who disagree are entitled to do the same.
I agree completely. The problem is, we don't have a universally accepted theory about what makes a given law just or unjust to impose on those citizens who don't like it. We all have some laws that strike us as oppressive.
Some see this CEO's advocacy of Prop 8 as oppression. Many Christians see their being forced to support gay marriages (case in point, that wedding cake bakery story from a few months ago) as a form of oppression against them. I see being forced to pay a higher tax rate than Warren Buffet as a form of oppression.
Without a unanimously agreed-upon standard regarding when it's right for a majority to impose its will on the minority, I don't see how we can non-hypocritically single out just a single person or issue in a case like this.
You're asserting. Which is fine. But it would be more interesting if you'd give a logical argument for your conclusion.
I agree with you that Orthodox Christianity is a religion of hate.
About as hateful as trying to talk someone into leaving a burning building, even when they disagree that the building is burning.
You disagree with the premises (that the building is burning), not necessarily with the CEO's reasoning.