39 replies to this topic

[arunma]

He should be able to say whatever hate speak he wants to. I agree. He should NOT be able to funnel corporate profits to anti-human organizations.

If we're talking about the Family Research Council, I have to point out simply as a matter of fact that Chick-Fil-A isn't donating company profits to any sort of illegal organization. The FRC, as far as I know, operates within the bounds of the law, so the Cathys are technically within their rights to do this. Should they do this? That's a separate question. But donating money to the FRC is no less legal than publically saying what he thinks about gays.

[Twinrova]

I don't think he was saying it was illegal....rather that it shouldn't be socially acceptable for him to do that/for those organizations to exist. At least that was my take on it.

[Sir Deimos]

That's exactly what I was saying. Sure it's legal, but I'm sick of being a part of a society and still finds in acceptable to demonize entire segments of its own race.

[Egann]

That's exactly what I was saying. Sure it's legal, but I'm sick of being a part of a society and still finds in acceptable to demonize entire segments of its own race.

And you're not also 'demonizing an entire segment of your own race' by saying this? I understand the way you feel, but at its heart, this line of thought is an emotional reaction and a rationalization which lets you act just like the other guy. You think you're "justified?" Not good enough; so do they.

Don't read this like I have any particular answers for this because I don't. It's possible that there is no solution, that as soon as any ethical system becomes codified with any clarity it will immediately be used to draw immoral conclusions via unforeseen consequences.

Basically, we need to learn when to quit any line of thought. None of them will take you everywhere, and most will get you lost along the way if you try.

Edited by Egann, 12 August 2012 - 09:29 AM.

[arunma]

Heh...OK random thought here. Much like the abortion issue, it seems fundamentally that this can be boiled down to a fairly simple philosophical question. In the case of abortion it's: is a fetus a human being? After you answer that, the solution you come up with is inevitable. (Mind you I don't want to detract into abortion, just trying to draw an analogy.)

In the case of gay marriage the question is: is homosexuality an intrinsic human trait or a behavior? If the former, then you're making a moral judgment about someone based on their fundamental nature as a person, as though judging based on their race or gender. If homosexuality is a behavior, then it's legitimate to make a moral judgment about the person, much as you'd judge someone for the shirt they wear, the way they cut their lawn, or how they speak. Mind you that one can't answer this question simply by proving that homosexuality is genetically-inherited. Lots of illegal things are genetically-inherited, like tendancy to violence and getting off on killing people. Fundamentally the question is philosophical.

Of course, it's a bit more complicated than abortion. In that case you're talking about potentially killing a life, and once you decide that it is or isn't a life the law is clear on what to do. But in this case, even once you say that homosexuality is a behavior rather than a defining human trait, you have to contend with the fact that the act of gay marriage doesn't have a detrimental effect on anyone else. Then we can have a fun discussion on whether or not it's OK to impose a fundamentally Christian morality on the American population.

[Egann]

In the case of gay marriage the question is: is homosexuality an intrinsic human trait or a behavior? If the former, then you're making a moral judgment about someone based on their fundamental nature as a person, as though judging based on their race or gender.

You make the issue far too much of a dichotomy and clean-cut. The first thing my Psych 101 professor drummed out of my head was that you cannot prove causation, only link correlation. In this particular case, there's plenty of room for something to be both an intrinsic trait AND a behavior by choice, somewhat like how people can be genetically predisposed to alcoholism don't have a determined fate. Bad metaphor, I know, but you get the point; don't expect an absolute answer when you're discussing behavior. Especially behavior on a continuum. This is not at all like it is with gender or race, which are very much deterministic and reasonably cleanly cut, even if race is quite culturally relative about it.

Remember; the brain works by rewiring and pruning its connections. Just predispositions aren't enough to make something permanent. Not with the brain, anyway.

[MikePetersSucks]

Arunma already mentioned all that, Egann. In the same post.

[Egann]

Not really. He did mention "illegal things can be inheritable," but his basic point was that orientation was either inborn trait or a behavior and each of those lead to certain moral conclusions. My point is it could be--and probably is--partly inborn trait and partly behavior at the same time, and not necessarily in a cleanly differentiated manner. Basically arunma was asking a loaded question without realizing it.

In any case, having to make a post like this which basically rehashes the last exchange makes me leery of Contro of olden times. If anyone has a question for me specifically, feel free to PM me. I'm off this thread.

Edited by Egann, 14 August 2012 - 03:10 PM.

[Sir Turtlelot]

Just came across this article before signing in to check email.

[wisp]

I do hope they stick with the decision. I have so missed their chicken and lemonade, and I would love to start eating there again if I know my money won't get forwarded on to organizations I strongly oppose.