Tracer Tong wrote:It looks to me like a list of things that harms others and/or oneself, a further example of which is supposedly participating in homosexual relationships. Nowhere do I see an argument that "people shouldn't do something because someone else believes its harmful".

The whole point of this campaign is to tell people not to indulge in homosexual behaviour and to try and get corrective therapy. That's literally what this organisation is arguing for.

Tracer Tong wrote:If you don't think it's possible to change such people's minds, that's fine, I guess. I'm rather of the view that seeds of doubt can be sown, and that's it's important to represent the positions one disagrees with properly. Note that this isn't about lending any degree of sympathy.

Well, fair enough. I certainly don't think I'll be changing the minds of these campaigners by my posts on ratskep, or sowing seeds of doubt regardless of what tack I take though.

laklak wrote:It's difficult for someone from the UK or mainland Europe to understand just how medieval these people's thought processes are. You have to live among them to get the full bat-shit flavor.

I don't think you're actually supposed to lick them.

I figured since they eat their God and drink His blood, a little lick wouldn't hurt anybody.

Thommo wrote:

Tracer Tong wrote:It looks to me like a list of things that harms others and/or oneself, a further example of which is supposedly participating in homosexual relationships. Nowhere do I see an argument that "people shouldn't do something because someone else believes its harmful".

The whole point of this campaign is to tell people not to indulge in homosexual behaviour and to try and get corrective therapy. That's literally what this organisation is arguing for.

I don't disagree, but I still don't see an argument that "people shouldn't do something because someone else believes its harmful", though. Their argument (to the extent they have one) is, in my view, a poor one, but this isn't it.

laklak wrote:

Tracer Tong wrote: But it’s probably a good idea to understand where they’re coming from. Heck, it may even be that in doing that, you may one day be in a position whereby you’ve an opportunity to change someone’s mind.

A radical thought, that!

As a general rule I agree, but I've dealt with this sort of fundy Xtian my entire life, and can count on one hand the number of them who were willing to even listen to an opposing viewpoint, let alone actually change their position. They're righteous, you see.

It's difficult for someone from the UK or mainland Europe to understand just how medieval these people's thought processes are. You have to live among them to get the full bat-shit flavor.

At this point, I've dealt with enough fundamentalist Christians that pretty much nothing would surprise me, and I don't doubt that trying to dialogue with some of them is completely pointless.

But given the background of the author of the quotations in the OP, I suspect she would be at least prepared to do some listening. And people are generally more willing to do that when you're representing their beliefs carefully and fairly.

Tracer Tong wrote:

Thommo wrote:

Tracer Tong wrote:It looks to me like a list of things that harms others and/or oneself, a further example of which is supposedly participating in homosexual relationships. Nowhere do I see an argument that "people shouldn't do something because someone else believes its harmful".

The whole point of this campaign is to tell people not to indulge in homosexual behaviour and to try and get corrective therapy. That's literally what this organisation is arguing for.

I don't disagree, but I still don't see an argument that "people shouldn't do something because someone else believes its harmful", though. Their argument (to the extent they have one) is, in my view, a poor one, but this isn't it.

Clearly we disagree. I think their argument can be phrased exactly in that form, namely:

"[Other] people shouldn't be homosexual because I believe it is harmful".

Thommo wrote:

Tracer Tong wrote:

Thommo wrote:

Tracer Tong wrote:It looks to me like a list of things that harms others and/or oneself, a further example of which is supposedly participating in homosexual relationships. Nowhere do I see an argument that "people shouldn't do something because someone else believes its harmful".

The whole point of this campaign is to tell people not to indulge in homosexual behaviour and to try and get corrective therapy. That's literally what this organisation is arguing for.

I don't disagree, but I still don't see an argument that "people shouldn't do something because someone else believes its harmful", though. Their argument (to the extent they have one) is, in my view, a poor one, but this isn't it.

Clearly we disagree. I think their argument can be phrased exactly in that form, namely:

"[Other] people shouldn't be homosexual because I believe it is harmful".

Now that's a different argument you're suggesting they've made, but still looks incorrect. The correct characterisation is something like "People shouldn't be homosexual because it is sinful and harmful". It's what they regard as the facts of homosexuality's sinfulness and harmfulness that matter for them, not their commitment to these putative facts.

Tracer Tong wrote:

Thommo wrote:

Tracer Tong wrote:

Thommo wrote:

The whole point of this campaign is to tell people not to indulge in homosexual behaviour and to try and get corrective therapy. That's literally what this organisation is arguing for.

I don't disagree, but I still don't see an argument that "people shouldn't do something because someone else believes its harmful", though. Their argument (to the extent they have one) is, in my view, a poor one, but this isn't it.

Clearly we disagree. I think their argument can be phrased exactly in that form, namely:

"[Other] people shouldn't be homosexual because I believe it is harmful".

Now that's a different argument you're suggesting they've made, but still looks incorrect. The correct characterisation is something like "People shouldn't be homosexual because it is sinful and harmful". It's what they regard as the facts of homosexuality's sinfulness and harmfulness that matter for them, not their commitment to these putative facts.

Then what function does the deliberate juxtaposition of the text I responded to serve?

“Should you stop beating your wife even if you really want to continue? YES. Should you not kill someone even if you’re really wanting to go through with it? YES.
Should you get clean if you have a drug problem and are destroying yourself and those who love you even if you still like getting high? YES. Should you stop cheating on your spouse even if you like the attention you’re getting from someone else? YES,”

I see no other purpose for a list of specifics of varying character and all of the same form than to imply or affirm the generalisation.

Thommo wrote:

Tracer Tong wrote:

Thommo wrote:

Tracer Tong wrote:

I don't disagree, but I still don't see an argument that "people shouldn't do something because someone else believes its harmful", though. Their argument (to the extent they have one) is, in my view, a poor one, but this isn't it.

Clearly we disagree. I think their argument can be phrased exactly in that form, namely:

"[Other] people shouldn't be homosexual because I believe it is harmful".

Now that's a different argument you're suggesting they've made, but still looks incorrect. The correct characterisation is something like "People shouldn't be homosexual because it is sinful and harmful". It's what they regard as the facts of homosexuality's sinfulness and harmfulness that matter for them, not their commitment to these putative facts.

Then what function does the deliberate juxtaposition of the text I responded to serve?

“Should you stop beating your wife even if you really want to continue? YES. Should you not kill someone even if you’re really wanting to go through with it? YES.
Should you get clean if you have a drug problem and are destroying yourself and those who love you even if you still like getting high? YES. Should you stop cheating on your spouse even if you like the attention you’re getting from someone else? YES,”

I see no other purpose for a list of specifics of varying character and all of the same form than to imply or affirm the generalisation.

Right: and homosexuality is supposed to be a further example of something that is harmful to onself or others, but something that one may want to do anyway, and in that way is analogous to the examples cited. But I don’t know what this has to do with the characterisations of their argument that you’ve provided so far.

I think we're probably going around in circles now, I've already said that I think they've listed a number of specifics following that form with the intention of justifying the general following that form, and it was that generalisation you asked me to explain.

Thommo wrote:I think we're probably going around in circles now, I've already said that I think they've listed a number of specifics following that form with the intention of justifying the general following that form, and it was that generalisation you asked me to explain.

I’ve asked you to explain where you get the idea from that their argument is “people shouldn't do something because someone else believes its harmful". I don’t see anything remotely like that in the quoted text, so if it’s from somewhere else, you’re welcome to link me.

As for the generalisation they’re getting at, it’s along the lines that people shouldn’t harm others, or even oneself, even if one enjoys engaging in the harmful behaviour. Homosexuality is supposed to be a case of this, as is adultery and drug abuse.

On the grounds that we assume she isn't talking to herself, that's what I'm saying, it's all there and I'll just be repeating myself if I go over it again now.

Your restatement is that she is telling people "that people shouldn't harm others... even if one enjoys engaging in the harmful behaviour". My original post that we are trying to clarify was that her behaviour was harmful to others and she shouldn't do it even if she enjoys (or otherwise profits from) engaging in it.

Thommo wrote:On the grounds that we assume she isn't talking to herself, that's what I'm saying, it's all there and I'll just be repeating myself if I go over it again now.

Your restatement is that she is telling people "that people shouldn't harm others... even if one enjoys engaging in the harmful behaviour". My original post that we are trying to clarify was that her behaviour was harmful to others and she shouldn't do it even if she enjoys (or otherwise profits from) engaging in it.

I don't think you've understood what I'm asking for. You've characterised her argument as "people shouldn't do something because someone else believes its harmful". I'm asking you where you get the idea from that this is her argument; I'm not asking whether you think her behaviour is harmful, and that therefore she shouldn't engage in it.

It demonstrably is her argument, she thinks other people shouldn't do something because she believes it's harmful. She doesn't say, "But if you don't believe it's a sin, then don't listen to me!" Whether she believes it's a sin fervently with all her heart is of no relevance whatsoever, it's a belief any way you slice it.

SafeAsMilk wrote:It demonstrably is her argument, she thinks other people shouldn't do something because she believes it's harmful. She doesn't say, "But if you don't believe it's a sin, then don't listen to me!" Whether she believes it's a sin fervently with all her heart is of no relevance whatsoever, it's a belief any way you slice it.

It isn't her argument, and neither is "she thinks other people shouldn't do something because she believes it's harmful", as I mentioned earlier. At least, these arguments aren't present in the OP's quotations; perhaps they're elsewhere, though I doubt it.

Thomes argues that people should stop being gay even if they want to, because it’s wrong.

There's that "wrong" word. Sez feckin' 'oo? Why, her, of course. It's not like she's saying "The statement 2+2=5 is wrong", she's saying that being gay is wrong. Now, that's a moral judgment if I've ever seen one. Live in the Babble Belt long enough and you'll soon spot moral judgments before they even crest the rise. Another thing you learn is "moral" is almost always preceded by "good" and followed by "Christian". So now we got good, moral Christians, we got something wrong, put 'em together and what do you get? SIN, that's what.

Now, not being a Christian myself I don't believe in sin. It's bullshit. But she does, she believes the shit out of it. And she don't like it one little bit. It offends her good, moral Christian sensibilities. She figures people who are too weak in Faith to Pray Away The Gay!, and who want to continue their gay, Hellbound ways in violation of God's inerrant word, should just cut it the fuck out. Just fucking STOP IT. Because it offends her, and all those other good, moral Christians out there. You can bet your ass these people think it's harmful, they think it's fucking Biblically harmful. And they'd be more than happy, given half a chance, to shove their doctrinal morality down eveybody else's throats at gunpoint.

Tracer Tong wrote:

SafeAsMilk wrote:It demonstrably is her argument, she thinks other people shouldn't do something because she believes it's harmful. She doesn't say, "But if you don't believe it's a sin, then don't listen to me!" Whether she believes it's a sin fervently with all her heart is of no relevance whatsoever, it's a belief any way you slice it.

It isn't her argument, and neither is "she thinks other people shouldn't do something because she believes it's harmful", as I mentioned earlier.

Yes it is, and it's exactly what you said it is yourself.

As for the generalisation they’re getting at, it’s along the lines that people shouldn’t harm others, or even oneself, even if one enjoys engaging in the harmful behaviour. Homosexuality is supposed to be a case of this, as is adultery and drug abuse.

So she compares it to harmful behavior, but you don't think she's saying she believes it's harmful behavior. OK

At least, these arguments aren't present in the OP's quotations; perhaps they're elsewhere, though I doubt it.

Sure, tell yourself whatever you like.

laklak wrote:

Thomes argues that people should stop being gay even if they want to, because it’s wrong.

There's that "wrong" word. Sez feckin' 'oo? Why, her, of course. It's not like she's saying "The statement 2+2=5 is wrong", she's saying that being gay is wrong. Now, that's a moral judgment if I've ever seen one. Live in the Babble Belt long enough and you'll soon spot moral judgments before they even crest the rise. Another thing you learn is "moral" is almost always preceded by "good" and followed by "Christian". So now we got good, moral Christians, we got something wrong, put 'em together and what do you get? SIN, that's what.

Now, not being a Christian myself I don't believe in sin. It's bullshit. But she does, she believes the shit out of it. And she don't like it one little bit. It offends her good, moral Christian sensibilities. She figures people who are too weak in Faith to Pray Away The Gay!, and who want to continue their gay, Hellbound ways in violation of God's inerrant word, should just cut it the fuck out. Just fucking STOP IT. Because it offends her, and all those other good, moral Christians out there. You can bet your ass these people think it's harmful, they think it's fucking Biblically harmful. And they'd be more than happy, given half a chance, to shove their doctrinal morality down eveybody else's throats at gunpoint.

Come on, you can't say that of good Christians ! It's not like they already did it, is it ?

What disturbs me about such testimonies is that they demonstrate just how powerful and insidious religious indoctrination is. In the end, wether she allowed herself to live out her homosexuality or not, both dealt in her faith. At first, based on the "Thou shalt not judge" commandment, she felt that allowing herself to express what is most likely her true orientation was fine, which had the benefit of being her own interpretation. Of course, she went on to study scripture, get some 'guidance,' only to realize that she was "wrong" and as such is probably in some way convinced that she, herself, chose to conform to the Christian norm and accept that only heterosexuality is acceptable. She does seem like a nice person, and all I can hope for is that she is not profoundly unhappy as a result of living a life based on standards which I do not believe are entirely her own.

Tracer Tong wrote:
I don't think you've understood what I'm asking for. You've characterised her argument as "people shouldn't do something because someone else believes its harmful". I'm asking you where you get the idea from that this is her argument; I'm not asking whether you think her behaviour is harmful, and that therefore she shouldn't engage in it.

It doesn't matter what her argument is, and especially in light of that, what you're asking for, if it's not an argument that it IS harmful, with some facts to support it. That doesn't countenance wibble such as its being harmful to the social fabric. Both you and she know what you and she can do with the putative social fabric; if it's yours, too, well, whoop-de-doo. Declare your bona fides coming in the door. If it's just muscle for muscle, fuck it, entirely, because hooting about what someone else has not understood is not to demonstrate that the failure of understanding is his fault.

laklak wrote:

Thomes argues that people should stop being gay even if they want to, because it’s wrong.

There's that "wrong" word. Sez feckin' 'oo? Why, her, of course. It's not like she's saying "The statement 2+2=5 is wrong", she's saying that being gay is wrong. Now, that's a moral judgment if I've ever seen one. Live in the Babble Belt long enough and you'll soon spot moral judgments before they even crest the rise. Another thing you learn is "moral" is almost always preceded by "good" and followed by "Christian". So now we got good, moral Christians, we got something wrong, put 'em together and what do you get? SIN, that's what.

Now, not being a Christian myself I don't believe in sin. It's bullshit. But she does, she believes the shit out of it. And she don't like it one little bit. It offends her good, moral Christian sensibilities. She figures people who are too weak in Faith to Pray Away The Gay!, and who want to continue their gay, Hellbound ways in violation of God's inerrant word, should just cut it the fuck out. Just fucking STOP IT. Because it offends her, and all those other good, moral Christians out there. You can bet your ass these people think it's harmful, they think it's fucking Biblically harmful. And they'd be more than happy, given half a chance, to shove their doctrinal morality down eveybody else's throats at gunpoint.

The Hellbound bit is presumably the crucial aspect of their thinking here? If you think hell exists, then going there is objectively harmful for the lost souls. There's a chilling essay by St Thomas More explaining why he enthusiastically burnt a number of Protestants (I think 6) alive: he was trying to save as many people as possible from the everlasting fire by frightening them. The ones being burnt were headed that way anyway, an hour or two extra would make very little difference. I can't fault his logic, only his belief in hell. It does seem to me that the absence of hell is one feature of an atheist universe which is unequivocally better than many religious versions.