Am I a close-minded bigot?

[Huz]

Originally posted by: BaliBabyDoc

I am an analytical thinker and I'm directed by facts, not emotion. I tend to think of things based upon their logic, and debate based upon the facts as they are presented to me.

Almost everyone believes themselves to be analytical and logical. The problem is most people have no logic training (essentially relying on common sense; which is a function of experience). They depend heavily on their worldview which they rarely challenge. To borrow from Thomas Gilovich common offenses include:

Misperception and Misinterpretation of Random Data
Misinterpretation of Incomplete and Unrepresentative Data
Biased Evaluation of Ambiguous and Inconsistent Data (real bad at ATOT)
Motivational Determinants of Belief
Biasing Effects of Secondhand Information
Exaggerated Impressions of Social Support

In sum, the pitfalls of analysis (particularly human logic) are abundant. It is only those constantly willing to challenge closely held beliefs (by seeking credible contradictory information) instead of rallying to expressions consistent with previously held notions that have a fighting chance. Everybody has committed the sin. The question is whether you honestly persue redemption. If not, then you just might be a close-minded bigot. Granted, the odds are high that your accuser may fit the profile as well.

Very well said.

 

[BaliBabyDoc]

Not hard to do when you've got good resources. Instead of How We Know What Isn't So: The Fallibility of Human Reason in Everyday Life Gilovich should have titled his book How Come We Don't Know Diddly: Lies, BS, and Damn You're Stupid.

 

[BooneRebel]

Originally posted by: flavioBut you want to force your likes/dislikes on to others as opposed to being guided by facts and logic as you suggested.

Please tell me where I have tried to force my likes/dislikes on to others. I'm simply stating what I think, I'm not telling you what to think. This goes back to my original question, isn't it possible to disagree with someone without being labeled a bigot?

 

[flavio]

Originally posted by: BooneRebel

Originally posted by: flavioBut you want to force your likes/dislikes on to others as opposed to being guided by facts and logic as you suggested.

Please tell me where I have tried to force my likes/dislikes on to others. I'm simply stating what I think, I'm not telling you what to think. This goes back to my original question, isn't it possible to disagree with someone without being labeled a bigot?

The fact the you would have a comic book that you don't like not exist, or that "demand not be met" suggests that you would force you beliefs on others as opposed to just not buying it yourself.

 

[BooneRebel]

Originally posted by: flavio

Originally posted by: BooneRebel

Originally posted by: flavioBut you want to force your likes/dislikes on to others as opposed to being guided by facts and logic as you suggested.

Please tell me where I have tried to force my likes/dislikes on to others. I'm simply stating what I think, I'm not telling you what to think. This goes back to my original question, isn't it possible to disagree with someone without being labeled a bigot?

The fact the you would have a comic book that you don't like not exist, or that "demand not be met" suggests that you would force you beliefs on others as opposed to just not buying it yourself.

Given that the content concerns an illegal activity, I think we have an obligation to see that the demand not be met. SnapIT hates the comparison, but how do you feel about kiddie porn? We have laws against it in the US but the demand obviously exists. Are you in favor of filling that demand as well?

 

[skace]

"Given that the content concerns an illegal activity, I think we have an obligation to see that the demand not be met. SnapIT hates the comparison, but how do you feel about kiddie porn? We have laws against it in the US but the demand obviously exists. Are you in favor of filling that demand as well?"

Wow.... just wow.

 

[flavio]

Originally posted by: BooneRebel

Originally posted by: flavio

Originally posted by: BooneRebel

Originally posted by: flavioBut you want to force your likes/dislikes on to others as opposed to being guided by facts and logic as you suggested.

Please tell me where I have tried to force my likes/dislikes on to others. I'm simply stating what I think, I'm not telling you what to think. This goes back to my original question, isn't it possible to disagree with someone without being labeled a bigot?

The fact the you would have a comic book that you don't like not exist, or that "demand not be met" suggests that you would force you beliefs on others as opposed to just not buying it yourself.

Given that the content concerns an illegal activity, I think we have an obligation to see that the demand not be met. SnapIT hates the comparison, but how do you feel about kiddie porn? We have laws against it in the US but the demand obviously exists. Are you in favor of filling that demand as well?

As stated in the other thread I don't believe there is a law against gay characters in comic books.

...and apparently there's a law in your state against oral sex. I think you have an obligation to make sure none of the guys down there get any hummers from their girlfriends.

 

[BaliBabyDoc]

Given that the content concerns an illegal activity, I think we have an obligation to see that the demand not be met. SnapIT hates the comparison, but how do you feel about kiddie porn? We have laws against it in the US but the demand obviously exists. Are you in favor of filling that demand as well?

A better example would be prohibited activity between consenting adults.
Dick and Jane missionary OK. Dick and Tom missionary not OK except maybe HI/VT.
Dick and Jane 69 OK depending on the state. Dick and Tom 69 not OK except maybe HI/VT.
Dick and Jane (age 13) not OK. Dick and Jane (age 13) but married OK in certain states . . . that voted for Bush.
Miscegenation is still an ugly word but it is no longer illegal b/c it basically describes two people marrying or loving (in various forms) one another.
Kiddie porn is disgusting and should be punishable to the furthest extent of the law . . . but what is the difference between 17yrs364days23hrs and 18yrs old? About 5-10 depending on the state.

Don't use the law to argue health or morality b/c most of our code no longer has health or morality as its basis.

 

[FeathersMcGraw]

Originally posted by: BooneRebel
Given that the content concerns an illegal activity, I think we have an obligation to see that the demand not be met. SnapIT hates the comparison, but how do you feel about kiddie porn? We have laws against it in the US but the demand obviously exists. Are you in favor of filling that demand as well?

Fortunately, 0roo0roo posted a very nice link that we can put to good use here.

The only problem is that I lack formal debate training, so I'm having trouble figuring out if the implication that flavio supports child pornography qualifies as an ad hominem abusive attack or a false analogy comparing the consequences of homosexuality to that of child sexual exploitation.

 

[BooneRebel]

Originally posted by: BaliBabyDocDon't use the law to argue health or morality b/c most of our code no longer has health or morality as its basis.

That's an interesting thought. I think you could argue that all laws have health or morality at their basis. Even the most oddball tax code has at it's root the idea of 'fairness', don't you think? And most of our laws are dictated by the idea of what is right or wrong or socially acceptable to the majority. It's called the common good.

 

[Jzero]

I just want to know when words like "bigot," "bias" and "prejudice" crossed from being normal nouns to pejoratives.

 

[Yossarian]

After skimming the threads, I would like to change my "need more info" vote to a fat "yes".

 

[BooneRebel]

Originally posted by: FeathersMcGraw

Originally posted by: BooneRebel
Given that the content concerns an illegal activity, I think we have an obligation to see that the demand not be met. SnapIT hates the comparison, but how do you feel about kiddie porn? We have laws against it in the US but the demand obviously exists. Are you in favor of filling that demand as well?

Fortunately, 0roo0roo posted a very nice link that we can put to good use here.

The only problem is that I lack formal debate training, so I'm having trouble figuring out if the implication that flavio supports child pornography qualifies as an ad hominem abusive attack or a false analogy comparing the consequences of homosexuality to that of child sexual exploitation.

Dig a little deeper. We aren't comparing the consequences of homosexuality to that of child sexual exploitation. Only the idea of answering the market demand for something that is expressly against the law.

 

[Fausto]

Originally posted by: BooneRebel

Originally posted by: BaliBabyDocDon't use the law to argue health or morality b/c most of our code no longer has health or morality as its basis.

That's an interesting thought. I think you could argue that all laws have health or morality at their basis. Even the most oddball tax code has at it's root the idea of 'fairness', don't you think? And most of our laws are dictated by the idea of what is right or wrong or socially acceptable to the majority. It's called the common good.

Two problems in that statement:

1. Right/wrong and "socially acceptible to the majority" are two totally different things. Slavery is the first example of this I can think of.

2. What does someone receiving oral sex from any other consenting person of age have to do with the common good? It has exactly zero bearing on the day to day lives of everyone else since they aren't even aware it's happening (unless the couple is into the web-cam thing ). Since it matters not in the broad sense, why are these laws still on the books?

 

[waggy]

Originally posted by: BooneRebel

Originally posted by: flavio

Originally posted by: BooneRebel

Originally posted by: flavioBut you want to force your likes/dislikes on to others as opposed to being guided by facts and logic as you suggested.

Please tell me where I have tried to force my likes/dislikes on to others. I'm simply stating what I think, I'm not telling you what to think. This goes back to my original question, isn't it possible to disagree with someone without being labeled a bigot?

The fact the you would have a comic book that you don't like not exist, or that "demand not be met" suggests that you would force you beliefs on others as opposed to just not buying it yourself.

Given that the content concerns an illegal activity, I think we have an obligation to see that the demand not be met. SnapIT hates the comparison, but how do you feel about kiddie porn? We have laws against it in the US but the demand obviously exists. Are you in favor of filling that demand as well?

ya! way to jump topics!

childporn = gay sex. well only in the church! ha!

 

[flavio]

Originally posted by: BooneRebel

Originally posted by: FeathersMcGraw

Originally posted by: BooneRebel
Given that the content concerns an illegal activity, I think we have an obligation to see that the demand not be met. SnapIT hates the comparison, but how do you feel about kiddie porn? We have laws against it in the US but the demand obviously exists. Are you in favor of filling that demand as well?

Fortunately, 0roo0roo posted a very nice link that we can put to good use here.

The only problem is that I lack formal debate training, so I'm having trouble figuring out if the implication that flavio supports child pornography qualifies as an ad hominem abusive attack or a false analogy comparing the consequences of homosexuality to that of child sexual exploitation.

I support child porn?

Wait...lemme check out these links. I think that while the second link is close and the third is right on. By combining the two you would probably get the most effective "flavio supports child porn" combo.

 

[BooneRebel]

Originally posted by: Fausto1

Originally posted by: BooneRebel

Originally posted by: BaliBabyDocDon't use the law to argue health or morality b/c most of our code no longer has health or morality as its basis.

That's an interesting thought. I think you could argue that all laws have health or morality at their basis. Even the most oddball tax code has at it's root the idea of 'fairness', don't you think? And most of our laws are dictated by the idea of what is right or wrong or socially acceptable to the majority. It's called the common good.

Two problems in that statement:

1. Right/wrong and "socially acceptible to the majority" are two totally different things. Slavery is the first example of this I can think of.

2. What does someone receiving oral sex from any other consenting person of age have to do with the common good? It has exactly zero bearing on the day to day lives of everyone else since they aren't even aware it's happening (unless the couple is into the web-cam thing ). Since it matters not in the broad sense, why are these laws still on the books?

So, is your argument with the messenger or with the system?

 

[Fausto]

Originally posted by: BooneRebel

Originally posted by: Fausto1

Originally posted by: BooneRebel

Originally posted by: BaliBabyDocDon't use the law to argue health or morality b/c most of our code no longer has health or morality as its basis.

That's an interesting thought. I think you could argue that all laws have health or morality at their basis. Even the most oddball tax code has at it's root the idea of 'fairness', don't you think? And most of our laws are dictated by the idea of what is right or wrong or socially acceptable to the majority. It's called the common good.

Two problems in that statement:

1. Right/wrong and "socially acceptible to the majority" are two totally different things. Slavery is the first example of this I can think of.

2. What does someone receiving oral sex from any other consenting person of age have to do with the common good? It has exactly zero bearing on the day to day lives of everyone else since they aren't even aware it's happening (unless the couple is into the web-cam thing ). Since it matters not in the broad sense, why are these laws still on the books?

So, is your argument with the messenger or with the system?

Both, but for the same reason.

 

[Siddhartha]

Originally posted by: BooneRebel
I am an analytical thinker and I'm directed by facts, not emotion. I tend to think of things based upon their logic, and debate based upon the facts as they are presented to me. However, I've gotten into disagreements with a couple of people here lately that gave me this label. Is it possible to disagree with someone without being a bigot?
*Edit: threads in question below*
There are a couple of long reads:

Here and here

Reader's digest condensed version:

Do we need an explicitly gay comic hero? My answer: No

15 year-old performs oral sex on a school bus - right or wrong? My answer: Wrong

Explain to me logically what is your problem with a homosexual comic character? What are the facts that support your opinions?

Do you buy comics?

 

[FeathersMcGraw]

Originally posted by: BooneRebel

Originally posted by: FeathersMcGraw
The only problem is that I lack formal debate training, so I'm having trouble figuring out if the implication that flavio supports child pornography qualifies as an ad hominem abusive attack or a false analogy comparing the consequences of homosexuality to that of child sexual exploitation.

Dig a little deeper. We aren't comparing the consequences of homosexuality to that of child sexual exploitation. Only the idea of answering the market demand for something that is expressly against the law.

Are these laws in a state of active enforcement? If not, there's very little distinction between a law against homosexual behavior and not having a law against it.

Laws are reflections of the societies that create them and are not inviolate, unchanging entities. If they were, we'd still be a country of (bootlegging) teetotallers.

 

[BooneRebel]

Originally posted by: Dr SmoothExplain to me logically what is your problem with a homosexual comic character? What are the facts that support your opinions?

Do you buy comics?

I've described the homosexual lifestyle as abnormal and unhealthy. Facts abound in the original thread. At a minimum, they are sterile and have a high mortality rate due to STDs.

No, I don't buy comics. I did read them at one time, but I think it's something you outgrow as you mature.

*Edit: Did that italic thing again. I like the old quoting system better...

 

[Fausto]

Originally posted by: BooneRebel

Originally posted by: Dr SmoothExplain to me logically what is your problem with a homosexual comic character? What are the facts that support your opinions?

Do you buy comics?

I've described the homosexual lifestyle as abnormal and unhealthy. Facts abound in the original thread. At a minimum, they are sterile and have a high mortality rate due to STDs.

No, I don't buy comics. I did read them at one time, but I think it's something you outgrow as you mature.

*Edit: Did that italic thing again. I like the old quoting system better...

I'll toss in this quote from the other thread for purposes of illustration:

I think gays are an aberration. Does that make me a bigot? Whether it's a choice or genetic, it's a harmful, high-risk life. It's certainly not a healthy lifestyle, why does everyone feel the need to publicly recognize gays? I don't go around carrying a "I'm a heterosexual" flag, do I? Whether a serial-killer murders by choice or by genetic abnormality, I think that they're harmful to the human race. The same can be said for gays.

Okay, answer a few questions for me (I'm just Mister List-o-Stuff today, aren't I?)

1. The "high-risk", "high mortality" thing: Suppose, for a second, that AIDS patient "zero" had not been a gay man (you'll have to do some reading if you want the full story of the early days of HIV in the US. Trust me when I say that the CDC did in fact trace the initial outbreak back to one person). Suppose he were Joe Average 20-something who went out to clubs, hooked up occasionally, and thereby the intitial seeds of the US AIDS epidemic were sewn in the heterosexual population. Would you still have this same opinion about homosexuality (since HIV is the only inherently fatal STD running around these days)? Before you answer, consider carefully the plight of Africa and southeast Asia; most of the AIDS epidemic in these two areas are confined to the heterosexual population.

2. You used the term "harmful" to describe the gay lifestyle. Harmful to whom and why?

 

[BooneRebel]

1. A homosexual has a greater risk of contracting an STD than a heterosexual.

2. Sterility. The greater the percentage of homosexuals in the population, the less likely the population is going to exist in the next generation. What is so hard to understand about this concept?

 

[Fausto]

Originally posted by: BooneRebel
1. A homosexual has a greater risk of contracting an STD than a heterosexual.

Only if they chose not to practice safe sex. STD's don't care either way. Again, take a look at Africa, southeast Asia or Russia.

2. Sterility. The greater the percentage of homosexuals in the population, the less likely the population is going to exist in the next generation. What is so hard to understand about this concept?

What's hard to understand is why you consider this to be any kind of valid point. Last I checked, we humans were polluting cities, the environment, and starving to death in many areas because there are just too damn many of us. It's not like Homo sapiens sapiens is teetering on the brink of extinction right now.

 

[BooneRebel]

Originally posted by: Fausto1

Originally posted by: BooneRebel
1. A homosexual has a greater risk of contracting an STD than a heterosexual.

Only if they chose not to practice safe sex. STD's don't care either way. Again, take a look at Africa, southeast Asia or Russia.

2. Sterility. The greater the percentage of homosexuals in the population, the less likely the population is going to exist in the next generation. What is so hard to understand about this concept?

What's hard to understand is why you consider this to be any kind of valid point. Last I checked, we humans were polluting cities, the environment, and starving to death in many areas because there are just too damn many of us. It's not like Homo sapiens sapiens is teetering on the brink of extinction right now.

I'm talking about in general. But it sounds like you might want to start another thread on the possible benefits of homosexuality on humanity.