joint chiefs chair says homosexuality is immoral

angelica

dharma69 wrote:

I really don't know why you should give a rat's ass about anything or anyone else's opinion....and I don't know why you would have a rat's ass to give but that's wholly your business.

I'm more inclined to be an independent thinker.

Acting in ignorance is not the same as independent thinking.

dharma69

angelica wrote:

Acting in ignorance is not the same as independent thinking.

This is true.

But I've yet to act in ignorance so that simply doesn't apply to me.

But thank you for the update.

angelica

dharma69 wrote:

This is true.

But I've yet to act in ignorance so that simply doesn't apply to me.

But thank you for the update.

You said you don't know or care about all of the other opinions in this thread. Independent thinking is based on knowledge of the variables involved, imo, not ignorance of them. In this debate, you are apparently not very aware of the actual debate that has taken place. (okay, there was a lot of silly dancing thrown in there, too. ) Therefore, jumping in and not caring about the debate, itself, it would appear that you are interested in your own ego and displaying it, rather than a debate, discussion or interaction.

dharma69

angelica wrote:

You said you don't know or care about all of the other opinions in this thread. Independent thinking is based on knowledge of the variables involved, imo, not ignorance of them. In this debate, you are apparently not very aware of the actual debate that has taken place. (okay, there was a lot of silly dancing thrown in there, too. ) Therefore, jumping in and not caring about the debate, itself, it would appear that you are interested in your own ego and displaying it, rather than a debate, discussion or interaction.

Actually independent thinking is also based on forming one's own conclusions regardless of outside influence or impressions. I don't and did not need to know what any of you think on this subject to know what it is I think on this subject. Can you simply understand that and not be so waylaid by a few little words like "I don't care"? I think that you can.

Ego simply is. You'll display yours and I'll display mine accordingly...as we just have.

angelica

dharma69 wrote:

Actually independent thinking is also based on forming one's own conclusions regardless of outside influence or impressions. I don't and did not need to know what any of you think on this subject to know what it is I think on this subject. Can you simply understand that and not be so waylaid by a few little words like "I don't care"? I think that you can.

Ego simply is. You'll display yours and I'll display mine accordingly...as we just have.

It's fine to develop opinions on your own. To show blatant disregard for the variables of the debate and for fellow debaters involved in the debate seems not as much independent as anti-social to me. It's certainly your perogative to be so. If you notice people aren't well-responsive to your technique, you don't have to like it, and yet at least you'll understand the "why" of it.

Ahnimus

dharma69. I'm curious why don't respond to my reply which actually intended to continue the debate on the ethics of making the statement "homosexuality is immoral".

Instead, you got sucked into debating with Angelica a rather pointless discussion of wether or not there was hipocrisy in your post.

dharma69

angelica wrote:

It's fine to develop opinions on your own. To show blatant disregard for the variables of the debate and for fellow debaters involved in the debate seems not as much independent as anti-social to me. It's certainly your perogative to be so. If you notice people aren't well-responsive to your technique, you don't have to like it, and yet at least you'll understand the "why" of it.

Fair play, but the *variables* weren't overly important to me at the time of posting and they still aren't. And I was less interested (in this case) in debating anything than I was in simply stating my point and being done with it...as I still am. That's not anti-social. That's simply being direct.

I'm wounded that the whole 2 of you are so unresponsive to my *technique*.

And I'm well with understanding...especially if it goes both ways.

dharma69

Ahnimus wrote:

dharma69. I'm curious why don't respond to my reply which actually intended to continue the debate on the ethics of making the statement "homosexuality is immoral".

Instead, you got sucked into debating with Angelica a rather pointless discussion of wether or not there was hipocrisy in your post.

I did Ahnimus respond ...didn't I?

And not so pointless when people get their points across. Tiresome, but not so pointless.

Ahnimus

dharma69 wrote:

I did Ahnimus respond ...didn't I?

And not so pointless when people get their points across. Tiresome, but not so pointless.

So you did. My apologies, I didn't see it.

Well, I actually agree that the freedom to speak shouldn't be limited. We should be able to say whatever we want, it should only be our intentions that are reviewed. If I intend to incite hatred against a group, then that would fall into hate speech. I'm not saying that we should criminalize it either. Maybe we can just demoralize the statement. I think humiliation is a good method of altering minds.

angelica

Ahnimus wrote:

Instead, you got sucked into debating with Angelica a rather pointless discussion of wether or not there was hipocrisy in your post.

The king of anal and pointless conversations is calling out the queen? lol

Don't forget your anima, dude.

angelica

dharma69 wrote:

Fair play, but the *variables* weren't overly important to me at the time of posting and they still aren't. And I was less interested (in this case) in debating anything than I was in simply stating my point and being done with it...as I still am. That's not anti-social. That's simply being direct.

I'm wounded that the whole 2 of you are so unresponsive to my *technique*.

And I'm well with understanding...especially if it goes both ways.

The first line in your entrance post said a lot in terms of the law of reciprocity. Have at it. To each their own.

Ahnimus

angelica wrote:

The king of anal and pointless conversations is calling out the queen? lol

Don't forget your anima, dude.

Yea, don't forget your Animus either :P

angelica

Ahnimus wrote:

Yea, don't forget your Animus either :P

It's animus. And I don't, hence the fact that I *try* to get along with people who have very similar yet antagonizingly different, opposing views. I recognize that when it's not working, I've got some animus issues. Just so long as when you criticize me, you realize you're looking in a mirror.

Ahnimus

angelica wrote:

It's animus. And I don't, hence the fact that I *try* to get along with people who have very similar yet antagonizingly different, opposing views. I recognize that when it's not working, I've got some animus issues. Just so long as when you criticize me, you realize you're looking in a mirror.

It's not animus when I'm referring to a proper noun.

angelica

Ahnimus wrote:

It's not animus when I'm referring to a proper noun.

Okay. ( :rolleyes: )

dharma69

angelica wrote:

The king of anal and pointless conversations is calling out the queen? lol

Don't forget your anima, dude.

Did she just call me a Queen?

Nice!

And a pointless conversation is impossible without participants.

I dub thee, Princess!

dharma69

Ahnimus wrote:

So you did. My apologies, I didn't see it.

Well, I actually agree that the freedom to speak shouldn't be limited. We should be able to say whatever we want, it should only be our intentions that are reviewed. If I intend to incite hatred against a group, then that would fall into hate speech. I'm not saying that we should criminalize it either. Maybe we can just demoralize the statement. I think humiliation is a good method of altering minds.

Half of the battle is deciphering *intent* but I honestly think many are more inclined to just throw up the "I'm offended" sign than to allow for another to be human and dissent.

Humiliation is workable.

Ahnimus

dharma69 wrote:

Half of the battle is deciphering *intent* but I honestly think many are more inclined to just throw up the "I'm offended" sign than to allow for another to be human and dissent.

Humiliation is workable.

Well, in Canada, at least. Some law concerning speech is entirely dependent on intention or percieved intention. If I state "I am going to kill you." it only becomes a death threat if you believed that I intended to kill you.

I have a problem with that exact model, for if my intention was not to kill you than all that is at fault is your perception of my statement. Although, I personally do not make such statements due to the possibility someone may interpret it as intent to harm.

So I think, we could certainly try to revise the law regarding hate speech, but it's ultimately in everyone's best interest to avoid using statements that could be interpreted as hate speech.

I think in this example it would have been more acceptable to suggest that homosexuality is not something that would exist in the normal human brain, so therefor it is a disorder of a sort and should be looked at as one. I'd be more inclined to side with that statement than suggesting that a behavior such as homosexuality is immoral. Then is it the behavior in question, homosexuality describes a primary sexual attracion, not neccisarily a behavior. Is it the sex drive or the behavior that is immoral? This statement is too open to criticism, he could be saying the drive is immoral which is beyond the control of homosexuals, if he's stating the behavior is immoral, then he should say it in a different manner with a plan of how to get his ideal results. I think simply stating "Homosexuality is immoral" serves only as a statement of hateful intent. Though I could be wrong.

dharma69

Ahnimus wrote:

I think in this example it would have been more acceptable to suggest that homosexuality is not something that would exist in the normal human brain, so therefor it is a disorder of a sort and should be looked at as one. I'd be more inclined to side with that statement than suggesting that a behavior such as homosexuality is immoral. Then is it the behavior in question, homosexuality describes a primary sexual attracion, not neccisarily a behavior. Is it the sex drive or the behavior that is immoral? This statement is too open to criticism, he could be saying the drive is immoral which is beyond the control of homosexuals, if he's stating the behavior is immoral, then he should say it in a different manner with a plan of how to get his ideal results. I think simply stating "Homosexuality is immoral" serves only as a statement of hateful intent. Though I could be wrong.

I wouldn't color you right or wrong but I would tell you that you'd be entering even more *dangerous* societal territory for daring to suggest/imply that homosexuals aren't *immoral*, which is a word with it's own level of harshness...but instead they're afflicted with a mental/emotion/sexual injury.

Yikes.

But that's the nature of trying to view the workings of the cerebral with the eye of the rational. The circumstances of how those words came out of his mouth have suddenly became less important than his words...which, to me, don't ring of "hate speech". They're just the words of a man who merely said how he feels.

angelica

dharma69 wrote:

Did she just call me a Queen?

Nice!

And a pointless conversation is impossible without participants.

I dub thee, Princess!

Actually, I was referring to myself as the "queen"....it's a bit of a private joke between myself and my animus, er, I mean Ahnimus. Sadly it probably doesn't make much sense to anyone else.