Closing a Thread: Warning! Graphic picture

sprinkles said:
I'm not the only one who can be effected by the words. That is the problem.
Click to expand...

Sure, and I hope you hear my words. That is entirely up to you though. They may be falling on deaf ears as they may often do, and I accept that. I take responsibility for my words and the weight that I try to impart on them and I leave the rest up to those who may read them.

I will also continue to voice my opposition to those I believe try to use their words to hurt others. I only see weakness and insecurity in people who attempt to do so.
 
Matt3737 said:
Sure, and I hope you hear my words. That is entirely up to you though. They may be falling on deaf ears as they may often do, and I accept that. I take responsibility for my words and the weight that I try to impart on them and I leave the rest up to those who may read them.

I will also continue to voice my opposition to those I believe try to use their words to hurt others. I only see weakness and insecurity in people who attempt to do so.
Click to expand...

I get what you're saying. We're going to have to agree to disagree on this one
 
sprinkles said:
[MENTION=9860]Grayman[/MENTION]

Bad ideas are infectious. This was not about changing him - this was about inoculation.

It is not cool to just hang out and be "real" with everyone when they may be going around and doing actual damage with their ideas.
Click to expand...

Good ideas are infectious as well. Anyways, I prefer to not dwell in fear.

Here is what I read in Amad and his posts:
Amad is also afraid but he is afraid that homosexuality is a destructive force and that society has become corrupted somehow. He feels that men are being destroyed by it and he actually wants to make their lives better and thinks that if they stop homosexuality embrace their masculinity they would be happier and they would be able to enjoy life as much as Amad does. Amad cannot hate a homosexual or be discriminatory to a homosexual because to him there is no such thing as a homosexual only people who commit homosexual acts. It would also be false to say that Amad hates people who commit homosexual acts because it is pointless to hate sinners as all people are sinners but he does not like the sin because he feels a sin is a self destructive habit that god says do not do for your own good. Amad's actions are for the good of homosexuals because he wants them to come to realize the same truth that Amad knows and trusts.


The ideas are already going around. They are already causing damage. They are validated among various individuals where you cannot say anything against it. It suddenly appearing on this forum isn't going to suddenly cause more damage. Pushing it out is't going to stop it. Only addressing it allows for people to share in the knowledge that prevents misinformation. Instead of you addressing the misinformation here it will now be somewhere else and maybe without any opposition to his ideas to give the receiver/reader/listener of Amads ideas any better or alternate understanding.


Anyways. I don't think I have anything else to add.
 
Last edited:
[MENTION=9860]Grayman[/MENTION]

Hindsight doesn't change anything either so unless you've got a time machine somewhere to go back and warn us, this is all moot.
 
[MENTION=9860]Grayman[/MENTION] and [MENTION=4822]Matt3737[/MENTION]

I just wanted to say that I really admire the way in which you've both chosen to engage in this thread.

You've been sensitive and respectful but also firm and challenging in your exchange. Matt as you stated, it's about "how we go about having those discussions" and I think you have both provided a really good example on how we as a forum community could all learn and build on the type of interactions we have with each other. You've both attempted to focus on trying to move the dialogue forward but without negating your position and with an emphasis on striving to create an atmosphere for open discussion. This is probably the first time I've witnessed an attempt at "cooperative engagement" since joining this forum so it's refreshing to see and an interesting dialogue to observe. Thank you. :)
 
[MENTION=10171]Isabella[/MENTION]

Why so interested in interesting dialogue? Is this entertaining for you?

Where is the dialogue moving forward to? What do we achieve by open discussion (besides open discussion?)
 
"The language of the totalist environment is characterized by the thought-terminating cliché. The most far-reaching and complex of human problems are compressed into brief, highly reductive, definitive-sounding phrases, easily memorized and easily expressed. These become the start and finish of any ideological analysis." ~Robert Lifton
 
sprinkles said:
[MENTION=10171]Isabella[/MENTION]

Why so interested in interesting dialogue? Is this entertaining for you?

Where is the dialogue moving forward to? What do we achieve by open discussion (besides open discussion?)
Click to expand...

Exactly my thoughts. We're talking about human rights, are all of those up for debate now?
 
What every human does when their foundationalism is questioned or threatened, which is the source of many conflicts:

[video=youtube;N8i5NLyXZdc]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N8i5NLyXZdc[/video]
 
Discrimination isn't always hateful. There's a pitfall here where people talk about why it's always about hate, or they say that they don't hate so and so, or claim to have good intentions and be a nice person or whatever.

That's irrelevant. Discrimination often involves hate yes, but it isn't the strictly defining factor. Neither is how pleasant or affable one is.
 
sprinkles said:
"The language of the totalist environment is characterized by the thought-terminating cliché. The most far-reaching and complex of human problems are compressed into brief, highly reductive, definitive-sounding phrases, easily memorized and easily expressed. These become the start and finish of any ideological analysis." ~Robert Lifton
Click to expand...

What are you referring to here? The original discussion or this meta-discussion?
 
Matt3737 said:
What are you referring to here? The original discussion or this meta-discussion?
Click to expand...

Referring to some prevailing social mechanics that I often see in all topics that resemble this.

This particular thread is nothing special and neither was the last one. Both are only a small piece in the large puzzle.
 
ezra said:
Exactly my thoughts. We're talking about human rights, are all of those up for debate now?
Click to expand...

I suppose it can be if you believe in free speech. Human rights are a man made concept anyways. It is not a moral absolute. I believe the concept is more of a product of the human capacity for 'empathy'. Not to mention that there has never been a time that a 'right' has been a true right. Everything is regulated and controlled including sex, speech, guns, property etc... It is necessary and we allow it for the greater good. Your question oversimplifies an idea that is actually rather complex and entirely debatable.

Anyways, there are all forms of discussions and a debate needn't be the only form of discussion you choose to take.
 
Last edited:
Grayman said:
I suppose it can be if you believe in free speech. Human rights are a man made concept anyways. It is not a moral absolute. I believe the concept is more of a product of the human capacity for 'empathy'. Not to mention that there has never been a time that a 'right' has been a true right. Everything is regulated and controlled including sex, speech, guns, property etc... It is necessary and we allow it for the greater good. Your question oversimplifies an idea that is actually rather complex and entirely debatable.

Anyways, there are all forms of discussions and a debate needn't be the only form of discussion you choose to take.
Click to expand...

This notion is certainly not unheard of by any means, but where does it take us in practical terms?

What can we apply this to, and how, real world speaking?
 
Grayman said:
I suppose it can be if you believe in free speech. Human rights are a man made concept anyways. It is not a moral absolute. I believe the concept is more of a product of the human capacity for 'empathy'. Not to mention that there has never been a time that a 'right' has been a true right. Everything is regulated and controlled including sex, speech, guns, property etc... It is necessary and we allow it for the greater good. Your question oversimplifies an idea that is actually rather complex and entirely debatable.

Anyways, there are all forms of discussions and a debate needn't be the only form of discussion you choose to take.
Click to expand...

That's some mighty fine devil's advocate work, there!

In case you're serious -- you are aware that free speech is a human rights too, right? If you're cool with getting away with some of them, or just making a point of it, why should you have to worry about free speech? Aren't you holding free speech to be a moral absolute? Moreover, are you implying that the other human rights are worth less than freedom of speech?
 
Grayman said:
I suppose it can be if you believe in free speech. Human rights are a man made concept anyways. It is not a moral absolute. I believe the concept is more of a product of the human capacity for 'empathy'. Not to mention that there has never been a time that a 'right' has been a true right. Everything is regulated and controlled including sex, speech, guns, property etc... It is necessary and we allow it for the greater good. Your question oversimplifies an idea that is actually rather complex and entirely debatable.

Anyways, there are all forms of discussions and a debate needn't be the only form of discussion you choose to take.
Click to expand...

Yes, in the West, free speech developed as a means to resist existing power structures, not as a means of self-expression, as often applied today. It is a natural right in the sense that no one has divine authority to tell you otherwise.
 
[MENTION=9860]Grayman[/MENTION]

Are you familiar with Jesus Mosterin? Your sentiments resemble his: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jesús_Mosterín

"As a moral philosopher, Mosterín does not believe in the existence of intrinsic or natural rights (neither for animals in general nor for humans in particular), but he thinks that any political society can create rights through legislative action. Following Hume and Darwin, and taking into account Giacomo Rizzolatti’s results on mirror neurons, Mosterín suggests that our inborn capacity for compassion, fed by knowledge and empathy, is a more solid basis for the moral consideration of non-human animals than abstract and uncheckable speculations about intrinsic rights.[22] This fits his emphasis on the relevance of moral emotions (like compassion) to ethics, somehow comparable with the role played by perception in empirical science.[23]"
 
ezra said:
That's some mighty fine devil's advocate work, there!

In case you're serious -- you are aware that free speech is a human rights too, right? If you're cool with getting away with some of them, or just making a point of it, why should you have to worry about free speech? Aren't you holding free speech to be a moral absolute? Moreover, are you implying that the other human rights are worth less than freedom of speech?
Click to expand...

Freedom of speech is continually challenged in courts and also has its limits. You can't threaten to murder someone, for instance. Freedom of religion doesn't mean you can engage in human sacrifice. The Supreme Court recently upheld gay marriage rights also. I'm not even really sure what you mean to imply by a moral absolute. Even having an absolute right to life has its limits and interpretations such as debates on capital punishment and abortion rights/right to life.

What do you mean exactly?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top