Gay Rights

I'm guessing recognition of partnership and anti-discrimination laws.


Rosenow is here???

 

@Supreme_Overlord -- The issue is that you've stated it in a way that makes it sound like a factual statement (Example: "Christians don't even want to talk about what they believe"), which makes it unclear whether or not you claiming it as a fact or simply as a conjecture. As long as it's clear that it's a conjecture, there's not a problem with you making the claim; my point was just that you can't present a generalization based off of personal experiences as a factual statement.

If you read my comment in context, I think it's pretty clear. Before the 1-line that you've quote-mined, I describe that this is just my belief/opinion. I understand that this conversation is born of a desire for clarification, but that's exactly how it should have started. Just a simple, "What did you mean *there*, exactly?". Rather than an assault on something I never said/intended in the first place.

I wasn't clear enough on what I mean by "justified;" you can definitely use your personal experiences to make justified hypotheses in your life, but you can't use your personal experiences to make justified claims to use in a debate like this. There's a difference between using deductions and generalizations based off of your personal experiences in your regular life and using them to make arguments in debates.

It was an off-the-cuff remark. Openly venting about how discouraging it is when discussing topics with your average Theist. It was nothing more than speaking from my own personal experience. Again, in context, I believe it's clear that this can be seen.

For example, on this topic of whether or not atheists are more open minded, I'd probably hypothesize that they are.

Then for the love of 'all-things-Christopher-Hitchens', why are we talking about it? When I never claimed it as fact?

I've got so much time for you on these forums. Especially the way you talk about disagreements. But I genuinely feel like this has been a complete waste of our time.

While I've made it clear that I do not believe that theists are inherently closed minded and that there are other factors that can contribute to a lot of them being closed minded without them inherently being that way, I have seen enough closed minded ones that I feel like it's likely that they are averagely more closed minded. This might affect some of the judgments that I make in my personal life (for instance, I might be more likely to assume that someone is open minded if they tell me that they are an atheist); however, because of the fact that I have nothing to back any of this up outside of my personal experiences, I am not justified to use this in a debate. Furthermore, I am definitely unjustified to claim that theists are inherently closed minded, because I obviously know that not all of them are, but since you've already addressed this and clarified that you weren't trying to claim that all theists are closed minded, I won't go into this anymore.

It wasn't being "used in a debate". It was just me, venting.

The minute that I believe that they are significantly more closed-minded, as to warrant me avoiding discussions with them altogether? You have a point. But I'm not using my preconception of Theists to discredit them or treat them differently. I believe that's much more important.

Sure, if you've personally seen more men that are good drivers/more women that are not good drivers, you could validly hypothesize that men are typically better drivers, and you could base situations/judgments in your life off of this hypothesis; however, since this is another claim based off of personal experience, you'd once again be unable to justifiably use this claim in a debate.

I don't know what else to say, without boring you by repeating myself. It wasn't used as a substantive argument in the debate. I genuinely believe that if you were to go back and take a look at this conversation in context, you would agree with me.

Well, there are studies supporting that. If you look up average ***** sizes by race, you can see that black males are above males of other races.

And there are studies supporting 'Men being better drivers', and (as said earlier) studies showing that Theists have weaker Critical Thinking skills than Atheists. I did ask if people wanted to see it, though I didn't get a positive response.

My justification for what hypothesis? Up until this post, I hadn't stated my hypothesis on whether or not atheists or theists were typically more closed minded. I had only 1. stated my opinion that theists are not inherently closed minded...

Sure. Because mine was merely an opinion to begin with as well. Yet I feel like I'm on the stand in court right now. (hyperbole)

.../that not all theists are close minded

But I didn't claim that "All Theists are closed-minded".

Let's really push the boat out for a second.

If I'd have said, "old people are very closed-minded" (even without the boring caveats and hedges to describe that this is merely a generalisation), would you think that I meant, "All old people are very closed-minded"? Or would you see it for the generalisation that I believe it to be? I think the same should be said for our discussion. "Christians/Theists are closed-minded" wouldn't even imply that all of them are.

I genuinely don't think your interpretation is malicious. God knows that the way you've spoken to me, hasn't been. But it seems that this conversation spurs from controversial/disagreeable subject matter. Rather than a genuinely controversial/disagreement statement. (Heck, you've even said that you hold the same position.)

and 2. stated that you were unjustified to make the claims that you were making. I'm assuming that you want my justification for my hypothesis that more theists are raised that way and that more atheists are converts (correct me if wrong):

Honestly? I'm not that bothered really. I'm just trying to elude to any remaining double-standard (if there is any) that my off-the-cuff opinions need gross substantiation, while others don't. I'd rather just leave this topic and move onto something more noteworthy.

Well, I thought that I could easily find some simple age demographics on average beliefs to use as justification here, but it seems that most demographics on this subject don't include people under eighteen. A lot of people who do convert away from religion seem to do it during their teens, so data that doesn't include those younger than eighteen isn't very helpful here. So, I'll admit that without the justification that I was looking for, I don't have any actual way to prove this claim, and therefore, I was unjustified to claim this;

But you never claimed it as fact. Same here. It was just your own conjecture, based on your explanation here...

out of the atheists that I've met, most of them have been converts, whereas most of the Christians that I've met have been raised that way. If you still feel like you're justified to make arguments based solely off of your personal experiences, then I'm still justified to stick to this claim of mine in this debate, right?

It would be perfectly reasonable and justifiable to assume that there are still species of fish that we haven't identified; however, it would be 1. unjustifiable to state this as a fact,

But I didn't do that.

and 2. unjustifiable to use this claim in a debate

T'was not used in that way. Pretty please, look at it in context.

I'd still have a problem with someone saying that, "Men are taller than women," because whether they incorrectly mean it literally or not, it's obviously untrue.

Woahhhh. I'm... stunned.

Men are taller than women =/= All men are taller than all women

By your statement, I shouldn't say; "15year olds are smarter than 5year olds". Because there're going to be a few child prodigies out there that are smarter than at least a few 15yo's.

"Men are taller than women" means... 'typically'. 'For the most part'. Or 'on average'.

Scottish people like Kilts? Brazilians love soccer? British people love tea? These are all "obviously untrue", to you right? Because not every Scot, Brazilian, or Brit has a fondness for these things.

However, I would argue that all that's really happening, is that these generalisations are implied to apply to most. Not to all. Rule's have exceptions. All of these statements, including the one that you're criticizing, are 'rules of thumb'. Not declarations of fact to be applied to every case.

So, it's better to just say that, "Men tend to be taller than women," or, "On average, men are taller than women," to save everyone from confusion.

I swear to Richard Dawkins that I've never had this problem with anyone else. Maybe you're right. That we should never leave ambiguity in statements like these. But everyone else that I've spoken to has seen my generalisations for what they are. A generalisation. I.e. A rule with exceptions. I'm not saying that you're wrong because everyone I've met disagrees with you. Merely that this is a problem that isn't pervasive at all. A problem that you have with language, moreso than a problem with my language. Because language exists to exchange information. If I'm doing it effectively in 99.99% of cases, and it's seen as nitpicky/boring/mentally taxing by increasing it to 99.999%? Eh, I think we could just leave it be.

--- Double Post Merged, Apr 8, 2016, Original Post Date: Apr 8, 2016 ---

I'd just to add how consistently @Supreme_Overlord can be 'counted on' for disagreeing "well". Content of the disagreement aside (because, he might have a point at the end here, I'm not sure), THIS is exactly how 2 people should disagree with one another. I've found the topic boring, largely. But the manner is which he has objected to my comments, has made it much more bearable to talk with him. To the point where I actually kinda enjoy doing so. No mudslinging or condescending jabs. It's all about the content, the substance. If you want to know how to disagree politely, as to ensure reliably productive conversations? Or ones that will best ensure a response from your opponent? Look no further, folks.

 

I was going to quote and respond, but since you are ignoring everything important I've said, I suppose you wouldn't mind me doing the same.

The following is for the onlookers that you keep referencing:
I have taken this argument to PM, since it is just derailing threads pointlessly.
While Debatheist feels that it should be public, I don't think it is fair to constantly ruin threads over a disagreement that doesn't seem at all related.

Debatheist, will you please consider my humblest apologies for misinterpreting what you've said? While my opinion of you is still negative, I would much rather work out these issues and be able to continue debating (because at least you do, usually) than simply ignoring the problem as you seem to want to (evidence:

, your signature)

So again, please actually consider listening to what I have to say with a clean slate in order to improve both of us.

This was from the PM.
Debatheist, the nature of our conversations can't change unless you read what I'm saying. So I ask you simply to do that, and read it only for what it is.

 

I still feel like it was pretty confusing, but sure, it probably would've saved us from a lot of confusion if I had just asked for clarification instead.

Oh, so you weren't trying to debate your opinion based off of your personal experiences? That's what it appeared like you were doing, and that's what I had an issue with. It's kind of out of place to simply vent in a debate, no? Even if you feel like you're simply venting, it makes it appear as if you're arguing your opinion when it's in a debate.

These points are based off of the same confusion.

The issue was that I was under the impression that you were not just venting, and that you were instead arguing that atheists are more open minded based off of your personal experiences. My bad.

I'm interested in seeing it.

I honestly can't say whether or not I'd take it literally, but either way, if you're making the statement in a debate, isn't it better to just prevent any possible confusion by not making generalizations in the first place?

I'm not entirely certain what you mean by saying that you don't think my interpretation is malicious. Do you mean that you don't think that the reason that we're having a debate on this is because I'm maliciously picking through your posts in order to find anything like this to argue about? If so, no, of course I'm not doing that. While they might have been over subject matter instead of large statements/stances, I had legitimate disagreements/concerns with some of the stuff that you said. I realize now that most of this was sparked through confusion between us, but it started with legitimate disagreements. I think we've had enough debates at this point that we can assume that neither of us are attempting to act malicious.

Yeah, I wasn't unjustified to make the statement, but I was unjustified to try to use the statement as an argument.

I know.

I already covered this earlier in my reply here, but once more for clarification, this was confusion. It seemed like you were using your opinion on more atheists being open minded as an argument. You've now clarified that you weren't.

It's true that it's often implied and understood that certain statements are generalizations that don't literally include everyone within a group, but how can you tell for sure that someone is making a one of these and not a literal statement? I'm not saying that generalizations should never be used, because in regular conversations it can matter less; however, when you're partaking in a debate, what you say tends to be taken literally/seriously, so in that case, doesn't it seem more beneficial to just refrain from using generalizations to prevent confusion from occurring in the first place? <- That was my point on it being better to just use non-generalization statements.

 

ppl r allowed 2 put those eyelash things on their headlights
y shouldn't ppl b allowed 2 date whomever they like????//11/

 

I'm not entirely certain what you mean by saying that you don't think my interpretation is malicious. Do you mean that you don't think that the reason that we're having a debate on this is because I'm maliciously picking through your posts in order to find anything like this to argue about? If so, no, of course I'm not doing that. While they might have been over subject matter instead of large statements/stances, I had legitimate disagreements/concerns with some of the stuff that you said. I realize now that most of this was sparked through confusion between us, but it started with legitimate disagreements. I think we've had enough debates at this point that we can assume that neither of us are attempting to act malicious.

Right. Which is why I am openly giving you the benefit of the doubt, despite my skepticism. Having said that, I'm having a tougher time believing that you press others as hard as you've pressed me regarding generalisations. This wouldn't invalidate your 'point', obviously. But it does make the point you're making come across as insincere to some degree. Which, again, I'm not even taking personally or as a legitimate 'counter' to what you've said here. TLR -- I think this topic sucks.

And heck, this could be due to the fact I've seen little of you in these forums. But your replies to me seem almost uniquely tailored to... disagreeing, when there seems to be very little to argue about? Take this conversation, at this point, for instance.

- Rather than flatly ask whether my claim was asserted as fact or mere conjecture, we have both punted hours into a largely fruitless conversation. Something you've since taken on board.

- Even though you don't think personal beliefs/conjecture shouldn't be used in a debate (which I don't think it was, as it was a digression), you agree with the very claim that's being criticised.

- I believe you've just implied that "venting" and "arguing that Atheists are more open-minded" are mutually exclusive. That I couldn't be/wasn't doing both.

- You've criticised the very notion of 'generalisations' altogether. Abstaining from disabusing the notion that "Old people are closed-minded" doesn't mean that one believes "ALL old people are closed-minded". I think this is the most clear-cut case of what seems to be, arguing for the sake of arguing? Though I understand completely where you're coming from.

- This section of the forum doesn't contain pure uncut debates, 100% of the time. Though, the minute that I digress and reinforce a personally held stereotype? (One that you agree with!) I'm under severe pressure from you et al.

I just really hate the fact that I've spent so much time on this. It blows.

doesn't it seem more beneficial to just refrain from using generalizations to prevent confusion from occurring in the first place? <- That was my point on it being better to just use non-generalization statements.

I believe that I touched on this slightly at the end of my previous post.

"...Because language exists to exchange information. If I'm doing it effectively in 99.99% of cases, and it's seen as nitpicky/boring/mentally taxing by increasing it to 99.999%? Eh, I think we could just leave it be."

I use so many caveats as it is. Perhaps more than anyone else on this forum. I just think it's so sad and tiresome for this conversation to ultimately boil down to, "Well, I think you should have put another caveat in *that* comments, clarifying that it was a generalisation and that you wern't claiming it as fact."

I'm knackered. I love ya man, but I'm sure we both have bigger fish to fry.

In the future? If you want to take issue with something I've said, just smash it out the park from the word go. Fire away as concisely as you can. Then we can spend more time arguing about the 'meat' of the discussion.

 

I think the reason it seems like that is because we typically have similar stances on large topics, so most of the disagreements that we end up having are on minor things (although this was mostly confusion as opposed to an actual disagreement).

You said that you weren't arguing and that you were only venting, so yes, that would lead me to assume that you weren't doing both, right?

I see how it could appear like that, but no, I have legitimate concerns with using generalizations in debates like this. I mean, a generalization is what caused all of this confusion. I'm not saying that it's your fault for using one, because I should've asked and clarified that you were just venting and making a generalization instead of assuming that you were making a legitimate argument and a literal statement, including all Christians.

I mean, I wasn't trying to pressure you; it was a pretty calm debate, no?

I should probably clarify here that I wasn't saying that we should make it into an issue here; I agree that we should just leave it be. My point about it being more beneficial/easier to not use generalizations in debates was directed more towards the future, not this situation. I think that it would be better if everyone refrained from using generalizations in debates; however, that's such an off-topic, minor, and nit-picky topic that I don't think that we spend more time arguing about it on this thread.

Yeah, it is disappointing to see that all of this time arguing was just because I assumed that you were making an argument instead of venting and that you were making a literal statement instead of a generalization. My apologies.

Agreed.

 

Yeah people write those essays cause they want to...

 

I think the reason it seems like that is because we typically have similar stances on large topics, so most of the disagreements that we end up having are on minor things (although this was mostly confusion as opposed to an actual disagreement).

Sure, sure. S'all relative.

You said that you weren't arguing and that you were only venting, so yes, that would lead me to assume that you weren't doing both, right?

I wasn't descriptive enough. My bad. My "Atheists are more open-minded" shpeel did not add to the 'THE' debate. But I think it stands alone as it's own 'point'. One in which we could spend many more hours on. I was venting, while making an argument in the process. Albeit one that had little to do with 'THE' debate, and one that was just conjecture.

I see how it could appear like that, but no, I have legitimate concerns with using generalizations in debates like this. I mean, a generalization is what caused all of this confusion. I'm not saying that it's your fault for using one, because I should've asked and clarified that you were just venting and making a generalization instead of assuming that you were making a legitimate argument and a literal statement, including all Christians.

Eh. Upon reflection, I see it all the time when discussing Islam. Ya know... the ol' #NotAllMuslims stuff? Maybe I *should* clarify whenever a generalisation is used. I just hate it. So much. But I shouldn't let that get in the way of productive discourse.

I mean, I wasn't trying to pressure you; it was a pretty calm debate, no?

Oh, absolutely. You wern't pressing too much per se. Just on... what seemed like every front imaginable. Even on very agreeable statements. Could just be confirmation bias, though I do feel like there was at least some imaginative choices of where to disagree.

I should probably clarify here that I wasn't saying that we should make it into an issue here; I agree that we should just leave it be. My point about it being more beneficial/easier to not use generalizations in debates was directed more towards the future, not this situation. I think that it would be better if everyone refrained from using generalizations in debates; however, that's such an off-topic, minor, and nit-picky topic that I don't think that we spend more time arguing about it on this thread.

I'll level with you for a sec. Filter is off.

Honestly? I thought it was fairly clear in context that I was just generalising. I think you used the word 'generalisation' early-on too. Generalisations have exceptions. To generalise: i.e. generally speaking. Otherwise, they'd be called 'rules' or 'laws', or something? I think, knowing that it was a generalisation, the criticism was pretty unfair. But going forward, a good lesson is learned. That maybe we should just clarify, even if it does make my blood boil. Especially on sensitive topics where people arn't going to be thinking clearly/objectively 100% of the time. On both sides.

So yeah. Lesson learned. I do bloody hate it though. Though not ultimately.

Yeah, it is disappointing to see that all of this time arguing was just because I assumed that you were making an argument instead of venting and that you were making a literal statement instead of a generalization. My apologies.

Coolio. Til we meet again sir.

E: Spelling +Grammar errors. Life is hard.

 

Well, I didn't know that you meant it as a generalization at first. I did use the term "generalization" early on, but it was because I thought that you were making a literally statement and unintentionally generalizing (I've explained that I was under the impression that you were making a legitimate argument and a literal statement). If I had known that you were just venting and purposely generalizing, I wouldn't have criticized it in the way that I did.

 

I won't lie, I'm still pretty stunned that even something like, "I think old people are grumpy." can be interpreted as: "He thinks ALL old people are grumpy". I don't think many people would see it that way? Barely any, in fact. Which I guess is what sparked this off, while leaving me perpetually baffled. Weird one.

 

people who say stuff like "im okay as long as they dont do it in front of me" is about as logical as someone saying "i dont like cauliflower so dont eat it in front of me" and for people who find gay people disgusting: i think cauliflower is the most vile tasting thing in the world but i dont ban cauliflower. as a lesbian myself, ive had to deal with a shitton of hate from family and friends. "how do you know if you havent tried?" "are you SURE? isnt this just a phase?" so yeah, go gay people!

 

I think it's slightly different.

To 'go' with your analogy, it would be like someone saying....

"I think it's a disgusting vegetable, though I'm okay with the sight of a Cauliflower. Having said that, I can't stand watching people eat it. It makes me want to throw-up, it's just gross. Please don't eat Cauliflower in front of me, when you know it's just going to make me upset."

I still think they're wrong (individual liberty and all that good stuff), but their stance is more a matter of taste. They would argue, that you wouldn't want to see stuff you found disgusting in your day to day life where possible. So... they shouldn't either.

 

Or akin to people making out in front of others; sometimes it just makes people uncomfortable. *Shrug*

 

But I would argue the onus isn't on the people making-out to change their behaviour.

"Please don't [INSERT UNDESIRED BEHAVIOUR HERE] in front of me please. It makes me feel uncomfortable."

This line could be used in an infinite number of ways. Making out, gays that act affectionately toward one-another, breast-feeding, brightly coloured clothing, tattoos... the list goes on.

If you are doing something that bothers me, I have every right to ask you to accommodate for me. To ask you to stop inadvertently bothering me. I do not believe I have a right to demand this, or enshrine it into law. This is the principle of individual liberty. Otherwise, we would live in a perpetually repressed society, subservient in almost every way, to the notion that we might offend one another.

 

So basically liberals would be in charge.

 

These essays are so intimidating it makes me want to cry

 

Careful now, your IdentityPolitics is showing.

--- Double Post Merged, Jun 2, 2016, Original Post Date: Jun 2, 2016 ---

Probably due to the fact that you routinely get into threads about the most complex+controversial issues of our time. Hard to be too succinct when we're talking about morality and religion.

Also, could you respond in the 'Is God real' thread? ty!

 

this thread has become such a monster... cant u just let us live

 

Amen