Cognitive dissonance: gay Dumbledore

[draqon]

Eh?

Look, you all realize this is an ironic thread, yes?

ironic? Who am I to iron here?

 

[GeoffP]

draqon, could you heat up that iron and then answer it like a telephone? I promise it would give you new vistas of insight.

 

[draqon]

draqon, could you heat up that iron and then answer it like a telephone? I promise it would give you new vistas of insight.

or I could heat it up and fry all gay people with it.

 

[greenberg]

Eh?

Look, you all realize this is an ironic thread, yes?

It wasn't started as ironic. The nature of the OP was amended after the first responses.
If the thread was supposed to be taken ironically, it should have been started in Free Thoughts, or put there after the amendment of the OP.

 

[GeoffP]

It wasn't started as ironic. The nature of the OP was amended after the first responses.

Yes, it was. Did you notice the irony meter?

If the thread was supposed to be taken ironically, it should have been started in Free Thoughts, or put there after the amendment of the OP.

I have no answer to this. Sam must therefore be a homophobe. It's a factoid.

*drools zombifically, staggers off screen*

 

[greenberg]

Here's a point you probably won't like, but it is a charge sometimes levelled against Jews and Christians alike:
...
There in fact is a way for the Jews and Christians to budge, they themselves have professed it - but when someone takes their word for it, they seem to become oblivious to that way.

I am not quite sure how we got here.

It was an example of how some people have a philosophy that contains an option for "budging".
If a people claim "We will die for our religion!" and then someone kills some of them, then how can the survivors who claimed "We will die for our religion!" rightfully demand that the killers be punished?
I brought this up because you continually brought up the Jews and considered them oppressed under Nazism.
If we are to keep in line with Jewish philosophy, then the Jews should have accepted the "oppression", it was God testing them.
When people defend the Jews, they are actually enforcing the view that the Jewish religion isn't to be taken seriously, or that it is wrong.

You, however, seem to be assessing the whole situation from the aspect of some other moral system, neither a Jewish nor a Nationalsocialistic one.

I am not sure what legal action could be taken against you. I think freedom of speech would cover this very solidly.

Where do you live? People are suing eachother for causing "emotional distress", and not only in the U.S.

I've heard something to this effect once, and I agree with it: In order for people to live in mutual harmony, it is not necessary to be similar or to have middle ground. For people to live in mutual harmony, it is only necessary that they all have the desire to live in mutual harmony with each other.

I think in a sense that fits with my criticism. Its that not having that as a goal in a fundamental and often violent way that I see as the root problem in many prejudice based relationships.

Sure. But why should people adopt living in mutual harmony as a worthwhile goal?
This isn't an idle question. What would be your arguments for why living in mutual harmony should be adopted as a worthwhile goal?

Not seeming to budge seems much more surface to me in many of these situations. Seeming to budge will not satisfy.

Budging and not budging are just the external expressions. I haven't yet gone much into the motivations behind budging and not budging.

 

[greenberg]

Yes, it was. Did you notice the irony meter?

That was added later.

 

[GeoffP]

*drools zombifically, staggers off screen*

 

[S.A.M.]

Can anyone understand the effing thread title? :crazy:

Cognitive dissonance is a psychological term describing the uncomfortable tension that may result from having two conflicting thoughts at the same time

 

[Grantywanty]

I'm not even sure what you people are arguing about any more.

We may not be either but it is not over the gay D. So don't hold back on our account.

 

[Grantywanty]

It was an example of how some people have a philosophy that contains an option for "budging".
If a people claim "We will die for our religion!" and then someone kills some of them, then how can the survivors who claimed "We will die for our religion!" rightfully demand that the killers be punished?
I brought this up because you continually brought up the Jews and considered them oppressed under Nazism.
If we are to keep in line with Jewish philosophy, then the Jews should have accepted the "oppression", it was God testing them.

1) I doubt you have somehow caught the Jews in a logical bind. They are willing to be tested in relation to God who allows immoral people to do things that they should be punished for. But...2) As a anti-anti semite or what you might call a pro-Jew, I don't really care how someone might, but in reality never does, interpret Jewish vulnerableness to somehow having to logically accept being killed by people who will not be punished. And I don't.

You, however, seem to be assessing the whole situation from the aspect of some other moral system, neither a Jewish nor a Nationalsocialistic one.

Yes, I am not Jewish or a Nazi, so it should not be surprising. Not that I think a Jew would suddenly cave in under the 'logic' and accept that yes their killers should not be punished. And if you shift the example to athiests being oppressed by monothiests, well, the air goes right out of this bag.

Where do you live? People are suing eachother for causing "emotional distress", and not only in the U.S.

So the reason you do not present your ideas in other places in society is because you are afraid of being sued. OK. I can only believe that. I do not think you would be sued. And I do not think online posting is safe from lawsuits. I will stifle the urge to publicly air my doubts about your motives. Unfortunately some of what I have written may imply these.

Sure. But why should people adopt living in mutual harmony as a worthwhile goal?
This isn't an idle question. What would be your arguments for why living in mutual harmony should be adopted as a worthwhile goal?

I could swear you brought up this idea. I really could swear it. I must now be projecting or introjecting. Or I am about to.

I have to say that your defense of your analysis seems very strange to me. I don't think it works but I've lost interest.

You shifted the debate from the problem is both sides don't seem to budge to the other side can't really complain. This would not be causal. The Nazis prejudice was not founded on the Jews seemingly not being in a position to complain about their being killed or mistreated or looked at as evil. It bothers me when people jump like this. I wish it was easier for me to track these kinds of jumps but I find that I get fooled and take them seriously. And then I have to work very hard to point out how the jump was an apples oranges jump. I don't respect that kind of game playing even when it is unconscious as it probably is here.

 

[greenberg]

Yes, I am not Jewish or a Nazi, so it should not be surprising. Not that I think a Jew would suddenly cave in under the 'logic' and accept that yes their killers should not be punished. And if you shift the example to athiests being oppressed by monothiests, well, the air goes right out of this bag.

I kinda expected you would come to such a conclusion. Even though it completely misses my point.

I have to say that your defense of your analysis seems very strange to me. I don't think it works but I've lost interest.

I'm sure it seems very strange to you - because you've been twisting it from the beginning on. And I didn't manage to catch up untwisting it.

You shifted the debate from the problem is both sides don't seem to budge to the other side can't really complain. This would not be causal. The Nazis prejudice was not founded on the Jews seemingly not being in a position to complain about their being killed or mistreated or looked at as evil. It bothers me when people jump like this. I wish it was easier for me to track these kinds of jumps but I find that I get fooled and take them seriously. And then I have to work very hard to point out how the jump was an apples oranges jump. I don't respect that kind of game playing even when it is unconscious as it probably is here.

Talk about coming across as superior!

:bawl:

 

[Tiassa]

Can anyone understand the effing thread title?

Since when in the history of Sciforums has that been a prerequisite for anything?

I think, though, we're seeing in this topic the onomatopoeic equivalent of a dumbledore.

 

[S.A.M.]

Since when in the history of Sciforums has that been a prerequisite for anything?

I think, though, we're seeing in this topic the onomatopoeic equivalent of a dumbledore.

I thought it would be a nice discussion.:bawl:

 

[Roman]

I object to a gay Dumbledore, but just because I have a problem with gays, does not mean I am prejudiced.

I am concerned about confused boys "turning gay" after reading Harry Potter. Its a parental concern, not prejudice. Dumbledore is an authority figure, it will make it seem okay to be gay!

Boys who read Harry Potter and turn gay, will spread STDs throughout the community, but this is a social concern, not prejudice.

Why, oh why, do they call me prejudiced? :bawl:

yeah i know, wtf. they made those hobbits and dwarvs all gay and shit, too. it's the gay liberal media. Damn porn peddling jews.

 

[spidergoat]

I just feel sorry for this guy.
http://www.reason.com/blog/show/123212.html

 

[Tiassa]

I just feel sorry for this guy.

So he has crappy taste in friends and literature. He'll get over it.

I hope.