Demonizing people

[Magical Realist]

Yes! Why not say that being hetero is comparable to gambliing addicts or criminal behavior, after all it is sexual behavior too.

Because Syne thinks gay people are sick and twisted individuals who are addicted to perverted sexual behavior. Strange that I'm gay and haven't had sex in around 15 years. So much for the gay sex addict stereotype.

 

[Syne]

So now we're comparing gay people to gambling addicts? As if their behavior doesn't in fact spring from precisely who they are and their own natures as same-sex oriented human beings. The old "gayness as a disease or sickness of the mind" ploy. As if gay people are really straight people who have somehow become addicted to being gay. What a complete load of homophobic crap. I personally find this very offensive being gay myself. Should I report it in line with the "no vilification of groups of people based on their sexual orientation" rule? Only if I thought it'd do any good.

I have not vilified any group, you have simply made a straw man of my analogies. The point is that people are capable of condemning behavior, of just about any sort, without necessarily demonizing the people who commit said behavior. IOW, just because someone thinks some behavior is wrong does not mean that they condone violence against people who behave so.

I have been making comparisons of things people think is wrong not homosexuality is criminal, or whatever your straw man may be.

And I am entitled to hold whatever opinions I like, regardless of how much you may disagree with them.

 

[Balerion]

A gambling addict does not necessarily hurt anyone, break the law, or feel they have a "choice" either. Is that behavior then beyond reproach? They will even often identify themselves as gamblers, as an innate part of their identity. It is who they are and what they do.

Gambling addiction is typically defined as continued gambling in spite of the negative impact it has on a person's life, which is why many people choose to refer to it as "problem gambling." Also, studies have shown that gambling addiction is not all that different from drug addiction. Both of these facts make it difficult to accept your analogy.

My point is that you can condemn the actions without demonizing the person. You may consider it none of anyone's business, but then you are condemning behavior that is not necessarily hurting anyone as well. Like I said earlier, I can see why you would have a problem with it, but only if you conflate condemning behavior with demonizing the person.

There are several problems with this. First and foremost, it's simply a fact that terms like "addict" have negative connotations; there is an implication of weakness, as well as the assumption that their behavior is in some way wrong. So condemning the actions while not condemning the person seems impossible, especially when you continually liken homosexuality to "vice" behaviors such as gambling and drug use. Secondly, you say that these behaviors don't hurt anyone, but drug abuse and problem gambling by definition hurt people. Even if the only victim is the person themselves, someone is bringing harm upon themselves through their actions. On the other hand, homosexuality actually is victimless. Those who suffer as a result of being gay suffer because of the actions of others, not because of anything they did wrong.

Everyone has a right to their opinion (barring the advent of thought-police ala 1984), including the capacity to disagree about what is "right". This is because they feel it is "wrong", and if you lend credence to one person's subjective feeling you are obliged to do so of the other. Most people who hold a moral opinion of something also do not feel that they have a choice in the matter, short of willful immorality.

But people who do not believe there is anything wrong with homosexuality are not basing it merely on a feeling, but on reason. Not only does it not hurt anyone, but the alternatives--repression, conversion--are always harmful, and potentially fatal. So there seems to be no good reason to accept your feeling that homosexuality is immoral as valid. You'd have to explain what makes it so, but you've balked at every attempt.

 

[Magical Realist]

I have not vilified any group, you have simply made a straw man of my analogies.

Sure you have. You just compared being gay to being a gambling addict. That is vilifying gay people, as if being gay were some addiction that is against one's nature that had to be overcome. Own your bigotry.

The point is that people are capable of condemning behavior, of just about any sort, without necessarily demonizing the people who commit said behavior. IOW, just because someone thinks some behavior is wrong does not mean that they condone violence against people who behave so.

If the behavior is part of who a person is, then yes condemning their behavior IS condemning the person as well. It'd be like me saying I think the religious behavior of a religious person is delusional and weakminded, but then claiming that I don't mean that to apply to the religious person themselves. That's ridiculous. Gay behavior is part of who a gay person is. By demonizing that you are automatically demonizing gay people.

I have been making comparisons of things people think is wrong not homosexuality is criminal, or whatever your straw man may be.

There's a hundred different ways you could have made that analogy. But you intentionally picked the two that compared gay people to being criminals and gambling addicts. I hardly think that was accidental.

And I am entitled to hold whatever opinions I like, regardless of how much you may disagree with them.

And you will be held to the same Sciforums rules of hatespeech and stereotyping you hold everyone else to. You think being a mod exempts you from that? Think again..

 

[Balerion]

I have not vilified any group, you have simply made a straw man of my analogies. The point is that people are capable of condemning behavior, of just about any sort, without necessarily demonizing the people who commit said behavior. IOW, just because someone thinks some behavior is wrong does not mean that they condone violence against people who behave so.

Your analogies themselves were straw men, because homosexuality is not analogous to problem gambling, nor is it an addiction of any kind.

I have been making comparisons of things people think is wrong not homosexuality is criminal, or whatever your straw man may be.

You can't blame people for suspecting nefarious motives. Comparing homosexuality to obviously damaging behavior, learned behavior that could ultimately be avoided to the betterment of the individual. This is standard homophobic rote.

And I am entitled to hold whatever opinions I like, regardless of how much you may disagree with them.

No one suggested otherwise.

However, you should be prepared for how those opinions reflect on you. Don't act offended when people suspect that you're a bigot.

 

[Aqueous Id]

Somehow this thread turned into demonizing the mod who split it off from the prior topic to purportedly address religious demonization (of women/gays). Oh, wait, that's not right. You folks were just condemning the behavior. Huge difference, isn't there, esp. when considered from the high ground.

That would leave the religions perpetuating the same/similar offenses guilty as charged. And, as many of them purport to include sins of omission, consipiracy and just plain hating on people, we have to lump the guilty thinking in with guilty behavior.

So far the jury here is not going to acquit. Maybe the insanity defense will be raised. When the shoe is on the other foot, and the haters are on trial before a judge who happens to be lesbian, maybe all that religion will come home to roost.

 

[Randwolf]

When the shoe is on the other foot, and the haters are on trial before a judge who happens to be lesbian, maybe all that religion will come home to roost.

We can only fervently fantasize. Maybe there really is a benevolent God and all this will come to pass...

O, that the tyrants and oppressors should taste hellfire for all eternity. *hmph*

 

[Balerion]

Nah. We don't punisher haters here. We promote them to moderator!

 

[Syne]

Gambling addiction is typically defined as continued gambling in spite of the negative impact it has on a person's life, which is why many people choose to refer to it as "problem gambling." Also, studies have shown that gambling addiction is not all that different from drug addiction. Both of these facts make it difficult to accept your analogy.

Again, the analogy is about what people may condemn, not a direct comparison of the examples given. You cannot deny that all example behavior is condemned, by someone, and that this condemnation does not necessarily lead to demonizing the person. That is the only point the analogy was intended to make.

There are several problems with this. First and foremost, it's simply a fact that terms like "addict" have negative connotations; there is an implication of weakness, as well as the assumption that their behavior is in some way wrong. So condemning the actions while not condemning the person seems impossible, especially when you continually liken homosexuality to "vice" behaviors such as gambling and drug use. Secondly, you say that these behaviors don't hurt anyone, but drug abuse and problem gambling by definition hurt people. Even if the only victim is the person themselves, someone is bringing harm upon themselves through their actions. On the other hand, homosexuality actually is victimless. Those who suffer as a result of being gay suffer because of the actions of others, not because of anything they did wrong.

Uh, you would have to show me where I ever compared homosexuality to drug use.

That is just it, you obviously have a different opinion on what is right and wrong, so you assume the condemned are not in the wrong. That is to be expected.

But a personal weakness does not make the person fundamentally evil or immoral. It is very far from impossible to condemn behavior while sympathizing with the sufferer of such behavior.

But am I to take it that you think no one has the right to state their opinion about what is right or wrong if, what, it differs from yours?

But people who do not believe there is anything wrong with homosexuality are not basing it merely on a feeling, but on reason. Not only does it not hurt anyone, but the alternatives--repression, conversion--are always harmful, and potentially fatal. So there seems to be no good reason to accept your feeling that homosexuality is immoral as valid. You'd have to explain what makes it so, but you've balked at every attempt.

I am having trouble parsing that first sentence. Maybe you can take another stab at it.

I have explained why elsewhere, but I am not generally interested in convincing anyone else. Freedom of belief is paramount, including yours.

Sure you have. You just compared being gay to being a gambling addict. That is vilifying gay people, as if being gay were some addiction that is against one's nature that had to be overcome. Own your bigotry.

"Again, the analogy is about what people may condemn, not a direct comparison of the examples given. You cannot deny that all example behavior is condemned, by someone, and that this condemnation does not necessarily lead to demonizing the person. That is the only point the analogy was intended to make."

If the behavior is part of who a person is, then yes condemning their behavior IS condemning the person as well. It'd be like me saying I think the religious behavior of a religious person is delusional and weakminded, but then claiming that I don't mean that to apply to the religious person themselves. That's ridiculous. Gay behavior is part of who a gay person is. By demonizing that you are automatically demonizing gay people.

In my experience, primarily with heterosexuals (men and women), those who most claim/demonstrate their sexuality as central to their identity are the most insecure about their sexuality. It is generally called overcompensation. I suppose that never occurs with homosexuals though. :bugeye:

You saying "I think" is clearly a statement of opinion, and so long as you are not using it as a hasty generalization of a group or individual there is nothing wrong with it. Personally, I find many specific religious behaviors to be delusional and weak-minded. I do not think that participating in these devalues the person or otherwise condemns them. Just because they may display some weak-minded behavior does not necessarily mean they are generally weak-minded.

So no, I do not accept that condemning behavior, no matter how intrinsic to their identity they self-report it to be, must be conflated with a hasty generalization of demonizing the person.

You do get the difference, right? You can condemn specific behavior, but you can only demonize the person in their entirety. Even if you condemn the weakness in the person that contributes to the behavior, you are not denying that they may still have virtues otherwise.

I have been making comparisons of things people think is wrong not homosexuality is criminal, or whatever your straw man may be.

There's a hundred different ways you could have made that analogy. But you intentionally picked the two that compared gay people to being criminals and gambling addicts. I hardly think that was accidental.

No, there is not. Since the analogy was about things people condemn it is not possible to exclude condemned behavior, and you would be making this straw man of any other condemned behavior I used. Yes, homosexuality could have been left out of it, except it was a direct response to Sorcerer's comment about "demonizing gay people".

And I am entitled to hold whatever opinions I like, regardless of how much you may disagree with them.

And you will be held to the same Sciforums rules of hatespeech and stereotyping you hold everyone else to. You think being a mod exempts you from that? Think again..

As explained above, specific behavior can be condemned with any stereotyping at all. That opinion does not, in itself, say anything further about the people who display such behavior.

Or is saying you think it is wrong for people to wear white after Labor Day somehow hate-speech or stereotyping? Opinions will differ. Learn to live with it.

Your analogies themselves were straw men, because homosexuality is not analogous to problem gambling, nor is it an addiction of any kind.

"Again [ad infinitum], the analogy is about what people may condemn, not a direct comparison of the examples given. You cannot deny that all example behavior is condemned, by someone, and that this condemnation does not necessarily lead to demonizing the person. That is the only point the analogy was intended to make."

And since my analogies were never attributed as being argued by anyone else, they could not possibly be straw men.

I have been making comparisons of things people think is wrong not homosexuality is criminal, or whatever your straw man may be.

You can't blame people for suspecting nefarious motives. Comparing homosexuality to obviously damaging behavior, learned behavior that could ultimately be avoided to the betterment of the individual. This is standard homophobic rote.

In point of fact, I did not compare "homosexuality", as an orientation. I made an analogy of "homosexual activity". But I guess you subscribe quite heavily to the notion that "you are what you do", huh? Personally, I think there is a significant difference between who a person is and what actions they may take. I believe that, regardless of the vicissitudes of life, people are generally well-intending (whatever they believe that to be).

I would not blame you for making a mountain out of a molehill any more than I would blame a dog for chasing a cat. I can try to correct it, but I cannot blame you for acting in your nature. After all, you probably believe yourself incapable of changing your own mind.

And I am entitled to hold whatever opinions I like, regardless of how much you may disagree with them.

No one suggested otherwise.

However, you should be prepared for how those opinions reflect on you. Don't act offended when people suspect that you're a bigot.

So you cannot condemn behavior without demonizing the person?

 

[Syne]

Somehow this thread turned into demonizing the mod ...

Funny, I do not feel demonized.

 

[Magical Realist]

In my experience, primarily with heterosexuals (men and women), those who most claim/demonstrate their sexuality as central to their identity are the most insecure about their sexuality. It is generally called overcompensation. I suppose that never occurs with homosexuals though.

Reported for more bigoted stereotyping of gay people. This is becoming quite a pattern for you isn't it homophobe?

 

[Syne]

In my experience, primarily with heterosexuals (men and women), those who most claim/demonstrate their sexuality as central to their identity are the most insecure about their sexuality. It is generally called overcompensation. I suppose that never occurs with homosexuals though.

Reported for more bigoted stereotyping of gay people. This is becoming quite a pattern for you isn't it homophobe?

Yeah, I got that report.

First, I made an anecdotal statement (i.e. "In my experience") about heterosexuals. Let us see, nothing there about homosexuals.

Second, I made a sarcastic statement that this does not occur with homosexuals. Let us see, I did mention homosexuals, but how that can be construed as stereotyping is beyond me. Looks like more of an excuse for name-calling.

 

[Balerion]

Again, the analogy is about what people may condemn, not a direct comparison of the examples given. You cannot deny that all example behavior is condemned, by someone, and that this condemnation does not necessarily lead to demonizing the person. That is the only point the analogy was intended to make.

But in the examples given, there absolutely is a negative connotation associated to the person, which I have pointed out. This seems to be the largest point you miss. Condemnation of the act seems to go hand-in-hand with condemnation of the person, especially in something like homosexuality, which is by all accounts an immuatable quality. Unlike problem gambling, drug use, or criminal behavior, which all seem to be learned behaviors or the result of certain environmental pressures, homosexuality isn't something that can be "fixed." This makes sympathy problematic, because as the behavior persists, sympathy tends to run out. So in practical application, it seems that it probably is impossible to separate condemnation of the deed from condemnation of the person.

Uh, you would have to show me where I ever compared homosexuality to drug use.

I didn't say you did. I said you compare it to vice behaviors, and provided two examples of vice behaviors.

That is just it, you obviously have a different opinion on what is right and wrong, so you assume the condemned are not in the wrong. That is to be expected.

There is no assumption; I base my assessment of the "condemned" on a specific criteria.

But a personal weakness does not make the person fundamentally evil or immoral. It is very far from impossible to condemn behavior while sympathizing with the sufferer of such behavior.

That depends on who you ask. Given the propensity for oppression of homosexuality, and violence towards them, sympathy for the "sufferer" seems to be uncommon. I can't recall you ever showing any sympathy for their plight.

But am I to take it that you think no one has the right to state their opinion about what is right or wrong if, what, it differs from yours?

Please explain what gave you that impression. Otherwise, you're just baiting.

I am having trouble parsing that first sentence. Maybe you can take another stab at it.

Wasn't difficult, Syne. People base their positive (or even apathetic) opinions of homosexuality on more than just feelings. They base those opinions on reason. Logic.

I have explained why elsewhere, but I am not generally interested in convincing anyone else. Freedom of belief is paramount, including yours.

Expected cop-out. Hopefully you'll do better in the thread you invited me to create.

 

[Syne]

Again, the analogy is about what people may condemn, not a direct comparison of the examples given. You cannot deny that all example behavior is condemned, by someone, and that this condemnation does not necessarily lead to demonizing the person. That is the only point the analogy was intended to make.

But in the examples given, there absolutely is a negative connotation associated to the person, which I have pointed out. This seems to be the largest point you miss. Condemnation of the act seems to go hand-in-hand with condemnation of the person, especially in something like homosexuality, which is by all accounts an immuatable quality. Unlike problem gambling, drug use, or criminal behavior, which all seem to be learned behaviors or the result of certain environmental pressures, homosexuality isn't something that can be "fixed." This makes sympathy problematic, because as the behavior persists, sympathy tends to run out. So in practical application, it seems that it probably is impossible to separate condemnation of the deed from condemnation of the person.

Anything condemned by someone is likely to have some negative connotation, so it is impossible to make an analogy about condemnation without such examples. The only disconnect here seems to be that you simply do not condemn homosexual activities and presume that homosexuality is an "immutable quality". And? Nothing unexpected there.

I didn't say you did. I said you compare it to vice behaviors, and provided two examples of vice behaviors.

Unfounded generality based on one such behavior.

But a personal weakness does not make the person fundamentally evil or immoral. It is very far from impossible to condemn behavior while sympathizing with the sufferer of such behavior.

That depends on who you ask. Given the propensity for oppression of homosexuality, and violence towards them, sympathy for the "sufferer" seems to be uncommon. I can't recall you ever showing any sympathy for their plight.

Sure, but I generally eschew sympathy. Sympathy of the "sufferer" cannot be too uncommon, seeing as gay marriage is moving forward. But even without any sympathy, condemning a behavior does not necessitate demonizing the person.

Wasn't difficult, Syne. People base their positive (or even apathetic) opinions of homosexuality on more than just feelings. They base those opinions on reason. Logic.

And?

 

[Balerion]

Anything condemned by someone is likely to have some negative connotation, so it is impossible to make an analogy about condemnation without such examples.

Then you admit your argument is defeated. That was...unexpected.

The only disconnect here seems to be that you simply do not condemn homosexual activities and presume that homosexuality is an "immutable quality". And? Nothing unexpected there.

Whether I think it's an immutable quality or no, homosexuals don't seem to be leaving the flock, so what you end up with is a sinner who can't stop sinning, and therefore losing whatever sympathy they had from the condemner.

Unfounded generality based on one such behavior.

Not at all.

Sure, but I generally eschew sympathy.

And skip right to the demonization? I thought you said you don't condemn the individual...

Sympathy of the "sufferer" cannot be too uncommon, seeing as gay marriage is moving forward.

You seem to be confusing "Sympathy of the sufferer" with constitutional law. While I don't discount the sea change in how homosexuality is viewed in this country, even people opposed to it are beginning to realize that the constitution will undermine their efforts to oppress whenever it reaches the highest courts.

But even without any sympathy, condemning a behavior does not necessitate demonizing the person.

I'm confused. Above, you seem to admit to exactly the opposite. Now you've changed your mind?

And?

Your earlier contention was that disputes over right and wrong is based on feelings, and as such one must lend credence to the opposing view. I attempted to correct your position by pointing out that there are reasoned arguments for why homosexuality is not wrong, and that it isn't reducible to "feelings".

 

[Beer w/Straw]

I demonized a forum member to the point where I felt I might be loosing my humanity.

He was so dumb and I wanted to make him realize he was so dumb. I went on a crusade to make his brain explode half a world away.

Hopefully I can check myself in the future...

 

[wellwisher]

I suppose you could say that religion demonising gay people might be good for social stability. After all, hating a small minority draws everyone together, no? The fact that some people might take matters into their own hands and attack or kill said gay people is not a clear-cut case, so that's all right then?

Don't atheist demonize religion and do the same things, or is the dual standard in effect so this is different by their own definition? This entire article is about demonizing all of religion because someone dared to speak out against the propaganda. Jesus would say you can see the speck in the other person's eye but not the log in your own eye.

We should change the tax code to exempt religion from having to pay for the social mops needed to prop up immorality. If all behavior is relative, their should not be extra social costs to prop up immorality, and the liberals should be willing yo pay their own tab. If there is extra social cost, such behavior is not relative. Inferior plus extra cost equals an illusion of relative.

If we place moral and immoral on a scale, these do not weigh the same, so they are not equal. The side with immorality requires so much more propping up. Why do you think it takes a circus of propaganda and force law to prop up homosexuality? Without mops it is not sustainable.

 

[Randwolf]

... mops ...

For more on wellwisher's fascinating "mop" theory, see here.

 

[Magical Realist]

Second, I made a sarcastic statement that this does not occur with homosexuals.

That's the bigoted stereotype. As if gay people don't get something you happen to believe, which is false anyway. Gay people identify with their orientation in exactly the same sense that straight people do when they speak of their lovers, spouses, dating, or family. So ofcourse it partially defines who they are. How can it not?

 

[TheHun]

Don't atheist demonize religion and do the same things, or is the dual standard in effect so this is different by their own definition? This entire article is about demonizing all of religion because someone dared to speak out against the propaganda. Jesus would say you can see the speck in the other person's eye but not the log in your own eye.

We don’t demonize religion. We study them, compare them, analyze them, and yes there are times when we laugh about them, too. But in order to demonize them we would actually have to believe in demons and such. We don’t, though, so we just think them irrational and at times dangerous.

We should change the tax code to exempt religion from having to pay for the social mops needed to prop up immorality. If all behavior is relative, their should not be extra social costs to prop up immorality, and the liberals should be willing yo pay their own tab. If there is extra social cost, such behavior is not relative. Inferior plus extra cost equals an illusion of relative.

Wow, was not aware that liberals are tax exempt. Also did not know, that religious entities, which are tax exempt are now volunteering to pay said tax so that liberals can just incur “social costs”. What again are those social costs associated with homosexuality? And the rest of this gobbledygook means what again?

If we place moral and immoral on a scale, these do not weigh the same, so they are not equal. The side with immorality requires so much more propping up. Why do you think it takes a circus of propaganda and force law to prop up homosexuality? Without mops it is not sustainable.

What are you ranting on about here? Morality vs. immorality, yeah whatever, but what exactly constitutes those terms. So homosexuality is immoral, but pedophilia (usually committed by heterosexuals, often married fathers, or celibate priests) that’s moral, right? And how does one “prop up” homosexuality?