They get dismissed because they are only relevant to yourself. Why should your experience dictate someone else's?
The Gay Pride (Oxymoron) Parade
- Thread starter Jefferson
- Start date
- Status
They get dismissed because they are only relevant to yourself. Why should your experience dictate someone else's?
PB, you're just arguing for the sake of arguing and almost all of this is semantical. You most certainly do dismiss personal experiences as irrelevant when they contradict your own personal opinions. That's hypocritical. No one is suggesting any generalization is true in all cases. If it were, it wouldn't be a generalization any more. If you were as vested in truth as you claim, you wouldn't value any personal opinion over another. In fact, you'd grant greater relevance to opinion based on personal experience. You don't do that, quite the opposite, and that discredits your claim of interest in truth.
It shouldn't, bonehead. It should merely be granted at least the relevance granted all these personal opinions by those who don't know what the heck they're talking about.
So do all experiences count as valid or only the one's you agree with. How about a homo who *claims* they have gone straight and then goes back to being gay and states being straight was just not natural for them?
Surely their experience is every bit as valid as yours.
PlastikBuddha
New member
That's news to me. I think you're getting bent out of shape because I won't take your word as an ex-gay over that of practicing homosexuals and my own knowledge of the human condition. This is not dismissing your experience. It is not lending the weight of absolute authority to it and it is not because it contradicts my own experience but because sweeping generalizations can't be legitimately drawn from personal experience.
Who says I do? Opinion is a very flismy foundation to build a belief upon. I prefer things like evidence and deduction.
You do realize that this contradicts the statement you just made above, don't you?
"you wouldn't value any personal opinion over another"/"you'd grant greater relevance to opinion based on personal experience". :think:
The value of subjective, personal experience in determining truth is limited. I prefer a more robust coin, like facts.
Why is that, Your Shrewishness?
I AGREE! Which is why I feel a duty to keep correcting you! Let me put it in a way that even someone with your limited cerebral abilities can understand.
The reason your position does not hold the same clout as mine does in the "real world" is because it revolves around religion and taking liberty from others based soley on religion.
Got it yet? Or shall I type it in big, bold letters? :hammer:
Of course. When did I deny it's relevance? What does that have to do with the point we're discussing? You know, whether or not opinions and experiences that contradict that position are relevant.
Jinkx, you're being a doofus. So, if I offered the same exact opinions and observations on homosexuality without ever referencing religion or criminal law those opinions and observations would somehow magically become relevant?
Why do you keep avoiding the point under discussion?
I think you've forgotten we're primarily talking about your reaction to LMOHM's statements of personal opinion and experience. You most certainly did dismiss it as irrelevant, even accusing him. "I know you think your past experience makes you a mouthpiece for all gays everywhere..."
Argue it all you like, it's a clear dismissal of his specific opinion as irrelevant. I don't see you doing the same with anyone else.
Yet you seem particular in which opinions you dismiss and which you accept. And you do accept some. From what I've seen, those that support your conclusions. And that's fine and good except that you seem to think those contradictory opinions shouldn't even be presented at all.
Yes, yes. Did you miss the point? If you were vested in truth, opinion based on personal experience would be viewed as more credible than opinion based on supposition.
Let me get this straight. You don't value personal experience and opinion, right? Only "more robust coin, like facts"? So if I look back over your comments on such personal experience and opinion I'll see you object as often to those that present a position favoring homosexuality as acceptable as those that do not? Right?
What are the facts, exactly? I don't think you have anything solid. Most of your "facts" are, in fact, the opinions of others and suppositions based on very little, weak evidence.
PlastikBuddha
New member
Why the false dichotomy, MC? Saying that someone's experience isn't authoritative is NOT the same thing as saying it is irrelevent.
Really? You mean I apply reasoning and logic, and don't accept any old opinion that rolls down the pike as gospel truth but show discrimination? How is that different from anyone else here?
Not as authoratative truth. I will listen to anyone's personal experience, but I don't base my beliefs on it.
Where have I said that?
That's not the breakdown in question here. We all have personal experience with gay people we have known, listened to, read about, etc. You want to weight the testimony of a few ex-gays over the practicing majority.
Not as highly as you apparently do, anyways...
Did I say "only"?
Are they basing these positions solely on personal experience? And should I object to someone who is right for the wrong reasons in the same way I do to someone who is wrong for the wrong reasons? :think:So if I look back over your comments on such personal experience and opinion I'll see you object as often to those that present a position favoring homosexuality as acceptable as those that do not? Right?
1. Homosexuality is not a crime.
2. Homosexuals are human beings capable of the same range of human emotions as heterosexuals.
So dispute them if you can.
Because *opinions* on this subject only matter on an individual basis. It would be unnatural for me to to have a same sex relationship because I AM a straight woman. It would be unnatural for someone that is gay to have a relationship with a member of the opposite sex because they are GAY. Anyone else's opinion outside of mine or another individuals is not relevant.
I have never stated your experience shouldn't be considered for anyone that is interested in listening to it and taking it seriously. THAT is where *your experience* on this subject ends.
Quincy
New member
It's not homosexuality that harms people, it's having sex with someone who has an std that does. People should make a point to get to know who they choose as a sexual partner a little better than what is your name and where is your apartment. It doesn't matter what sexuality you are, if you don't watch out for yourself you can fall victim to tragedy.
Let me ask the anti-homosexual crowd a question. Has every person who has engaged in a homosexual act contracted an std? No, I can personally attest for that. Will every person who does contract one? No. Will anyone who engages in a sexual act with a person with an std contract the disease? Most likely. The harm is done when basic traits of humanity, such as honesty and trust, are bypassed for selfish sexual gains. This can happen no matter if the person is straight, bi, tri, or gay. People need to ask questions, and get themselves checked out often if they want to choose a promiscuous lifestyle. Even if you folks are sucessful in outlawing homosexuality and people were to adhere to it, aids would still exist and a populace of heterosexuals would still be subject to it. The key isn't rooting out a specific subculture, the solution is education. Even in this day and time, alot of people don't know the facts.
[random average guy in a bar]Why do you need their name?[/random average guy in a bar]
OK, in all seriousness, you have just proven that you're a moron. Homosexuality harms people, period.
You're a queer?
P.S.
This isn't about eradicating AIDS.
Quincy
New member
Explain to us without using your religion, and assuming all homosexuals are irresponsible, how homosexuality harms anyone? The only case I can see that would be raising a child in a homosexual household because biologically a child needs both rolemodels from each sex, imho. My opinion differs from the mainstream but I never found the mainstream logical. And yes I have engaged in homosexual acts, I don't anymore because I am in a committed relationship with Jinkx. Say what you want, you have the right
, but I never contracted any stds or any of the other negative generalizations that just aren't true universally.
So "opinions" now equal right and wrong? Is that an absolute?
"I slaughter Jews because in my opinion, they are sub-human and I am an individual."
-A Nazi
"If a homo man has sex with a woman, that is wrong because the homo is a sodomite and is an individual."
-A pervert
Explain to us without using your religion, and assuming all homosexuals are irresponsible, how homosexuality harms anyone? The only case I can see that would be raising a child in a homosexual household because biologically a child needs both rolemodels from each sex, imho. My opinion differs from the mainstream but I never found the mainstream logical. And yes I have engaged in homosexual acts, I don't anymore because I am in a committed relationship with Jinkx. Say what you want, you have the right
It contributes to the social and moral breakdown of society as a whole, by undermining the natural family unit. For one.
If you are so right, then why did you feel the need to misquote me regarding right and wrong? THIS is what I posted:
Originally Posted by Jinkx
Because *opinions* on this subject only matter on an individual basis.
On this subject, Shimei.
What adults do in private with other consenting adults is no one else's business because they are harming no one.
Except themselves and everyone else they sleep with....
... not to mention them spreading their perversions by making it popular...
Quincy
New member
In the rest of my post I addressed that two same sex people shouldn't try to raise children imo , I actually agree with you there. I just don't think that family necessarily needs to be an extension of a relationship, but if family is desired I think it should be done on biological terms. I don't support forms of artificial insemination, but that is an argument for a different thread.
What? I don't recognise homosexuality as a crime, neither does the law, the only people who do seem to be those who would have us all living under Mosaic law, thankfully in the scheme of things they're a vocal but tiny minority....
"Depends on the context"??! What possible scenario could there be where rape and molestation are less evil than an act of consent between adults????! how can a consentual act ever be worse than the most vile and violative abuse of another human being?? This is where you just sound absolutely crazy....
I have paid attention thanks, I've seen you dismiss other peoples experiences here plenty of times which is why I asked....
:doh: Dangit, Red. This is where you getting really, really frustrating. You are not thinking, you're just having an emotional reaction. Presenting the homosexual act as a crime and granting it the same penalty as murder or rape doesn't equate these three things morally. It merely equates them criminally. You continue to insist that to have the same penalty they must be morally identical and, since they're not, that penalty cannot apply. And yet I would wager you'd be one of the first to argue that morality doesn't enter into law. :dizzy: Why do you consistently refuse to understand this?
I may have presented a contradictory opinion based on contradictory experiences, Red. I may even say their opinion is wrong and presented my own opinion as right. Is that the same as dismissing someone's experiences?
The point I have issue with is one side of the camp presenting their personal opinion, based on their personal experiences, to lend credibility to their position. I don't have a problem with that. In fact, I'm more likely to consider a position that has that kind of support. Not necessarily accept it but I'm certainly more willing to consider it. Someone who's actually experienced something I can't help but feel will have a more serious opinion on the matter than someone who's considered it without experiencing it. If they've actually some experience on the matter and still attempt an objective assessment, that really gets my attention.
Yet when the other side of the camp presents an opposing personal opinion based on a different personal experience to lend credibility to their position it's dismissed as irrelevant. Say wha? If an opinion based on personal experience is presented then an opposing opinion of the same nature can and should be presented to oppose it. Doesn't that make perfect sense?
But this is all largely a waste of time. I think I've erred in assuming the folks that do this don't see that they're being dishonest in doing this. I think now that they not only recognize it's a dishonest tactic, they also don't care. So I'm wasting my time pointing it out.
- Status