|
On August 03 2013 00:58 shinosai wrote:Show nested quote +On August 03 2013 00:56 Snusmumriken wrote:On August 03 2013 00:46 shinosai wrote:On August 03 2013 00:45 Snusmumriken wrote:On August 03 2013 00:36 Plansix wrote:On August 03 2013 00:33 Snusmumriken wrote:On August 03 2013 00:29 shinosai wrote:On August 03 2013 00:27 Shiori wrote:In any case, "I only sleep with white people" is not a sexual orientation. It's just racism. What if you just really like pale skin? Again, with the biracial woman example... if you were attracted to her, but then found out she was biracial, I don't think the "I really like pale skin" is gonna cover it. What if youve had a chip implanted that will explode in your head if you ever have sex with a biracial person. Ridiculous? No more than you calling someone phobic for having preferences you cant relate to. Not sleeping with someone because you don't like their parent's skin color and race is racism. Sure but thats not the only reason someone can have for not sleeping with biracial people. Again with the egocentrism, just because you dont have the capacity to think anyone can have preferences outside the scope of phobias or racism it doesnt mean there arent any. Example: lets say I want jewish kids and I sleep with a jewish woman because we both want to procreate. It turns out only her fathers jewish so by jewish law shes not actually jewish hence my children wont be. I dont want to sleep with her anymore. Racist? Not only is it racist, but the jewish law is incredibly racist as well. If you seriously consider someone racist solely based on the fact that he wants to have jewish children I doubt we get much further. I would urge you to be much more careful about throwing such words around, all you end up is washed-out terms nobody cares about anymore. If you keep shouting wolf whenever you see a dog people arent gonna bother when you actually face a wolf. There are different degrees of racism. The argument "I'm not as bad as a member of the KKK, therefore I cannot be racist" is not convincing to even the dullest of minds. It fits the definition. You are discriminating against a person based solely on their racial origins and nothing else. What else could we possibly call that?
Are you for real? Since when is who a person doesnt want to sleep with a sufficient reason for calling them discriminatory. Me not wanting to sleep with redheads is neither necessary nor sufficient for calling me discriminatory, the same goes if I dont want to sleep with black people or with white people or with whatever people. If I dont want to allow redheads on my bus however... Sexual preferences alone can never be sufficient, and using words that way is just humpty dumptyism.
|
On August 03 2013 00:58 shinosai wrote:Show nested quote +On August 03 2013 00:56 Snusmumriken wrote:On August 03 2013 00:46 shinosai wrote:On August 03 2013 00:45 Snusmumriken wrote:On August 03 2013 00:36 Plansix wrote:On August 03 2013 00:33 Snusmumriken wrote:On August 03 2013 00:29 shinosai wrote:On August 03 2013 00:27 Shiori wrote:In any case, "I only sleep with white people" is not a sexual orientation. It's just racism. What if you just really like pale skin? Again, with the biracial woman example... if you were attracted to her, but then found out she was biracial, I don't think the "I really like pale skin" is gonna cover it. What if youve had a chip implanted that will explode in your head if you ever have sex with a biracial person. Ridiculous? No more than you calling someone phobic for having preferences you cant relate to. Not sleeping with someone because you don't like their parent's skin color and race is racism. Sure but thats not the only reason someone can have for not sleeping with biracial people. Again with the egocentrism, just because you dont have the capacity to think anyone can have preferences outside the scope of phobias or racism it doesnt mean there arent any. Example: lets say I want jewish kids and I sleep with a jewish woman because we both want to procreate. It turns out only her fathers jewish so by jewish law shes not actually jewish hence my children wont be. I dont want to sleep with her anymore. Racist? Not only is it racist, but the jewish law is incredibly racist as well. If you seriously consider someone racist solely based on the fact that he wants to have jewish children I doubt we get much further. I would urge you to be much more careful about throwing such words around, all you end up is washed-out terms nobody cares about anymore. If you keep shouting wolf whenever you see a dog people arent gonna bother when you actually face a wolf. There are different degrees of racism. The argument "I'm not as bad as a member of the KKK, therefore I cannot be racist" is not convincing to even the dullest of minds. It fits the definition. You are discriminating against a person based solely on their racial origins and nothing else. What else could we possibly call that?
And by refusing to have sex with people of the same sex you are discriminating against people based solely on their sex and nothing else. What else could we possibly call that other than homophobia?
Don't you see how you're having double standards here? You're implying that someone's sex is a valid reason to discriminate against someone as far as having sex goes, but whatever other arbitrary quality is somehow invalid. Now that is close-minded.
|
On August 03 2013 01:06 ComaDose wrote:Show nested quote +On August 03 2013 01:04 Plansix wrote:On August 03 2013 00:58 shinosai wrote:On August 03 2013 00:56 Snusmumriken wrote:On August 03 2013 00:46 shinosai wrote:On August 03 2013 00:45 Snusmumriken wrote:On August 03 2013 00:36 Plansix wrote:On August 03 2013 00:33 Snusmumriken wrote:On August 03 2013 00:29 shinosai wrote:On August 03 2013 00:27 Shiori wrote:
[quote]
What if you just really like pale skin? Again, with the biracial woman example... if you were attracted to her, but then found out she was biracial, I don't think the "I really like pale skin" is gonna cover it. What if youve had a chip implanted that will explode in your head if you ever have sex with a biracial person. Ridiculous? No more than you calling someone phobic for having preferences you cant relate to. Not sleeping with someone because you don't like their parent's skin color and race is racism. Sure but thats not the only reason someone can have for not sleeping with biracial people. Again with the egocentrism, just because you dont have the capacity to think anyone can have preferences outside the scope of phobias or racism it doesnt mean there arent any. Example: lets say I want jewish kids and I sleep with a jewish woman because we both want to procreate. It turns out only her fathers jewish so by jewish law shes not actually jewish hence my children wont be. I dont want to sleep with her anymore. Racist? Not only is it racist, but the jewish law is incredibly racist as well. If you seriously consider someone racist solely based on the fact that he wants to have jewish children I doubt we get much further. I would urge you to be much more careful about throwing such words around, all you end up is washed-out terms nobody cares about anymore. If you keep shouting wolf whenever you see a dog people arent gonna bother when you actually face a wolf. There are different degrees of racism. The argument "I'm not as bad as a member of the KKK, therefore I cannot be racist" is not convincing to even the dullest of minds. It fits the definition. You are discriminating against a person based solely on their racial origins and nothing else. What else could we possibly call that? I would say that people do a poor job of using the word and finding different terminology would be best for the discussion. The word “Negro” is factually correct, but I don’t break that one out ever for good reason. The words and how they are used change over time. Open, fair minded people do not like being defined as racist and finding other, less offensive words to describe whatever hang out they may have is best for everyone. doesn't that legitimize their "hang out" even though its prejudice against someones race?
I meant "hang up", sorry about that. And it does, but if it isn't malicious and is a product of something beyond their control(crappy parents that they have worked to get away from), do you want to insult them and make them defensive. Your not dealing with bigots most of the time, but people who want to be opening minded, but might slip now and then. They likely know in the back of their mind that its racist.
We have a phrase at my job, “I don’t want to beat them, I want to win.” The same applies here. Do you want to prove to that person that they are racist, or do you want help them change? Your choice of words is important.
|
On August 03 2013 01:09 Snusmumriken wrote:Show nested quote +On August 03 2013 00:58 shinosai wrote:On August 03 2013 00:56 Snusmumriken wrote:On August 03 2013 00:46 shinosai wrote:On August 03 2013 00:45 Snusmumriken wrote:On August 03 2013 00:36 Plansix wrote:On August 03 2013 00:33 Snusmumriken wrote:On August 03 2013 00:29 shinosai wrote:On August 03 2013 00:27 Shiori wrote:In any case, "I only sleep with white people" is not a sexual orientation. It's just racism. What if you just really like pale skin? Again, with the biracial woman example... if you were attracted to her, but then found out she was biracial, I don't think the "I really like pale skin" is gonna cover it. What if youve had a chip implanted that will explode in your head if you ever have sex with a biracial person. Ridiculous? No more than you calling someone phobic for having preferences you cant relate to. Not sleeping with someone because you don't like their parent's skin color and race is racism. Sure but thats not the only reason someone can have for not sleeping with biracial people. Again with the egocentrism, just because you dont have the capacity to think anyone can have preferences outside the scope of phobias or racism it doesnt mean there arent any. Example: lets say I want jewish kids and I sleep with a jewish woman because we both want to procreate. It turns out only her fathers jewish so by jewish law shes not actually jewish hence my children wont be. I dont want to sleep with her anymore. Racist? Not only is it racist, but the jewish law is incredibly racist as well. If you seriously consider someone racist solely based on the fact that he wants to have jewish children I doubt we get much further. I would urge you to be much more careful about throwing such words around, all you end up is washed-out terms nobody cares about anymore. If you keep shouting wolf whenever you see a dog people arent gonna bother when you actually face a wolf. There are different degrees of racism. The argument "I'm not as bad as a member of the KKK, therefore I cannot be racist" is not convincing to even the dullest of minds. It fits the definition. You are discriminating against a person based solely on their racial origins and nothing else. What else could we possibly call that? Are you for real? Since when is who a person doesnt want to sleep with a sufficient reason for calling them discriminatory. Me not wanting to sleep with redheads is neither necessary nor sufficient for calling me discriminatory, the same goes if I dont want to sleep with black people or with white people or with whatever people. If I dont want to allow redheads on my bus however... Sexual preferences alone can never be sufficient, and using words that way is just humpty dumptyism.
You seem to misunderstand what the words racist, transphobic, and discriminate mean. In this context, the word means something similar to discriminating between the colors red and blue. Only in this case, it makes you look bad because you're discriminating between people based on their race.
|
On August 03 2013 01:10 maybenexttime wrote:Show nested quote +On August 03 2013 00:58 shinosai wrote:On August 03 2013 00:56 Snusmumriken wrote:On August 03 2013 00:46 shinosai wrote:On August 03 2013 00:45 Snusmumriken wrote:On August 03 2013 00:36 Plansix wrote:On August 03 2013 00:33 Snusmumriken wrote:On August 03 2013 00:29 shinosai wrote:On August 03 2013 00:27 Shiori wrote:In any case, "I only sleep with white people" is not a sexual orientation. It's just racism. What if you just really like pale skin? Again, with the biracial woman example... if you were attracted to her, but then found out she was biracial, I don't think the "I really like pale skin" is gonna cover it. What if youve had a chip implanted that will explode in your head if you ever have sex with a biracial person. Ridiculous? No more than you calling someone phobic for having preferences you cant relate to. Not sleeping with someone because you don't like their parent's skin color and race is racism. Sure but thats not the only reason someone can have for not sleeping with biracial people. Again with the egocentrism, just because you dont have the capacity to think anyone can have preferences outside the scope of phobias or racism it doesnt mean there arent any. Example: lets say I want jewish kids and I sleep with a jewish woman because we both want to procreate. It turns out only her fathers jewish so by jewish law shes not actually jewish hence my children wont be. I dont want to sleep with her anymore. Racist? Not only is it racist, but the jewish law is incredibly racist as well. If you seriously consider someone racist solely based on the fact that he wants to have jewish children I doubt we get much further. I would urge you to be much more careful about throwing such words around, all you end up is washed-out terms nobody cares about anymore. If you keep shouting wolf whenever you see a dog people arent gonna bother when you actually face a wolf. There are different degrees of racism. The argument "I'm not as bad as a member of the KKK, therefore I cannot be racist" is not convincing to even the dullest of minds. It fits the definition. You are discriminating against a person based solely on their racial origins and nothing else. What else could we possibly call that? And by refusing to have sex with people of the same sex you are discriminating against people based solely on their sex and nothing else. What else could we possibly call that other than homophobia? Don't you see how you're having double standards here? You're implying that someone's sex is a valid reason to discriminate against someone as far as having sex goes, but whatever other arbitrary quality is somehow invalid. Now that is close-minded.
I don't think I can explain any better why sexual orientation is different than discriminating based on race. I surrender, I cannot convince you. I will no longer attempt to convince you otherwise.
|
On August 03 2013 00:12 maybenexttime wrote:Show nested quote +On August 02 2013 23:13 Mercy13 wrote:I am going to focus on this statement because I think for the rest we are just going to have to agree to disagree about what gives rise to an obligation to disclose: And consent to having sex with a cis woman is different from consent to having sex with a transsexual woman, whether the former is clarified upfront or merely implied because of the probability of accidentally hooking up with a transsexual is extremely rare. You're saying that they are the same thing, but for most people they are not. Which is exactly why I used that analogy because, imo, you're presenting a view on consent that is equally detached from reality. The analogy goes even further, clarifying that the legality of either behaviour does not determine its morality. Just because, strictly speaking, consent to sex with a trans woman is not the same thing as consent to sex with a cis woman doesn't mean that the consent was totally absent. It's in a totally different realm from marital rape. I normally hate using hypotheticals, but I think the following might illustrate what I am talking about: Say that a person who is allergic to peanuts goes to a restaurant and orders a burger. The burger is cooked in peanut oil, so the person becomes ill. If the restaurant had reason to know that the person was allergic to peanuts, a strong argument can be made that the restaurant was morally wrong to serve him peanuts, but it would be factually incorrect to say that the restaurant forced him to eat the burger. Now if instead the restaurant strapped him down and force fed him the peanut oil cooked burger, then it would be factually correct that they forced him to eat the burger. You seem to be equating these two scenarios, but I think it is pretty clear that the second scenario is far worse than the first. They are not morally or factually equivalent, it's simply a bad comparison. No, it is not. Just because the consent was not given in that very moment does not mean the consent was totally absent - it was implied the moment you got married (in a country that does condone marital rape). The woman agreed to get married, thus agreeing to "marital obligations" and by extension giving consent to sex, and then she is having second thoughts. Your whole reasoning (bolded) hinges upon the assumption that giving consent to A, but not giving consent to B, is somehow giving consent in some general sense, including B. That is just nonsense, no offence. Like I said, transsexual women go to great lengths to make themselves as undifferentiable from cis women as possible. That's the very purpose of transition, for god's sake. Because of that they are making their potential sexual partner act on the assumed premise that they're cis women, whether by intent or not, it doesn't matter. A better analogy would be a restaurant marketing itself with a slogan saying "best cow steaks in town" while serving steaks made from pork and doing their best to make them taste like cow meat. If a Muslim happens to eat at the place is it really his responsibility to enquire whether the meat the restaurant strived to make as indistinguishable from cow meat as possible is by some random chance actually pork meat?
There is no such thing as irrevocable consent. It doesn't matter if a person signs their name in blood on a written statement in front of 50 witnesses on live television that they consent to have sex and will always consent to have sex in the future. If 5 seconds later that person has "second thoughts" and decides they don't want to have sex there is no consent.
I don't get why you are so bent on analogizing marital rape and sex with a trans person who doesn't disclose. In one case there is consent at the time of the sexual contact, in the other there is not. They are not equivalent scenarios.
|
On August 03 2013 01:11 shinosai wrote:Show nested quote +On August 03 2013 01:09 Snusmumriken wrote:On August 03 2013 00:58 shinosai wrote:On August 03 2013 00:56 Snusmumriken wrote:On August 03 2013 00:46 shinosai wrote:On August 03 2013 00:45 Snusmumriken wrote:On August 03 2013 00:36 Plansix wrote:On August 03 2013 00:33 Snusmumriken wrote:On August 03 2013 00:29 shinosai wrote:On August 03 2013 00:27 Shiori wrote:
[quote]
What if you just really like pale skin? Again, with the biracial woman example... if you were attracted to her, but then found out she was biracial, I don't think the "I really like pale skin" is gonna cover it. What if youve had a chip implanted that will explode in your head if you ever have sex with a biracial person. Ridiculous? No more than you calling someone phobic for having preferences you cant relate to. Not sleeping with someone because you don't like their parent's skin color and race is racism. Sure but thats not the only reason someone can have for not sleeping with biracial people. Again with the egocentrism, just because you dont have the capacity to think anyone can have preferences outside the scope of phobias or racism it doesnt mean there arent any. Example: lets say I want jewish kids and I sleep with a jewish woman because we both want to procreate. It turns out only her fathers jewish so by jewish law shes not actually jewish hence my children wont be. I dont want to sleep with her anymore. Racist? Not only is it racist, but the jewish law is incredibly racist as well. If you seriously consider someone racist solely based on the fact that he wants to have jewish children I doubt we get much further. I would urge you to be much more careful about throwing such words around, all you end up is washed-out terms nobody cares about anymore. If you keep shouting wolf whenever you see a dog people arent gonna bother when you actually face a wolf. There are different degrees of racism. The argument "I'm not as bad as a member of the KKK, therefore I cannot be racist" is not convincing to even the dullest of minds. It fits the definition. You are discriminating against a person based solely on their racial origins and nothing else. What else could we possibly call that? Are you for real? Since when is who a person doesnt want to sleep with a sufficient reason for calling them discriminatory. Me not wanting to sleep with redheads is neither necessary nor sufficient for calling me discriminatory, the same goes if I dont want to sleep with black people or with white people or with whatever people. If I dont want to allow redheads on my bus however... Sexual preferences alone can never be sufficient, and using words that way is just humpty dumptyism. You seem to misunderstand what the words racist, transphobic, and discriminate mean. In this context, the word means something similar to discriminating between the colors red and blue. Only in this case, it makes you look bad because you're discriminating between people based on their race.
Racism
It's pretty clear that racism is inseparable from judgments about someone's ontological worth. Saying that most of your favourite basketball players are black isn't racist, no more than my supporting the Italian football team is racist (my mother is Italian etc.). I don't actually think these races are literally better than other ones. I just prefer certain things associated with those races (say, Italian culture versus Iraqi culture). Similarly, if I say I'm not a fan of the colour purple, I'm not being anti-purple; I'm being pro-blue (or whatever).
|
On August 03 2013 01:11 shinosai wrote:Show nested quote +On August 03 2013 01:09 Snusmumriken wrote:On August 03 2013 00:58 shinosai wrote:On August 03 2013 00:56 Snusmumriken wrote:On August 03 2013 00:46 shinosai wrote:On August 03 2013 00:45 Snusmumriken wrote:On August 03 2013 00:36 Plansix wrote:On August 03 2013 00:33 Snusmumriken wrote:On August 03 2013 00:29 shinosai wrote:On August 03 2013 00:27 Shiori wrote:
[quote]
What if you just really like pale skin? Again, with the biracial woman example... if you were attracted to her, but then found out she was biracial, I don't think the "I really like pale skin" is gonna cover it. What if youve had a chip implanted that will explode in your head if you ever have sex with a biracial person. Ridiculous? No more than you calling someone phobic for having preferences you cant relate to. Not sleeping with someone because you don't like their parent's skin color and race is racism. Sure but thats not the only reason someone can have for not sleeping with biracial people. Again with the egocentrism, just because you dont have the capacity to think anyone can have preferences outside the scope of phobias or racism it doesnt mean there arent any. Example: lets say I want jewish kids and I sleep with a jewish woman because we both want to procreate. It turns out only her fathers jewish so by jewish law shes not actually jewish hence my children wont be. I dont want to sleep with her anymore. Racist? Not only is it racist, but the jewish law is incredibly racist as well. If you seriously consider someone racist solely based on the fact that he wants to have jewish children I doubt we get much further. I would urge you to be much more careful about throwing such words around, all you end up is washed-out terms nobody cares about anymore. If you keep shouting wolf whenever you see a dog people arent gonna bother when you actually face a wolf. There are different degrees of racism. The argument "I'm not as bad as a member of the KKK, therefore I cannot be racist" is not convincing to even the dullest of minds. It fits the definition. You are discriminating against a person based solely on their racial origins and nothing else. What else could we possibly call that? Are you for real? Since when is who a person doesnt want to sleep with a sufficient reason for calling them discriminatory. Me not wanting to sleep with redheads is neither necessary nor sufficient for calling me discriminatory, the same goes if I dont want to sleep with black people or with white people or with whatever people. If I dont want to allow redheads on my bus however... Sexual preferences alone can never be sufficient, and using words that way is just humpty dumptyism. You seem to misunderstand what the words racist, transphobic, and discriminate mean. In this context, the word means something similar to discriminating between the colors red and blue. Only in this case, it makes you look bad because you're discriminating between people based on their race.
Dont pretend like theres a clearcut definition of those words when theres not. Youre just washing out whatever meaning those words actually have for rethoric purpose, because guess what its uncomfortable to be called a racist or a bigot or a transphobe. Its a cheapshot, its ridiculous, its used to push certain dogma and worst of all, it obscures communication.
I absolutely refuse to play that game.
|
On August 03 2013 01:09 shinosai wrote:Show nested quote +On August 03 2013 01:05 maybenexttime wrote:On August 03 2013 00:50 shinosai wrote:The thing is, this is no more "transphobia" than being heterosexual is "homophobia" I already addressed this. There is a difference between refusing to sleep with someone based on your sexual orientation and refusing to sleep with someone based solely on and nothing other than their race or origin of birth. Both are just preferences and respect equal amounts of respect. Preferences can be racist and transphobic. Just because it's a personal preference doesn't make it immune to scrutiny. People are still allowed to judge you as an asshole if you refuse to associate with black people. "It's just my preference" is not going to cut it. Stop using the word 'preference' like it grants some sort of magical immunity to criticism.
It's not criticism, it's being an asshole. No different from telling someone they are mentally screwed up because they're transsexual. Someone's sexuality is none of your business. Unless, of course, you think people are required to have sex with you and their refusal based on whatever criteria is somehow offensive to you. In that case you need to grow up.
|
On August 03 2013 01:11 Plansix wrote:Show nested quote +On August 03 2013 01:06 ComaDose wrote:On August 03 2013 01:04 Plansix wrote:On August 03 2013 00:58 shinosai wrote:On August 03 2013 00:56 Snusmumriken wrote:On August 03 2013 00:46 shinosai wrote:On August 03 2013 00:45 Snusmumriken wrote:On August 03 2013 00:36 Plansix wrote:On August 03 2013 00:33 Snusmumriken wrote:On August 03 2013 00:29 shinosai wrote:
[quote]
Again, with the biracial woman example... if you were attracted to her, but then found out she was biracial, I don't think the "I really like pale skin" is gonna cover it. What if youve had a chip implanted that will explode in your head if you ever have sex with a biracial person. Ridiculous? No more than you calling someone phobic for having preferences you cant relate to. Not sleeping with someone because you don't like their parent's skin color and race is racism. Sure but thats not the only reason someone can have for not sleeping with biracial people. Again with the egocentrism, just because you dont have the capacity to think anyone can have preferences outside the scope of phobias or racism it doesnt mean there arent any. Example: lets say I want jewish kids and I sleep with a jewish woman because we both want to procreate. It turns out only her fathers jewish so by jewish law shes not actually jewish hence my children wont be. I dont want to sleep with her anymore. Racist? Not only is it racist, but the jewish law is incredibly racist as well. If you seriously consider someone racist solely based on the fact that he wants to have jewish children I doubt we get much further. I would urge you to be much more careful about throwing such words around, all you end up is washed-out terms nobody cares about anymore. If you keep shouting wolf whenever you see a dog people arent gonna bother when you actually face a wolf. There are different degrees of racism. The argument "I'm not as bad as a member of the KKK, therefore I cannot be racist" is not convincing to even the dullest of minds. It fits the definition. You are discriminating against a person based solely on their racial origins and nothing else. What else could we possibly call that? I would say that people do a poor job of using the word and finding different terminology would be best for the discussion. The word “Negro” is factually correct, but I don’t break that one out ever for good reason. The words and how they are used change over time. Open, fair minded people do not like being defined as racist and finding other, less offensive words to describe whatever hang out they may have is best for everyone. doesn't that legitimize their "hang out" even though its prejudice against someones race? I meant "hang up", sorry about that. And it does, but if it isn't malicious and is a product of something beyond their control(crappy parents that they have worked to get away from), do you want to insult them and make them defensive. Your not dealing with bigots most of the time, but people who want to be opening minded, but might slip now and then. They likely know in the back of their mind that its racist. We have a phrase at my job, “I don’t want to beat them, I want to win.” The same applies here. Do you want to prove to that person that they are racist, or do you want help them change? Your choice of words is important.
To their face i might refrain from calling them racist, i see what you are saying now.
i thought you meant stop classifying them as racist among intelligent people.
|
On August 03 2013 01:15 Shiori wrote:Show nested quote +On August 03 2013 01:11 shinosai wrote:On August 03 2013 01:09 Snusmumriken wrote:On August 03 2013 00:58 shinosai wrote:On August 03 2013 00:56 Snusmumriken wrote:On August 03 2013 00:46 shinosai wrote:On August 03 2013 00:45 Snusmumriken wrote:On August 03 2013 00:36 Plansix wrote:On August 03 2013 00:33 Snusmumriken wrote:On August 03 2013 00:29 shinosai wrote:
[quote]
Again, with the biracial woman example... if you were attracted to her, but then found out she was biracial, I don't think the "I really like pale skin" is gonna cover it. What if youve had a chip implanted that will explode in your head if you ever have sex with a biracial person. Ridiculous? No more than you calling someone phobic for having preferences you cant relate to. Not sleeping with someone because you don't like their parent's skin color and race is racism. Sure but thats not the only reason someone can have for not sleeping with biracial people. Again with the egocentrism, just because you dont have the capacity to think anyone can have preferences outside the scope of phobias or racism it doesnt mean there arent any. Example: lets say I want jewish kids and I sleep with a jewish woman because we both want to procreate. It turns out only her fathers jewish so by jewish law shes not actually jewish hence my children wont be. I dont want to sleep with her anymore. Racist? Not only is it racist, but the jewish law is incredibly racist as well. If you seriously consider someone racist solely based on the fact that he wants to have jewish children I doubt we get much further. I would urge you to be much more careful about throwing such words around, all you end up is washed-out terms nobody cares about anymore. If you keep shouting wolf whenever you see a dog people arent gonna bother when you actually face a wolf. There are different degrees of racism. The argument "I'm not as bad as a member of the KKK, therefore I cannot be racist" is not convincing to even the dullest of minds. It fits the definition. You are discriminating against a person based solely on their racial origins and nothing else. What else could we possibly call that? Are you for real? Since when is who a person doesnt want to sleep with a sufficient reason for calling them discriminatory. Me not wanting to sleep with redheads is neither necessary nor sufficient for calling me discriminatory, the same goes if I dont want to sleep with black people or with white people or with whatever people. If I dont want to allow redheads on my bus however... Sexual preferences alone can never be sufficient, and using words that way is just humpty dumptyism. You seem to misunderstand what the words racist, transphobic, and discriminate mean. In this context, the word means something similar to discriminating between the colors red and blue. Only in this case, it makes you look bad because you're discriminating between people based on their race. RacismIt's pretty clear that racism is inseparable from judgments about someone's ontological worth. Saying that most of your favourite basketball players are black isn't racist, no more than my supporting the Italian football team is racist (my mother is Italian etc.). I don't actually think these races are literally better than other ones. I just prefer certain things associated with those races (say, Italian culture versus Iraqi culture). Similarly, if I say I'm not a fan of the colour purple, I'm not being anti-purple; I'm being pro-blue (or whatever).
It seems pretty clear that my point is continually obfuscated by analogies to different things. So let me make this as clear as possible:
It is okay if you do not want to date a black person because you are not attracted to them. It's also okay if you don't want to date a transsexual woman because you are not attracted to her. It's also okay to not date men because you aren't attracted to them. But when you refuse to date someone that you otherwise like because you discovered their origins, this is revealing of a prejudice.
|
On August 03 2013 01:18 ComaDose wrote:Show nested quote +On August 03 2013 01:11 Plansix wrote:On August 03 2013 01:06 ComaDose wrote:On August 03 2013 01:04 Plansix wrote:On August 03 2013 00:58 shinosai wrote:On August 03 2013 00:56 Snusmumriken wrote:On August 03 2013 00:46 shinosai wrote:On August 03 2013 00:45 Snusmumriken wrote:On August 03 2013 00:36 Plansix wrote:On August 03 2013 00:33 Snusmumriken wrote:
[quote]
What if youve had a chip implanted that will explode in your head if you ever have sex with a biracial person.
Ridiculous? No more than you calling someone phobic for having preferences you cant relate to. Not sleeping with someone because you don't like their parent's skin color and race is racism. Sure but thats not the only reason someone can have for not sleeping with biracial people. Again with the egocentrism, just because you dont have the capacity to think anyone can have preferences outside the scope of phobias or racism it doesnt mean there arent any. Example: lets say I want jewish kids and I sleep with a jewish woman because we both want to procreate. It turns out only her fathers jewish so by jewish law shes not actually jewish hence my children wont be. I dont want to sleep with her anymore. Racist? Not only is it racist, but the jewish law is incredibly racist as well. If you seriously consider someone racist solely based on the fact that he wants to have jewish children I doubt we get much further. I would urge you to be much more careful about throwing such words around, all you end up is washed-out terms nobody cares about anymore. If you keep shouting wolf whenever you see a dog people arent gonna bother when you actually face a wolf. There are different degrees of racism. The argument "I'm not as bad as a member of the KKK, therefore I cannot be racist" is not convincing to even the dullest of minds. It fits the definition. You are discriminating against a person based solely on their racial origins and nothing else. What else could we possibly call that? I would say that people do a poor job of using the word and finding different terminology would be best for the discussion. The word “Negro” is factually correct, but I don’t break that one out ever for good reason. The words and how they are used change over time. Open, fair minded people do not like being defined as racist and finding other, less offensive words to describe whatever hang out they may have is best for everyone. doesn't that legitimize their "hang out" even though its prejudice against someones race? I meant "hang up", sorry about that. And it does, but if it isn't malicious and is a product of something beyond their control(crappy parents that they have worked to get away from), do you want to insult them and make them defensive. Your not dealing with bigots most of the time, but people who want to be opening minded, but might slip now and then. They likely know in the back of their mind that its racist. We have a phrase at my job, “I don’t want to beat them, I want to win.” The same applies here. Do you want to prove to that person that they are racist, or do you want help them change? Your choice of words is important. To their face i might refrain from calling them racist, i see what you are saying now. i thought you meant stop classifying them as racist among intelligent people. I'm intelligent and I have the degrees and background to prove it. I do not take kindly to being called racist, even if the word could be used correctly.
|
On August 03 2013 01:21 Plansix wrote:Show nested quote +On August 03 2013 01:18 ComaDose wrote:On August 03 2013 01:11 Plansix wrote:On August 03 2013 01:06 ComaDose wrote:On August 03 2013 01:04 Plansix wrote:On August 03 2013 00:58 shinosai wrote:On August 03 2013 00:56 Snusmumriken wrote:On August 03 2013 00:46 shinosai wrote:On August 03 2013 00:45 Snusmumriken wrote:On August 03 2013 00:36 Plansix wrote:
[quote]
Not sleeping with someone because you don't like their parent's skin color and race is racism. Sure but thats not the only reason someone can have for not sleeping with biracial people. Again with the egocentrism, just because you dont have the capacity to think anyone can have preferences outside the scope of phobias or racism it doesnt mean there arent any. Example: lets say I want jewish kids and I sleep with a jewish woman because we both want to procreate. It turns out only her fathers jewish so by jewish law shes not actually jewish hence my children wont be. I dont want to sleep with her anymore. Racist? Not only is it racist, but the jewish law is incredibly racist as well. If you seriously consider someone racist solely based on the fact that he wants to have jewish children I doubt we get much further. I would urge you to be much more careful about throwing such words around, all you end up is washed-out terms nobody cares about anymore. If you keep shouting wolf whenever you see a dog people arent gonna bother when you actually face a wolf. There are different degrees of racism. The argument "I'm not as bad as a member of the KKK, therefore I cannot be racist" is not convincing to even the dullest of minds. It fits the definition. You are discriminating against a person based solely on their racial origins and nothing else. What else could we possibly call that? I would say that people do a poor job of using the word and finding different terminology would be best for the discussion. The word “Negro” is factually correct, but I don’t break that one out ever for good reason. The words and how they are used change over time. Open, fair minded people do not like being defined as racist and finding other, less offensive words to describe whatever hang out they may have is best for everyone. doesn't that legitimize their "hang out" even though its prejudice against someones race? I meant "hang up", sorry about that. And it does, but if it isn't malicious and is a product of something beyond their control(crappy parents that they have worked to get away from), do you want to insult them and make them defensive. Your not dealing with bigots most of the time, but people who want to be opening minded, but might slip now and then. They likely know in the back of their mind that its racist. We have a phrase at my job, “I don’t want to beat them, I want to win.” The same applies here. Do you want to prove to that person that they are racist, or do you want help them change? Your choice of words is important. To their face i might refrain from calling them racist, i see what you are saying now. i thought you meant stop classifying them as racist among intelligent people. I'm intelligent and I have the degrees and background to prove it. I do not take kindly to being called racist, even if the word could be used correctly.
well are you prejudice against someone based on their race?
|
On August 03 2013 01:10 maybenexttime wrote:Show nested quote +On August 03 2013 00:58 shinosai wrote:On August 03 2013 00:56 Snusmumriken wrote:On August 03 2013 00:46 shinosai wrote:On August 03 2013 00:45 Snusmumriken wrote:On August 03 2013 00:36 Plansix wrote:On August 03 2013 00:33 Snusmumriken wrote:On August 03 2013 00:29 shinosai wrote:On August 03 2013 00:27 Shiori wrote:In any case, "I only sleep with white people" is not a sexual orientation. It's just racism. What if you just really like pale skin? Again, with the biracial woman example... if you were attracted to her, but then found out she was biracial, I don't think the "I really like pale skin" is gonna cover it. What if youve had a chip implanted that will explode in your head if you ever have sex with a biracial person. Ridiculous? No more than you calling someone phobic for having preferences you cant relate to. Not sleeping with someone because you don't like their parent's skin color and race is racism. Sure but thats not the only reason someone can have for not sleeping with biracial people. Again with the egocentrism, just because you dont have the capacity to think anyone can have preferences outside the scope of phobias or racism it doesnt mean there arent any. Example: lets say I want jewish kids and I sleep with a jewish woman because we both want to procreate. It turns out only her fathers jewish so by jewish law shes not actually jewish hence my children wont be. I dont want to sleep with her anymore. Racist? Not only is it racist, but the jewish law is incredibly racist as well. If you seriously consider someone racist solely based on the fact that he wants to have jewish children I doubt we get much further. I would urge you to be much more careful about throwing such words around, all you end up is washed-out terms nobody cares about anymore. If you keep shouting wolf whenever you see a dog people arent gonna bother when you actually face a wolf. There are different degrees of racism. The argument "I'm not as bad as a member of the KKK, therefore I cannot be racist" is not convincing to even the dullest of minds. It fits the definition. You are discriminating against a person based solely on their racial origins and nothing else. What else could we possibly call that? And by refusing to have sex with people of the same sex you are discriminating against people based solely on their sex and nothing else. What else could we possibly call that other than homophobia? Don't you see how you're having double standards here? You're implying that someone's sex is a valid reason to discriminate against someone as far as having sex goes, but whatever other arbitrary quality is somehow invalid. Now that is close-minded.
It's an incredibly valid reason not to have sex with someone. Just like thinking someone is ugly, or in some other way unappealing, is also a valid reason to not have sex with them.
Sex is discriminatory by nature, otherwise you'd just fuck everything that moves. Homophobia has nothing to do with it.
|
On August 03 2013 01:17 maybenexttime wrote:Show nested quote +On August 03 2013 01:09 shinosai wrote:On August 03 2013 01:05 maybenexttime wrote:On August 03 2013 00:50 shinosai wrote:The thing is, this is no more "transphobia" than being heterosexual is "homophobia" I already addressed this. There is a difference between refusing to sleep with someone based on your sexual orientation and refusing to sleep with someone based solely on and nothing other than their race or origin of birth. Both are just preferences and respect equal amounts of respect. Preferences can be racist and transphobic. Just because it's a personal preference doesn't make it immune to scrutiny. People are still allowed to judge you as an asshole if you refuse to associate with black people. "It's just my preference" is not going to cut it. Stop using the word 'preference' like it grants some sort of magical immunity to criticism. It's not criticism, it's being an asshole. No different from telling someone they are mentally screwed up because they're transsexual. Someone's sexuality is none of your business. Unless, of course, you think people are required to have sex with you and their refusal based on whatever criteria is somehow offensive to you. In that case you need to grow up.
It is none of my business, but when you come in here shouting out that you don't want to date trans women or black women and it's just your preference, people will judge you because its offensive. You are alienating and othering these people in the community. Perhaps you should keep your offensive preferences to yourself if you wish not to be judged. In your day to day life, I don't care who you sleep with, but if you're going to make it a point to come here and share how sleeping with trans women make you feel disgusted, then yea, I'm going to criticize you for it. Because it makes trans women feel like shit.
|
On August 03 2013 01:14 Mercy13 wrote:Show nested quote +On August 03 2013 00:12 maybenexttime wrote:On August 02 2013 23:13 Mercy13 wrote:I am going to focus on this statement because I think for the rest we are just going to have to agree to disagree about what gives rise to an obligation to disclose: And consent to having sex with a cis woman is different from consent to having sex with a transsexual woman, whether the former is clarified upfront or merely implied because of the probability of accidentally hooking up with a transsexual is extremely rare. You're saying that they are the same thing, but for most people they are not. Which is exactly why I used that analogy because, imo, you're presenting a view on consent that is equally detached from reality. The analogy goes even further, clarifying that the legality of either behaviour does not determine its morality. Just because, strictly speaking, consent to sex with a trans woman is not the same thing as consent to sex with a cis woman doesn't mean that the consent was totally absent. It's in a totally different realm from marital rape. I normally hate using hypotheticals, but I think the following might illustrate what I am talking about: Say that a person who is allergic to peanuts goes to a restaurant and orders a burger. The burger is cooked in peanut oil, so the person becomes ill. If the restaurant had reason to know that the person was allergic to peanuts, a strong argument can be made that the restaurant was morally wrong to serve him peanuts, but it would be factually incorrect to say that the restaurant forced him to eat the burger. Now if instead the restaurant strapped him down and force fed him the peanut oil cooked burger, then it would be factually correct that they forced him to eat the burger. You seem to be equating these two scenarios, but I think it is pretty clear that the second scenario is far worse than the first. They are not morally or factually equivalent, it's simply a bad comparison. No, it is not. Just because the consent was not given in that very moment does not mean the consent was totally absent - it was implied the moment you got married (in a country that does condone marital rape). The woman agreed to get married, thus agreeing to "marital obligations" and by extension giving consent to sex, and then she is having second thoughts. Your whole reasoning (bolded) hinges upon the assumption that giving consent to A, but not giving consent to B, is somehow giving consent in some general sense, including B. That is just nonsense, no offence. Like I said, transsexual women go to great lengths to make themselves as undifferentiable from cis women as possible. That's the very purpose of transition, for god's sake. Because of that they are making their potential sexual partner act on the assumed premise that they're cis women, whether by intent or not, it doesn't matter. A better analogy would be a restaurant marketing itself with a slogan saying "best cow steaks in town" while serving steaks made from pork and doing their best to make them taste like cow meat. If a Muslim happens to eat at the place is it really his responsibility to enquire whether the meat the restaurant strived to make as indistinguishable from cow meat as possible is by some random chance actually pork meat? There is no such thing as irrevocable consent. It doesn't matter if a person signs their name in blood on a written statement in front of 50 witnesses on live television that they consent to have sex and will always consent to have sex in the future. If 5 seconds later that person has "second thoughts" and decides they don't want to have sex there is no consent. I don't get why you are so bent on analogizing marital rape and sex with a trans person who doesn't disclose. In one case there is consent at the time of the sexual contact, in the other there is not. They are not equivalent scenarios.
And there is no such thing as giving consent to A and, by extension, giving (some degree of) consent to B.
And no, there is no freaking consent, how hard is it to understand that for most people consent to having sex with a cis woman =/= consent to having sex with a transsexual woman? No consent was given.
On August 03 2013 01:13 shinosai wrote:Show nested quote +On August 03 2013 01:10 maybenexttime wrote:On August 03 2013 00:58 shinosai wrote:On August 03 2013 00:56 Snusmumriken wrote:On August 03 2013 00:46 shinosai wrote:On August 03 2013 00:45 Snusmumriken wrote:On August 03 2013 00:36 Plansix wrote:On August 03 2013 00:33 Snusmumriken wrote:On August 03 2013 00:29 shinosai wrote:On August 03 2013 00:27 Shiori wrote:
[quote]
What if you just really like pale skin? Again, with the biracial woman example... if you were attracted to her, but then found out she was biracial, I don't think the "I really like pale skin" is gonna cover it. What if youve had a chip implanted that will explode in your head if you ever have sex with a biracial person. Ridiculous? No more than you calling someone phobic for having preferences you cant relate to. Not sleeping with someone because you don't like their parent's skin color and race is racism. Sure but thats not the only reason someone can have for not sleeping with biracial people. Again with the egocentrism, just because you dont have the capacity to think anyone can have preferences outside the scope of phobias or racism it doesnt mean there arent any. Example: lets say I want jewish kids and I sleep with a jewish woman because we both want to procreate. It turns out only her fathers jewish so by jewish law shes not actually jewish hence my children wont be. I dont want to sleep with her anymore. Racist? Not only is it racist, but the jewish law is incredibly racist as well. If you seriously consider someone racist solely based on the fact that he wants to have jewish children I doubt we get much further. I would urge you to be much more careful about throwing such words around, all you end up is washed-out terms nobody cares about anymore. If you keep shouting wolf whenever you see a dog people arent gonna bother when you actually face a wolf. There are different degrees of racism. The argument "I'm not as bad as a member of the KKK, therefore I cannot be racist" is not convincing to even the dullest of minds. It fits the definition. You are discriminating against a person based solely on their racial origins and nothing else. What else could we possibly call that? And by refusing to have sex with people of the same sex you are discriminating against people based solely on their sex and nothing else. What else could we possibly call that other than homophobia? Don't you see how you're having double standards here? You're implying that someone's sex is a valid reason to discriminate against someone as far as having sex goes, but whatever other arbitrary quality is somehow invalid. Now that is close-minded. I don't think I can explain any better why sexual orientation is different than discriminating based on race. I surrender, I cannot convince you. I will no longer attempt to convince you otherwise.
Because they are not. They both are innate, arbitrary preferences.
|
On August 03 2013 01:19 shinosai wrote:Show nested quote +On August 03 2013 01:15 Shiori wrote:On August 03 2013 01:11 shinosai wrote:On August 03 2013 01:09 Snusmumriken wrote:On August 03 2013 00:58 shinosai wrote:On August 03 2013 00:56 Snusmumriken wrote:On August 03 2013 00:46 shinosai wrote:On August 03 2013 00:45 Snusmumriken wrote:On August 03 2013 00:36 Plansix wrote:On August 03 2013 00:33 Snusmumriken wrote:
[quote]
What if youve had a chip implanted that will explode in your head if you ever have sex with a biracial person.
Ridiculous? No more than you calling someone phobic for having preferences you cant relate to. Not sleeping with someone because you don't like their parent's skin color and race is racism. Sure but thats not the only reason someone can have for not sleeping with biracial people. Again with the egocentrism, just because you dont have the capacity to think anyone can have preferences outside the scope of phobias or racism it doesnt mean there arent any. Example: lets say I want jewish kids and I sleep with a jewish woman because we both want to procreate. It turns out only her fathers jewish so by jewish law shes not actually jewish hence my children wont be. I dont want to sleep with her anymore. Racist? Not only is it racist, but the jewish law is incredibly racist as well. If you seriously consider someone racist solely based on the fact that he wants to have jewish children I doubt we get much further. I would urge you to be much more careful about throwing such words around, all you end up is washed-out terms nobody cares about anymore. If you keep shouting wolf whenever you see a dog people arent gonna bother when you actually face a wolf. There are different degrees of racism. The argument "I'm not as bad as a member of the KKK, therefore I cannot be racist" is not convincing to even the dullest of minds. It fits the definition. You are discriminating against a person based solely on their racial origins and nothing else. What else could we possibly call that? Are you for real? Since when is who a person doesnt want to sleep with a sufficient reason for calling them discriminatory. Me not wanting to sleep with redheads is neither necessary nor sufficient for calling me discriminatory, the same goes if I dont want to sleep with black people or with white people or with whatever people. If I dont want to allow redheads on my bus however... Sexual preferences alone can never be sufficient, and using words that way is just humpty dumptyism. You seem to misunderstand what the words racist, transphobic, and discriminate mean. In this context, the word means something similar to discriminating between the colors red and blue. Only in this case, it makes you look bad because you're discriminating between people based on their race. RacismIt's pretty clear that racism is inseparable from judgments about someone's ontological worth. Saying that most of your favourite basketball players are black isn't racist, no more than my supporting the Italian football team is racist (my mother is Italian etc.). I don't actually think these races are literally better than other ones. I just prefer certain things associated with those races (say, Italian culture versus Iraqi culture). Similarly, if I say I'm not a fan of the colour purple, I'm not being anti-purple; I'm being pro-blue (or whatever). It seems pretty clear that my point is continually obfuscated by analogies to different things. So let me make this as clear as possible: It is okay if you do not want to date a black person because you are not attracted to them. It's also okay if you don't want to date a transsexual woman because you are not attracted to her. It's also okay to not date men because you aren't attracted to them. But when you refuse to date someone that you otherwise like because you discovered their origins, this is revealing of a prejudice.
Hmmm...well, maybe you're not attracted to people who smoke. But you don't notice until you see that person pull out a cigarette. I don't think that makes you prejudiced.
|
On August 03 2013 01:27 Shiori wrote:Show nested quote +On August 03 2013 01:19 shinosai wrote:On August 03 2013 01:15 Shiori wrote:On August 03 2013 01:11 shinosai wrote:On August 03 2013 01:09 Snusmumriken wrote:On August 03 2013 00:58 shinosai wrote:On August 03 2013 00:56 Snusmumriken wrote:On August 03 2013 00:46 shinosai wrote:On August 03 2013 00:45 Snusmumriken wrote:On August 03 2013 00:36 Plansix wrote:
[quote]
Not sleeping with someone because you don't like their parent's skin color and race is racism. Sure but thats not the only reason someone can have for not sleeping with biracial people. Again with the egocentrism, just because you dont have the capacity to think anyone can have preferences outside the scope of phobias or racism it doesnt mean there arent any. Example: lets say I want jewish kids and I sleep with a jewish woman because we both want to procreate. It turns out only her fathers jewish so by jewish law shes not actually jewish hence my children wont be. I dont want to sleep with her anymore. Racist? Not only is it racist, but the jewish law is incredibly racist as well. If you seriously consider someone racist solely based on the fact that he wants to have jewish children I doubt we get much further. I would urge you to be much more careful about throwing such words around, all you end up is washed-out terms nobody cares about anymore. If you keep shouting wolf whenever you see a dog people arent gonna bother when you actually face a wolf. There are different degrees of racism. The argument "I'm not as bad as a member of the KKK, therefore I cannot be racist" is not convincing to even the dullest of minds. It fits the definition. You are discriminating against a person based solely on their racial origins and nothing else. What else could we possibly call that? Are you for real? Since when is who a person doesnt want to sleep with a sufficient reason for calling them discriminatory. Me not wanting to sleep with redheads is neither necessary nor sufficient for calling me discriminatory, the same goes if I dont want to sleep with black people or with white people or with whatever people. If I dont want to allow redheads on my bus however... Sexual preferences alone can never be sufficient, and using words that way is just humpty dumptyism. You seem to misunderstand what the words racist, transphobic, and discriminate mean. In this context, the word means something similar to discriminating between the colors red and blue. Only in this case, it makes you look bad because you're discriminating between people based on their race. RacismIt's pretty clear that racism is inseparable from judgments about someone's ontological worth. Saying that most of your favourite basketball players are black isn't racist, no more than my supporting the Italian football team is racist (my mother is Italian etc.). I don't actually think these races are literally better than other ones. I just prefer certain things associated with those races (say, Italian culture versus Iraqi culture). Similarly, if I say I'm not a fan of the colour purple, I'm not being anti-purple; I'm being pro-blue (or whatever). It seems pretty clear that my point is continually obfuscated by analogies to different things. So let me make this as clear as possible: It is okay if you do not want to date a black person because you are not attracted to them. It's also okay if you don't want to date a transsexual woman because you are not attracted to her. It's also okay to not date men because you aren't attracted to them. But when you refuse to date someone that you otherwise like because you discovered their origins, this is revealing of a prejudice. Hmmm...well, maybe you're not attracted to people who smoke. But you don't notice until you see that person pull out a cigarette. I don't think that makes you prejudiced.
If you can't see the difference between not dating smokers and not dating black people, there is no hope for this discussion to continue any further.
|
On August 03 2013 01:24 maybenexttime wrote:Show nested quote +On August 03 2013 01:14 Mercy13 wrote:On August 03 2013 00:12 maybenexttime wrote:On August 02 2013 23:13 Mercy13 wrote:I am going to focus on this statement because I think for the rest we are just going to have to agree to disagree about what gives rise to an obligation to disclose: And consent to having sex with a cis woman is different from consent to having sex with a transsexual woman, whether the former is clarified upfront or merely implied because of the probability of accidentally hooking up with a transsexual is extremely rare. You're saying that they are the same thing, but for most people they are not. Which is exactly why I used that analogy because, imo, you're presenting a view on consent that is equally detached from reality. The analogy goes even further, clarifying that the legality of either behaviour does not determine its morality. Just because, strictly speaking, consent to sex with a trans woman is not the same thing as consent to sex with a cis woman doesn't mean that the consent was totally absent. It's in a totally different realm from marital rape. I normally hate using hypotheticals, but I think the following might illustrate what I am talking about: Say that a person who is allergic to peanuts goes to a restaurant and orders a burger. The burger is cooked in peanut oil, so the person becomes ill. If the restaurant had reason to know that the person was allergic to peanuts, a strong argument can be made that the restaurant was morally wrong to serve him peanuts, but it would be factually incorrect to say that the restaurant forced him to eat the burger. Now if instead the restaurant strapped him down and force fed him the peanut oil cooked burger, then it would be factually correct that they forced him to eat the burger. You seem to be equating these two scenarios, but I think it is pretty clear that the second scenario is far worse than the first. They are not morally or factually equivalent, it's simply a bad comparison. No, it is not. Just because the consent was not given in that very moment does not mean the consent was totally absent - it was implied the moment you got married (in a country that does condone marital rape). The woman agreed to get married, thus agreeing to "marital obligations" and by extension giving consent to sex, and then she is having second thoughts. Your whole reasoning (bolded) hinges upon the assumption that giving consent to A, but not giving consent to B, is somehow giving consent in some general sense, including B. That is just nonsense, no offence. Like I said, transsexual women go to great lengths to make themselves as undifferentiable from cis women as possible. That's the very purpose of transition, for god's sake. Because of that they are making their potential sexual partner act on the assumed premise that they're cis women, whether by intent or not, it doesn't matter. A better analogy would be a restaurant marketing itself with a slogan saying "best cow steaks in town" while serving steaks made from pork and doing their best to make them taste like cow meat. If a Muslim happens to eat at the place is it really his responsibility to enquire whether the meat the restaurant strived to make as indistinguishable from cow meat as possible is by some random chance actually pork meat? There is no such thing as irrevocable consent. It doesn't matter if a person signs their name in blood on a written statement in front of 50 witnesses on live television that they consent to have sex and will always consent to have sex in the future. If 5 seconds later that person has "second thoughts" and decides they don't want to have sex there is no consent. I don't get why you are so bent on analogizing marital rape and sex with a trans person who doesn't disclose. In one case there is consent at the time of the sexual contact, in the other there is not. They are not equivalent scenarios. And there is no such thing as giving consent to A and, by extension, giving (some degree of) consent to B. And no, there is no freaking consent, how hard is it to understand that for most people consent to having sex with a cis woman =/= consent to having sex with a transsexual woman? No consent was given. Show nested quote +On August 03 2013 01:13 shinosai wrote:On August 03 2013 01:10 maybenexttime wrote:On August 03 2013 00:58 shinosai wrote:On August 03 2013 00:56 Snusmumriken wrote:On August 03 2013 00:46 shinosai wrote:On August 03 2013 00:45 Snusmumriken wrote:On August 03 2013 00:36 Plansix wrote:On August 03 2013 00:33 Snusmumriken wrote:On August 03 2013 00:29 shinosai wrote:
[quote]
Again, with the biracial woman example... if you were attracted to her, but then found out she was biracial, I don't think the "I really like pale skin" is gonna cover it. What if youve had a chip implanted that will explode in your head if you ever have sex with a biracial person. Ridiculous? No more than you calling someone phobic for having preferences you cant relate to. Not sleeping with someone because you don't like their parent's skin color and race is racism. Sure but thats not the only reason someone can have for not sleeping with biracial people. Again with the egocentrism, just because you dont have the capacity to think anyone can have preferences outside the scope of phobias or racism it doesnt mean there arent any. Example: lets say I want jewish kids and I sleep with a jewish woman because we both want to procreate. It turns out only her fathers jewish so by jewish law shes not actually jewish hence my children wont be. I dont want to sleep with her anymore. Racist? Not only is it racist, but the jewish law is incredibly racist as well. If you seriously consider someone racist solely based on the fact that he wants to have jewish children I doubt we get much further. I would urge you to be much more careful about throwing such words around, all you end up is washed-out terms nobody cares about anymore. If you keep shouting wolf whenever you see a dog people arent gonna bother when you actually face a wolf. There are different degrees of racism. The argument "I'm not as bad as a member of the KKK, therefore I cannot be racist" is not convincing to even the dullest of minds. It fits the definition. You are discriminating against a person based solely on their racial origins and nothing else. What else could we possibly call that? And by refusing to have sex with people of the same sex you are discriminating against people based solely on their sex and nothing else. What else could we possibly call that other than homophobia? Don't you see how you're having double standards here? You're implying that someone's sex is a valid reason to discriminate against someone as far as having sex goes, but whatever other arbitrary quality is somehow invalid. Now that is close-minded. I don't think I can explain any better why sexual orientation is different than discriminating based on race. I surrender, I cannot convince you. I will no longer attempt to convince you otherwise. Because they are not. They both are innate, arbitrary preferences.
Just to be clear, shouting the same thing over and over and over again until people are just too exhausted to continue doesn't constitute winning an argument not does it validate your position. All that has happened here is that you have come into a thread very ignorant of LGBT issues and social justice in general, and instead of allowing yourself to be educated by people that know better than you have you just screamed the same objections over and over and over again. It's rare that I expect to be able to change a person's mind over the internet, so I wasn't expecting you to leave the thread a better person. But this level of ignorance and stubbornness is...impressive.
I'm aware that you are convinced you have made good points and addressed objections. That does not mean you actually have. You have not.
|
On August 03 2013 01:24 shinosai wrote:Show nested quote +On August 03 2013 01:17 maybenexttime wrote:On August 03 2013 01:09 shinosai wrote:On August 03 2013 01:05 maybenexttime wrote:On August 03 2013 00:50 shinosai wrote:The thing is, this is no more "transphobia" than being heterosexual is "homophobia" I already addressed this. There is a difference between refusing to sleep with someone based on your sexual orientation and refusing to sleep with someone based solely on and nothing other than their race or origin of birth. Both are just preferences and respect equal amounts of respect. Preferences can be racist and transphobic. Just because it's a personal preference doesn't make it immune to scrutiny. People are still allowed to judge you as an asshole if you refuse to associate with black people. "It's just my preference" is not going to cut it. Stop using the word 'preference' like it grants some sort of magical immunity to criticism. It's not criticism, it's being an asshole. No different from telling someone they are mentally screwed up because they're transsexual. Someone's sexuality is none of your business. Unless, of course, you think people are required to have sex with you and their refusal based on whatever criteria is somehow offensive to you. In that case you need to grow up. It is none of my business, but when you come in here shouting out that you don't want to date trans women or black women and it's just your preference, people will judge you because its offensive. You are alienating and othering these people in the community. Perhaps you should keep your offensive preferences to yourself if you wish not to be judged. In your day to day life, I don't care who you sleep with, but if you're going to make it a point to come here and share how sleeping with trans women make you feel disgusted, then yea, I'm going to criticize you for it. Because it makes trans women feel like shit.
The only reason why it was brought up in the first place is because certain transsexual people here claimed that they have absolutely no moral obligation to disclose that information, which is simply wrong.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
