|
On August 03 2013 01:22 ComaDose wrote:Show nested quote +On August 03 2013 01:21 Plansix wrote: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:
[quote]
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?
I am not perfect, so I likely have. I actively try to avoid acting on those prejudices, but I may slip up. But this does not make me racist.
|
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.
Dude. Its not rape. The only scenario in which it would be somewhat equal to rape is if a trans woman KNOWS beforehand that it will cause extreme emotional harm for her partner if he finds out, and then intentionally hides her past just in order to have sex.
Its not the same. At all.
|
On August 03 2013 01:30 maybenexttime wrote:Show nested quote +On August 03 2013 01:24 shinosai wrote: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.
I think you have a moral obligation to disclose that you're racist and transphobic, because the vast majority of people would not consent to sleeping with you if they found out. And because most people are not racist and transphobic, I think the burden is on you, because it is perfectly reasonable for me to assume that you are not racist or transphobic unless you tell me otherwise. I'm just saying.... if I have an obligation, then you do, too.
|
On August 03 2013 01:32 Plansix wrote:Show nested quote +On August 03 2013 01:22 ComaDose wrote:On August 03 2013 01:21 Plansix wrote: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:
[quote]
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? I am not perfect, so I likely have. I actively try to avoid acting on those prejudices, but I may slip up. But this does not make me racist.
Having a prejudice based on race is the definition of racism dude. I understand that this word offends you. But you have got to listen to us when we tell you there are degrees of racism and whether or not a word hurts your feelings doesn't determine whether or not the definition ought to be changed.
We are not trying to shame you. We are not saying you should feel like a terrible person and that you are causing huge problems. Please correct your misunderstanding of the word.
|
On August 03 2013 01:29 Klondikebar wrote:Show nested quote +On August 03 2013 01:24 maybenexttime wrote: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. 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:
[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? 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.
Says a person who admitted to having a rapist mentality, really? "It's not my problem that they feel violated, the only thing that matters is that I want to have sex!"
The sole fact that people tell giving consent to having sex with a cis woman is not equal to giving consent to having sex with a transsexual woman is enough of a proof that it is the case.
On August 03 2013 01:33 Snusmumriken wrote:Show nested quote +On August 03 2013 01:24 maybenexttime wrote: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. 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:
[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? 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. Dude. Its not rape. The only scenario in which it would be somewhat equal to rape is if a trans woman KNOWS beforehand that it will cause extreme emotional harm for her partner if he finds out, and then intentionally hides her past just in order to have sex. Its not the same. At all.
And it does, most of the time. Otherwise transsexual would not constantly cry how every sexual partner is a potential victimizer who may even kill them if he finds out, thus they do not disclose that information. The two narratives are mutually exclusive.
|
On August 03 2013 01:29 Klondikebar wrote:Show nested quote +On August 03 2013 01:24 maybenexttime wrote: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. 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:
[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? 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.
You're not educating anyone. You're attempting to shove your ideologies down throats. The fact you insist other people consider you to be what you see yourself as shows the level of narcissism you have achieved. If you honestly think its ok to trick people then it becomes obvious that the only thing that matters to you is the self gratification of your ego.
|
On August 03 2013 01:35 Klondikebar wrote:Show nested quote +On August 03 2013 01:32 Plansix wrote:On August 03 2013 01:22 ComaDose wrote:On August 03 2013 01:21 Plansix wrote: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:
[quote]
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? I am not perfect, so I likely have. I actively try to avoid acting on those prejudices, but I may slip up. But this does not make me racist. Having a prejudice based on race is the definition of racism dude. I understand that this word offends you. But you have got to listen to us when we tell you there are degrees of racism and whether or not a word hurts your feelings doesn't determine whether or not the definition ought to be changed. We are not trying to shame you. We are not saying you should feel like a terrible person and that you are causing huge problems. Please correct your misunderstanding of the word.
But you are shaming me, so why should I put up with it? I am everything you have ask. I'm open minded, will to accept that I have biases and to change them. Why do you feel the need to offend me? Once again, the word "negro" is factually correct, but I don't use it or even attempt to justify using it. I don't tell people offended by it that they are "misunderstanding the word" and attempt to act like its their problem.
|
On August 03 2013 01:34 shinosai wrote:Show nested quote +On August 03 2013 01:30 maybenexttime wrote:On August 03 2013 01:24 shinosai wrote: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. I think you have a moral obligation to disclose that you're racist and transphobic, because the vast majority of people would not consent to sleeping with you if they found out. And because most people are not racist and transphobic, I think the burden is on you, because it is perfectly reasonable for me to assume that you are not racist or transphobic unless you tell me otherwise. I'm just saying.... if I have an obligation, then you do, too.
You are clearly misusing the words "transphobic" and "racist" (as they pertain to someone's perception of another person's worth not sexual attractiveness as far as personal preference is concerned), making a huge disservice to the whole LGBT service or ethnic minorities by making their concerns seem ridiculous.
|
maybenexttime. Do you have anything prima facie against a person whos transgender as long as theyre not trying to trick you into sex?
|
On August 03 2013 01:41 Plansix wrote:Show nested quote +On August 03 2013 01:35 Klondikebar wrote:On August 03 2013 01:32 Plansix wrote:On August 03 2013 01:22 ComaDose wrote:On August 03 2013 01:21 Plansix wrote: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:
[quote]
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? I am not perfect, so I likely have. I actively try to avoid acting on those prejudices, but I may slip up. But this does not make me racist. Having a prejudice based on race is the definition of racism dude. I understand that this word offends you. But you have got to listen to us when we tell you there are degrees of racism and whether or not a word hurts your feelings doesn't determine whether or not the definition ought to be changed. We are not trying to shame you. We are not saying you should feel like a terrible person and that you are causing huge problems. Please correct your misunderstanding of the word. But you are shaming me, so why should I put up with it? I am everything you have ask. I'm open minded, will to accept hat I have biases and to change them. Why do you feel the need to offend me? Once again, the word "negro" is factually correct, but I don't use it or even attempt to justify using it. I don't tell people offended by it that they are "misunderstanding the word" and attempt to act like its their problem.
The fact that you're offended by the word is on you. To be clear, it's not as though we're calling you racist and ourselves blameless. I have racist prejudices myself that I have to consciously work on so that they do not affect how I treat people. I'm not offended when someone points out that I might be acting in a racist way. I acknowledge that it's entirely possible and I attempt to stop acting in said way. Crying at someone who gives me an opportunity to improve simply because their criticism hurt my feelings is pointless.
When a word is very clearly defined and you are offended by it when it is used entirely within its own definition...yeah being offended is your problem.
|
On August 03 2013 01:41 Plansix wrote:Show nested quote +On August 03 2013 01:35 Klondikebar wrote:On August 03 2013 01:32 Plansix wrote:On August 03 2013 01:22 ComaDose wrote:On August 03 2013 01:21 Plansix wrote: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:
[quote]
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? I am not perfect, so I likely have. I actively try to avoid acting on those prejudices, but I may slip up. But this does not make me racist. Having a prejudice based on race is the definition of racism dude. I understand that this word offends you. But you have got to listen to us when we tell you there are degrees of racism and whether or not a word hurts your feelings doesn't determine whether or not the definition ought to be changed. We are not trying to shame you. We are not saying you should feel like a terrible person and that you are causing huge problems. Please correct your misunderstanding of the word. But you are shaming me, so why should I put up with it? I am everything you have ask. I'm open minded, will to accept that I have biases and to change them. Why do you feel the need to offend me? Once again, the word "negro" is factually correct, but I don't use it or even attempt to justify using it. I don't tell people offended by it that they are "misunderstanding the word" and attempt to act like its their problem.
Words like 'racist' have been overused so much they almost have no meaning. What remains is an emotional response, and this word has thus been hijacked by people of certain ideological affilitations in order to quiet people. Basically "think like me or im going to call you a racist or some other emotionally charged word (that lacks a clearcut definition) until you shut up".
|
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.
The bolded statement is wrong. Every time a person consents to anything it is possible that the consent will encompass things they didn't intend it to. That, by itself, doesn't vitiate the consent. The fact that you keep repeating things like this indicates that you do not have a good, internally consistent definition of consent.
I'm afraid you are hopeless my friend : ( I'm sorry I could not save you.
|
On August 03 2013 01:44 Klondikebar wrote:Show nested quote +On August 03 2013 01:41 Plansix wrote:On August 03 2013 01:35 Klondikebar wrote:On August 03 2013 01:32 Plansix wrote:On August 03 2013 01:22 ComaDose wrote:On August 03 2013 01:21 Plansix wrote: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:
[quote]
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? I am not perfect, so I likely have. I actively try to avoid acting on those prejudices, but I may slip up. But this does not make me racist. Having a prejudice based on race is the definition of racism dude. I understand that this word offends you. But you have got to listen to us when we tell you there are degrees of racism and whether or not a word hurts your feelings doesn't determine whether or not the definition ought to be changed. We are not trying to shame you. We are not saying you should feel like a terrible person and that you are causing huge problems. Please correct your misunderstanding of the word. But you are shaming me, so why should I put up with it? I am everything you have ask. I'm open minded, will to accept hat I have biases and to change them. Why do you feel the need to offend me? Once again, the word "negro" is factually correct, but I don't use it or even attempt to justify using it. I don't tell people offended by it that they are "misunderstanding the word" and attempt to act like its their problem. The fact that you're offended by the word is on you. To be clear, it's not as though we're calling you racist and ourselves blameless. I have racist prejudices myself that I have to consciously work on so that they do not affect how I treat people. I'm not offended when someone points out that I might be acting in a racist way. I acknowledge that it's entirely possible and I attempt to stop acting in said way. Crying at someone who gives me an opportunity to improve simply because their criticism hurt my feelings is pointless. When a word is very clearly defined and you are offended by it when it is used entirely within its own definition...yeah being offended is your problem.
Well if you feel the need to offend people, I guess that's on you. I get the impression you have an ax to grind on this subject and seem to enjoy offending people who admit to being straight. I would point out that your argument was used by another member of this community in regards to the word "faggot" and he said "if you are offended its your problem".
|
On August 03 2013 01:52 Plansix wrote:Show nested quote +On August 03 2013 01:44 Klondikebar wrote:On August 03 2013 01:41 Plansix wrote:On August 03 2013 01:35 Klondikebar wrote:On August 03 2013 01:32 Plansix wrote:On August 03 2013 01:22 ComaDose wrote:On August 03 2013 01:21 Plansix wrote:On August 03 2013 01:18 ComaDose wrote:On August 03 2013 01:11 Plansix wrote:On August 03 2013 01:06 ComaDose wrote:
[quote]
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? I am not perfect, so I likely have. I actively try to avoid acting on those prejudices, but I may slip up. But this does not make me racist. Having a prejudice based on race is the definition of racism dude. I understand that this word offends you. But you have got to listen to us when we tell you there are degrees of racism and whether or not a word hurts your feelings doesn't determine whether or not the definition ought to be changed. We are not trying to shame you. We are not saying you should feel like a terrible person and that you are causing huge problems. Please correct your misunderstanding of the word. But you are shaming me, so why should I put up with it? I am everything you have ask. I'm open minded, will to accept hat I have biases and to change them. Why do you feel the need to offend me? Once again, the word "negro" is factually correct, but I don't use it or even attempt to justify using it. I don't tell people offended by it that they are "misunderstanding the word" and attempt to act like its their problem. The fact that you're offended by the word is on you. To be clear, it's not as though we're calling you racist and ourselves blameless. I have racist prejudices myself that I have to consciously work on so that they do not affect how I treat people. I'm not offended when someone points out that I might be acting in a racist way. I acknowledge that it's entirely possible and I attempt to stop acting in said way. Crying at someone who gives me an opportunity to improve simply because their criticism hurt my feelings is pointless. When a word is very clearly defined and you are offended by it when it is used entirely within its own definition...yeah being offended is your problem. Well if you fell the need to offend people, I guess that's on you. I get the impression you have an ax to grind on this subject and seem to enjoy offending people who admit to being straight. I would point out that your argument was used by another member of this community in regards to the word "faggot" and he said "if you are offended its your problem".
"Faggot" is bad for the same reason "negro" is bad and both are completely different than calling an action or belief racist. I don't feel the need to offend you. Shinosai and I both have told you time and time again that you're misunderstanding the word. Why do you keep ignoring that? Correct your misunderstanding of the word Plansix. We're not reinventing the definition of racism, we're not telling you to get a thicker skin. I don't understand why this is so hard for you.
What would you prefer we call you? Coming up with another word seems pointless because as long as it's a synonym for "a little bit racist" then it's going to offend you so long as you continue to misunderstand what "racist" means. By all means, if there's a term that isn't onerous to use that you would prefer let us know. We'll be glad to use it.
|
On August 02 2013 05:15 Iyerbeth wrote:
For the incest argument, you're conflating non disclosure of a one night stand betwen two strangers with someone seeking someone out specifically because of information about them specifically and then dating them.
So, if I randomly happen upon her in a nightclub while travelling, she doesn't know we're cousins but I do know, then I'm not obliged to let her know? Whereas, if I was actively seeking her out instead, I would have had to disclose our kinship?
|
A transwoman is the same as a ciswoman, I should not have to pass some freaky test to qualify as one kind of human being over another. Basing the 'difference' on surgery should be irrelevant because the surgery is none of your business. Your right to know the quality of a woman's vagina is trumped by the right of that woman to keep her medical information to herself. Sorry if you feel otherwise but there's a ton of entitlement going around in this thread and expecting transwomen to give you their most intimate details reeks of male entitlement.
I am a girl, it should really be that simple. Not telling you about being born with a penis is not rape, the penis is completely irrelevant because it doesn't exist anymore therefore the memory of that penis is not yours to be concerned about. You are afraid of an idea, an idea can't be persecuted and it can't be legally punished because it doesn't exist. The penis doesn't exist anymore, the flesh that it consisted of has been transformed. That flesh is the same flesh a cis woman's vagina is made out of (if you know how the penis is formed in the womb) so again, there is no difference outside of medical science's ability to repair nature's damage.
You heard that right guys, your penis is really an inverted vagina. If you don't like that you should blame nature for making you that way. <3
|
On August 03 2013 01:55 Klondikebar wrote:Show nested quote +On August 03 2013 01:52 Plansix wrote:On August 03 2013 01:44 Klondikebar wrote:On August 03 2013 01:41 Plansix wrote:On August 03 2013 01:35 Klondikebar wrote:On August 03 2013 01:32 Plansix wrote:On August 03 2013 01:22 ComaDose wrote:On August 03 2013 01:21 Plansix wrote:On August 03 2013 01:18 ComaDose wrote:On August 03 2013 01:11 Plansix wrote:
[quote]
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? I am not perfect, so I likely have. I actively try to avoid acting on those prejudices, but I may slip up. But this does not make me racist. Having a prejudice based on race is the definition of racism dude. I understand that this word offends you. But you have got to listen to us when we tell you there are degrees of racism and whether or not a word hurts your feelings doesn't determine whether or not the definition ought to be changed. We are not trying to shame you. We are not saying you should feel like a terrible person and that you are causing huge problems. Please correct your misunderstanding of the word. But you are shaming me, so why should I put up with it? I am everything you have ask. I'm open minded, will to accept hat I have biases and to change them. Why do you feel the need to offend me? Once again, the word "negro" is factually correct, but I don't use it or even attempt to justify using it. I don't tell people offended by it that they are "misunderstanding the word" and attempt to act like its their problem. The fact that you're offended by the word is on you. To be clear, it's not as though we're calling you racist and ourselves blameless. I have racist prejudices myself that I have to consciously work on so that they do not affect how I treat people. I'm not offended when someone points out that I might be acting in a racist way. I acknowledge that it's entirely possible and I attempt to stop acting in said way. Crying at someone who gives me an opportunity to improve simply because their criticism hurt my feelings is pointless. When a word is very clearly defined and you are offended by it when it is used entirely within its own definition...yeah being offended is your problem. Well if you fell the need to offend people, I guess that's on you. I get the impression you have an ax to grind on this subject and seem to enjoy offending people who admit to being straight. I would point out that your argument was used by another member of this community in regards to the word "faggot" and he said "if you are offended its your problem". "Faggot" is bad for the same reason "negro" is bad and both are completely different than calling an action or belief racist. I don't feel the need to offend you. Shinosai and I both have told you time and time again that you're misunderstanding the word. Why do you keep ignoring that? Correct your misunderstanding of the word Plansix. We're not reinventing the definition of racism, we're not telling you to get a thicker skin. I don't understand why this is so hard for you. What would you prefer we call you? Coming up with another word seems pointless because as long as it's a synonym for "a little bit racist" then it's going to offend you so long as you continue to misunderstand what "racist" means.
I fully understand the meaning of the term racism. I fully understand that any unconscious prejudices I may have are racist. I don't object to the meaning of the word.
I object to you using to discribe me becuase I find it offensive. The same way a black person would if I used the word negro. Or a rape victim asking someone to not use the word in the context of beating someone at a video game. You ask what what I would prefer to be called, you can just say "you sem to have some unconscious prejudices." and that will suffice. If you refuse to change your ways, thats says more about you than it does me.
And other words are important. You can't just throw around terms that cover huge sections of people and expect everyone to accept it. A kid from the small town who has never been to New York City is not the same as a KKK member. If you knwo you are going to end up lumping them together, why would you do that?
|
On August 03 2013 01:43 Snusmumriken wrote:
maybenexttime. Do you have anything prima facie against a person whos transgender as long as theyre not trying to trick you into sex?
No, like I said, I would have no trouble being friends with one, hiring one or voting for one. Why? If a transsexual was a member of my family, I would gladly support them in their transition.
On August 03 2013 01:49 Mercy13 wrote:Show nested quote +On August 03 2013 01:24 maybenexttime wrote: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. 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:
[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? 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. The bolded statement is wrong. Every time a person consents to anything it is possible that the consent will encompass things they didn't intend it to. That, by itself, doesn't vitiate the consent. The fact that you keep repeating things like this indicates that you do not have a good, internally consistent definition of consent. I'm afraid you are hopeless my friend : ( I'm sorry I could not save you.
Following your logic, when a woman gives consent to marriage, she, by extension, gives consent to having sex with her husband even when she's not in the mood to. That is your very own logic aka "every time a person consents to anything it is possible that the consent will encompass things they didn't intend it to".
And save me? There is nothing wrong with me. You're talking like those priests that are upset they failed to "save" a homosexual.
|
On August 03 2013 02:04 Plansix wrote:Show nested quote +On August 03 2013 01:55 Klondikebar wrote:On August 03 2013 01:52 Plansix wrote:On August 03 2013 01:44 Klondikebar wrote:On August 03 2013 01:41 Plansix wrote:On August 03 2013 01:35 Klondikebar wrote:On August 03 2013 01:32 Plansix wrote:On August 03 2013 01:22 ComaDose wrote:On August 03 2013 01:21 Plansix wrote:On August 03 2013 01:18 ComaDose wrote:
[quote]
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? I am not perfect, so I likely have. I actively try to avoid acting on those prejudices, but I may slip up. But this does not make me racist. Having a prejudice based on race is the definition of racism dude. I understand that this word offends you. But you have got to listen to us when we tell you there are degrees of racism and whether or not a word hurts your feelings doesn't determine whether or not the definition ought to be changed. We are not trying to shame you. We are not saying you should feel like a terrible person and that you are causing huge problems. Please correct your misunderstanding of the word. But you are shaming me, so why should I put up with it? I am everything you have ask. I'm open minded, will to accept hat I have biases and to change them. Why do you feel the need to offend me? Once again, the word "negro" is factually correct, but I don't use it or even attempt to justify using it. I don't tell people offended by it that they are "misunderstanding the word" and attempt to act like its their problem. The fact that you're offended by the word is on you. To be clear, it's not as though we're calling you racist and ourselves blameless. I have racist prejudices myself that I have to consciously work on so that they do not affect how I treat people. I'm not offended when someone points out that I might be acting in a racist way. I acknowledge that it's entirely possible and I attempt to stop acting in said way. Crying at someone who gives me an opportunity to improve simply because their criticism hurt my feelings is pointless. When a word is very clearly defined and you are offended by it when it is used entirely within its own definition...yeah being offended is your problem. Well if you fell the need to offend people, I guess that's on you. I get the impression you have an ax to grind on this subject and seem to enjoy offending people who admit to being straight. I would point out that your argument was used by another member of this community in regards to the word "faggot" and he said "if you are offended its your problem". "Faggot" is bad for the same reason "negro" is bad and both are completely different than calling an action or belief racist. I don't feel the need to offend you. Shinosai and I both have told you time and time again that you're misunderstanding the word. Why do you keep ignoring that? Correct your misunderstanding of the word Plansix. We're not reinventing the definition of racism, we're not telling you to get a thicker skin. I don't understand why this is so hard for you. What would you prefer we call you? Coming up with another word seems pointless because as long as it's a synonym for "a little bit racist" then it's going to offend you so long as you continue to misunderstand what "racist" means. I fully understand the meaning of the term racism. I fully understand that any unconscious prejudices I may have are racist. I don't object to the meaning of the word. I object to you using to discribe me becuase I find it offensive. The same way a black person would if I used the word negro. Or a rape victim asking someone to not use the word in the context of beating someone at a video game. You ask what what I would prefer to be called, you can just say "you sem to have some unconscious prejudices." and that will suffice. If you refuse to change your ways, thats says more about you than it does me. And other words are important. You can't just throw around terms that cover huge sections of people and expect everyone to accept it. A kid from the small town who has never been to New York City is not the same as a KKK member. If you knwo you are going to end up lumping them together, why would you do that?
I don't understand this disconnect. You understand that your prejudices might be racist, but you are offended when I call them racist?
And please stop comparing calling a prejudice racist to calling a person a slur. Just stop. It's going to tremendously erode any credibility you have and I'm going to care very little about your feelings.
And I'm not expecting everyone to accept the word. I'm expecting people who come into this thread for a discussion about tolerance to accept the word. And, more specifically, I'm expecting you, as someone who is trying to understand, to accept the word as it has been given to you. There is nothing I can do to change the definition of the word and despite requests for a different term several times now, you have failed to provide one. My patience for your feelings is wearing thin.
|
On August 03 2013 01:58 Darkwhite wrote:Show nested quote +On August 02 2013 05:15 Iyerbeth wrote:
For the incest argument, you're conflating non disclosure of a one night stand betwen two strangers with someone seeking someone out specifically because of information about them specifically and then dating them. So, if I randomly happen upon her in a nightclub while travelling, she doesn't know we're cousins but I do know, then I'm not obliged to let her know? Whereas, if I was actively seeking her out instead, I would have had to disclose our kinship?
I think the relevant difference between the two scenarios is that in one you know (1) personal information about her that (2) she doesn't know and (3) if she had known it would be likely to effect her decision to sleep with you.
I think you have a moral obligation to disclose the other person's personal information (but not your own) when that information might be relevant to that person's decision to have sex with you.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
