EPTOn June 25 2013 18:00 Sumahi wrote:
Such a cute couple! Love the logo change. Wouldn't mind if it was permanent.
Such a cute couple! Love the logo change. Wouldn't mind if it was permanent.
Yah, i'm so happy for them :3
The Rainbow TL-logo - Page 70
| Forum Index > General Forum |
|
Goibon
New Zealand8185 Posts
Yah, i'm so happy for them :3 | ||
|
marvellosity
United Kingdom36156 Posts
On June 25 2013 18:45 RParks42 wrote: I didn't say it was a choice, I said it wasn't conclusive that it wasn't a choice, and so using it as fact for one side then dismissing the knowledge when used for the other side of the argument is disingenuous You're using nitpicky semantics. Just to repeat, the overwhelming consensus is that it isn't a choice, and you won't find any reputable scientist who says it is. You know your point is a bad one when whatever I just said refutes your response to it already :/ It's about as conclusive as it gets without being 100% confirmed like gravity. So treating it as fact is not disingenuous at all. | ||
|
papaz
Sweden4149 Posts
On June 25 2013 04:08 Zaqwe wrote: I don't understand what homophilia has to to with esports. Maybe the banner should link to an explanation? What about BDSM or other sexual deviancies? The horse mascot in a gimp mask should be next. ROFL I support that logo!!! Make it happen! | ||
|
marvellosity
United Kingdom36156 Posts
You realise you're responding to a user who got banned for trolling/antagonising this thread, right?  | ||
|
32
United States163 Posts
On June 25 2013 18:45 RParks42 wrote: I didn't say it was a choice, I said it wasn't conclusive that it wasn't a choice, and so using it as fact for one side then dismissing the knowledge when used for the other side of the argument is disingenuous Would it still be disingenuous if there were a 99.99% chance it is not a choice? This reminds me of the argument that god should be taught alongside evolution. Probability is not the best way to explain this, but it is the easiest way. | ||
|
bypLy
757 Posts
| ||
|
RParks42
United States77 Posts
On June 25 2013 19:05 marvellosity wrote: You're using nitpicky semantics. Just to repeat, the overwhelming consensus is that it isn't a choice, and you won't find any reputable scientist who says it is. You know your point is a bad one when whatever I just said refutes your response to it already :/ It's about as conclusive as it gets without being 100% confirmed like gravity. So treating it as fact is not disingenuous at all. If you show me a citation from a reputable source of this being confirmed as fact, I will admit that I am wrong. I have yet to find something that has said it is 100% conclusive. What you call semantics I call the little details that matter when it comes to legal matters, aka the only thing that has any merit in the discussion of the legality of gay marriage in the US. Once again you fail to see that, just because I say it hasn't been proven, doesn't mean that I am saying it has been disproven. In legal terms, if you don't have proof beyond a reasonable doubt, you can't be proven guilty of something. Little things, like how accurate the proof is, are the basis of the decision for this. I've stated this multiple times as well, but I'll do it again: I personally don't think being gay is a choice. This is an irrelevant argument to use in a courtroom, however, so why would I try to use it to persuade the opinion of someone concerning gay marriage and it's legality, when the only thing that truly matters in the argument is how can we change it. Personally I think it's almost ignorant of some members of the LGBT community to be so harsh to people that oppose gay rights but aren't demonstrative about it. You are entitled an opinion, whether it's one way or the other. Equality in this context is about freedom of choice, so why should I be subject to such hate for having a different opinion, even though I can sympathize with their plight? | ||
|
marvellosity
United Kingdom36156 Posts
On June 25 2013 19:24 RParks42 wrote: If you show me a citation from a reputable source of this being confirmed as fact, I will admit that I am wrong. I have yet to find something that has said it is 100% conclusive. What you call semantics I call the little details that matter when it comes to legal matters, aka the only thing that has any merit in the discussion of the legality of gay marriage in the US. Once again you fail to see that, just because I say it hasn't been proven, doesn't mean that I am saying it has been disproven. In legal terms, if you don't have proof beyond a reasonable doubt, you can't be proven guilty of something. Little things, like how accurate the proof is, are the basis of the decision for this. I've stated this multiple times as well, but I'll do it again: I personally don't think being gay is a choice. This is an irrelevant argument to use in a courtroom, however, so why would I try to use it to persuade the opinion of someone concerning gay marriage and it's legality, when the only thing that truly matters in the argument is how can we change it. Personally I think it's almost ignorant of some members of the LGBT community to be so harsh to people that oppose gay rights but aren't demonstrative about it. You are entitled an opinion, whether it's one way or the other. Equality in this context is about freedom of choice, so why should I be subject to such hate for having a different opinion, even though I can sympathize with their plight? I don't think it's been contended in any court room that homosexuality is a choice, mainly because even the most die-hard righties/conservatives/whatever know that's a lost argument. 32's evolution/god analogy above is pretty good. Very good actually. I don't think it's ignorant for anyone from any community, LGBT or not, to be harsh to people who oppose equality. People who oppose equality deserve all the opprobrium they get. | ||
|
RParks42
United States77 Posts
On June 25 2013 19:18 32 wrote: Would it still be disingenuous if there were a 99.99% chance it is not a choice? This reminds me of the argument that god should be taught alongside evolution. Probability is not the best way to explain this, but it is the easiest way. For your own personal opinion, that can be a point in favor of gay rights, that it is almost universally agreed upon that it is a combination of "nature and nurture" that determines being gay, not a choice. I said what I said though, because while I'm willing to accept this point as a pro, what annoys me more than anything is people saying it's wrong when used as a con - that it isn't conclusive; it isn't - because, in technicality, I am not wrong due to the nature of the issue in the country I am in, and my argument is revolved around this base. I should make sure to announce this prior to making a US specific point more often. This is very similar to the religion argument I have to agree with you there. In a similar manner that I personally don't think there is a god up there, who am I to tell someone else that they are wrong when I have no proof to back that claim up | ||
|
marvellosity
United Kingdom36156 Posts
On June 25 2013 19:33 RParks42 wrote: For your own personal opinion, that can be a point in favor of gay rights, that it is almost universally agreed upon that it is a combination of "nature and nurture" that determines being gay, not a choice. I said what I said though, because while I'm willing to accept this point as a pro, what annoys me more than anything is people saying it's wrong when used as a con - that it isn't conclusive; it isn't - because, in technicality, I am not wrong due to the nature of the issue in the country I am in, and my argument is revolved around this base. I should make sure to announce this prior to making a US specific point more often. This is very similar to the religion argument I have to agree with you there. In a similar manner that I personally don't think there is a god up there, who am I to tell someone else that they are wrong when I have no proof to back that claim up Most people are happy to make the distinction of 99.9% being 'right' and 0.1% being 'wrong', even if you are not. Even your country's legal systems, I would imagine. That's just how science/rationality is. | ||
|
purgerinho
Croatia919 Posts
| ||
|
RParks42
United States77 Posts
On June 25 2013 19:30 marvellosity wrote: I don't think it's been contended in any court room that homosexuality is a choice, mainly because even the most die-hard righties/conservatives/whatever know that's a lost argument. 32's evolution/god analogy above is pretty good. Very good actually. I don't think it's ignorant for anyone from any community, LGBT or not, to be harsh to people who oppose equality. People who oppose equality deserve all the opprobrium they get. You confuse equality with your own moral sense of right and wrong. Equality is equal rights, but some confuse right with privilege. In the US, we have defined rights, they are the ones listed in the constitution. Some countries have their own privileges that they have deemed worthy of being a right, and I am unaware of the specifics ranging from country to country. Marriage is not a right. Healthcare is not a right. An automobile is not a right. A college education and a nice job are not rights. Those are privileges. There is a good deal of hypocrisy by the way in stating that people who don't agree with you deserve the criticism because Equality obviously dictates that I must agree with you. Treating someone equally doesn't mean I have to think of them as my equal, but treat them as my equal. I don't think people who drop out of high school are right, but am I going to treat them with contempt because they made a decision I don't agree with? Obviously not. | ||
|
floi
203 Posts
| ||
|
eX Killy
Taiwan906 Posts
On June 25 2013 13:29 ROOTCatZ wrote: I guess empathy isn't something taught in school and church no mo... not that church was ever fantastic at it, but it baffles me to see the amount of ignorance and intolerance in this community. hopefully you arent suggesting that children learn empathy on the world wide web. people who take the chance to bash whatever they dont like while supporting what they do at the same time like its cool to do it or something make it hard for the rest of us. i bet if people weren't throwing condescending insults (because apparently you fit in that way) or underhandedly opportunistic (by using this lgtb awareness on tl to further their own hate of x/y/z) this thread would be 99% supporting raising awareness with the one or two retards posting about living in the stone age. instead we get trolls vs white knights. tl;dr: raising lgtb awareness is a good cause; don't fuck it up with personal vendetta, no one actually cares that you hate x/y/z or that you think x/y/z/ caused this. stick to supporting the good and avoid troll fest | ||
|
marvellosity
United Kingdom36156 Posts
On June 25 2013 19:47 RParks42 wrote: You confuse equality with your own moral sense of right and wrong. Equality is equal rights, but some confuse right with privilege. In the US, we have defined rights, they are the ones listed in the constitution. Some countries have their own privileges that they have deemed worthy of being a right, and I am unaware of the specifics ranging from country to country. Marriage is not a right. Healthcare is not a right. An automobile is not a right. A college education and a nice job are not rights. Those are privileges. There is a good deal of hypocrisy by the way in stating that people who don't agree with you deserve the criticism because Equality obviously dictates that I must agree with you. Treating someone equally doesn't mean I have to think of them as my equal, but treat them as my equal. I don't think people who drop out of high school are right, but am I going to treat them with contempt because they made a decision I don't agree with? Obviously not. I'm not confusing anything. In fact you just talk about stuff that doesn't even attempt to deconstruct what I said? I'm not interested in your continued semantics crusade; if you like in your world, equality would be equal rights and privileges for straights, gays, whites, blacks, whatever. Saying marriage is not a right and therefore my equality argument is invalid is an exceptionally poor argument. Not sure where you're going with your high-school dropout analogy. Do people argue high-school dropouts should have fewer rights (and legal privileges, if you like...) that people who don't drop out of high school? | ||
|
Beemith
Canada4 Posts
Marriage is not a right. Healthcare is not a right. An automobile is not a right. A college education and a nice job are not rights. Those are privileges. I can see automobile not being a right and this discussion is about marriage being a right. But how can you say healthcare isn't a right and education? Seriously that blows my mind. How is everybody not entitled to be healthy and successful in life? | ||
|
shin_toss
Philippines2589 Posts
User was warned for this post | ||
|
Plansix
United States60190 Posts
On June 25 2013 19:47 RParks42 wrote: You confuse equality with your own moral sense of right and wrong. Equality is equal rights, but some confuse right with privilege. In the US, we have defined rights, they are the ones listed in the constitution. Some countries have their own privileges that they have deemed worthy of being a right, and I am unaware of the specifics ranging from country to country. Marriage is not a right. Healthcare is not a right. An automobile is not a right. A college education and a nice job are not rights. Those are privileges. There is a good deal of hypocrisy by the way in stating that people who don't agree with you deserve the criticism because Equality obviously dictates that I must agree with you. Treating someone equally doesn't mean I have to think of them as my equal, but treat them as my equal. I don't think people who drop out of high school are right, but am I going to treat them with contempt because they made a decision I don't agree with? Obviously not. The constitution does not define all right, it only numerates a specific set that the founding fathers felt were most important. It does not say that people do not have other rights or imply that those are the only ones. Ownership of personal and real(land) property is not specifically detailed in the constitution, but the argument that those are privileges is foolish. Everyone has the right to be treated equally by the government. Also the government cannot bar an individual from doing something without good reason. Therefor, baring special circumstances: If everyone else can drive, I have the right to do so as well. If everyone else can get married, I have the right to get married. If everyone else in my position has the ability to get healthcare, I have the right to be able to buy healthcare If everyone else is receiving public seduction, I have the right to do so as well. Furthermore, the right to own personal property simply is. Stop misusing the word privilege. | ||
|
matsushi
Philippines65 Posts
On June 25 2013 19:05 marvellosity wrote: You're using nitpicky semantics. Just to repeat, the overwhelming consensus is that it isn't a choice, and you won't find any reputable scientist who says it is. You know your point is a bad one when whatever I just said refutes your response to it already :/ It's about as conclusive as it gets without being 100% confirmed like gravity. So treating it as fact is not disingenuous at all. Honestly, it doesn't matter whether or not it is a choice. Either way, homosexuality is something that should be accepted and respected. I personally believe that it's a choice (even if it's a subconscious one), but it's a choice we need to respect anyway. I think the "born gay" rhetoric is just rhetoric being used to gain the sympathy and understanding of very conservative people who are intolerant of gays. People change their sexual orientation all the time, which is why it doesn't make sense if you say that you were "born" a certain way or are stuck in a certain mold. edit: Also, I think the new banner is funky as hell! GJ TL | ||
|
RParks42
United States77 Posts
On June 25 2013 19:53 marvellosity wrote: I'm not confusing anything. In fact you just talk about stuff that doesn't even attempt to deconstruct what I said? I'm not interested in your continued semantics crusade; if you like in your world, equality would be equal rights and privileges for straights, gays, whites, blacks, whatever. Saying marriage is not a right and therefore my equality argument is invalid is an exceptionally poor argument. Not sure where you're going with your high-school dropout analogy. Do people argue high-school dropouts should have fewer rights (and legal privileges, if you like...) that people who don't drop out of high school? You say "if you like in your world", and that is exactly where I currently reside, in the real world. What country is it that you live in that equality isn't about equal rights? I'm pretty sure that they have a few names for what they call a country that considers equality being everyone having equal everything, those are Communism and Socialism. For the same reason that I will say those are both completely valid ways of operating a country, and it is under the complete discretion of the countries at hand to do what they choose, they typically doesn't work out. Within that context, that Equality is equal rights, my saying that marriage is not a right in fact does invalidate your claim that gay marriage would be necessary for equality. The only rights gays have within the US are the rights that every other American citizen has, aka all of them. All of those extra things, the flashy things that the government pays for, are all privileges handed down at the behest of the country by the ones we elected there in the first place. If you disagree with my definition of equality, then of course we are going to have a differing opinion. You choosing to not see my point, saying my argument doesn't make sense because it has no point, and then getting angry at me for not agreeing with you doesn't help anything. And the drop-out analogy point was made by none other you! No one argues that they should have less rights, just as no one argues that gays should have less rights (I'm throwing around the term 'no one' very loosely here), but it is a decision that I am allowed to disagree with, and as long as I don't discriminate against them, I am doing nothing wrong in having my opinion On June 25 2013 20:19 Plansix wrote: The constitution does not define all right, it only numerates a specific set that the founding fathers felt were most important. It does not say that people do not have other rights or imply that those are the only ones. Ownership of personal and real(land) property is not specifically detailed in the constitution, but the argument that those are privileges is foolish. Everyone has the right to be treated equally by the government. Also the government cannot bar an individual from doing something without good reason. Therefor, baring special circumstances: If everyone else can drive, I have the right to do so as well. If everyone else can get married, I have the right to get married. If everyone else in my position has the ability to get healthcare, I have the right to be able to buy healthcare If everyone else is receiving public seduction, I have the right to do so as well. Furthermore, the right to own personal property simply is. Stop misusing the word privilege. Let me give you the flowchart version Constitution------->Defines Rights-------->Cultural Shift in Thinking-------->Amendment---------->Law is Changed-------->New Rights If there is no law for barring it, it is legal, if there is a law barring it, it is illegal. Nothing is above the Constitution in US Law. Absolutely nothing. Simple enough for you? Oh, and before you go and use that last part about how "If everyone else can drive, I have the right to do so as well" in your next argument, you might want to read about the part where it actually states that marriage is between a man and a woman. So no, just because someone else can do something doesn't mean I automatically should be able to as well. If you want to say I'm wrong and use something that goes against legal precedent as proof, I guess I'm not the one that's gonna stop you | ||
| ||
