HOME | DD
Aonon β Your Arguments are Invalid
Published: 2011-04-16 17:44:15 +0000 UTC; Views: 3687; Favourites: 92; Downloads: 52
Redirect to original
Description
And because, well, ya know. They're people too and are entitled to their own happiness.Related content
Comments: 67
Tell me, what's your thoughts on this video, just out of curiosity
www.youtube.com/watch?v=nPYRXoβ¦
π: 0 β©: 1
Watched the whole thing.
He didn't...exactly answer the question. Or rather, the title might be slightly misleading, as most of the video is personal anecdotes about his own philosophy, along with classifications about different cultures. He doesn't seem entirely judgemental, which is perfectly fine. I didn't really see any argument for or against marriage equality, instead he talked about "changes from the biblical norm", I believe he phrased it. The only issue I would take with that would be that changing things from "the biblical norm" is commonplace throughout history, and in most cases this is has little if any effect, or a net positive one.
Seemed to be a look into his own personal philosophy rather than the question posed in the title. Be a bit like if someone asked me "What my view are on banning religion from the public square" are, and I responded with a long (admittedly well-spoken) series of anecdotes about the virtues of secular law. Marginally related, but not really about the question being posed.
All in all though, he seems well spoken and pleasant. I think he's wrong, but I'm content to coexist with those who share his viewpoint so long as they don't try to use their viewpoint to interfere with the freedom of others.
How's that?
π: 0 β©: 1
Interesting.
Though truth be told, I can get lost in those long philosophical speeches. However when he speaks about cultures, he does gives a brief example of how people will view others' opinion. Sort of like how some people from Christianity (well claim to be) are upright right hateful towards homosexuals personally while some people from atheists views who hears someone just disagreeing with homosexual life styles and call them homophobic without question. But that's what I took from when Ravi spoke of cultures there, since big philosophy talk isn't my first language.
But when he spoke that 'sex is sacred', it does make sense to me. Pushing away other sexual content that anybody can agree is bad or at the very least "Not in front of the kids!", would someone loving a same sex partner really not be considered 'odd'?
For example, let's say that homosexuality never existed, until now. Just suddenly popped up from a few teens who already hit puberty and scientists confirmed it is 'not' caused by some contagious disease or parasite so no need for alarm, how would you view this new thing personally?
Granted I'm not really looking for a long debate with somebody right now, just collecting info on how others view homosexuality, at a calm and collective order with no arguments. Ever since last year, I've been doing more journals about different topics, mostly just videos that somebody else did that I want to share. After your next response I'll probably just say a few things and end with, 'Thanks for sharing, see ya.' and probably come back if I want to say something on another deviantart of yours.
But back to the video, he is pretty cool minded person, even when he makes his response long (which is like what I did). I mean how many people talking about homosexuality will actually remain calm, both sides?
And I completely agree with coexisting without interfering with freedom and our speech, 'actually interfering'. Even if people disagree with him, I say he is a really good example of how to handle a discussion, only with more common words.
π: 0 β©: 1
I'm not sure if "odd" would be the correct term, as using that word when referring to people usually carries a negative connotation, even if not intended. "Different", or "unusual", perhaps? If my child doesn't need glasses, and he sees a child that does, I wouldn't say the other child is 'odd', after all. I might say they're different, or unusual (as most humans don't need glasses, although that might change given our modern use of screened devices causing changes in our eyesight), but not odd. "Odd" could also be relative. Interracial relationships, 200 years ago, would certainly be seen as odd. Degenerate, even. But today? They're so commonplace that I'd wager most young people don't even register it as something to have a reaction to.
As for what I'd think if something suddenly popped up and was assured there was no cause for alarm? That happens to me all the time, and it HAS happened in my lifetime, numerous times. When I was in middle school, I didn't know what 'gay' even meant, outside of an insult. Until I left Sunday school, I was barely aware that other religions even existed, outside of the Abrahamic ones. And yet each time I learned of the existence of a thing (of which I'd been previously unaware), its mere existence wasn't enough elicit a reaction.
Though if we're talking about sudden appearance biological features or characteristics, I think I'd probably react with ambivalence. For example, until a few years ago, scientists were unaware that tetrachromatic vision was something that could occur in humans. And now we know it occurs at a surprisingly high degree in women and rarely in men. When I learned this, I reacted with a mixture of interest and indifference. It didn't affect me in my day to day life, and it was nothing to get worked up about.
Also, the presence of a characteristic is wholly different from our awareness of its presence,and our understanding of it is divorced from both of those. Another example, modern humans have undergone genetic mutations in the last 20 years that most certainly would qualify as "suddenly popping up", and yet no one freaks out, because it's nothing to be alarmed about. I doubt you've spent many a night worrying over the fact that in modern humans, the thumb has adapted to become the most nimble, most dexterous digit, when for our grandparents it would have been the forefinger.
In general, I think people don't remain calm because in many cases, condemnation of a trait or belief is perceived as an attack on someone's identity, or upon the people they care for. And people, all people, will lash out when they feel that they are being attacked, no matter how polite the attacker presents themselves. Imagine I went up to a believer, and told them, in my most eloquent and gentlemanly way, that, "I don't have anything against you personally, but I believe the way you raise your children is tantamount to child abuse. You are denying them the sacred ability to self determine, and are neglecting your responsibility to raise a critical thinker. Therefore, our philosophy states that we cannot allow you to continue to raise them. Turn them over, please." I then hand them a pamphlet laying out all of our group's philosophy, with stated goals of how we will influence the nation's laws to ensure that no child will be placed in the care of such irresponsible people such as them, as it is the only reasonable thing to do.
Do you sincerely think the believer would remain calm, or do you think they would tell me off, and then do everything in their power to ensure that the legal system prevents me from imposing my rules upon them?
Sorry, got into a bit of a rant there at the end. Felt like I was on a roll.
π: 0 β©: 0
It's 2015, for Pete's sake, it's time the idiots of the world to stop being idiots and actually accept something that's been around for as long as anyone can remember
π: 0 β©: 0
I'm christian, and I'm for same-sex marriage. I mean, we have free will for a reason, right?
π: 0 β©: 0
I often wonder to myself, what if the homophobes were right? What if homosexual people were really chosing to be gay?
"Oh boy! I've just decided, I'm gonna be gay! I'll live a life in which people will call me hateful slurs, try to beat the Bible into my head to correct me, I'll struggle to gain the legal right to be married, and there's even the chance that I could be killed for it! Doesn't that sound swell?"
π: 0 β©: 1
Than I am really fucking retarded,along with a lot of people......
π: 0 β©: 0
"Being gay is a choice!"
...Okay, if it is JUST A CHOICE, then why would the gays CHOOSE to be gay if people are gonna have problems with it?
This just goes to show how illogical and ignorant homophobes are.
Also, IT'S JUST A SEXUAL ORIENTATION, it's fucking harmless, the homophobes are just spineless morons who somehow feel uncomfortable with that when it's none of their fucking business. But no, they say stuff like "Why don't they legalize pedophiles if gays are okay?"
...Well, I dunno, maybe because being gay is not a harmful mental illness like pedophilia is? ...HOMOPHOBES ARE FUCKING IDIOTS.
You are right, there is NO valid agrument against gays.
π: 0 β©: 2
This illogical, ignorant, spineless moron, fucking idiot, brainwashed cunt-queen-bitch Β Β Β "Being gay is a choice!...Why don't they legalize pedophiles if gays are okay?..."
π: 0 β©: 0
Wait if gay is a choice doesn't that mean being straight is a choice since they re both sexualities
π: 0 β©: 0
The only non-religious argument I've heard was "It violates my right to be a hateful bigot." Not exactly what the person said, but that was the gist of it.
π: 0 β©: 2
Their argument "If I don't have the right to oppress others, what rights do I have?"
π: 0 β©: 1
Wow.......It's honestly refreshing to see that.....
π: 0 β©: 1
Like I said, not exact words, just the gist.
π: 0 β©: 0
I applaud all of your deviations. They make so much sense!!!
π: 0 β©: 0
I'm not against gay marriage - I'm against atheist marriage. They just take all our stuff, like Christmas, weddings, cross jewelry etc.
π: 0 β©: 3
I'm atheist who dated a Satan worshipper, and a christian. also we don't take your shit. Christmas never belonged to fucking Chritians. Neither do weddings belong to your ass not even crosses.Β
π: 0 β©: 0
Christmas didn't belong to Christians. They took it from the pagans.
Weddings have never belonged to Christians, as it's a legal contract that has existed in different forms since time immemorial.
The cross doesn't belong exclusively to Christians since it existed as a symbol for the world before even Judaism started.
Next.
π: 0 β©: 0
I may be an arsehole, but at least I;m consistent in being so
π: 0 β©: 0
I support gay rights- equal human value aside- because there categorically are no good arguments against it, as they're all rooted in prejudice and hate.
π: 0 β©: 0
I agree with your sentiment (although I'm tolerant rather than supportive) but find your seeking only positive feedback cute and childish.
π: 0 β©: 1
Eh, I know (about the positive feedback bit). I just got tired of having arguments with religious folk over the internet.
π: 0 β©: 0
Turn about is always fair-play.
π: 0 β©: 0
I think I subconsciously quoted you today, and it shut up a lot of people.
π: 0 β©: 1
Glad I could be of service. Tho, to be fair, I heard it somewhere else. X3
π: 0 β©: 0
I uploaded a similar work [link] - You are inspiring me to go on with those topic-related "Proclamations"
π: 0 β©: 0
I'm kinda curious to see that bible thumper's argument. argument
π: 0 β©: 1
hmm..maybe I'll unhide them if people want to see :\
π: 0 β©: 1
Well, if you want.
π: 0 β©: 1
hmm. reason I hid them was because it was a long time ago and I didn't want to make it raise its head again. me and the bible-thumper made amends, agreeing to disagree and whatnot.
π: 0 β©: 1
Whoa...that's a lot of hidden comments and spam down below.... O.o
I totally agree with you. Love is love no matter the form.
π: 0 β©: 1
yeah...there was one dude being a total douche and using the ol' bible-thumper argument. Even the other religious people reacted to him poorly. And since he seemed to be only getting worse with each post, I eventually just blocked him and hid the convo. It was rather unpleasant.
π: 0 β©: 0
The Zelot-Christians claim that being gay is a sin against god. This is all based on like ONE part of the bible that was pointing out a problem with these people...and them being gay was NOT the issue addressed. It also brings up the fact that even if the bible DID say that, we have to recall that the Bible is NOT the direct word of God. It's a translated manuscript of the events relevant to God written by humans who had their OWN bias and views...
Honestly, I think it's so they sound less stupid when the real reason they wanna stop homosexuals is they have a "Ew! Gay people are gross!" mentality.
π: 0 β©: 3
Not that i think the bible is right by any means, of course.
π: 0 β©: 1
It's cool, I understand. I think the important thing to remember is the bible was NOT written by god, but by humans who witnessed biblical events...so it's inherently bias.
π: 0 β©: 0
The bible declares that homosexuals should be put to death, in several places, and Jesus himself mentions something against them, too.
Leviticus 20:13 was the first verse like this - a man shall not lie with another man as he would lie with a woman for they have committed an abomination and should be put to death - and in an era when families tended to sleep together in big beds, saying it's about sleeping arrangements is as dishonest as saying slavery was kinder back in crueler biblical times.
π: 0 β©: 1
Da Phuq are you talking about?! One of our best weapons in the gay-rights movement is the fact that Jesus never said a word about gay people!
π: 0 β©: 1
But god is also alleged to be "forever unchanging," and jesus said to follow the laws of moses to the last letter of the law.
Supporting the same book means you indirectly give support to everyone who learns or knows how to find justification for prejudice from its pages, even if you personally don't adhere to the hate.
Throw it all away. Β Why choose to paint yourself with such a hodge-podge mess of religious plagiarism that encourages way too much bigotry to justify teaching it to children?
π: 0 β©: 1
1) Yeah, but he also told us not to interpret it literally.
2)"Supporting the same book means you indirectly give support to everyone who learns or knows how to find justification for prejudice from its pages, even if you personally don't adhere to the hate." That's like saying that I indirectly give support to Gun nuts because I support the U.S. constitution. I believe in the same document as them, But I interpret it differently and don't give any support to them at all! (I don't know how much Canadians know about American politics, but this was the first thing that came to mind.)
3)Religious plagiarism? What are you talking about?
π: 0 β©: 1
If it can't be taken literally, then it shouldn't be taken at all. Β Lord of the Rings offers more solid examples of morality that does not contradict itself.
π: 0 β©: 1
| Next =>