"Non-judgmental is cancer" -- how tolerance corrupts societies.

traed said:


> Comparing homosexuals to pedophilic serial killers
A psychopath is someone who hurts others through their self serving actions which can go all the way up to murder or torture. A pedophile if they act on it with a small child would also have to be a sociopath because they would be taking advantage of them. A pedophile who does not act on their actions is of no harm to anyone. Homosexuals can make their own decisions on what they do with eachother so there is no excuse to try to stop them because it has no effect on you.

It's one thing to want to be in a certain role for yourself or wanting a partner in a certain role which both are fine if that is what they too want but it is something else to hate on someone for not fitting in those roles. It's placing unnecessary expectations on others and not letting them be themselves.

I was just exaggerating to make it an extreme case scenario. for the point to be clear. You have displayed double standards when it comes to tolerance. You want people to tolerate Muslims and Islam but not homosexuals or whatever else it may be.

it is something else to hate on someone for not fitting in those roles. It's placing unnecessary expectations on others and not letting them be themselves.

You want people to tolerate Muslims and Islam but not homosexuals or whatever else it may be.

TheBrainintheJar said:


When tolerance becomes a means to keep people quiet, it is no longer tolerance.

Shaheen- said:


Pedophilia cannot be changed either. A born psychopath cannot be changed either. It is not on the basis of 'change' that we decide sanctions.

Alright.

What if I take the position of supporting gender roles? Isn't that inequality? But my arguments make sense. What then?

That's not tolerance; that's sensibility. Tolerance applies within and to a society. If USA plans to nuke Middle East, we don't call it being intolerant, we'll call it either going apeshit or just being stupid.

Shaheen- said:
First: Find the 'pedophilic serial killer' in my post and you get an imaginary candy.

Second: The comparison is, by all laws of logic, correct.

Your argument for buttressing homosexuality was: They are naturally like this; it's intolerant to ban them.
Now if you're shifting your argument to 'They don't hurt anyone' then that's an even worse argument.

I bring up the case: You're not letting a pedophile be himself; you're imposing on him roles that you deem correct for yourself.

I said this to Spooks and I'll say this to you: Find one sentence that calls for people to 'tolerate Islam or Muslim' and I'll forever be your slave.

I only talked about the sense of demonizing Islam. That's quite another matter from 'tolerating'.

ashfrliebert said:

From kids in candy stores to gay people to pedophiles to psychopaths in one day, from a thread about tolerance. Expected conclusion, but MAL can never be direct. Are you the same person who compared pedophilia and psychopathy to gay people like two weeks ago?

Two of these things like, actually harm people?

traed said:

I was combining your examples into a single example to emphasize the absurdity.

Not in every factor.

It can be both you know. It's not either or. There is more than one factor, I named one. I never claimed that was all there is to it. People who use your argument are a dime a dozen so it is very tiring in it's tediousness to address these sort of points because thy are so tired and discredited.

It's called liberty. Liberty is to limit some freedoms to help others keep their freedoms, rights and well being from being taken by things done to them which they did not want or were incapable of deciding for. The situation is not the same with homosexuals, with homosexuals you would be taking away their freedom when their freedom does not take away yours.

There is no solid clear line between intolerance and demonizing.

Shaheen- said:
The absurdity of an argument consists in its logical validity, not how it sounds to you.

Which factors?

IYes, they can be both. But even together they don't eliminate the logical errors.
Here, let me dissect:
Homosexuals are born like this.
So are pedophiles.
They aren't harming anyone
Will you support homosexual incest with the same argument? or consider the case of a pedophile who acquired a 10 years old partner but very intelligent (i.e the partner can give his consent), how would you go about this?

Hopefully, the part in bold is the crux of your argument. Considering that argument to be the basis of your deciding whom should be allowed freedom, my question is, 'How would you expect a stable society with that sort of morality?'. Because then the purpose of morality gets lost. Stability disappears. Homosexuality is a violation of the family system; and as the Confucian adage goes, 'The stability of family is the stability of the State'. With sexual freedom, no one is bound to keep a family anymore.

All of that considered, it brings into question the argument in context of deciding morality/legislation.

There is. Demonizing is a propaganda which may or may not be a result of intolerance. Intolerance then is the subset of demonizing.

To further fortify my case here, I even propounded that the West, through propaganda, should make Western education common in Muslim countries so as to eliminate both the Muslim problem and the religious fervor among them. That can only sound like a plea for tolerance if you already have a contrived mindset which prevents you from seeing what's actually there.

Homosexual incest: Sure.

In that other example you have holes to it that separate it from homosexuality. First you have to lay out at what point are they intelligent enough and what kind of knowledge and understanding is needed. You also have to prove if their body can handle it without major damage. You also have to factor in the pedos intent whether it is good or not. You can't just assume things.
With homosexuals these sort of things are already known and aren't rally worse than heterosexuals.

You're assuming there is only one type of family that is valid and provide no proof or evidence of homosexuality destroying it. Also the proof is all the successful countries that have homosexual rights and dont go around executing them .

You're missing the point and twisting the meaning of words to fit your narrative.

The_Nico said:
Watch Shinsekai Yori if you have not yet.

The tolerant people in that show are responsible for the rebellion of the rats and Squealer's demise.

No seriously, if you so claim to like that, claim to be oh so tolerant, then try watching it again.

Shaheen- said:


'Harm principle' is the conclusion; I'm targeting the premises

Homosexuals are born like this.
So are pedophiles.
They aren't harming anyone
Will you support homosexual incest with the same argument?

or consider the case of a pedophile who acquired a 10 years old partner but very intelligent (i.e the partner can give his consent),

Hopefully, the part in bold is the crux of your argument. Considering that argument to be the basis of your deciding whom should be allowed freedom, my question is, 'How would you expect a stable society with that sort of morality?'. Because then the purpose of morality gets lost. Stability disappears. With sexual freedom, no one is bound to keep a family anymore.

traed said:
First you have to lay out at what point are they intelligent enough and what kind of knowledge and understanding is needed. You also have to prove if their body can handle it without major damage. You also have to factor in the pedos intent whether it is good or not. You can't just assume things.

You're assuming there is only one type of family that is valid and provide no proof or evidence of homosexuality destroying it. Also the proof is all the successful countries that have homosexual rights and dont go around executing them

You're missing the point and twisting the meaning of words to fit your narrative.

ashfrliebert said:

If you think "intelligent 10 years old" can give consent, I question your intelligence. Doesn't matter if they win five straight on game contest, they can't give consent in a legal context. It's legally impossible.

Kousoku11 said:
Right, fuck that whole "smart 10-year-old" example.

A child of that age might be physically capable of having sex, yes. A situation in which they also seem like they understand the situation and voice their consent seems unlikely, but let's assume that that's the case. They still wouldn't be allowed to have sex.

Why?

Because no matter how "intelligent" the child is, they're still a child. Their brains haven't developed to the point where they would understand the consequences of their actions or really even know what they themselves want. They aren't psychologically mature enough because of their physiology, and that's a hard barrier to argue against.

It's similar to why people with Alzheimer's or similar cognitive impairments can't give consent either, and it's also why children around certain age can't (or at the very least shouldn't) be held criminally responsible.

If the legislation ever changes to go against all this, then yes, it'd be idiotic. But it's not just some arbitrary ruling that you seem to claim it to be.

It's a stupid example.

Shaheen- said:
A 10 year old's body can handle intercourse without major damage; unless we're talking BDSM, in which case even adults are damaged.

Intelligence -- do an IQ test.
Understanding -- Mental Status Examination.

You guys go around throwing the word 'proof' as if you actually know what it means. It's simple reasoning: Sexual freedom doesn't restrict your sexual rights therefore you are naturally compelled to seek more sex and less family.

And yes, there's only one type of family which we do not consider 'abnormal'.

It's laughable how you can still consider the West 'successful'.

Shaheen- said:
An intelligent 10 year old has just as much idea of the consequences of his actions as an adult (intelligent or otherwise) does; and that idea we term 'vague'. If adults knew the consequences of their actions, you would not have bad marriages or failed relationships.

ashfrliebert said:


I would agree, but like I mean it's much easier to be specific. Idk how far are we going. I guess since it's talking about "Power" it's like tolerating the government? Tolerating anime taste? Tolerating intolerance? Tolerating annoying people in grocery stores? It's ambiguous.

This exact post could be made in the anime discussion section and I'd be like "yes I think anime criticisms should be judged equally", but it's general discussion I have no idea what we are talking about.

I think ideas should be challenged and given their fair judgement by "the inferior power", in a general sense, sure. But there is a pretty big difference even with tolerating words, ideas-putting planned action to words, and tolerating action.

Here's the confusing part, who's censoring us? lol. We're just talking about tolerance in a general sense here?

edit:

From kids in candy stores( in which I brought up) to gay people to pedophiles to psychopaths in one day, from a thread about tolerance. Expected conclusion, but MAL can never be direct. Are you the same person who compared pedophilia and psychopathy to gay people like two weeks ago?

Two of these things like, actually harm people?

TheBrainintheJar said:

Here's how you do it:

I wouldn't beat up someone for thinking Black people should go back to slavery, or that Jews should be fried and served well-done. I would constantly question them and challenge their arguments. If they get hurt over me not liking their racism/antisemetism, too bad.

That's why I can criticize Islam all day and still be against violence against Muslims.

Shaheen said:


I'm not mixing it up; the society is. Tell me, can I even argue against homosexuality, transgender-ism, feminism and the likes without being called a homophobe, misogynist and transphobe or whatnot?

Shaheen said:

I brought up the most controversial of matters: Homosexuality.
Give me a good argument why it should be allowed. For the moment alone, it might help you formulate a better argument if you forget that I'm officially a homophobe and a Muslim (unlike FontSize72LOL).

Kousoku11 said:
You're confusing being able to assess consequences and being capable to assess consequences.

Adults can do irresponsible/stupid things, true. However, they are old enough to have developed the capacity to assess their situations, and because of this don't end up fucking up literally every part of their lives. If they don't utilize that capacity, then that's on them

Some children may possess cognitive functions that can rival an adult's, true. However, that does not mean that they possess the capacity to function like an adult would. They lack social and emotional maturity. They might never fully develop these two qualities, as can be evident from certain adults, but those qualities usually start to manifest somewhere in adolescence (13-17 ish) since that's when their brains start to reach their maturity (most notably their prefrontal cortex). As such, children below those ages should not even be considered to possess those qualities.

It's not remotely as vague as you make it sound to be.

traed said:

It would be difficult to figure out what criteria is needed for understanding. Not saying it cant be done though.

I find it comical you are trying to lump pedophilia with homosexuality when you live in a country you can legally marry a 7 year old girl but you draw the line at homosexuals.

You can make close friends your family or adopt children or have extended family as part of a family or have entire villages function as a family. You have a very narrow view of what a family is.

First world countries with human rights and freedom of speech vs third world countries where you get sentenced to canings or death for speaking your mind or how you live your life without harming others...

.. hmm tough choice *sarcasm*

ashfrliebert said:

They aren't going to get arrested for being racist they'll get arrested for racial discrimination, acting it out, basically. Okay. You wouldn't beat up racist people, probably a good idea.






This isn't beating up people. This isn't even a face to face conversation on racism or something. This is challenging arguments on the internet and labeling people what they, admittedly, are. Much lower scale and much different.

Also though, pretty sure you can get arrested for inciting violence. Just to note.

Shaheen- said:
Same could be said about adults.

I find it comical how you take pleasure in psychologically disturbing stances that don't even make sense. At least, our law of allowing marriage at 7 does not leave any slippery slopes. Contrast the statement 'Only heterosexual marriages allowed' to 'Two consenting adults can do whatever they want' and dissect them logically -- which you obviously cannot but please try to.

All those familial construct have a nuclear family, or at least the structure of it, at heart. You have a flawed view of everything you say let alone what others say.

I never suggested it can't.

You think letting people do something that effects no one but themselves when they are perfectly capable of making decisions is a psychologically disturbing stance?

A slippery slope is just a fallacy unless it actually happens or if it has scientifically proven outcomes. Also a slippery slope implies things get worse. So are you saying homosexuality is worse than selling off little girls like property between families?

A gay couple with adopted or surrogate born children is more nuclear than polygamy.

Shaheen- said:
Then your argument fails.

Except you have no way to prove how familial matters do not effect more than the two people involved in there. I'm using the word 'prove' in its correct meaning (not scientific - the word 'proof' comes from logic and is an integral part of Mathematics); what I expect you to do, is give me a rationale, a reasoning, for how it doesn't effect societies at large.

Also science never 'proves'; it only discovers.

>selling off little girls like property between families

At least hide your salt.

Notice how you raped your own self there.

"It is in contrast to single parent family''.

Polygamy is as nuclear as a gay couple. Except that a polygamous family has more chances of providing a balanced growth to the kid than the homosexuals.

You were the one who said homosexuality is bad it's your job to prove it is. Which you still have not done.

It proves or disproves theories.

> avoiding answering the question

Nope that contradicts reality.

Shaheen- said:
Capability and ability are synonyms unless you mean something like ability being individual-based and capability legislation-based, in which case it won't be an argument.

There's the paradox: If the kid has enough 'maturity' to realize the consequence of his one action then he would definitely have the maturity to understand the consequences of the consequences of his actions -- and that exactly is how adults operate too.

Regardless, what dire consequences are we talking about? A child at the age of 10 himself consents to have a sexual relationship with an adult (therefore, no trauma involved). Yes, there could be blackmailing but since we've established the kid to be on the same level as an adult, it becomes ineffective as an argument. If he himself is consenting, and the pedophile (his partner) is seen as a good-natured adult (which of course he wouldn't be seen as -- because pedophilia is immoral) then it's just another normal relationship. It only looks bad due to the stigma.

Shaheen- said:
@traed

Let me remind you: It would be difficult to figure out what criteria is needed for understanding. Not saying it cant be done though.

If that argument also applies to adults, then it's not an argument for kids specifically.

75000 posts ago:
Homosexuality is a violation of the family system; and as the Confucian adage goes, 'The stability of family is the stability of the State'. With sexual freedom, no one is bound to keep a family anymore.

Proving theories is an activity of 'discovering'. Technically, using the word 'prove' here is wrong; because you're basically brainstorming outcomes of an event, and then when you actually see the outcomes, you say, 'Eureka! one brainstormed outcome turned out to be true'. That's not 'proving'. That's finding.

There was no question. Just your salt. Selling little girls like properties is a part of no religion, no constitution, on this Earth. Basically, it's your imagination.

TheBrainintheJar said:


Acting out on racism is an action and actions directly harm people. That's why we should arrest them.

A person merely thinking back people are horrible isn't directly affecting anyone.

55Snakes said:
You're right, tolerance can be kind of arrogant and insulting. It's as if you're saying "I'm better than you but I'll put up with you because I'm such a nice person." It's much better to whole-heartedly accept someone, or openly disapprove of them if you like.

The_Nico said:
Here's something you might want to read further about open-mindedness, read this just a few hours back, I think it's spot on: http://www.theness.com/index.php/the-problem-with-being-too-open-minded/

Kousoku11 said:
The words have a certain degree of overlap, but the nuance that I was going after was this:

A person able to perform a certain activity is able to attempt it; whether or not they have the necessary skills to succeed is up in the air. In the context of consent, normal adults are considered able and adolescents below a certain age unable.

A person capable of performing a certain activity is able to attempt it and possesses the necessary skills to succeed, although they might not to regardless. In the context I used it in, adults who make bad decisions are capable.

Children have a terrible cognitive flexibility, and their understanding of how stuff works is full of holes because of it due to their incomplete brains. They have a hard cap on the whole "understanding the consequences of the consequences of the..." line of logic until they develop to the point where they can process enough concepts simultaneously to operate like an adult would (which happens during adolescence, usually in the later stages).

No paradox here, just your ignorance of psychology.

In the case of your imaginary snowflake of a child, there are no dire consequences. And why should there be: it's so removed from reality that using it as an argument for legislation being arbitrary is stupid, which is the point I'm trying to make here.

Probably should have been more clear about that

I never said it was an argument only for kids. If it applies to adults then it applies to heterosexuals as much as homosexuals so I don't know what you are trying to get at.

You did not provide evidence for it though just the statement. The only fair comparison of homosexual and heterosexual families would be if it compares adopted children with other adopted children and children related to only one parent with other children of the same sort of situation. Of course though this argument only works for couples having children not the relationships themselves.

If it is technically wrong then it also technically right. It just depends how you interpret the words.

The question was if you find homosexual relationships worse than pedophilic ones because what you said seemed to imply that.

ashfrliebert said:

And I think most people have made up their mind about this anyway, including the OP.

Shaheen- said:

And you're what? offended? Ok.

Having an open mind means you don’t dismiss claims to truth out of hand. You analyze first. When you analyze a claim, you consider all the relevant evidence and examine all the logic involved, in a fair and unbiased manner, then grant tentative acceptance or rejection. If new arguments or new evidence come up, then you revise your opinion. Being open means that you apply this standard fairly to all claims. Being open-minded does not mean believing every claim, no matter how improbable–that’s being gullible, not open.
This process of fair analysis, based upon logic and evidence, leading to tentative conclusions, which are open to revision, is part of science. It is also the very soul of true open-mindedness.

ashfrliebert said:

Did you read the link I quoted? Or? Not a lot to be confused about.