Originally posted by @jacob-vervilleYou threw your poison-the-well word "bigot" - which I have not used - into a paragraph that was ostensibly about my contribution to "the whole conversation".
It's just a relevant example of begging the question.
Originally posted by @jacob-vervilleYou have been rendered incapable of conceiving of or discussing citizens being in some kind of unequal power relationship with those who govern them? Your musings - or at least these musings you have internalized and have been reciting for us here, complete with the peculiar capitalization of sneery words - have incapacitated you to this extent? 😉
I don't really know. I used to know how to think along these terms but I don't really do that anymore and if I were to do so it'd be a wrong way to handle this situation.
I do not believe it is a good idea for me to step into your framework for political reasoning.
This framework of political reasoning, while internally consistent, is generally just a bad way of viewing the world.
It's bad software. I don't use it anymore.
Originally posted by @jacob-vervilleSo do you believe governments should restrict homosexuals and discriminate against them?
You knwo what, I can see why you would make that connection, and I should have taken time to clarify that this was not supposed to be about you. I apologize for being clumsy and thoughtless.
I think of it this way: the American Constitution was created to cater exclusively to free European men in good standing. The process of becoming a citizen even involved bringing witnesses to a court to attest to such a fact. There was a very specific context and vision that the Founding Fathers had.
Now, we have people applying this vision far more broadly and ltierally hoping to apply it in very cross-cultural circumstances where the rights and concepts do not translate well. We are also trying to do it with economic systems and understandings that are very alien to the fundamentals of this...
The 18th & 19th century concept of "rights" was really meant for an elite Republic that functioned more like a Rome than the America today.
I don't think it is a good idea to look at third generation welfare collectors on a trailer park in Texas or in a ghetto in Camden and evaluate their position in those terms. The Founding Fathers certainly wouldn't have.
So what are these "rights?" They are a clumsy obstacle to discussing politics in the 21st century. Not that I disagree with "rights," I know how important it is for me to pay homage to the sacred cow. But talking about how someone in a trailer park has a right to own a gun, or the right to free health care, or the right to vote in the context that they have been disenfranchised by being required to own a driver's license... All of that comes off as unwieldy and foolish.
We are ascribing "rights" to agents that have no sense of duty, nor have been integrated as productive factors into the society in any way.
I prefer to think along the lines of duties and practical consequences than rights.And I refuse to pretend that every person in the society has to be treated with the assumption that their citizenship is valuable and wanted.
Originally posted by @jacob-vervilleI think what you do is a deliberate affectation, as opposed to being "thoughtless", actually. Earlier you used words like "tantrum" and "emotional" and "bigot" etc. to add a spin to what I was saying [to you] that originated from you and not me. Do you still think I am in the throes of a "tantrum" or do you perhaps think that I have simply got the measure of you?
I apologize for being clumsy and thoughtless.
Originally posted by @fmfI can't really answer because we do not operate in the same framework. I do not really believe in some society with some extensive network of "rights" and "freedoms," so whatever "discrimination" means to you would not have similar parallels to me.
So do you believe governments should restrict homosexuals and discriminate against them?
Originally posted by @jacob-vervilleWho here is saying this is "a good idea"? Are you talking to me? Or are you addressing something some other poster has said? I have been talking to you about institutionalised discrimination against homosexuals; who is talking about "welfare collectors on a trailer park"?
[b]I don't think it is a good idea to look at third generation welfare collectors on a trailer park in Texas or in a ghetto in Camden and evaluate their position in those terms. /b]
Originally posted by @jacob-vervilleOK, try this. Do you believe the government where you live should restrict homosexuals and discriminate* against them?
I can't really answer because we do not operate in the same framework. I do not really believe in some society with some extensive network of "rights" and "freedoms," so whatever "discrimination" means to you would not have similar parallels to me.
* Regulate or restrict or sanction homosexuals in a way that is different from heterosexuals.
Originally posted by @fmfI am just speaking generally about how the concept of "rights" and using this framework broadly is disastrous in multiple ways.
Who here is saying this is "a good idea"? Are you talking to me? Or are you addressing something some other poster has said? I have been talking to you about institutionalised discrimination against homosexuals; who is talking about "welfare collectors on a trailer park"?
Originally posted by @fmfYes, I think that you are still making a bit of an emotional display.
I think what you do is a deliberate affectation, as opposed to being "thoughtless", actually. Earlier you used words like "tantrum" and "emotional" and "bigot" etc. to add a spin to what I was saying [to you] that originated from you and not me. Do you still think I am in the throes of a "tantrum" or do you perhaps think that I have simply got the measure of you?
Originally posted by @jacob-vervilleYou keep mentioning what I have been saying as me talking about "Muh Rights", and then you are citing as examples "third generation welfare collectors on a trailer park in Texas or in a ghetto in Camden". To whom in this community - out of the people you are talking to - are you attributing these notions of what "rights" are?
I am just speaking generally about how the concept of "rights" and using this framework broadly is disastrous in multiple ways.
Originally posted by @jacob-vervilleThank you for attempting to put me in my place. It's revealing.
Yes, I think that you are still making a bit of an emotional display.
Originally posted by @fmfNo, I don't think there'd be anything like that. There doesn't have to be anything like that. But keep in mind, my idea looks very different from yours.
OK, try this. Do you believe the government where you live should restrict homosexuals and discriminate* against them?
* Regulate or restrict or sanction homosexuals in a way that is different from heterosexuals.
This question doesn't actually serve to illuminate my positions at all and, even though my answer is entirely accurate, it probably doesn't translate well.
Originally posted by @jacob-vervilleSo we are both against the kind of discrimination that I have been talking about. Good. Just looking for some common ground. We're not going to find common ground over notions of "sin" and supernatural phenomena, so it's good to establish something we can agree on.
No, I don't think there'd be anything like that. There doesn't have to be anything like that. But keep in mind, my idea looks very different from yours.
This question doesn't actually serve to illuminate my positions at all and, even though my answer is entirely accurate, it probably doesn't translate well.