• Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.

Commentary: Gay is not the new black (CNN)

Status
Not open for further replies.
K

krypt0nian

Banned
KibblesBits said:
No, the original message was valid until the first big paragraph and needs to be discussed but you and a few others here are much more interested in having a fight with someone who obviously doesn't share the same view as you and most likely won't ever. Brilliant, bitchy fun right?

I'm starting to think Dali was right about you.
Hell you even said yourself that you should have ended it a while ago but now we have five to six people arguing with someone about freaking NARTH in a thread that started out about race relations between the black community in general and the gay community.

Once again the issue at hand about race is deflected.
Click to expand...


Dali can kiss my ass. And yeah it is more fun.
 
I

Igo

Member
Jak140 said:
You keep trying to wiggle out of your original post which was simply that you would listen if the law said it was alright to do some thing morally reprehensible (murder), because you are a legal mind. Of course a judge has to follow the law in court, but in your original post you essentially established that you allow the law to act as your sole moral compass in or out of the courtroom. That is what I am contending, not whether or not a judge has to uphold law in court. According to your original post it was wrong for slaves to escape because it was against the law. And my point is that that is pure idiocy.
Click to expand...

To be fair, he's be arguing that point the entire thread.

Also, do people really think both struggles are equivalent other than the quest for equal treatment? I've never seen it like that.
 
M

Mercury Fred

Banned
harSon said:
I certainly agree with the quote but why do you consistently bring out quotes from Civil Rights leaders? It's pretty annoying to be honest.
Click to expand...
I bring out those quotes for people who want to argue that comparing the struggle for equal rights for gay people and the civil rights struggle are "silly," "insulting" and "annoying."

Why do you have a problem with it? It's pretty annoying for you to say that it's annoying to be honest.
 
K

krypt0nian

Banned
Igo said:
To be fair, he's be arguing that point the entire thread.

Also, do people really think both struggles are equivalent other than the quest for equal treatment? I've never seen it like that.
Click to expand...


I've never met anyone who suggests they are the same lock stock and barrel. Hell I don't care who's had it worse.

But the horrible offense taken by some of those who don't like comparisons in any way is laughable.
 
J

Jak140

Member
vandalvideo said:
Of course I still hold by that original statement, because my normative theory is that, "An act is right if, and only if, it is legal. An act is wrong if, and only if, it is illegal". Besides, I cannot let my moral compass take hold in the court room. This is Ceasar's realm good sir, not that of morals.
Click to expand...
So you are saying that slavery was right for the time it was legal and escaping from slavery was wrong? Again I am talking about outside of the court. Allowing the law to act as your sole moral compass outside of the court is foolish. Do not forget that even the law allows jurors to disregard a law if they disagree with it.
 
V

vandalvideo

Banned
Jak140 said:
So you are saying that slavery was right for the time it was legal and escaping from slavery was wrong? Again I am talking about outside of the court. Allowing the law to act as your sole moral compass outside of the court is foolish. Do not forget that even the law allows jurors to disregard a law if the disagree with it.
Click to expand...

Yes, I do, for the time. We cannot allow people who find certain laws stupid to disregard them at will in some jaded view that what they're doing is justified. The point of law is to keep order. The point of a Senate is to pass the will of the people. To ignore law wantonly and break it at will ought to be punished with the utmost expediency. If you want to make a change, vote. You have that option. Don't cause chaos and disorder because you disagree and think that your actions are justified. Use the categorical imperative here. Such actions are illogical if everyone were to do it.
 
K

krypt0nian

Banned
KibblesBits said:
welcome to the list.
Click to expand...

One that I'm sure I'd be proud to be on. LIke it was already said, racism is rampant in the gay community. Almost as homophobia is in the black churches. ;)

But starting this off with a unfounded CNN piece is the wrong way to have a discussion.

But then enters a new challenger and he's great fun to manipulate.
 
G

Gaborn

Member
ZephyrFate said:
You mean during a period where electroshock therapy was common practice for erasing the gay?
Click to expand...

Funny how once that stopped being preferred "treatment" studies on "changing" gays basically disappeared or relied on a flawed sample and self reporting.
 
J

Jak140

Member
vandalvideo said:
Yes, I do, for the time. We cannot allow people who find certain laws stupid to disregard them at will in some jaded view that what they're doing is justified. The point of law is to keep order. The point of a Senate is to pass the will of the people. To ignore law wantonly and break it at will ought to be punished with the utmost expediency. If you want to make a change, vote. You have that option. Don't cause chaos and disorder because you disagree and think that your actions are justified. Use the categorical imperative here. Such actions are illogical if everyone were to do it.
Click to expand...

And what recourse did the slaves who had no right to vote have? According to you slaves weren't justified in trying to escape because it was illegal. Are you so blind to the pratfalls of your equation of law with morality? Besides, if law were equal to morality at all times, there would be no reason to change the law and jurors would not be allowed to ignore laws they disagreed with.
 
M

Mumei

Member
vandalvideo said:
If it works.
Click to expand...

:lol

It doesn't.

And please, the reason I can't take the Journal of Christian Healing seriously is because I can't seem to find any information about it. If it's a respectable journal, I'll apologize, but I can't find a thing about it.

And KibblesBits, it would help if you stopped taking lame potshots and started with some sort of intelligent post on the matter. Tell us what you think of racism in the gay community - how does it manifest, why does it exist, what you think can or should be done to help change it, etc. And the same thing for homophobia in the African-American community.

The topic is a discussion worth having, but the article at the beginning of this topic was stupid and a waste of everyone's time.
 
V

vandalvideo

Banned
Jak140 said:
And what recourse did the slaves who had no right to vote have? According to you slaves weren't justified in trying to escape because it was illegal. Are you so blind to the pratfalls of your equation of law with morality? Besides, if law were equal to morality at all times, there would be no reason to change the law and jurors would not be allowed to ignore laws they disagreed with.
Click to expand...


They could wait. Yes, under my moral theory mutiny of slaves and disobeying the law was unjustified, and I support that stance. I think slavery is wrong, but I also think that defying slave owners was wrong as well. Defying order because you have a problem with it doesn't work if you use the categorical imperative. If everyone were to do it, we wouldn't even have a society to begin with.

The issue of jurors is entirely different than the issue of breaking the law. Juror decisions are probably the most democratic part of the entire system. It is part of the law, thus it is good. Besides, there isn't anything about my theory that says changing the law is immoral. On the contrary, since changing the law is legal, it is good.
 
K

krypt0nian

Banned
vandalvideo said:
They could wait. Yes, under my moral theory mutiny of slaves and disobeying the law was unjustified, and I support that stance. I think slavery is wrong, but I also think that defying slave owners was wrong as well. Defying order because you have a problem with it doesn't work if you use the categorical imperative. If everyone were to do it, we wouldn't even have a society to begin with.

The issue of jurors is entirely different than the issue of breaking the law. Juror decisions are probably the most democratic part of the entire system. It is part of the law, thus it is good. Besides, there isn't anything about my theory that says changing the law is immoral. On the contrary, since changing the law is legal, it is good.
Click to expand...


That about wraps it up, folks.
 
G

Gaborn

Member
vandalvideo said:
They could wait. Yes, under my moral theory mutiny of slaves and disobeying the law was unjustified, and I support that stance. I think slavery is wrong, but I also think that defying slave owners was wrong as well. Defying order because you have a problem with it doesn't work if you use the categorical imperative. If everyone were to do it, we wouldn't even have a society to begin with.

The issue of jurors is entirely different than the issue of breaking the law. Juror decisions are probably the most democratic part of the entire system. It is part of the law, thus it is good. Besides, there isn't anything about my theory that says changing the law is immoral. On the contrary, since changing the law is legal, it is good.
Click to expand...

You opposed the Revolutionary War?

with that said, I've always believed that:
All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing.
Click to expand...
 
M

Mumei

Member
vandalvideo said:
They could wait. Yes, under my moral theory mutiny of slaves and disobeying the law was unjustified, and I support that stance. I think slavery is wrong, but I also think that defying slave owners was wrong as well. Defying order because you have a problem with it doesn't work if you use the categorical imperative. If everyone were to do it, we wouldn't even have a society to begin with.

The issue of jurors is entirely different than the issue of breaking the law. Juror decisions are probably the most democratic part of the entire system. It is part of the law, thus it is good. Besides, there isn't anything about my theory that says changing the law is immoral. On the contrary, since changing the law is legal, it is good.
Click to expand...

6h4yed.gif
 
J

Jak140

Member
vandalvideo said:
They could wait. Yes, under my moral theory mutiny of slaves and disobeying the law was unjustified, and I support that stance. I think slavery is wrong, but I also think that defying slave owners was wrong as well. Defying order because you have a problem with it doesn't work if you use the categorical imperative. If everyone were to do it, we wouldn't even have a society to begin with.

The issue of jurors is entirely different than the issue of breaking the law. Juror decisions are probably the most democratic part of the entire system. It is part of the law, thus it is good. Besides, there isn't anything about my theory that says changing the law is immoral. On the contrary, since changing the law is legal, it is good.
Click to expand...

According to your moral viewpoint though, slavery was right for the time that it was legal. How can you distinguish your moral view on slavery from your legal one when you have already established they should be the same. Additionally, if as you say people should view morality as equal with the law, then a juror should have no reason to disagree with a law.

Also :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol @ slaves should have waited. My god.
 
V

vandalvideo

Banned
Gaborn said:
You opposed the Revolutionary War?

with that said, I've always believed that:
Click to expand...

I would have opposed the REvolutionary War.


With that said, I've always believed that

The only thing that has to happen for evil to win is for good men to do everything. Because if I allow you to change the law for fear of evil, I cannot be assured of my own protection.
Click to expand...

Jak140 said:
According to your moral viewpoint though, slavery was right for the time that it was legal. How can you distinguish your moral view on slavery from your legal one when you have already established they should be the same. Additionally, if as you say people should view morality as equal with the law, then a juror should have no reason to disagree with a law.
Click to expand...

For the time it was legal, it was moral. A juror can still disagree with a law in so far as the interpretation goes. Besides, under my system disagreement is supported, because it is legal to engage in debate and change the law. It is moral, thus a moral person ought feel compelled to engage in debates and try to change the law.
 
G

Gaborn

Member
vandalvideo said:
I opposed the REvolutionary War.


With that said, I've always believed that
Click to expand...

So, if I'm reading you right, you believe in restricting individual liberty if the law says that is right, and adherence to the state no matter what. I... really don't want to argue with a fascist.
 
K

Killthee

helped a brotha out on multiple separate occasions!
vandalvideo said:
They could wait. Yes, under my moral theory mutiny of slaves and disobeying the law was unjustified, and I support that stance. I think slavery is wrong, but I also think that defying slave owners was wrong as well. Defying order because you have a problem with it doesn't work if you use the categorical imperative. If everyone were to do it, we wouldn't even have a society to begin with.

The issue of jurors is entirely different than the issue of breaking the law. Juror decisions are probably the most democratic part of the entire system. It is part of the law, thus it is good. Besides, there isn't anything about my theory that says changing the law is immoral. On the contrary, since changing the law is legal, it is good.
Click to expand...
vandalvideo said:
I opposed the REvolutionary War.
Click to expand...

k32mhh.jpg
 
K

krypt0nian

Banned
1) Thinks evolution should not be taught since an outside force may be planting evidence.

2) Thinks slaves were wrong for defying slave owners and that they should have waited until slavery was abolished.

3) Eats babies. At least the ones he doesn't have sex with.


Number 3 may not be true.
 
V

vandalvideo

Banned
Gaborn said:
So, if I'm reading you right, you believe in restricting individual liberty if the law says that is their right, and adherence to the state no matter what. I... really don't want to argue with a fascist.
Click to expand...

I'm not a fascist. I merely follow Thomas More. It is the logic of not following my theory that gets us in trouble. If we allow everyone who disagrees with a law to break it, then whats the point in even having laws in the first place?

krypt0nian said:
1) Thinks evolution should not be taught since an outside force may be planting evidence.
.
Click to expand...
No, I just think that evolution is no more viable a topic than that of creationism, because both assume too much.
 
K

krypt0nian

Banned
vandalvideo said:
No, I just think that evolution is no more viable a topic than that of creationism, because both assume too much.
Click to expand...


Yes yes. They are both assuming that no one can ever be certain of what they see around them. I remember your Philosophy 101 nonsense.

http://www.neogaf.com/forum/showpost.php?p=15728720&postcount=71

And some to think of it, your naivete in this topic is similar to that in your previous evolution topic. Both shouted loudly that you are taking a college course in them and have little understanding outside of the day's lecture material.
 
J

Jak140

Member
vandalvideo said:
For the time it was legal, it was moral. A juror can still disagree with a law in so far as the interpretation goes. Besides, under my system disagreement is supported, because it is legal to engage in debate and change the law. It is moral, thus a moral person ought feel compelled to engage in debates and try to change the law.
Click to expand...
Well the second half of this post is sensible. However, the first part is batshit insane. Under your moral code slavery is ethical as long as it is legal. Okay, I think we're done here.
 
C

charlequin

Banned
vandalvideo said:
I also think that defying slave owners was wrong as well.
Click to expand...

vandalvideo said:
I would have opposed the REvolutionary War.
Click to expand...

Well, you're a real winner. "Give me liberty or... give me no liberty, if it would materially inconvenience me or any of the people who benefit from inequality in even the slightest way!" :lol
 
G

Gaborn

Member
vandalvideo said:
I'm not a fascist. I merely follow Thomas More. It is a logical of not following my theory that gets us in trouble. If we allow everyone who disagrees with a law to break it, then whats the point in even having laws in the first place?


No, I just think that evolution is no more viable a topic than that of creationism, because both assume too much.
Click to expand...

YAY you got tagged. With that said... Thomas More's Utopia had no private property, slavery, AND a huge welfare state. No thanks.
 
M

Mumei

Member
krypt0nian said:
Yes yes. They are both assuming that no one can ever be certain of what they see around them. I remember your Philosophy 101 nonsense.

http://www.neogaf.com/forum/showpost.php?p=15728720&postcount=71

And some to think of it, your naivete in this topic is similar to that in your previous evolution topic. Both shouted loudly that you are taking a college course in them and have little understanding outside of the day's lecture material.
Click to expand...

My response was cuter, krypt.
 
Z

ZephyrFate

Banned
Thomas Moore's idea of a utopia is meant as satirical, you know that right? There's no such place, and his ideals do not work for the world we live in now nor will they ever work in a place that we could dignify as a "utopia". You're following ideals smothered in satire.
 
G

Gaborn

Member
vandalvideo said:
I'm not a fascist. I merely follow Thomas More. It is the logic of not following my theory that gets us in trouble. If we allow everyone who disagrees with a law to break it, then whats the point in even having laws in the first place?


No, I just think that evolution is no more viable a topic than that of creationism, because both assume too much.
Click to expand...

vandalvideo
Lawful Neutral to a fault
(Today, 08:23 PM)

YES
 
H

harSon

Banned
Mercury Fred said:
I bring out those quotes for people who want to argue that comparing the struggle for equal rights for gay people and the civil rights struggle are "silly," "insulting" and "annoying."

Why do you have a problem with it? It's pretty annoying for you to say that it's annoying to be honest.
Click to expand...

Because while I agree with their points, they don't speak for me. You only seem to do it when on the subject of Blacks and the Gay Rights movement, it comes off as an attempted "gotcha" post every time you do it.
 
K

Kunan

Member
Gaborn said:
just because one group has suffered more than another does not mean the group that has suffered less is less deserving of equal treatment under the law.
Click to expand...
/thread honestly. On page 1 even. Then Coretta Scott King came and /thread-ed page 2.

gofreak said:
I very much dislike the apparently growing 'trend' to pitch gay people against black people and vice versa, in America. It's very, very unhelpful to everyone concerned.
Click to expand...
If both groups fight each other, then neither will notice the pink elephant in the room slowly swallowing what they both fight for.
 
C

Calcaneus

Member
I've never actually encountered a person who would seriously go wherever the law took him, regardless of how immoral the law may be.
 
T

Tntnnbltn

Member
levious said:
Are you against Loving v Virginia? Since that wasn't solely about race, but the actions of an interracial couple...
Click to expand...
At first I read this as Loving v Vagina and thought it was a gay-related arguement.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

  • Locked
Xbox launches "Black History Month" promotional campaign for the month of February.
2 3 4 5
228
16K
MidGenRefresh replied
The Banality of Blackness
2
51
7K
Mesousa replied
Bobby Kotick, former CEO of Activision, Interested in Buying Tik-Tok
2 3
143
9K
Gameplay Gods Bless replied
  • Locked
Hollywood's New Rules - The Explosion of Woke and its Ostracizing Effects
2
83
7K
Coolwhhip replied
National Holiday in Mexico Luis Echeverria dies at 100 years.
7
1K
Heimdall_Xtreme replied
Top Bottom