1. This site uses cookies. By continuing to use this site, you are agreeing to our use of cookies. Learn More.

Deathly Afraid of a Trump President

Discussion in 'Current Events, World News, & LGBT News' started by Geek, Nov 1, 2016.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. Geek

    Full Member

    Joined:
    Aug 6, 2013
    Messages:
    372
    Likes Received:
    3
    Location:
    Hawaii
    Gender:
    Male
    Gender Pronoun:
    He
    Sexual Orientation:
    Questioning
    Out Status:
    All but family
    To play Devil's advocate, I can't stand people defending Clinton's history on her stance with LGBT equality. Yes I think it's ridiculous to blame her for what her husband did and I still stand by that. However, saying other people were homophobic is no excuse. The president is supposed to a leader not a follower. There were many people in favor of marriage equality in 1996 - unless you want to pretend Bernie Sanders didn't exist. Clinton "change" her position until it was politically convenient for her to do so. She didn't change her position til 2013 for godsakes. At that point, 54% of Americans had that stance. Look at Iraq - she fell in line when that was popular and only apologized for her vote when it was politically convenient to do so. The American people are politically ignorant and stupid. While she has her own beliefs i'm sure, she makes sure only to side with the American people when it's stupid to do so.
     
  2. Creativemind

    Regular Member

    Joined:
    Sep 4, 2015
    Messages:
    3,281
    Likes Received:
    410
    Location:
    Somewhere
    Gender:
    Other
    Gender Pronoun:
    Other
    Sexual Orientation:
    Other
    Out Status:
    Out to everyone
    Skywinter, it seems like your entire post about freedom has to do with same-sex marriage. Hate to break it to you, but a lot of people here just don't care enough about same-sex marriage to think It's our only issue. i'm not saying that I'm against marriage rights, because I'm not. But as a community...I personally think there's far worse things we have to worry about.

    I for instance, do not want to get married. I think of it as a pointless social construct and just a piece of paper. But choosing to not get married doesn't mean I don't face LGBT discrimination. There's corrective therapy, which is only illegal in four states currently. There's discrimination laws that prevent LGBT people from keeping a job, and some states that protect gay people do not protect trans people. There's the fact that parents can just disown gay children who now have no place to go. There are hate crimes (especially against trans people who may not be protected legally at all). As a lesbian, I also have to face homophobia that is specifically linked with misogyny. I have men wanting to "cure" me, risk of corrective rape and being blamed for my rape/not getting justice, and other patriarchal things. Some of this can't change with laws, but we could use a voice that will help change society the more people stand by it.

    I'd rather us just get rid of marriage in general, including straight marriage. It's becoming outdated even for straight people. A good compromise is just to give both sides the financial and health benefits.

    ---------- Post added 3rd Nov 2016 at 11:57 AM ----------

    Nobody is defending anybody's past homophobia. We're saying that everyone has had differing opinions in the past that are subject to change. Holding onto someone's past beliefs is spiteful and vengeful, and doesn't allow for any change. I myself used to be homophobic, used to slut-shame and blame victims of rape. But if you didn't allow me to have any chance to change, maybe I wouldn't have. It is vindictive to hold onto my old opinions and use them to judge me. I am not that person anymore, and I highly doubt you were perfect and accepting to all groups in the past as well.

    Bernie Sanders supported marriage equality longer, but even he wasn't perfect. He DID support only civil unions and not same-sex marriage at one point in his past. He also said a pro-rape comment far in his past before he realized that the victim blaming culture needs to change. I would rather not dig up dirt from the past just to shit on someone for their past mistakes.

    Also, I realize there are problems with Hillary that make me understand why people hate her. I'm just saying that using someone's past mistakes to be spiteful against them is ridiculous as everyone has had these opinions at some point.
     
    #62 Creativemind, Nov 3, 2016
    Last edited: Nov 3, 2016
  3. Par

    Par
    Regular Member

    Joined:
    Apr 6, 2015
    Messages:
    203
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    Yorkshire
    Gender:
    Female (trans*)
    Sexual Orientation:
    Lesbian
    I have a couple of points to make:
    1) Those bringing up Clinton's past record on LGBT equality, a hell of a lot of Americans changed their minds on that in the last 20 years or so, so I think we should be grateful she has.
    2) Based on CURRENT policies (i.e. the ones you're voting on) Trump doesn't have any official LGBT policies, but he has pledged to sign the First Amendment Defence Act - which would basically legalise discriminating against people in non-heterosexual marriages/sexual relations.
    Hillary however, will veto the First Amendment Defence Act, has pledged to sign the Equality Act, plans to streamline the legal gender reassignment process and has pledged to outlaw conversion therapy.

    The best you can hope for with Trump is that he leaves LGBT rights alone and at worst, a Trump presidency would be several steps backwards.
     
  4. SkyWinter

    Regular Member

    Joined:
    Jul 28, 2016
    Messages:
    782
    Likes Received:
    82
    Location:
    GA
    Gender:
    Female (trans*)
    Gender Pronoun:
    She
    Sexual Orientation:
    Bisexual
    Out Status:
    A few people
    oh you....

    If I show you a blurry picture of bigfoot next to a house and say "Hey, let's go capture bigfoot because he must exist!" and then you go blow up the house of some innocent person trying to capture Bigfoot, then you did so with no basis because Bigfoot isn't real and my blurry picture didn't prove anything cause it was not a picture of Bigfoot but just some weird shadows.

    That's what it means for something to have no basis. It's not real. It's not true. Or it didn't happen.

    If some random person says to you "Stab that guy over there because he punched your mom" when that guy hadn't punched your mom, but you stab him anyways, do you tell the cops "Listen, cops, I indeed had a basis for stabbing that guy because someone told me something I didn't even know was true or not so you should just let me go and not hold me responsible for stabbing people."?

    ....

    Even if I say, "Oh, you're right. She indeed had a basis" what does that have to do with that she is in part responsible for the deaths of thousands of both American soldiers, and innocent Iraqi men, women and children who did nothing wrong? Does her basis bring dead children back to life?

    I mean, holy crap, dude.

    This is why I participate in these debates. It shows me who the hell I want nowhere near me.

    Of course you don't. You're already defending someone who kills based on speculation, so sure why not this too.

    Oh, she said she cares about immigrants, but it has nothing to do with that that exact group statistically votes for the left which puts her into power? Not at all? To any degree? She couldn't possibly in any way be using a particular group of people for her own gain? It's ridiculous to point out a former President telling a group of cheering people about why they should support immigration for monetary reasons? The Clintons, who have adulterous affairs, try to cover them up and lie about them, are just such compassionate people who care about the poor immigrants?


    Don't you live in Europe? Isn't your region being swamped by Muslim immigrants right now? Are you telling me that everything is just peaches over there? Why do I keep hearing about forced integration of native populations into Muslim culture, bombings in France, Brussels, high rates of rapes by Muslims, etc? Why shouldn't I be concerned about mass immigration when mass immigration doesn't seem to be going over very well in Europe.

    Are you saying the bombings and rape and ISIS sympathy isn't happening? This is like believing that the holocaust didn't happen or Obama is a lizard man.

    And?

    I didn't say you did.

    I didn't say that you did.

    No, because comparing things to show you how your thinking is missing the point is not the same thing as misrepresenting your position.

    Again, no. I'm not saying you mentioned Nazi's.

    Why is "the most conservative group of people" such a terrible inditement to you? Did I say that all Muslim's are suicide bombers? Up at the top of this thread I'm arguing that bombing Iraq was terrible and unjustified to which you don't seem to be agreeing so I'm wondering what kind of game you are playing here? Why are you so concerned with breaking the Muslim religion out into it's various tribes? Are you trying to tell me that there are not common beliefs in Islam such as:

    Homosexuality should be illegal
    Men are allowed to marry multiple wives
    Adulterous women can be killed by their husband
    Those who leave Islam should be killed.
    etc.

    Are you saying there is nothing about Islam, especially you being on this specific forum, that doesn't sound quite as .... "progressive" to you as the West?

    [​IMG]

    Worldwide laws regarding same-sex intercourse/freedom of expression and association.

    The blue countries are where it is legal, and the orange/red ones are where it is not.

    Am I that off base with saying Islam is the most conservative bunch on the planet?


    I don't even know what your point is here. Oh, well.

    What if your grandma died from something else before she got lung cancer? Like, she got hit by a car. How does that prove the theory that smoking will always cause lung cancer to be wrong? Not to mention your theory is vague. Smoking what? Tobacco? Pot? Cheerios?

    Also, one exception does not mean that something isn't true the rest of the time. A single dog born with an extra leg doesn't mean dogs should be classified as "? legged animals".

    Are you saying I need to name off every single Muslim person on the planet to be able to make statements about people who already self identify as Muslim?

    Does the word Muslim lack all meaning then? If I say "a group of Muslim people had a picnic" can I not say that because I didn't break it down by their individual names?

    You are trying to tell me there are many branches of Islam, but those branches of Islam are full of individual people, but you didn't take it that far. You stopped with grouping them into their sects. So why is it weird for me to not break it down to the level you did when you didn't break it down nearly as far as you could go? You are still lumping people into categories, so you shouldn't have a problem with me doing it, right?

    Do I believe they do? What do you mean? They either do or they don't. Belief has nothing to do with it.

    Go look it up yourself. Japanese culture is fascinating.

    It doesn't matter guy.

    Oh, thank you. I didn't know I needed your approval for it to be okay. Thank you so much!

    I posted that link in response to your post. Why do you think I posted it? For fun?

    Why does it matter if people who hate LGBT people vote for pro-LGBT politicians? Pro-LGBT politicians don't magically keep hateful people from attacking those that they hate.... unless they keep hate groups segregated from those that they wish to harm.

    And maybe, just maybe, they vote for those people because they get benefits from voting for those people? Why would you think someone who would murder another human being for being gay wouldn't also vote for someone for economic reasons that benefit them? Is that really that much of a stretch to think that a murderer has other ridiculous and dangerous motives for their behavior?

    Why am I having to tell you this? You should already know this, and the fact that you don't is scary.


    Okay....

    Noun
    slavery ‎(usually uncountable, plural slaveries)

    An institution or social practice of owning human beings as property, especially for use as forced laborers.


    Noun
    freedom ‎(countable and uncountable, plural freedoms)

    (uncountable) The state of being free, of not being imprisoned or enslaved.


    Yay for definitions. Now what?

    How does "my definition" differ in a way that fundamentally changes the meaning?

    Again, how is it fundamentally different?

    What is ambiguous about that? Even if it is only 99% control why does that change the fundamental principle?

    I think your just being a sophist at this point. At the very least you're being highly disingenuous.

    I don't really care.

    I already changed my mind on saying maximum freedom. You are free or you aren't.

    Okay. So then you recognize that you aren't free then?

    This is just moral positioning. You aren't making an argument. You're trying to paint me as someone who misrepresents others to discredit me rather than actually trying to refute my basic argument.

    Oh, and then you say you don't appreciate me doing things I'm not doing which is just silly and you know that.

    Perhaps that's the problem. You don't know what freedom is. How could you understand half of what we've been discussing if you don't know what freedom is?

    This is heartbreaking to me. You're so ready to settle for "Well, it's kind of freedom...sort of". Don't set the bar so damn low.



    First of all, some of the things I've said aren't really "my perspective" because some of the things I've brought up are independent of my existence. Like, if I say 2+2=4, well that isn't my perspective.

    Second, there is no reason to elaborate further or have more discussions until you have got the basic principles down. It's like asking to ride a motorcycle when you can't ride a regular bicycle yet. If you don't know what freedom is, there isn't much of a discussion.
     
  5. Aussie792

    Full Member

    Joined:
    Apr 5, 2013
    Messages:
    3,317
    Likes Received:
    62
    Location:
    Australia
    Gender:
    Male
    Gender Pronoun:
    He
    Sexual Orientation:
    Gay
    Out Status:
    Out to everyone
    That dictionary definition of freedom is self-referential. That is, there is no greater conceptual understanding given by that definition because it relies on an assumption about its meaning. You haven't made it any clearer.

    To you, the state of being free can only occur with no inhibitions. I've already shown this is an insane proposition in any society, but we end up at the beginning of this very messy circle in just stating that we don't have to accept your definition of freedom.

    A clearer dictionary-like definition might be 'to act as one wishes'. And that is a neat definition, because it allows scope to act in certain areas as a person might not be able to in other areas. It leaves nuance. It demonstrates you can be free in some ways and not in others. And it is unquestionably a definition in line with how most people intuitively use the word.

    The fundamental difference Quem and I have identified is two-fold.

    First, it is that same-sex marriage is not reasonably the only way to measure freedom in a society or so exceptionally important that it negates all other freedoms when unavailable.

    Second, it is that freedom can only exist in more nuanced ways than an extreme of total liberty or total restraint.

    That is intuitively wrong. Because if I have the capacity to do x and y as I please but not z, that means I am free in regards to x and y. I am capable of exercising some choices, even where I cannot exercise others.

    We've both given quite a large number of examples you've yet to engage with about how freedom can be manifest in social, political and economic settings. I've given some discussion of how Trump damages those other freedoms in ways that make him unsupportable on principled grounds.

    Quem's point is that you haven't given us a reasonable framework to go off to understand what you mean. If there is a world in which 100% freedom and 100% control exist, what does it look like? In which ways are freedoms so comprehensively restrained as to deprive a person of literally every single liberty? How do you measure those liberties?

    There is no disingenuousness there. There is simply the problem that you haven't given a workable form to your concept because 99% or 75% freedom makes no sense if you haven't given the concept a coherent form in that we know what 100% looks like.

    That is the entire sum of this debate. I have provided a number of clear indices of what freedom looks like in a political context which can be applied universally and give scope for comparison. You have provided a bunch of untethered percentages, which, even though you have claimed to believe in total freedom or none (100% or 0%), you continue to bring out, making this discussion even more unnecessarily confusing and convoluted than it need be.

    Nah, I think you do. You wouldn't have had that outburst about not being listened to if you didn't care - unless of course you're not a very self-aware person and can't link your above response with the supposed behaviour you were upset about.

    Great, but if you could defend that (and also do so in the context of a debate over a Trump presidency and the relative values of freedom involved in that discussion), then there might be something to talk about. But you can't walk out the same line with no further reasoning time and time again without substantively addressing criticisms we have provided of that argument.

    This is just a salmon that jumps on the hook for you.

    Your statement might have been a snazzy gotcha moment were it not for the fact that we have consistently refuted the idea that freedom exists only in absolutes and if it didn't come after Quem's concern that you're jumping for conclusions rather than hashing out arguments more fairly and rigorously.

    Quem and I have clearly stated that we believe we (well, only I in this geographic context) would be freer with same-sex marriage. We never disagreed with you that same-sex marriage is a form of freedom. We just rejected the idea that it is the sine qua non of freedom.

    And that leads me to an important point Quem and I have raised throughout. What are your measures?

    Is same-sex marriage a necessary component of a series of social and political conditions you consider to be acceptable for total freedom? Is there an accumulative process in which same-sex marriage gains the most points in your index to push slave societies like Australia and Germany into the realm of utopias like Arkansas?

    And what makes Trump more conducive to other areas of freedom in ways that Clinton isn't that matter to you?

    You've consistently said that Quem has not understood you, that I haven't listened to you, that nobody here cares about same-sex marriage.

    Those were all really clear falsehoods. What you could have done instead is say that Quem's arguments failed to address key points of yours, and why that meant it wasn't an adequate response. You might have found an obvious mistake I made in missing an important thrust of your logic. You might have criticised the extent to which neither Quem nor I regards same-sex marriage as so vital to overall measures of freedom, and told us why.

    But the important thing here is the why. Without it, you feel misunderstood where you simply haven't given much opportunity to mutually engage, which Quem and I seem to be doing quite concertedly.



    Given so much of this debate has revolved around a fundamental disagreement as to what freedom consists of, this rhetoric is bizarre.

    When you are told that somebody does not find your model of argument convincing, that does not entail a lack of understanding. It often means that they have a competing idea that you need to engage with to prove any other other arguments contingent on your logic in that model which gives rise to other areas of debate.

    At no point did either of us state that we happily accept a lack of same-sex marriage in Germany and Australia.

    What we did say is that we equally or better appreciate other measures of freedom than same-sex marriage. I absolutely think rule of law, a competitive parliamentary democracy, universal suffrage, indigenous citizenship, the availability of high-quality education, the criminalisation of homosexuality and almost non-existent day-to-day corruption have made Australia a far better country than same-sex marriage would.

    Because I and others are affected by those things in deep ways that also have consequences for same-sex marriage. Other cultural and institutional freedom factors indirectly make Australia more fertile to the proposition of same-sex marriage. That culture of political liberalism is a form of freedom in itself even before same-sex marriage is legislated, because it encourages safe and respectful norms about sexuality and gender that don't necessarily occur in certain US states or rural South Africa, even with same-sex marriage.

    But those basic principles aren't so basic. You haven't taken those ideas from professional philosophy. You've made them up on the fly. To expect us to share them is not fair. To expect us to concede them without even trying to prove them and engage in our responses is frankly ludicrous.

    To give you a quick recap, this discussion entirely originated over a dispute about measuring freedom in relation to concerns over Trump's impact on LGBT people. I came up with a measure for freedom I preferred to yours. You declined to engage. You proceeded to state that you had been ignored. Then you returned to that position and refused to budge until everybody else framed their arguments from your perspective.

    And, ultimately, what this debate should be about five days out from the election, is that even if you imagine same-sex marriage to be relatively safe under Trump, there are many more measures of freedom and security than just same-sex marriage for you to care about, and Trump damages most of them.

    And worse, you have shown Trumpism in its saddest form. An intelligent, bright person who chooses anger over rationality, bluster over engagement and hypocritical victimisation over substantive rebuttal. It's an attitude that just makes political discussion so much harder because it meanders, evades and refuses to concede.
     
    #65 Aussie792, Nov 3, 2016
    Last edited: Nov 3, 2016
  6. SkyWinter

    Regular Member

    Joined:
    Jul 28, 2016
    Messages:
    782
    Likes Received:
    82
    Location:
    GA
    Gender:
    Female (trans*)
    Gender Pronoun:
    She
    Sexual Orientation:
    Bisexual
    Out Status:
    A few people
    Sorry Aussie, but I'm not going to engage with you anymore. You've already demonstrated that you either can't understand or refuse to accept a basic concept like freedom, thus there is no point in further wasting time engaging with you. It's tantamount to abuse to keep talking to you.

    I also refuted your positions multiple times last page that you never responded to, so I have zero obligation to respond back to you in depth. Sorry bud. :slight_smile:
     
  7. Quem

    Full Member

    Joined:
    May 1, 2014
    Messages:
    1,288
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    The Netherlands
    Gender:
    Male
    Gender Pronoun:
    He
    Sexual Orientation:
    Gay
    Out Status:
    Out to everyone
    You were saying that "she voted for a war with no basis". If she had reasons for voting for the war, then she did not vote without basis. That's the point I'm trying to make. You say "then you did so with no basis", but at the point of judgement you did not know this.

    Look, her decision was poor, but saying she voted for it with no basis seems silly to me.

    I will not say that I am not responsible for the stabbing. However, I would indeed give my motivation for doing so. Is that hard to understand? Though, this comparison is not even fair. You say "I didn't even know was true or not", you have no clue what Hillary thought at that point.

    The point of me responding to you is that you are simply saying things which are untrue, or at least are not motivated properly / logically valid. So yeah, if someone says something like that (and I've seen more people saying so), then it's not too surprising that people comment on it, is it? Sorry that people pointing out flaws in your reasoning seems to irk you, it wasn't my attention to annoy you.

    I'm commenting on your statement that there was no basis. You simply don't know that.

    It'd be nice if you'd actually read what people say. I am not defending her vote at all, I think she did have bad judgement. However, the whole "no basis" thing is just unsupported. If you equate that with defending her, that's your perspective.

    It'd be nice if you give evidence for such claims (they vote statistically [more - I assume, you left that out] for the left).

    Oh but you're right about that, she could definitely be using the group of people for herself. Yet you don't know. You don't know for sure whether there is "no love" from the Clintons towards refugees. That's why I responded to you about that.

    You make all these statements, but they are just not supported. Is it that difficult for you to see that your conclusions require multiple unsupported assumptions? And surely, you could be right, but you can also be wrong. Concluding there is no love from the Clintons is simply unsupported.

    As I said before, you take certain statements as truth (Bill Clinton), whereas you disregard/discredit other existing evidence.

    Well, the Netherlands is a country in Europe, so yes. And no, I don't think it's fair to say that the region is being swamped with Muslims. I'm definitely not under the impression that everything is goes well. You can be concerned, I have not said that you should not be. Though, Hillary is not planning on flooding the country with immigrants. For some reason you seem oblivious to this.

    And pleeaase, "are you saying the bombings and rape and ISIS sympathy isn't happening?".. Really? What are you even trying to point out with this? I was NOT suggesting something like this at all.

    If you don't even plan on understanding people's points of view and lines of reasoning, why bother responding in the first place? To me you come across as someone who jumps to conclusions without even properly assessing what's being said.

    Oh really, so you think that "you're lumping all Nazi's together and branding them as the most conservative group on Earth? Really?" does not imply me having said anything about Nazis? I want to believe it wasn't your intention, I really do. Still, that whole part made no sense.

    To me, it seemed like you were misrepresenting my position, therefore I concluded it was a straw man. Since you don't think you were, I can see how it's not a straw man in your eyes. However, unfortunately for you, you directly end with a "Don't lump all Nazi's together, it really looks kind of silly.". It suffices to say that I wasn't doing this.

    So please, pick your words carefully and don't put words in people's mouth.

    It's not a "terrible inditement", it's simply an unsupported claim. It definitely is a problem, because a lot of people don't get what kinds of Muslims there really are.

    You actually demonstrate this very well.. I'd say, educate yourself on the topic of Islam, really. I already named some branches you can look into. You are perhaps surprised by what you may find about them. For one many Sufis are actually pacifist.

    On the other hand, you saying "Are you trying to tell me that there are not common beliefs in Islam such as: [...]" makes no sense. The various branches of Islam are still under the umbrella "Islam". Of course there are common beliefs. I never tried to tell you that there are no common beliefs. I'm pointing out that there are (huge) differences in the various branches that you're ignoring.

    You really aren't getting most of my responses, are you? =\ Kind of a shame really.

    First of all, your initial statement was regarding Muslims, not Islam. To see the difference, consider the following thought experiment. Country X has no same-sex marriage, even though the majority of the people in the country are in favour (e.g. Germany).

    And yes, as far as I know, most countries where same-sex marriage is illegal are predominantly Muslim. That doesn't mean that Muslims are the most conservative group. It simply doesn't follow logically speaking.

    At least you admit it here, thanks for that. :slight_smile: I quoted myself to illustrate how nonsensical the question was. That is, I would never support such a statement based on one empirical case. Then I elaborated on the fact that such empirical cases can be used to counter statements.

    Okay, so you don't seem to be getting the point here. I'll write it down differently.

    Claim 1
    A always causes B

    Empirical case
    A is observed, but B is unobserved

    This means that the claim is not unsupported. In the grandma example, it's unclear what time window I used (or the substance, which is not relevant for the argument structure whatsoever). So let's say that smoking 5 cigarettes always causes lung cancer within 5 years. Then, if there's an example of someone, without lung cancer, smoking 5 cigarettes for over 40 years, then you have succesfully disproven the point.

    You're mixing things up here. Of course it doesn't suggest that. However, it does disprove the statement "dogs always have 4 legs".

    Are you saying [...]? Again, unsurprisingly, no. Nor does it mean that the word lacks meaning.

    I stopped with the sects as you were talking about a group. I didn't think it was fair to go with "one individual is also a group". So indeed, I saw no need to go to the individual level.

    And yes, I still do. The reason is that you are making statements that are unsupported. If I were to say "All Sufis are pacifistic", you can bring up the individual variation thing. It suffices. If you are to say something like Muslims are the most conservative group, I will point out the inaccuracy of that statement due to you lumping together vastly different people.

    I was asking about what you thought about it, I don't know whether you know about these things (you don't seem to be aware of some other things either).

    The point of that whole part was, again, to demonstrate that the example is poor. You conveniently left out "If so, how many do that? Surely not everything." [everything should've been everyone, sorry for that].

    And yes, it definitely does matter that tolerance is a subjective matter. It breaks your example. You saying "Will they all be 100% tolerant and go play DDR with them?" cannot be answered with a proper yes when you see tolerance as a subjective thing. You get into the whole "tolerant according to whom". So, it definitely is relevant to point out that tolerance is not some objective thing.

    Sigh. Did you read what I wrote to you? I actually wrote this (I will highlight in bold some important aspects for you):

    I don't get why you're suggesting me that link..? I've already read that (but that's not too important as you couldn't know that), but I don't see the relevance. You're worried about the population growing more due to childbirth of immigrants?

    You are not answering the question (which, admittedly, you have done multiple times already), but you also seem to ignore that I don't see the relevance. You can say "it's a response", but you fail to address why (and you ignore my question - which was an assumption as to why you posted it).

    Uhm, maybe because pro-LGBT politicians are more like to combat prejudice towards members of the LGBT community? So it is kind of peculiar that those hostile people would be voting democrat.


    You know what actually is kind of scary? You don't seem to get the points properly. Of course someone may vote democrat if they don't care about the LGBT stances. However, it is not a given fact that these people will be voting for democrats.

    Really? You think that "100% control from one person or people over the life of another person or people" is not too different from the original definition of slavery?

    You were using your own definition of slavery to put up some scale of measurement (I assume) so that you can logically derive the position of absolute freedom. This has collapsed entirely. Nothing in the definition of slavery is suggesting the "100% control" you've been talking about. This is a fundamental difference. You seem to be taking some kind of absolute position regarding control, whereas slavery is about institutions/individuals owning humans as property. The degree in which these people are controlled is not stated by the definition.

    Now that you get the dictionary definition of freedom, I suppose you see that your statements regarding freedom have fallen apart. There simply is no such thing as "100% freedom" or "99% freedom", that's my entire point. Therefore, your original statement:

    "In a completely free society two gay people getting married isn't an issue."

    Is simply unsupported. I've showed you this several times.

    That's not what I'm saying. If you think it is, then please quote the statements and explain why you think so. I'm curious what lines of reasoning you are using. You continuously seem to not get me.

    Oh, you are right, I'm definitely not making an argument right there. I'm simply stating that you are putting words in my mouth, which is exactly what have been doing. Your argument has already been refuted, several times already. If you continue reading that segment you'd find:

    So back to your statement. You said "In a completely free society two gay people getting married isn't an issue". Remember that I didn't understand your definition of completely free (and it still doesn't make sense to me). Anyways, I used Germany and Australia for a specific reason. As Aussie said, these countries are considered free. Yet, same-sex marriage has not been made legal yet.

    So what does this mean? This means that societies can be considered free without having same-sex marriage. Note that this doesn't disprove your point (as "completely free" is improperly defined), but it is valuable. It means that societies can be free regardless of same-sex marriage.


    This refutes your argument.

    About the last thing, I don't find that silly at all. Again, don't pretend that I find it silly. You are not getting the points, you put of flawed or incomplete arguments and you are not addressing the issues properly that are being raised. I don't appreciate it when people pretend that I say things, which I clearly don't. Aussie and I have demonstrated, multiple times, that you are putting words in our mouths. I don't like that, sorry if that sounds hard to you.

    Oh I do know what freedom is. I didn't get your definition of freedom. That's why I asked you about it, but you couldn't explain it properly until now (at least, I think you're agreeing on the subjectiveness of it all and on the fact that your points regarding the matter have been refuted).

    Aussie gives an excellent response here. No need for me to repeat what he said.


    Oh I believe you on the first point. Perhaps it's nice if you actually give some examples of what you've been saying that illustrate this point?

    It's interesting that you seem to have been under the impression that I don't know what freedom is, whereas I gave two measures of freedom myself. I even gave some examples, related to freedom measurements, to refute your point. I also asked you "What kind of freedom measurement(s) are you using?" and you are under the impression that I have none?

    I think you should read very carefully before you reply to this or Aussie's message. Get the logic right. Back up your claims/points properly, don't use flawed structures. Address our points properly.

    Cheers,

    Quem

    ---------- Post added 4th Nov 2016 at 12:58 AM ----------

    To me it doesn't seem like you've refuted his points. I don't get why you are under the impression that

    A) you did refute his points
    B) Aussie can't understand a basic concept like freedom (which I find quite rude, if anything Aussie is more educated on this subject than most here)

    It's a shame. He actually uses logic very well and points out flaws in your statements/conclusions, but you refuse to debate him.
     
  8. TXTurbo90

    Regular Member

    Joined:
    Mar 21, 2016
    Messages:
    152
    Likes Received:
    6
    Location:
    CO
    Gender:
    Male
    Gender Pronoun:
    He
    Sexual Orientation:
    Bisexual
    Out Status:
    Some people
    I am really curious to see where he said he would give social issues to pence. Do you have any articles/news to support this? (I am not saying that its not true, I just would like to see it for myself)


    Yes, half of America did flip-flop on the issue, but they are not trying to claim they are some great LGBT supporter and asking for my vote. That requires a different level of support than simply changing your opinion on LGBT rights and marriage once it was politically expediant...

    I should note I am throwing away my vote to a third party candidate, as I am not going to be partly responsible for letting either of these vile candidates (Hillary or Trump) destroy our nation.
     
    #68 TXTurbo90, Nov 3, 2016
    Last edited: Nov 3, 2016
  9. Austin

    Full Member

    Joined:
    Apr 5, 2008
    Messages:
    3,172
    Likes Received:
    1
    Location:
    Los Angeles, CA
    Gender:
    Male
    Gender Pronoun:
    He
    Sexual Orientation:
    Gay
    Out Status:
    Out to everyone
    Not really afraid. But, democrats like to make it seem like like the word will end if Trump wins.
     
  10. TXTurbo90

    Regular Member

    Joined:
    Mar 21, 2016
    Messages:
    152
    Likes Received:
    6
    Location:
    CO
    Gender:
    Male
    Gender Pronoun:
    He
    Sexual Orientation:
    Bisexual
    Out Status:
    Some people
    Yeah, I have several friends that see it that way in addition to me. The liberals fear mongering has gotten ridiculous to say the least. Obama's speech stating that America's future hinges on this particular election is disingenuous and laughable. It will be SSDD with both sides slinging crap at each other with little getting accomplished whether Trump or Hillary get elected. :bang:
     
  11. Quist

    Regular Member

    Joined:
    May 8, 2016
    Messages:
    103
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    Texas
    Gender:
    Genderqueer
    Gender Pronoun:
    He
    Sexual Orientation:
    Bisexual
    Out Status:
    Some people
  12. mangotree

    Full Member

    Joined:
    May 4, 2014
    Messages:
    1,322
    Likes Received:
    1
    Location:
    Queensland, Australia
    I imagine most people outside of America (myself included) can't understand how he has done so well.

    That said, also from the outside looking in, the American political system is painfully convoluted, and in many opinions is in need of a shake-up and some major change.
    And what better way to shake up a broken system but to successfully vote in a gigantic mistake of a president?
    (By the way, I'm not saying any other countries have a way "better" system)

    YES, the decision would lead to suffering for a lot of people, but maybe it could also lead to a long-term benefit for earth and human-kind.

    This is all probably pretty ignorant of me to say, but it's better than worrying about an outcome that I have absolutely no control over.
     
  13. BanditWings

    Regular Member

    Joined:
    May 2, 2016
    Messages:
    37
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    Illinois
    as a young chicago democrat, i can honestly say that the idea of trump being president has given me many sleepless nights. our family's best friends/neighbors are immigrants from india and they're terrified of him. they have a 6th grader who has been constantly bullied at school because of trump's rhetoric.
    but who im really really scared of is pence.
    as a lil teen, im not able to vote yet but i will be by the next election. what if trump wins, and dies? old age. assassination, even. then we have pence, famously anti-lgbtqa+, as the "most powerful man in the world". sure clinton's a bit scary, but not nearly as scary as pence.
    also: there's one difference between hillary's lgbt rhetoric and trump's. trump has said horrible things about lgbts and is desperately trying to win our support. yall said that hillary flipped from anti to pro in the 1900s? that's because everybody did! society was just starting to accept us. and y'all are getting mad at her for learning that she made a mistake and changing for the better.
    in conclusion, watching a grown man threaten me and my family and friends when im too young to do anything about it is absolutely terrifying. i am counting on you adults to let me, and my generation of lqbtqa+ friends, to grow up in a society that accepts us. letting mike pence be our vice president is not the step we are begging you to take. please don't make me live in terror in a few years.

    edit: also if im wrong or said something dumb, don't be too harsh on me i am part of a very democratic family and haven't heard much antihillary stuff and also im a teenager who isnt allowed to vote
     
    #73 BanditWings, Nov 3, 2016
    Last edited: Nov 3, 2016
  14. SkyWinter

    Regular Member

    Joined:
    Jul 28, 2016
    Messages:
    782
    Likes Received:
    82
    Location:
    GA
    Gender:
    Female (trans*)
    Gender Pronoun:
    She
    Sexual Orientation:
    Bisexual
    Out Status:
    A few people
    @Quem, I'm not going to go into any more detailed responses with you. When someone who isn't free can't recognize that fact I know it's time to stop. There isn't anything productive about arguing all of these little details anymore, and it's eating into my time and yours too.
     
  15. Austin

    Full Member

    Joined:
    Apr 5, 2008
    Messages:
    3,172
    Likes Received:
    1
    Location:
    Los Angeles, CA
    Gender:
    Male
    Gender Pronoun:
    He
    Sexual Orientation:
    Gay
    Out Status:
    Out to everyone
    My friend who lives in the Netherlands showed me this regarding Europe...

    [YOUTUBE]42jpuXJPk0w[/YOUTUBE]
     
  16. Quem

    Full Member

    Joined:
    May 1, 2014
    Messages:
    1,288
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    The Netherlands
    Gender:
    Male
    Gender Pronoun:
    He
    Sexual Orientation:
    Gay
    Out Status:
    Out to everyone
    Are you referring to yourself here, when you say "when someone who isn't free can't recognise that fact [...]"? If you mean me, then I have no idea why I am not free in your opinion. As (Aussie and) I said many times, freedom is not some absolute measure. I consider the Netherlands to be free. No point in admitting that I'm not free, unless you can demonstrate clearly why I'm not free.

    @Austin: I am aware of these situations. There are a lot of (political) debates regarding that issue here. Our Freedom Party (I think that's the English name, I'm not sure, it's called the PVV here) is firmly against immigration. Other parties disagree (a lot) with that party, so it gives interesting debates sometimes. These situations are, obviously, terrible.
     
  17. SkyWinter

    Regular Member

    Joined:
    Jul 28, 2016
    Messages:
    782
    Likes Received:
    82
    Location:
    GA
    Gender:
    Female (trans*)
    Gender Pronoun:
    She
    Sexual Orientation:
    Bisexual
    Out Status:
    A few people
    You're asking me to demonstrate why you're not free, but you say you "consider the Netherlands free." The Netherlands is a place that only exists on a map. So you are saying you consider an area contained within a dotted line that exists on a map to be free. You didn't say that you are free. You didn't even say the Netherlands is free. You just said you consider it free. I'm sure a guy in a jail cell considers his cell free. This is why there is no point in discussing anything else. How can I convince you of anything when you can't even convince yourself?
     
  18. Quem

    Full Member

    Joined:
    May 1, 2014
    Messages:
    1,288
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    The Netherlands
    Gender:
    Male
    Gender Pronoun:
    He
    Sexual Orientation:
    Gay
    Out Status:
    Out to everyone
    Do you even know how debating works? You are stating the following about me:

    When someone who isn't free can't recognize that fact I know it's time to stop [...]

    So, I ask you to demonstrate this then. Demonstrate why. You are making two claims here:
    1) I am not free
    2) I am not recognising (1)

    Whereas 2 is correct (I have never stated that I am not free), 1 is unsupported. You are giving no evidence whatsoever to prove this. You go on telling me about how I consider myself free. You go on saying " You didn't say that you are free. You didn't even say the Netherlands is free.". This is all irrelevant. Even if I didn't not say "I am free", it doesn't mean that I am not free.

    So, to sum it up. You make a statement, again, with no evidence.

    Moreover, I doubt if you even know the different meanings of consider.
    "Consider yourself lucky." [Consider - To assign some quality to]

    "I consider myself free". I don't get why you prefer to hear "I am free". As I said before, freedom is subjective. I consider myself free. In my opinion, I am free. Can't believe you're struggling with that phrase honestly.
     
  19. A Republican

    A Republican Guest

    Joined:
    Sep 16, 2016
    Messages:
    93
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    Italy
    Gender:
    Male
    Sexual Orientation:
    Gay
    Oh noez! The financial markets! Are they the same ones which predicted Brexit would lose and screwed over the sterling in the process? :grin:

    From what I've come to realize her on this support forum is that no one else understands the rise of Trump and that many individuals, in and out of the forum, like counting chickens. He'll win, and he'll win er... ''bigly''. For the fun of it I will try and predict the states he'll take to go over the top.

    By the way, here's a spoiler-alert. There is a staggeringly low turnout amongst blacks. If Clinton thought they'd show up for her like they did for Obama then she's sorely mistaken.

    Here's another spoiler alert: RCP average shows that overwhelmingly Americans feel their country is going in the wrong direction. They don't want 4 years of the same under the most corrupt candidate ever to run for office.

    I have other spoiler alerts but I'm debating whether to keep talking. I don't like letting people feel gloomy. However I will say this:

    The more people say Clinton will win, the bolder you'd make a Trump voter and a lot of them aren't very open about voting for him. They have everything to lose and are emboldened by the intimidation and the crybully tactics of the liberal left, the MSM and the entertainment industry. They are people who believe in his policies and proposals. But you're also forgetting another sizeable and silent contingent, the one that will vote Trump as a gigantic ''fuck you'' to everything and everyone that they hate.

    The next few days are going to be .... interesting :slight_smile:
     
  20. SkyWinter

    Regular Member

    Joined:
    Jul 28, 2016
    Messages:
    782
    Likes Received:
    82
    Location:
    GA
    Gender:
    Female (trans*)
    Gender Pronoun:
    She
    Sexual Orientation:
    Bisexual
    Out Status:
    A few people
    I don't prefer to hear "I am free" I prefer to hear the truth. If you're in a jail cell and you say that you're free, well, that's just not true. You're locked up. You should say "I'm locked in a jail cell" If a murderer has a gun to your head in hostage situation you aren't free. If you said "I'm free" in that situation that wouldn't be the truth. You should say "I'm a hostage".

    911 whats your emergency?

    "I'm free"

    uh...what... what is your emergency?

    "I'm free"

    There is a reason you call 911 and say "I'm being held hostage"

    Now maybe you prefer the jail cell. Maybe you like being a hostage. Maybe you subjectively feel that being a hostage affords you the "freedom" to take a break from the shopping you were doing. "Whew...I'm sure am glad this guy has a gun to my head and threw me to the ground. My legs were getting tired from all that walking" If that's you, well I guess that's cool for you.

    If that really happened and someone put a gun to your head and said they were going to give you freedom from life, unless you could tell them why death wasn't freedom would you just be like "Well, freedom is entirely subjective, so do what you want"?
     
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.