26
27

Bakery discriminated against lesbian couple, Oregon state agency rules (masslive.com)

jafbm が 投稿

並べ替え:
ベスト
ベスト
トップ
新着
注目
論争中
古い順
あなたは単独のコメントのスレッドを見ています。

残りのコメントをみる →

[–]Coastscribbler -3 ポイント-2 ポイント  (68子コメント)

Yes, Charles Porterfield Krauth predicted this in 1872:

When error is admitted… it will be found that the stages of its progress are always three. It begins by asking toleration. Its friends say to the majority: You need not be afraid of us; we are few, and weak; only let us alone… we ask only for ourselves to be spared interference with our private opinions. Indulged in this for a time, error goes on to assert equal rights. Truth and error are two balancing forces. [Society] shall do nothing which looks like deciding between them; that would be partiality. It is bigotry to assert any superior right for the truth. We are to agree to differ, and any favoring of the truth, because it is truth, is partisanship. What the friends of truth and error hold in common is fundamental. Anything on which they differ is ipso facto non-essential. Anybody who makes account of such a thing is a disturber of the peace…. Truth and error are two co-ordinate powers and the great secret… is to preserve the balance between them. From this point error soon goes on to its natural end, which is to assert supremacy. Truth started with tolerating, it comes to be merely tolerated, and that only for a time. Error claims a preference for its judgments on all disputed points. It puts men into positions, not as at first in spite of their departure from the [truth], but in consequence of it. Their recommendation is that they repudiate that faith, and postion is given them to teach others to repudiate it, and to make them skilful in combating it.

[–]Aquareon 0 ポイント1 ポイント  (37子コメント)

Wise words. My only point of contention is that, if you mean to apply this to gay rights, the belief that it is error for gay persons to be free to love one another originates from the view that the universe was constructed by a long deceased Galilean carpenter. That does not, to me, seem like a firm position from which to judge what is truth and what is error.

[–]ninjoe87 -2 ポイント-1 ポイント  (6子コメント)

Did you read the article?

Because to me, it's about two lesbians suing a small business owner for having a religious belief they don't like. They are forcing their beliefs - which she believes are error - on her, which the quote definitely rings true of. It starts small, and then is called equal, and then asserts superiority.

It's not about gay rights. It's about them forcing their beliefs (which she believes are wrong) on her, and if she doesn't submit, she gets sued for $200,000. Is that right? No, it certainly isn't.

[–]Phrag 2 ポイント3 ポイント  (0子コメント)

Neither party is being forced to change their beliefs. They are being forced to provide the same servies for people regardeless of sexual preference. Saying that laws banning discrimination based on sexual prefernce are forcing people to change their religious beliefs is like saying that the legal changes brought about by the civil rights movement ended racism.

If this was about religious beliefs, then one could just point to Jesus' instruction on the treatment of sinners to see that refusing service to gay people is wrong.

[–]Aquareon -2 ポイント-1 ポイント  (4子コメント)

which she believes are error

Emphasis in bold

It starts small, and then is called equal, and then asserts superiority.

Except in this case, it's the woman's beliefs that are in error. There was never any legitimate reason to persecute gays. If the most retribution that occurs for the centuries of untold suffering inflicted on innocent gay men and women is that a few Christians are sued for not baking a cake, they should count themselves lucky.

[–]ninjoe87 -1 ポイント0 ポイント  (3子コメント)

Sorry. Refusing to make someone a cake is not persecution.

Her beliefs are not in error. How can you even say that? She isn't saying "kill the gays" or "you're not allowed to marry" she's saying "according to my religion, this is an abomination to the Lord." and as far as that goes, she's not wrong. Not one bit. She then refuses to support it. That's all.

Refusing to support something, and persecuting it are two very different things. That's one of the points of the quote.

And sorry I missed the retribution bit. What the actual fuck? So you're saying that people today should be accountable for the actions of others in the past?

So the Germans, they owe the Jewish people what? Billions? And what about whites? They owe blacks, chinese, indians, and many other races a free ride because of past wrong doings? Where is the logic that because your or my ancestors did something wrong that we need to pay for it? Sorry, but I don't think anyone should be offered more than their fair shot at life. No one deserves higher privilege.

*Edit: I'm also going to bring up a point I missed, you say:

If the most retribution that occurs for the centuries of untold suffering inflicted on innocent gay men and women is that a few Christians are sued for not baking a cake, they should count themselves lucky.

But let me ask you this,why should said "few Christians" - when equally innocent, suffer in anyway whatsoever for someone else's plight? Did those few Christians persecute these suing-gays? Did this baker flog these lesbians? Or electrocute them to turn them straight?

No. She refused to bake them a cake. And you wanna pull out the pitchforks and go on a witch-hunt to equally innocent lives? The fuck is wrong with you?

[–]Aquareon 0 ポイント1 ポイント  (2子コメント)

Refusing to make someone a cake is not persecution.

I never suggested it was. But, you know that.

Her beliefs are not in error. How can you even say that?

I know a cult when I see one. Very old, widespread and successful, but the structure of it is unmistakeable.

She isn't saying "kill the gays" or "you're not allowed to marry"

Because she can't get away with it anymore, as Christians are no longer sufficiently influential in government. It is not speculation to say that they would do these things if they had the power to. That is what happened for nearly the last twenty centuries.

And sorry I missed the retribution bit. What the actual fuck? So you're saying that people today should be accountable for the actions of others in the past?

I'm saying that if your favored solution is "Christians get away with every terrible thing they inflicted on gays forever", I find that mildly suspicious and self-serving.

So the Germans, they owe the Jewish people what? Billions?

And indeed, they've been paying reparations.

And what about whites? They owe blacks, chinese, indians, and many other races a free ride because of past wrong doings?

Yes, that's what reparations and affirmative action are about. An effort to set right historical wrongs.

"Where is the logic that because your or my ancestors did something wrong that we need to pay for it?"

In fact, isn't that idea the basis of Christianity?

[–]ninjoe87 -3 ポイント-2 ポイント  (1子コメント)

I'm not even addressing this comment. Your head is so far shoved up your Social Justice Warrior ass it's laughable.

Let me end our conversation by saying this:

There are many people who are persecuted daily. There are homosexuals included in that number, and it sucks. I feel sad for anyone who is wrongfully made to suffer. I may not agree with their moral choices personally, but that is completely irrelevant.

You continue to make this about forcing the belief on people, the quote from earlier went completely over your head. And yet you recognized the truth to it and that's why you latched onto it and tried to twist it to your own.

Finally, it is wrong to persecute any people group. Even Christians refusing to bake cakes. How you cannot understand this, and instead assert that they should make reparations for the past is not only illogical, it's downright HYPOCRITICAL.

[–]Aquareon -2 ポイント-1 ポイント  (0子コメント)

I'm not even addressing this comment.

Why doesn't that surprise me.

Your head is so far shoved up your Social Justice Warrior ass it's laughable.

I am not a social justice warrior. I post on /r/tumblrinaction, repudiate radfem nonsense and have written a great deal against it. I strongly object to social engineering. That's also the basis for some of my gripes with Christianity.

There are many people who are persecuted daily. There are homosexuals included in that number, and it sucks. I feel sad for anyone who is wrongfully made to suffer. I may not agree with their moral choices personally, but that is completely irrelevant.

This is a rationale in defense of Christian persecution of gays.

You continue to make this about forcing the belief on people, the quote from earlier went completely over your head. And yet you recognized the truth to it and that's why you latched onto it and tried to twist it to your own.

You lead a rich fantasy life.

Finally, it is wrong to persecute any people group. Even Christians refusing to bake cakes. How you cannot understand this, and instead assert that they should make reparations for the past is not only illogical, it's downright HYPOCRITICAL.

I understand this is what you think. I disagree and have explained why at length. Ultimately if I cannot change your mind, it is no great loss. A demographic shift is occurring, with respect to what people believe in this country.

[–]Coastscribbler -2 ポイント-1 ポイント  (29子コメント)

My Lord did die, it is true. And then He rose from the dead. He yet is living.

As to the evil, well among the evils here, a great one is the attempt to cow and punish free men who seek to do in their daily business and life as seems best to them.

The new morality seeks to silence, deny, and shackle freedom which does not agree with it. To deny freedom because you disagree with this baker is to deny freedom to all.

[–]Aquareon -1 ポイント0 ポイント  (28子コメント)

Say, that's an interesting response.

Supposing a group were traveling about this state today, led by a charismatic speaker who claims the world is ending soon and that to be saved from it, you must sell your belongings, acknowledge his greatness, and cut off family members who try to stop you from following him. What would you call that?

[–]ninjoe87 -2 ポイント-1 ポイント  (9子コメント)

He stated his beliefs and then moved on to make a point.

You're attacking the beliefs.

You've dodge the point. Why?

[–]Aquareon 0 ポイント1 ポイント  (8子コメント)

I'm getting to the root of the matter. He stated his views, so I am offering my thoughts on them. Now if you don't mind, it's Coastscribbler I'm speaking to.

[–]ninjoe87 -2 ポイント-1 ポイント  (1子コメント)

No, you're attacking his beliefs and dodging his point. Just like you dodged mine with this comment.

Why? You realize dodging a point and attacking the person are fallacies, right?

[–]Aquareon 1 ポイント2 ポイント  (0子コメント)

The entire discussion can be pre-empted by demonstrating that the ideological basis for belief that homosexuality is wrong is today and always was fraudulent.

You realize dodging a point and attacking the person are fallacies, right?

Yes, but that isn't what I'm doing. See above.

you're attacking his beliefs

Trying to change somebody's mind neither picks their pocket nor breaks their leg.

[–]Coastscribbler -2 ポイント-1 ポイント  (5子コメント)

Would you deny my right to believe and to act as I see fit, when I disagree with you?

Because if that is so, then you deny the very notion of liberty. And you would then have made yourself the enemy of all who would be and live freely.

[–]Aquareon 0 ポイント1 ポイント  (4子コメント)

When there's malware/viruses on your computer, do you let them be?

Because if that is so, then you deny the very notion of liberty. And you would then have made yourself the enemy of all who would be and live freely.

This is what Christians did everywhere they had the power to do it throughout nearly all of Western history.

[–]ninjoe87 -2 ポイント-1 ポイント  (3子コメント)

Hey look! The topic! It's way over there!

WHERE ARE YOU GOING?!

[–]Aquareon -1 ポイント0 ポイント  (2子コメント)

Take your pills.

[–]Coastscribbler 0 ポイント1 ポイント  (17子コメント)

I would call that something that has happened several times in Oregon history.

We have always honored the right to believe in things we ourselves do not believe in.

Would you have it otherwise?

[–]Aquareon -1 ポイント0 ポイント  (16子コメント)

"We have always honored the right to believe in things we ourselves do not believe in."

What was the inquisition about then?

"I would call that something that has happened several times in Oregon history."

Indeed, it's a very popular formula that many different people have tried in history, with varying degrees of success. Presumably you recognize that's how Islam got started, as a cult centered around Muhammad. Likewise with Mormonism and Joseph Smith.

However, Christianity also began in that manner. Jesus was the cult leader, the 12 apostles were the original members.

  1. Claims world is ending imminently (John 2:18, Matthew 16:28, Matthew 24:34)
  2. Wants you to give away belongings and follow him ( Luke 14:33, Matthew 19:21, Luke 18:22)
  3. Wants you to cut off family who interfere (Matt. 10:35-37, Luke 14:26, Matthew 19:29)
  4. Unverifiable reward if you believe (Heaven, i.e. the carrot)
  5. Unverifiable punishment if you disbelieve (Hell, i.e. the stick)
  6. Sabotages the critical thinking faculties you might otherwise use to remove it (Proverbs 3:5, 2 Corinthians 5:7, Proverbs 14:12)
  7. Targets children and the emotionally/materially vulnerable for recruitment (sunday schools, youth group, teacher led prayer, prison ministries, third world missions)

The observant might notice that it works very much like a chain letter, multilevel marketing or a computer virus. All of those are examples of information structured in such a way as to motivate patterns of human behavior which reinforce, defend and spread it to as many hosts as possible for as long as possible.

Imagine if something like this got out of hand and just kept growing, generation after generation because every member recruits their own kids. What would it look like many centuries later, having woven itself into the fabric of the host culture?

It would have special schools, holidays, movies, books, hospitals, websites, as its adherents endeavored to refocus more and more of their civilization around its teachings. Do we not live in that world presently?

[–]ninjoe87 -2 ポイント-1 ポイント  (4子コメント)

What was the inquisition about then?

More irrelevant point dodging. Oh sorry! That's not an answer, that's what you're doing.

Everything else you said is honestly just crazy babbling. I don't blame anyone for ending a conversation with you after a wall of meaningless text, which only is purposed to serve derailing the topic at hand.

TLDR, you're very bad at arguing your point.

[–]Aquareon -1 ポイント0 ポイント  (3子コメント)

More irrelevant point dodging.

He said "We have always honored the right to believe in things we ourselves do not believe in." That's not the case. Throughout history, wherever Christians had the power to persecute members of different religions or sects they considered heretical, they did so.

Everything else you said is honestly just crazy babbling.

This is not a rebuttal.

I don't blame anyone for ending a conversation with you after a wall of meaningless text, which only is purposed to serve derailing the topic at hand.

You'll never see meaning you don't want to.

you're very bad at arguing your point.

This is not a rebuttal.

[–]ninjoe87 -1 ポイント0 ポイント  (2子コメント)

This is not a rebuttal.

No it's not, because I'm done arguing with you.

By the way, neither is most anything you've said.

[–]Aquareon -2 ポイント-1 ポイント  (1子コメント)

A post full of sound and fury, signifying nothing.

[–]Coastscribbler -1 ポイント0 ポイント  (10子コメント)

You've obviously made up your mind. You would pursue a thesis apart from the stated topic of this thread. I've no desire to banter with you as though you might honestly open your mind to what I'd say.

[–]Aquareon -1 ポイント0 ポイント  (9子コメント)

The puffed up posturing of a cornered animal.

Feel free to research the information I've supplied on your own time and terms.

[–]ninjoe87 -1 ポイント0 ポイント  (5子コメント)

More attacking the person.

Ad hominem is no way to make your point. Stick to the topic at hand or quit discussing it, you've already gone so far off topic that you're debating religion and not the original point of "is it right for this lesbian couple to sue this baker to potential bankruptcy for not baking them a cake"?

[–]Aquareon -1 ポイント0 ポイント  (4子コメント)

Ad hominem is the use of insult as a substitute for argument. If you review my posts in this thread you'll see there's no shortage of valid argumentation.

Stick to the topic at hand or quit discussing it, you've already gone so far off topic that you're debating religion and not the original point of "is it right for this lesbian couple to sue this baker to potential bankruptcy for not baking them a cake"?

My intention is to establish that this woman's basis for believing that homosexuality is wrong is fraudulent. If everyone who shares her belief could understand that, this event would never have occurred.

[–]Coastscribbler -1 ポイント0 ポイント  (2子コメント)

My friend, I suggest you take a look at the website I maintain: resurrectionlutheran.us — you'll be quite interested to know that I hold terminal academic degrees in theology. Your information is... derivative, and the sort of stuff I expect sophomores to sometime become breathless over, as though it were as new as their own awareness of it. Again, your pushing regards a matter you have already made your own conclusions over, and against which your mind is quite closed. I demure from playing your game.

[–]Aquareon -1 ポイント0 ポイント  (1子コメント)

"you'll be quite interested to know that I hold terminal academic degrees in theology."

There exist reams upon reams of Islamic apologetics written by generations of theologians devoted to the defense of their religion, as you are to yours. Does this make Islam true? In fact, don't all religions do this? So they have a wild goose chase to send skeptics on that could consume several lifespans.

Your information is... derivative, and the sort of stuff I expect sophomores to sometime become breathless over, as though it were as new as their own awareness of it.

More posturing, but conspicuously no rebuttal.

Again, your pushing regards a matter you have already made your own conclusions over, and against which your mind is quite closed. I demure from playing your game.

Why are you writing like you're British nobility?

[–]ninjoe87 -2 ポイント-1 ポイント  (19子コメント)

You're likely getting downvoted by people who didn't read the article and just read the title.

See this is disgusting though.

If someone doesn't want to support it, that should be their choice, no one should have to compromise their morality for the sake of another's beliefs.

If you didn't read the article: They are suing her (the baker) for up to $200,000 because she wouldn't make a wedding cake for them.

This is fucking awful. I don't care what your beliefs are. There are other places that can bake a fucking cake, and would probably be happy to do so. Leave people alone and don't try to fucking ruin their lives because they don't agree with your choice of morality. They didn't attempt to stop the wedding, they didn't petition it or make threats. Yet here we are, in a world where you can sue someone out of their own house and home because they wouldn't bake your wedding cake.

Fucking gross. I hope this couple gets shit on.

*Edit: And I'm getting downvoted! You guys are definitely proving this quote correct.

[–]Strangebrewer 0 ポイント1 ポイント  (11子コメント)

If you didn't read the article: They are suing her (the baker) for up to $200,000 because she wouldn't make a wedding cake for them.

A cake they refused to make because of the sexual orientation of the couple getting married. It's blatant discrimination.

[–]ninjoe87 -3 ポイント-2 ポイント  (10子コメント)

How is it discrimination?

Discrimination: "Discrimination is action that denies social participation or human rights to categories of people based on prejudice."

[–]Jordanis 2 ポイント3 ポイント  (5子コメント)

And gay people are a protected class in Oregon. Open and shut. We don't let people refuse to serve mixed race weddings, either.

[–]ninjoe87 -1 ポイント0 ポイント  (4子コメント)

So why aren't bakers a protected class?

[–]Jordanis 0 ポイント1 ポイント  (3子コメント)

Why would they need to be? A class gets added to the protected list when enough people agree that they face widespread discrimination for being members of that class, and then agree that they shouldn't. Bakers don't fit the first part of that bill.

But let's go ahead and be honest: what you really mean is "why aren't christians who believe like me a protected class?" And the answer to that is, "because you don't experience widespread discrimination."

If you believe that they do, you are a deluded idiot.

[–]ninjoe87 -1 ポイント0 ポイント  (2子コメント)

Wow, that's getting a bit rude, don't you think? No need to get insulting or put words into another's mouth.

I think everyone should be entitled to their own beliefs and opinions. And no, I legitimately mean not just bakers, but anyone. I don't care if it's Christian or otherwise, don't make this about that.

In general, I think it is wrong to sue someone when they have done nothing to harm you. A lack of action, or acceptance is not discrimination. And honestly? I don't think gays experience the kind of discrimination we're talking about. Sure, blow up at me, "are you kidding? gays are discriminated against all the time! people say 'blah blah blah' about gays!" but you know? You could actually make the same argument about Christians.

Do I think Christians are discriminated against?

I think they're discriminated against just as much as gays are.

Hating people is wrong in general. For any reason. However, answering wrong doing with wrong doing is still awful. Suing someone out of their livelihood because they wouldn't make you a cake is despicable.

[–]Jordanis 0 ポイント1 ポイント  (1子コメント)

Well, you happen to be deluded, then. Do you remember Matthew Shepard? That wasn't even twenty years ago, and that's just off the tip of my tongue. Gay men in their 20s grew up knowing that a man was dragged behind a truck until he died for being gay. It's getting better every year, but violence is still very much on the table for gays.

Outside of tiny niche shitholes like r/athiesm, a christian does not have to give much thought to whether revealing their religion is a good or bad idea in the US. Nobody 'comes out' as a christian. Nobody (in the rhetorical/statistical sense) gets kicked out of a restaurant for being christian, or fired for being christian, or denied housing, because the person on the other side of the transaction is probably christian too!

Christian is still the overwhelming majority in this country. It's the assumed default. Thinking it's something that's discriminated against in any kind of widespread fashion is delusional.

Of course, it's even more absurd than that, since most people aren't being sincere about believing that it's against their religion. It's just gross to them, and their religion is a convenient justification. I am willing to believe sincerity of someone who is also following the rest of the Levitical laws, but the rest of that crowd is full of it.

[–]Aquareon -1 ポイント0 ポイント  (0子コメント)

I wholly agree except that homosexual sex is condemened more times in the New Testament than the old. Not many people who argue this topic are aware of that. While people may use Biblical authority to legitimize their hostility to gays, it was that very scriptural authority which made it possible for persecution of gays by governments themselves for most of Western history.

[–]Strangebrewer 0 ポイント1 ポイント  (2子コメント)

One of the stipulations for owning and operating a business is you have to serve "the public" and unfortunately "the public" might include people you don't like, don't agree with or whatever. As a business you have all your first amendment rights, you can say anything about anyone just fine. And you have the right to refuse service, as long as your refusal of service isn't because of their race, gender, nation of origin, and in Oregon, sexual orientation.

If you don't like serving the public, don't open a business. Or try and make them hate you so much they don't come to you, but that might backfire and make them come to you out of spite.

[–]ninjoe87 0 ポイント1 ポイント  (1子コメント)

I don't think that she refused service because they were gay. I would argue that she refused service because she doesn't agree with gay marriage. Perhaps it is a fine line to some. But you can at least see that there is a bit of a difference?

[–]Strangebrewer -1 ポイント0 ポイント  (0子コメント)

Not really. Her reasoning for refusal of service is still based in discrimination. She doesn't have a problem with marriages, she has a problem with gay marriages.

I mean just sub in some other words to see if it makes sense:

She doesn't have a problem with marriages, she has a problem with christian marriages.

She doesn't have a problem with marriages, she has a problem with straight marriages.

She doesn't have a problem with marriages, she has a problem with black marriages.

She doesn't have a problem with marriages, she has a problem with disabled people marriages.

She can talk about how she disagrees with things all she wants, but she's not allowed to refuse service to people based on her feelings towards certain matters.

[–]Aquareon -2 ポイント-1 ポイント  (0子コメント)

By the definition you've just supplied. The couple in the article cannot participate in the business they attempted to patronize because that business denies service to gays.

[–]Aquareon -1 ポイント0 ポイント  (6子コメント)

"Leave people alone and don't try to fucking ruin their lives because they don't agree with your choice of morality."

Realize, people with that exact belief system spent the last nineteen centuries viciously destroying the lives of gays. Execution, torture, castration (Alan Turing is a good example of that), "conversion therapy", electrocution, sexual reassignment surgery in some countries and at the very least professional and social ruination. This hasn't ended in much of the world and even some parts of the US.

$200,000 doesn't begin to cover it.

[–]ninjoe87 -4 ポイント-3 ポイント  (5子コメント)

What the fuck are you smoking?

This isn't a racial thing. It's not like being born into a black family. It's not like this couple had any connection to past sufferings. They both obviously come from straight parents, or they wouldn't of been born. You're making huge leaps in logic here.

There's no reparations to be made. Being homosexual is not a thing that you get persecuted in the same way blacks did. Maybe teased or scorned, sticks and stones. But the gay-culture was never enslaved. They were never shackled and killed in the streets.

Yes, there was experiments done on individuals, but you're making it out that the entire group was in concentrations camps or something. You over-exaggerate their plight and you do them no favors by attempting to make them look more the victim than they actually were.

[–]Aquareon 1 ポイント2 ポイント  (4子コメント)

This isn't a racial thing.

It is biological.

There's no reparations to be made.

I disagree.

Being homosexual is not a thing that you get persecuted in the same way blacks did. Maybe teased or scorned, sticks and stones. But the gay-culture was never enslaved. They were never shackled and killed in the streets.

They were if you go back far enough.

Yes, there was experiments done on individuals, but you're making it out that the entire group was in concentrations camps or something.

Re-education camps for gays exist today: www.kidnappedforchrist.com. People have died in them, in the course of arduous labor intended to break down their identity and 'rebuild' them as heterosexual Christians. Numerous proposals have been put forth by politicians and other public figures for fenced in camps where gays would be sent to gradually die out.

You over-exaggerate their plight and you do them no favors by attempting to make them look more the victim than they actually were.

You're now defending what was done to them? I advise you to read up on what happened to Alan Turing.

[–]Jordanis 0 ポイント1 ポイント  (7子コメント)

That little essay works about as well if you switch truth and error in every instance.

[–]ninjoe87 1 ポイント2 ポイント  (6子コメント)

I can't help but address your comment.

Please explain how it works by switching them? It really seems to me like you're just trying to sound intellectual, when in reality, you missed the entire point of the quote. I'm not saying that's the case, but since you didn't explain why you think it works both ways, I'm a bit skeptical. How does it work both ways?

Again, please explain. Don't do something like just switch the words and copy paste it back to me, saying "see? it makes total sense." because then it would be saying the opposite of what it's saying now, and really - if that's the case you're only proving the quote right by what you're trying to do.

[–]Jordanis -1 ポイント0 ポイント  (5子コメント)

It works because it's a description of how society evolves, period, except slanted by using the loaded words 'truth' and 'error'. Sixty years ago, a civil rights opponent would have quoted it the same way in support of his position, and he would have been basically right--except, in modern society's judgement, for which position he called 'truth' and which he called 'error'.

[–]ninjoe87 -1 ポイント0 ポイント  (3子コメント)

Truth and error are loaded words?

Since when?

Your point about 60 years ago doesn't really stand. This is not a debate about what the truth is. It's not about the baker's beliefs being right or wrong. Which is what people are making it out to be.

The point is that she shouldn't have someone else's morality imposed on her. Otherwise she is having done to her the same thing that the gays claim has been done to them. It's hypocrisy at it's finest.

[–]Jordanis 1 ポイント2 ポイント  (2子コメント)

Of course they're loaded words, the way they're used in that quote. They are making value judgements about the subject being discussed. That's what loaded words do. It strains credulity that you're arguing in good faith for you to even say that.

Your point about 60 years ago doesn't really stand. This is not a debate about what the truth is. It's not about the baker's beliefs being right or wrong. Which is what people are making it out to be.

Well yes, it is. The quote discusses a change in social opinion where the old way is true and the new way is in error. If you disagree, and think the new way is true and the old way is in error, the quote still describes how society changes its mind, only you need to switch 'truth' and 'error' around in order to make it look right.

The point is that she shouldn't have someone else's morality imposed on her. Otherwise she is having done to her the same thing that the gays claim has been done to them. It's hypocrisy at it's finest.

I am a different person. You're thinking of your argument with the other guy. This is the argument about whether the quote makes sense reversed, so this is totally irrelevant.

[–]ninjoe87 1 ポイント2 ポイント  (1子コメント)

I am a different person. You're thinking of your argument with the other guy. This is the argument about whether the quote makes sense reversed, so this is totally irrelevant.

Thank you, I needed that reminder. My apologies. I was aware of the argument, but the other guy was bouncing all over the place - made it difficult to keep track of exactly what points are being made where.

Anyway. Yeah. I can see your point with it discussing a change in social opinion. The way I was looking at it was as though truth and error were two fixed positions.

Perhaps a better way to say it would be that the statement could be a mirror unto itself depending on which perspective you take?

[–]Jordanis 0 ポイント1 ポイント  (0子コメント)

Perhaps a better way to say it would be that the statement could be a mirror unto itself depending on which perspective you take?

This is basically exactly what I meant, yeah. I think it makes it fairly useless as a rhetorical device, because it assumes as given what is actually being argued about (that one particular thing is true and the other one false).

[–]Aquareon -1 ポイント0 ポイント  (0子コメント)

This is a very insightful comment, imo.

[–]doggydownvoter -2 ポイント-1 ポイント  (0子コメント)

Blah blah words words.