edit: noticed this after I posted - under 'content advisory' is listed homosexuality - I'd don't find that fitting with the other aptly placed warnings.
The lable that should be on every bible
- Thread starter Renaissance
- Start date
Cyre2067
The Living Force
Heh i disagree, being of that particular ethnic group, I find it scares the bejesus outta norms and so definitely a warning might be a good idea. Well, at least older norms, youngin's don't seem to care.Shane said:
In the context you used it advocate means to support, I think it's perfectly reasonable to support homosexuality, and infact, it might be a good idea given the state of things.Azur said:
Azur
The Living Force
I figured there was the danger of it looking like I have issues with homosexuality when I posted. (For the record, I don't. People are people, no matter their aspects. Being homosexual, bisexual or hetero, or atheist, or <insert aspect here> is only one of n aspects that make up a person.)anart said:
It is why I pointed out the operative word advocacy. I would have made the same comment if it had been any other thing from that list.
My point is that, and I may be wrong of course, is that advocacy is somewhat evil. It is an imposition thrust on others, and always seems to be at the expense of the larger group.
For example, advocating children's rights is a good thing. But what about non-children? It misses the point: both are human, and it should be the same for all humans.
Same goes for advocating homosexuality. It is as bad to advocate heterosexuality. Humans in general should have the right to freedom of sexual orientation.
In short, advocating on behalf of a subgroup ignores the larger concerns of the group of which it is part. I equate advocacy with "special interest groups". It stinks.
There must counter-examples, but I have always perceived advocacy as I do above.
anart
A Disturbance in the Force
That makes sense. I suppose if we lived in the kind of world where homosexuals were treated the same as heterosexuals (or where any discrimated against minority was treated the same as the majority) then that would be exactly how it should be.Azur said:
Unfortunately, we don't live in that world by any stretch of the imagination (yet) - so, it seems to me that a society trying to take measures to decrease the amount of inequality in such situations is not only a reasonable thing to do, but signifies that the society is perceptive enough to see that one aspect of its population is suffering from maltreatment at the hands of the rest of its population and can see that as a 'bad' thing.
Also, I don't really see Shane's comment in this particular case as being advocacy - he's simply saying that homosexuality is not the same as the list of other atrocities on the rest of that label - and as a homosexual, it would be rather difficult for me to not agree with him.
Not sure what you mean by advocating homosexuality. I think you might mean to advocate the rights of anyone who is homosexual. And I do. I agree with Anart that your question sounds like you disagree with homosexuality, but there may be some other reason you were asking.Azur said:
Edit: I wrote this while you responded to Anart, and what you said made sense. I was just trying to point out that on the list had mostly perverse items on it and I didn't think that homosexuality is perverse.
I think you're also correct about what you mentioned that special interest groups often 'stink.' That wasn't what I was trying to get at though.
Also when I wrote that I would/ do advocate the rights of anyone who is homosexual, it is likewise for any/ all groups or people to be who they are - including the main one, humanity as a whole.
I'm not sure I understand your perspective on that. You could argue that the aspect that causes someone not to have empathy makes them no longer "people" in some ways. You could argue that a transvestite is neither male or female, hence, not a "person" by definition. I think "people" is really undefined, just what makes someone a "person"? What about a difference between someone with a fused magnetic center who is fully conscious and someone with who is still a machine? Are they both "people" or is only one of them? What about someone who only has one arm or one leg or one eye (or none of those things)? What about someone missing one or more of their senses (or maybe common sense) or someone in a "vegitative" state in a hospital fed by feeding tubes? Well we can safely say at least we're all biological.. well not if you consider cybergenetic drones walking around that might be made of some synthetic nanotechnologically-produced "plastic" that might be indistinguishable from the indigenous "life forms" to the untrained eye, then you just gotta throw in the towel and give up trying to define people and go have a strong drink, and make it a double.Azur said:
How many aspects do you take away before someone can no longer be reasonably called a "person"? Is there even a number or a line you can draw here? And besides, all aspects aren't the same, you could try to consider them quantitatively and try to come up with some arbitrary number as the answer but I think it's the nature of the "aspects" that matters - what they are, what benefits and what detriments they incorporate. In the case of homosexuality vs heterosexuality, and speaking only for myself, I think it's irrelevant. They are both equally helpful and equally harmful. Ok so one can produce kids and the other biologically cannot, but that's really where the difference ends osit. It's not like a difference between someone who has empathy and someone who does not, even if all of them are "aspects". Sure empathy is just an aspect, but the nature of that aspect is different and lacking it is while not objectively "bad" anymore than it is bad to be a tiger has certain objective consequences and effects that are far more damaging/detrimental to those who DO have empathy, than homosexuality or heterosexuality is detrimental to the other sexual preference. I'd say beastiality
And I honestly don't understand how you can "advocate" homosexuality or heterosexuality - those who are gay will be gay, those who are straight will be straight, those who are both will be both, and telling any of those groups about how great the other side is makes no more sense than advocating empathy to psychopaths, or psychopathy to those with empathy, or maybe telling bears how cool it is to be a lion etc.
Speaking of atheists or religions, those are harmful aspects for advancement as opposed to being open minded and inquisitive instead. But homosexuality is no more harmful for advancement than heterosexuality as far as I can tell. I think advocating either one (as the porn industry does, which covers all the angles) is "bad" in the sense that you're advocating indulgence in senseless sexual self-gratification for its own sake and promoting mechanicalness and enslavement of the human race by it, but that applies to heterosexuality and homosexuality equally.
But in terms of advocacy ingeneral, I honestly think that it depends. Like advocating the rights of blacks or women I don't think is so bad considering that their rights are less than white males historically. So it's not that the advocacy group does not support the same rights for white males, they just focus on blacks and women because those groups have been the focus of deprivation of rights in the first place, so it balances. But if all races and genders had the exact same rights, then advocating the rights of one but not the other I'd agree would make no sense. The problem I personally have with advocacy groups is that they often miss the point. They often don't address the true cause/root of an issue (whether because of own ignorance or because of cointelpro derailment), and they end up being "honey pots" for people who do want to contribute to the world in a meaningful way but they just end up going around in circles and nothing ever changes, pathocracy lives on without a scratch. And I don't mean that I necessarily support trying to "change the world" becasue it is the way it is for a reason, but I mean I support Doing something that creates the possibility for that change, shining the light at the true source of the issues so that they are at least less hidden from humanity, but that is something that pathocracy does its best to prevent.
