Gay Marriage Upheld by USSC in Close Ruling

[DGuller]

I don't agree. This is close to stating that beliefs that are "damaging to society as a whole" ought to be morally sanctioned - whether they are true and provable or not.

Why is that necessary, when the most significant thing about bigotry is that it tends to be provably false?

Well, the point is that I disagree with "provably false".  For one, there isn't even an agreement on what "provably false" means.  A lot of liberals will claim that a single counter-example is a proof of falsity of some generalization.

[DontSayBanana]

Well, the point is that I disagree with "provably false".  For one, there isn't even an agreement on what "provably false" means.  A lot of liberals will claim that a single counter-example is a proof of falsity of some generalization.

Nice ad hom.  Mistaking correlation for causation is not a uniquely liberal trait.

[Jaron]

I don't think that is an ad hom.

[DontSayBanana]

I don't think that is an ad hom.

It's got elements of a fallacy of composition ( the implication that, since some liberals mistake correlation for causation, so all liberals must mistake correlation for causation) and an ad hominem argument (the implication that being liberal makes one more likely to mistake correlation for causation).

[garbon]

I think you might be overthinking / misconstruing his comment.

[Jaron]

I understand what you're saying, but I think you're analyzing it very two dimensionally.

He certainly would have been out of line to say all liberals make such a logical error, but to say a lot is arguably true. Many liberals are young and idealistic and thus unlikely to compromise on their core values. It isn't a stretch to say that many liberals are subject to jump to conclusions. It says nothing about conservatives but offers a brief but sharp analysis of the liberal mindset as a whole.

I think something all 'all liberals are idiots and therefore ... ' would have been more aligned with an ad hom attack. I think you're just being a typical liberal and being ultra sensitive right now.

[DGuller]

I think you might be overthinking / misconstruing his comment.

DSB does tend to do it a lot.  Yes, there are some counterexamples when he doesn't say something stupid and and ill-fitting to the discussion, but...  Actually, hold on a minute, are there any such counter-examples? 

[Valmy]

I think you might be overthinking / misconstruing his comment.

DSB does tend to do it a lot.  Yes, there are some counterexamples when he doesn't say something stupid and and ill-fitting to the discussion, but...  Actually, hold on a minute, are there any such counter-examples? 

Ok that might have been an ad hom

[DGuller]

I think you might be overthinking / misconstruing his comment.

DSB does tend to do it a lot.  Yes, there are some counterexamples when he doesn't say something stupid and and ill-fitting to the discussion, but...  Actually, hold on a minute, are there any such counter-examples? 

Ok that might have been an ad hom

[grumbler]

Can you give me an example of stuff WBC ignores?

And I have probably done more Bible reading and studying that you or most so-called Christians, for that matter.

I think that they ignore the dietary laws, the "give away all of your possessions and live among the poor" example, and the "let he who is without sin cast the first stone" principal, all off of the top of my head without having read the bible in years.  It strikes me as peculiar that you claim to "have probably done more Bible reading and studying that[sic] you" and yet you couldn't come up with any of those.

[Malthus]

I don't agree. This is close to stating that beliefs that are "damaging to society as a whole" ought to be morally sanctioned - whether they are true and provable or not.

Why is that necessary, when the most significant thing about bigotry is that it tends to be provably false?

Well, the point is that I disagree with "provably false".  For one, there isn't even an agreement on what "provably false" means.  A lot of liberals will claim that a single counter-example is a proof of falsity of some generalization.

To my mind, it isn't being incorrect about a generalization that makes the bigot, it is being unwilling to examine, in good faith, the evidence concerning a generalization - it is the closed mind. Ultimately, it is someone who *wants* to believe negative generalizations about others - something hard to judge initially, but that becomes clear when they reject perfectly good evidence in order to avoid changing their mind concerning a negative generalization.

[The Brain]

An open mind is like a fortress with its gates unbarred and unguarded.

[Martinus]

An open mind is like a fortress with its gates unbarred and unguarded.

[Razgovory]

I think for starters there is a difference between being anti-gay and anti-religion - being gay is an innate biological trait, being religious is an acquired worldview/philosophical choice. Being anti-religion or anti-Christian is like being anti-communist or anti-capitalist - it may involve some degree of misrepresentation of the views one is opposed to, but it is nowhere comparable to being, saying, homophobic, racist or antisemitic.

I don't know...saying that all Christians are actually the WBC and you respect them for being 'honest' is pretty comparable to what racists or antisemites say.

Not really - again, the Bible is a verifiable, objectively existing text, which can be read and interpreted. So if you say you think the Bible is the word of God, it is not a "generalisation" or "bigotry" to expect you to agree with everything the Bible says (it would be different if you said that the Bible is simply a historical text, that has some value still today but by large is outdated and inadequate to modern times).

Very comparable.  Viking made similar statements about biblical literalists being the only one he could respect because they made the easiest targets to attack.  It like saying the only true secularist are the Khmer Rouge.

[Syt]

Billboard in Kim Davis's home town.