Where have I said that I discriminate against gays in that post? Nowhere. I simply said that those who wish to build communities without homosexuals should be respected, and we can help them achieve this, because we have nothing against homosexuals, and we can treat them as first class citizens... This is doing good for both - respecting the freedom of both. — Agustino

And that's pathological It's the Krystalnacht mentality of the Nazis.

Just be honest and admit you hate and fear gays. Get it over with. You'll feel better.

Yes, I can says conservatives are evil. Conservatives are pathological and hate the other. Eschew it before it consumes you. — Landru Guide Us

Well if this is the case - notice you have broken the limit and have gone into hate speech - you cannot demand or expect that any conservative behave nicely towards you. Because it would be like a Westerner behaving nicely to a Jihadist who wants to kill him... nonsense.

Just be honest and admit you hate and fear gays. Get it over with. You'll feel better. — Landru Guide Us

I honestly don't though...

Well if this is the case - notice you have broken the limit and have gone into hate speech - you cannot demand or expect that any conservative behave nicely towards you. Because it would be like a Westerner behaving nicely to a Jihadist who wants to kill him... nonsense. — Agustino

So slaves can't expect the respect of slaveholder is they call them criminal and evil.

I like your style of oppression!

We can and should. It is accurate. You are ignoring what oppression means here. It doesn't mean, for example, all conservatives are like Nazis and want to lock minorities up and commit genocide (though some are. And you seem to be okay with that, so long as the are living in a country where state power enforces it), but rather that their ideology is such that it advocates various minorities are of lesser value and that associate which does this is not of ethical concern (to the people living in it, I might add).

but rather that their ideology is such that it advocates various minorities are of lesser value and that associate which does this is not of ethical concern (to the people living in it, I might add). — TheWillowOfDarkness

I don't think many conservatives would agree with this...

In arguing it is right (i.e. moral) for certain society to lock them-up and kill them, just because those in power enforce such a rule. Even in the face of those living in the respective country expressing it is immoral.

In arguing it is right (i.e. moral) for certain society to lock them-up and kill them, just because those in power enforce such a rule. Even in the face of those living in the respective country expressing it is immoral. — TheWillowOfDarkness

Well clearly you are not aware that if this was the case, the regime doing it wouldn't be long in power. There were several assassination attempts even on Hitler's life in the middle of the war. Just imagine if Hitler had won the war how quickly he would have been assassinated. The invisible hand works even in politics...

And I haven't argued it is moral to lock them up or to kill them. Please cite where I did.

So slaves can't expect the respect of slaveholder is they call them criminal and evil. — Landru Guide Us

What are you talking about... slaves by definition cannot expect the respect of the slaveholder, regardless of whether they call him God or devil.

No doubt...

They are wrong.

Agreement is not an issue here. How someone is valuing and treating others ifs not defined by agreement. It's a matter of the logical expression of their understand an actions. The truth of how people are valuing and treating others is what matters.

It's a matter of the logical expression of their understand an actions. The truth of how people are valuing and treating others is what matters. — TheWillowOfDarkness

It's more complicated than this. People can often feel persecuted even when they aren't. This is a well-known psychological phenomenon, especially if they have been oppressed in the past. So it's not that simple to judge whether someone really is oppressed, or they're just feeling oppressed, or worse - they claim to be oppressed to obtain certain advantages.

What are you talking about... slaves by definition cannot expect the respect of the slaveholder, regardless of whether they call him God or devil. — Agustino

Whoosh! Right over your head!

No, I think your analogy simply doesn't hold. There's no comparison between conservatives, many of whom are just normal people like me and you, and thus hold no power of life and death over you, and slaveowners and their slaves. Slaveowners could do whatever they wanted to their slaves. If you think conservatives can do whatever they want to you, then I suggest you seek the help of a medical professional.

But that's shown to be utterly wrong throughout history. We've had regimes, for example, that locked-up, murdered and otherwise ostracised gay people for fucking centuries. Just because someone in power is doing something nasty doesn't mean the people will overthrow them. Indeed, the entire point of normative culture is to avoid that. Those in power have their culture, their media, their enforcement, their laws, their values, to get the populace on their side and ensure their power (and their horrible actions) continues for years upon years, generations upon generations in some cases.

Do you have an example? There are, occasionally, instances where people mistake the oppression of the past for the present state of society. Most of the time, however, it is just "conservatives" ignoring a present issue which has its origins in some historical form of oppression (e.g. the relationship of slavery, segregation and racist culture of the past to present day economic inequality of black people in the US).

So it's not that simple to judge whether someone really is oppressed, or they're just feeling oppressed, or worse - they claim to be oppressed to obtain certain advantages. — Agustino

And this is, usually, a misreading of an oppressed people gaining some sort of improvement in how they a treated. Indeed, it really represents the "conservative" failure to understand social issues. The entire point of taking issue with oppression, of changing culture so it isn't bigoted to a given minority group, is to improve how they are treated. Those who were oppressed gain a life where they are not (or are oppressed less). The self-interest of rights movements isn't the problem. "Gaining and advantage" is the entire fucking point. If a an oppressed group doesn't gain "an advantage" they are still oppressed.

↪Landru Guide Us No, I think your analogy simply doesn't hold. There's no comparison between conservatives, many of whom are just normal people like me and you, and thus hold no power of life and death over you, and slaveowners and their slaves. Slaveowners could do whatever they wanted to their slaves. If you think conservatives can do whatever they want to you, then I suggest you seek the help of a medical professional. — Agustino

No, conservatism is fueled by wealthy oppressors, intent on exploiting others. They are pathological.

The conservative underclass are either fools, duped by the memes of the rich, or they are pernicious racists who want to harm other.

In any case, the whole purpose of conservatism is to exploit others and enrich the rich - kind of like slave owners.

Isn't it odd that of all the problems of the world, including the vast oppression of minorities and the poor by the rich, Agustino has decided the the most important issue for him is defending the right of oppressive regimes to discriminate against gays. Now that's a noble cause.

Where have I said that I discriminate against gays in that post? Nowhere. I simply said that those who wish to build communities without homosexuals should be respected, and we can help them achieve this, because we have nothing against homosexuals, and we can treat them as first class citizens... This is doing good for both - respecting the freedom of both. — Agustino

This is another conservative trope: say something and then say you didn't say it, looping back over and over again.

You defended the right of oppressive regimes to discriminate and bemoaned interference by goodgoody liberals in trying to stop them. You called this, amazingly, a "fundamental right".

So stop pretending. It's clear you just don't like gays, and probably other minorities, and have hit upon the idea of noninterference with oppressive regimes (my that is so important!) as a justification.

No, conservatism is fueled by wealthy oppressors, intent on exploiting others. They are pathological. — Landru Guide Us

This statement is pathological. Just consult a psychiatrist if you don't believe me. It's the same as the Nazi's labeling the Jews as the source of their problems; you label the conservatives. Same old rotten socialist ideology - because yes, Hitler was a socialist. Instead of assuming responsability for the state you are in, you point your finger and cry - Nietzsche's Last Man.

In any case, the whole purpose of conservatism is to exploit others and enrich the rich - kind of like slave owners. — Landru Guide Us

Hey, why don't you open your own business, work hard, be smart, and achieve all the success you want, instead of complaining that others have more than you do. Of course they have more than you - they have worked to achieve that. Is it because "you don't want to exploit others"? Or is that perhaps just an excuse to mask inability? The fox who cannot reach up to the grapes says they are sour.

Isn't it odd that of all the problems of the world, including the vast oppression of minorities and the poor by the rich, Agustino has decided the the most important issue for him is defending the right of oppressive regimes to discriminate against gays. Now that's a noble cause. — Landru Guide Us

This is hilarious beyond measure... another proof that you are just rhethoric and nothing else. You misinform people and are a liar. Where have I said that "the most important issue is defending the right of oppressive regimes to discriminate against gays"? You're out of your mind, plain and simple.

This is another conservative trope: say something and then say you didn't say it, looping back over and over again. — Landru Guide Us

Ok, so show me where. All of us have big mouths, but let's see, can we walk the talk as well?

You defended the right of oppressive regimes to discriminate and bemoaned interference by goodgoody liberals in trying to stop them. You called this, amazingly, a "fundamental right". — Landru Guide Us

No I don't. Fundamental rights are given by each state in particular. There are no rights beyond the state. A man by birth has no more rights than a tiger has.

So stop pretending. It's clear you just don't like gays, and probably other minorities, and have hit upon the idea of noninterference with oppressive regimes (my that is so important!) as a justification. — Landru Guide Us

A lie often repeated will soon start to be believed. Said Hitler. Seems like you are keen on applying his tactics :)

↪Agustino But that's shown to be utterly wrong throughout history. We've had regimes, for example, that locked-up, murdered and otherwise ostracised gay people for fucking centuries. — TheWillowOfDarkness

And we had regimes which didn't. What do you mean to say, that the world is very diverse in its customs and what it deems acceptable or not? Sure it is! But just like one culture deems it unacceptable to use hallucinogenic drugs, another culture deems it unacceptable to engage in gay sex. What's wrong with that? Cultural norms - that's all.

If a an oppressed group doesn't gain "an advantage" they are still oppressed. — TheWillowOfDarkness

No, all that needs to happen is that oppressed groups stop being oppressed, not that they gain advantages. That is like desiring that the poor replace the rich - nonsense.

Slaveowners could do whatever they wanted to their slaves. If you think conservatives can do whatever they want to you, then I suggest you seek the help of a medical professional. — Agustino

There is room for conservative ideology to justify interference and harm on the grounds that the group being interfered with and harmed is not included in the group to which the rights apply (note: this is not exclusive to conservatism). A freedom principle does not assign inclusion to the group whereas an equality principle in theory aims to offer an inclusion criteria. A freedom principle is applied once inclusion has been granted and can be a secondary principle to the equality principle. An equality principle is not without flaws and susceptible to special pleading as well, but it offers a somewhat more tangible principle to appeal to for the mechanism of upholding rights.

Hitler was a socialist — Agustino

Hitler wasn't much of a socialist.

True, early on he took over a little German political group which maybe had some socialist-type intentions, but that was more opportunist than anything else. The neglect of socialist programming became a small issue in the National Socialist German Workers' Party (German: Nationalsozialistische Deutsche Arbeiterpartei, abbreviated NSDAP), AKA, the Nazi Party.

It merely claims that homosexuals should be helped to live under regimes which favor their disposition. — Agustino

While this seems like a sensible response, it ignores a potential (and potent) harm of social and psychological displacement. It shouldn't be expected that a person is asked to leave friends and family in exchange for security. The two needs (social and safety) are basic needs, and a society that fails to meet the basic needs of individuals in that society loses legitimacy (from within).

It doesn't follow that because I personally disagree with them, others must also disagree. — Agustino

I included everyone in my statement, i.e. those who do and those who do not condemn other ways of life. My point, once again, is that the ability to freely express one's opinion either way would itself be made impossible in certain cultures/countries. Therefore, by merely expressing your opinion, you have rejected said cultures and so cannot be inclusive to all of them. Some of them must be destroyed in order for you and others like you to live.

But let us remember that Socrates deemed it morally despicable if he were to run away from the court which had unfairly sentenced him to death. He argued that since he had accepted those laws from the very beginning, and had been greatly helped by being a citizen, and he never departed to a different region of the world, he had an obligation to follow the law even when he disagreed with it :) Instead, we have people in this thread who argue that homosexuals in Iran SHOULDN'T respect the law of their countries... — Agustino

Yes, but I'm not beholden to everything Socrates allegedly said. His cosmopolitanism is worth keeping, whereas his other positions can be argued over on their own terms.

I have yet to see a society founded upon the morally reprehensible survive and thrive. Those things can and do happen - but they are generally brought to an end by the community in which they happen sooner or later. I believe that communities, having the freedom to govern themselves, necessarily make mistakes and learn from them, just like we have made mistakes and learned from them. — Agustino

Yes, morally bankrupt societies usually don't survive long, but they often attempt to bring down everyone and everything with them when they implode. Free societies have an obligation to prevent atrocities and protect the people living under barbaric regimes.

I don't disagree. Keep in mind that I am all for bombing Syria, and annihilating ISIS. Why? Because ISIS poses a threat to the sovereignty and national security of other countries, and therefore other countries have to react by destroying them. — Agustino

Now, see, this is interesting, and not at all the impression you gave in the OP, which implied a very conservative isolationism. I know in today's completely warped political discourse, those who would be in favor of greater military action are alleged to be on the right, but in fact, and historically speaking, this would be a leftist position.

HItchens was mostly just dumb. Gallaway really wiped him out in his debate with him over Iraq. — Landru Guide Us

I just want to point out that Agustino referenced Peter Hitchens, the brother of the late Christopher Hitchens. Peter was against the war in Iraq and to my knowledge has never debated that human turd Galloway. It was Christopher who debated him and supported the Iraq war, rightly in my opinion.

We don't seem to be doing all that well as philosophers when it comes to left, right, conservative, liberal, democratic, authoritarian, and so on.

Crusty, carnivorous conservative capitalists exploit people with gusto. True. So do svelte, vegan, liberal capitalists. I prefer the friendlier face of liberal capitalism, but on pay day one is just as exploited by the friendly-faced capitalist. There is a difference between cryptofascist KKK conservatives and earnest Catholic conservatives who tend to the demands of the Gospel, for instance. And so on...

Political, economic, social, religious, sexual, blah blah blah ALL occur in a spectrum of forms. Individuals, by chance, necessity, or design, mix and match. So do societies. We are always (almost always, anyway) confronting a gradient of mixed human phenomena.

There is too much meme slinging going on. However much it may work as a rhetorical technique in PR, political campaigns, or war, it doesn't serve us well here.

My bad.

Hitler was a socialist — Agustino

Straight from the Breitbart meme machine.

Now you're reduced to the reverso-meme, talking the hard right ideology of Nazism, and pretending it's crypto-leftist. I love the smell of desperation in the morning.

And you wonder why thinking people never take anything a conservative says seriously.

Ok, so show me where. All of us have big mouths, but let's see, can we walk the talk as well? — Agustino

The back track meme. Conservatives post a statement, then contradict it, and when pointed out, say they never said it. Even though it's sitting there in a prior post. You can also call this the Nathan Thurm meme.

No I don't. Fundamental rights are given by each state in particular. There are no rights beyond the state. A man by birth has no more rights than a tiger has. — Agustino

Fancy lingo all in the service of combating "leftists" from stopping persecution of gays. A noble cause indeed.