undefined | Better HN

0 pointscookiecaper11y ago0 comments

I'm going to let PG do the legwork for me here:

>I suspect the only taboos that are more than taboos are the ones that are universal, or nearly so. Murder for example. But any idea that's considered harmless in a significant percentage of times and places, and yet is taboo in ours, is a good candidate for something we're mistaken about.

Again, from his essay on taboos. [1] Most everything you've cited as an objective wrong was practically universally considered an objective good nary 60 years ago. The morality around slavery was so murky that a years-long civil war was fought between the opposing sides on that issue. Are we just supposed to believe that everyone that lived south of the Mason-Dixon line was naturally insipid, evil, and amoral? As PG states, unless it's universally regarded as evil across all (or nearly all) civilizations, it's very likely that a particular taboo does not cross into the "objectively evil" territory. Slavery has been pretty widespread throughout human history, so that should clue you in that there are possible morally sympathetic readings of it (which usually hinge on the belief that the enslaved group is naturally inferior and couldn't survive without the master group).

>As always, if it were about kids and reproduction, we wouldn't allow infertile and senior couples to marry.

I disagree based on two important elements. Heterosexual couples could become fertile at any time; you never know when infertility will reverse itself if the couple is otherwise healthy and under 40. Post-menopausal women or other permanently sterile heterosexual partners are OK because they are examples that reinforce the need for permanent heterosexual coupling and family structure, even if they are unable to produce children on their own, and secondarily, they can provide a natural parenting context with male-female parental duality, as biologically mandated, if they ever obtain a ward. Homosexual sexual activity can never result in reproduction and can not provide the male-female parental duality that is necessary to produce a child by natural means.

Marriage is really about all of society, and not really about the couple that gets married. It is fine for one to believe that gay marriage is beneficial, but it's not fine to pretend like there is no change in the behavior endorsed and that opposition is based solely on discriminatory motives. Whatever you say you are, or whatever you actually are, heterosexual coupling and homosexual coupling are two different behaviors that could have differing ramifications on society as a whole. Thus, the cost-benefit is worthy of some consideration, and differing opinions are fine, even using a standard that disallows all "discriminatory" rationale (which standard can't really be considered an objective good either).

I'm not really trying to escalate this into a debate on gay marriage, but I think it's important to delineate the logic that gay rights campaigners fight hard to obscure. Gay rights advocates don't want a conversation to get started; they just want everyone to believe that their opponents are naturally evil, so they go around and make a frowny face until it gets people like Brendan Eich kicked out of jobs, and they can then point at Eich and say "He was so evil he got fired! Only evil people would dare oppose us".

Perhaps you don't believe a male-female parental duality is important. Perhaps you don't believe that marriage is an institution that deserves state protection or benefits. Perhaps you don't see any meaning in the evolutionary imperative that children can only be produced by opposite-sex partners. All of this is well and good. You are welcome to your beliefs. The important thing is to accept that others are welcome to their beliefs too, even if they differ from yours, and that that doesn't automatically make them "lesser human beings" (or "bigots", the currently popular shorthand).

>The government should clearly not be subsidizing relationships at all, but since it is, it must do so fairly. Even our insane Supreme Court realized this vis-a-vis DOMA. The 14th amendment is very clear.

The 14th Amendment is anything but "very clear", and again, the fact that there have been so many differing interpretations of it is evidence that its meaning and implications are debatable by reasonable persons. It's a bad, broad law.

[1] http://www.paulgraham.com/say.html

0 comments

byuu11y ago

> Most everything you've cited as an objective wrong was practically universally considered an objective good nary 60 years ago

Again, it doesn't matter what the popular opinion was on this. PG stops at murder. I stop at looking at other human beings as inferior life forms based on immutable traits.

I am supremely confident that in 60 years, my specific views won't be viewed as bigoted by future generations.

> Are we just supposed to believe that everyone that lived south of the Mason-Dixon line was naturally insipid, evil, and amoral?

Everyone that lived south of the Mason-Dixon and believed that black people were property? Which would be a majority, but certainly not every single person in the south then? Yes. Yes they were.

> which usually hinge on the belief that the enslaved group is naturally inferior and couldn't survive without the master group

Black people seemed to be subsisting just fine in Africa before being dragged over here on slave ships.

> you never know when infertility will reverse itself if the couple is otherwise healthy and under 40

So you support banning marriage after the age of 40 then, got it.

> Post-menopausal women or other permanently sterile heterosexual partners are OK because they are examples that reinforce the need for permanent heterosexual coupling and family structure, even if they are unable to produce children on their own

... or not.

What an unbelievable load of horse shit you are spewing. I can't honestly believe you typed that with a straight face.

If you're going to be this fatuous, then I'm not even going to bother with the rest of your post.

But just so you don't claim this is an ad hominem attack: the APA (and most every other unbiased organization that have studied this issue in depth) disagrees with your bigoted narrative: http://www.apa.org/monitor/2010/10/adopted-children.aspx

It doesn't matter anyway, you've already lost on this issue. The USSC is going to reverse the last 17 states holding out this summer. You can go pout about it with the anti-miscegenation crowd.

eropple11y ago

It does blow my mind something fierce that "but but it might be you next time" is a serious argument in this. I'm not bigoted, I default to inclusion. Unless we have a serious uprising of the regressive right, I have nothing to fear. And I have much more to fear if they come to power than "Ed said nice things about gay people."

cookiecaperOP11y ago

Like I said, I'm not trying to escalate this into a debate on gay marriage, so I'm going to ignore that you hand-waved away the whole point with an answer equivalent to "nuh uh". Wholesale refusal to discuss internally rational lines of thought is the result of dogma, not rationality, which would calmly approach and deconstruct the topic. Unlike many others, whether I ultimately agree or not, I'm not willing to discard a point of view just because an activist attempts to proclaim it thoughtcrime by slapping a label on the speaker like "bigot". What are you afraid to address? As PG's essay says, if the thought is actually outlandish, no one really cares -- hostility like this only emerges if there is concern that the line of thought will become widespread, which is only a concern when the line of thought is internally rational.

I guess your argument is "the APA says they're wrong", and that therefore, they should not be tolerated? No one could ever rationally doubt the APA? I don't know if you're familiar with the history on it, but the removal of homosexuality as a disorder from the DSM was based purely on politics; there was no paper that triggered scientific reconciliation, there was no new data. Since the APA has insisted on calling into question the licensing of persons who may dare to contradict it on this matter, you can't honestly believe that the issue has been thoroughly explored or reviewed, just as we don't believe that the 99.9% election results in favor of third-world despots actually reflect the will of the people. Regardless of your personal feelings, a person can't look at this process, decide they disagree with the APA's conclusion, and continue to have the right to work?

Personally, agreement with all APA policies is not one of the fundamental requirements I look for in my job candidates that have nothing whatsoever to do with the field of psychology, but to each his own, I guess. Remember, you're not just saying these people "are wrong" or "have lost", but that their beliefs are so troublesome that they shouldn't be protected in their freedom to work.

American principles of tolerance and civil discourse are greatly imperiled by the rising prominence of such hostile positions, and democracy itself is threatened by this behavior.

PG stops at murder because it's one of the only moral standards that is practically constant. You stop at "lesser human beings" because it's convenient for the line of propaganda you've swallowed. Should we allow the mentally disabled or decrepit full freedom lest they be considered "lesser human beings"? Should all parents of Downs Syndrome or other profoundly retarded children be deprived of their supervisory and guardianship privileges over adult children lest these be classified "lesser human beings"? Why is it OK for them to be lesser but not others? There are very few answers you can provide here that are consistent with the moral box you've crafted for yourself.

Consider where your assertion that most antebellum Southerners were frankly evil leads. Where did it lead? People in both the North and the South got worked up about this and stirred to believe things like you just claimed about the opposite side. What's the logical result if you honestly believe "a majority" of persons that adhere to an opposing ideology are frankly evil?

Aren't you automatically classifying people as "lesser human beings" by stating that their opinions are not worthy of basic respect, and wouldn't that make you a hypocrite? Should anyone who holds these opinions be executed?

If we acknowledge that almost all significant world religions espouse very different perspectives than you've expressed, would you support doing something about that? Perhaps we should outlaw these religious groups. What should we do with the people who refuse to recant their religious traditions? Should they be incarcerated? Perhaps a labor camp of some type would be useful for this. What do you say? How much value is the work of frankly evil people, like those who express a belief in Abrahamic tradition, anyway? Wouldn't you always be afraid they were going to do some sneaky, evil thing? The uses for this class are rapidly dwindling. What next?

This sort of hate always leads in the same direction. Do not make the mistake of believing that while everyone who has done similar things throughout history was bad, YOUR beliefs are objectively righteous, and that makes it OK for you. It really doesn't matter what the beliefs are or whether they are objectively right or not once they infect someone with the actual hatred you've expressed (not the "hatred" that your camp claims motivates anyone who dissents for any reason), the results are never pretty. I hope you awaken to this before it's too late.

j / k navigate · click thread line to collapse