I'm not Hitchens, and so I'm often not as articulate when I speak as when I write. But here, after some thought, is what I find annoying about Charlie the Atheist Homophobe's arguments.
His obsession with words and their proper definitions would be a lot more persuasive if he weren't being so self-serving and hypocritical about how he argues his position. When he called Tracie and me two weeks ago, the burden of his argument was that the word homophobia has a colloquial meaning that has changed and evolved from its dictionary definition, so as to incorporate such things as "disgust" rather than strictly "irrational fear" (the meaning of "phobia" in a nutshell). Charlie was supportive of this evolution of homophobia's meaning, of course.
But he is not similarly supportive of a change and evolution of the definition of marriage. While homophobia gets to expand its meaning to include a variety of emotional states, marriage does not get to expand its meaning to include a variety of relationship commitments, including same-sex couples (even though the almighty dictionary says it can). And Charlie's whole justification for opposing any expansion of marriage's definition is an appeal to tradition and consensus, the very things he thinks should be ignored in the case of homophobia.
It's a pure double standard, of the sort that people who are smart enough to know better often hold, so as to convince themselves that an intellectually and morally offensive point of view is in fact intellectually and morally justified. But as Russell said, if the guy isn't actually out to impinge on anyone's rights, then his word games are just so much noise.
I personally still don't get why people so desperately latch onto these kinds of justifications. I'd find it ridiculously presumptuous of me to instruct a couple of strangers, who happened to be consenting adults, on what term they were allowed to apply to their personal relationship commitment, because "traditional" terms made me uncomfortable. If gay people want to be married and call it "marriage," how does that harm me? How does it negatively impact my life in any degree whatsoever? What's it got to do with me anyway? Nothing, that's what.
And yet Charlie is so desperate to justify his folly that he'll call my position irrational. Whatever. Seems to me the dude's on no more sensible, let alone honest, ground than Tony Perkins.
Calm down. you have committed the "No True Scotsman Fallacy" right there. If you are not going to cite sources when you make claims like this then it is pointless to continue. You could just make things up. Also it doesn't show a damaged brain it shows a different brain. maybe mercury is the process that nature uses to induce homosexuality in birds.
ReplyDeleteNow Charlie is just being intellectually dishonest, there's quite a bit of research out there on homosexuality in other species. To focus on some study with mercury is being willfully ignorant.
ReplyDeleteCitation, since posting one seems to be a rite of passage in this thread:
http://www.news-medical.net/news/2006/10/23/20718.aspx
Also, I'm wondering if Charlie is familiar or maybe apart of those racist nationalists that Dillahunty recently wrote a note about on his facebook page.
If it is no better or worse the why wont you allow them to be included in the marriage label?
ReplyDelete"Blacks are 12.6% of the country and were 46% of all new AIDS cases last year. 75% of which came from heterosexual contact"
ReplyDeleteTHIS IS DECEIT AND TRICKERY.
1. STudy shows black GAY AND BISEXUAL MEN are fueling the hiv rates among blacks
http://www.aidsmeds.com/articles/hiv_black_young_1667_13623.shtml
2. Study shows proverty, not race is linked to hiv rates.
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2010/07/19/health/main6691867.shtml
ej AND MARTIN
ReplyDelete"Now Charlie is just being intellectually dishonest, there's quite a bit of research out there on homosexuality in other species"
That's a straw man fallacy. Christians use those a lot...
I never claimed that homosexuality and mental disorders don't occur in many species
Mental disorders and homosexuality occur throughout nature
Mental disorders and homosexuality are both caused by environmental and genetic factors although the genetic factors are weak.
Abnormal brain structures have been detected in mental disorders and homosexuality.
HAPPY NOW????
@atheistdeceitbuster For someone who loves to shout "STRAW MAN!" you seem to put a lot of them forward. Mercury poisoning can cause irritability. Does that mean that all irritability is brain damage? Is mercury poisoning necessary for homosexuality? Are birds humans? You are putting forth one unsourced study suggesting correlation in a separate species as causation in another.
ReplyDeleteAlso, we can now add "NO TRUE SCOTTSMAN" to your list of fallacies, because no REAL MAN WITH a whole male brain would use that argument.
Actually it's not, it's a separate statistic.
ReplyDeleteWhat is "deceit and trickery" is you saying that they are fueling the HIV rates when that site only says that they are the fastest growing population. The fact that they are the fastest growing does not mean they are the majority. Seeing that your study was done in 2007 and the results I posted were done in 2008. Gays are still the minority of black AIDS cases.
Here's a fallacy for you, it's called special pleading. You can't dismiss the AIDS among blacks because of ulterior reasons and be numb to the contributing factors of the high AIDS rate among gays.
The identity of marriage has always been about man and woman
ReplyDeleteSimply not true. It's the most common form, but by no means the only one. Not presently and not historically.
"If it is no better or worse the why wont you allow them to be included in the marriage label?"
ReplyDeleteBecause we value the established identity of marriage.
According to your argument, there's nothing wrong with changing the identity of everything including ethnic groups, races, cars, countries, states, genders,ect
let's change the definion of man to mean man or woman.
Your argument is flawed
@atheistdeceitbuster- You sure do love that word "strawman fallacy" don't you? The implication in your argument (a segment mentioned below) was that homosexuality is not natural and takes a damaged brain for an animal to engage in it. I have not strawmanned you in attacking a part of your argument where you strongly imply that homosexuality in animals is not a natural occurence in your little sexist quip about social bonding.
ReplyDelete"Mercury poison causing birds to go gay is a clear indication of a DAMAGED BRAIN
There's a difference between social bonding and a male bending over like a bitch to get fucked like a bitch. REAL MEN WITH whole male brains don't do shit like that."
"Are birds humans?"
ReplyDeleteI'm not the one who mentioned other species to begin with. IF you want to discuss other species, we can. If you don't then dont mention them because I will mention mercury poison
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteActually you said just that....
ReplyDelete"If your claim was true, many birds wouldn't need to be exposed to MERCURY POISON to go gay.
Mercury poison causing birds to go gay is a clear indication of a DAMAGED BRAIN
There's a difference between social bonding and a male bending over like a bitch to get fucked like a bitch. REAL MEN WITH whole male brains don't do shit like that."
Anyone with inductive reasoning skills can see that you are saying that no normal species would exhibit homosexual behavior.
I hate to say this to another person, but Charlie you are just not an intelligent person. You don't get that you don't get it. I'm also skeptical of your claim that you think gays deserve equal rights if you would say something like "There's a difference between social bonding and a male bending over like a bitch to get fucked like a bitch."
Often times as an atheist you will reach a point in a religious debate where you realize that a person has a portion of their psyche barricaded against reason. I am now at that point.
Even if you do talk about other species (in this case birds), you're only talking about one kind of species. What about black swans, mallards,or even vultures?
ReplyDelete"is you saying that they are fueling the HIV rates when that site only says that they are the fastest growing population"
ReplyDeletethis is easy
black GAY men have the highest cases of hiv
http://www.canada.com/theprovince/news/story.html?id=82999935-1457-4d81-b88f-836719746f43
hiv linked to proverty, not race
http://abcnews.go.com/Health/wireStory?id=11194623
Wow, Charlie sure likes to SHOUT when he rebuffs those slippery LOGICAL FALLACIES!!!! ZOMG!!! Time for a commenters ethics panel...
ReplyDelete"is you saying that they are fueling the HIV rates when that site only says that they are the fastest growing population"
ReplyDeletethis is easy
black GAY men have the highest cases of hiv
http://www.canada.com/theprovince/news/story.html?id=82999935-1457-4d81-b88f-836719746f43
Did you note that the article has nothing to say about causation? Have you heard of the phrase "correlation does not equal causation"?
The biggest spread of HIV/AIDS, ultimately, is non-monogamous and large numbers of relationships.
It's very hard to be monogamous when society persecutes you, and especially doesn't let you establish the #1 arrangement to be monogamous. Thus, allowing them to marry would likely reduce the infection rates. So ironically, the rationale for disallowing them from marrying would be one of the main causes of them having that reason.
Now, I know what you're likely to say "LOLOLOL STRAWMAN!! YOU LIKE CHRISTIAN"
You're also saying that it's not that they can't [go through functional process the same as marriage]. Obviously, all these citations about diseases and harm and whatever are 100% unambiguously moot to the question of whether they should be allowed to [go through functional process the same as marriage].
As you just earlier pointed out, it comes down to "disrespecting" marriage. So why all these references to "studies" to show how awful male homosexuality is?
The labeling doesn't change whether there's any harm, or not.
If it comes down to just a word, then the conversation is over. I don't care about disrespecting the word, when definitions change over time. I care about disrespecting people, which you have given plenty of evidence that you don't.
Sorry, mods, I'm not sure if it failed or hit spam filter, so trying again.
ReplyDelete"is you saying that they are fueling the HIV rates when that site only says that they are the fastest growing population"
this is easy
black GAY men have the highest cases of hiv
http://www.canada.com/theprovince/news/story.html?id=82999935-1457-4d81-b88f-836719746f43
Did you note that the article has nothing to say about causation? Have you heard of the phrase "correlation does not equal causation"?
The biggest spread of HIV/AIDS, ultimately, is non-monogamous and large numbers of relationships.
It's very hard to be monogamous when society persecutes you, and especially doesn't let you establish the #1 arrangement to be monogamous. Thus, allowing them to marry would likely reduce the infection rates. So ironically, the rationale for disallowing them from marrying would be one of the main causes of them having that reason.
Now, I know what you're likely to say "LOLOLOL STRAWMAN!! YOU LIKE CHRISTIAN"
You're also saying that it's not that they can't [go through functional process the same as marriage]. Obviously, all these citations about diseases and harm and whatever are 100% unambiguously moot to the question of whether they should be allowed to [go through functional process the same as marriage].
As you just earlier pointed out, it comes down to "disrespecting" marriage. So why all these references to "studies" to show how awful male homosexuality is?
The labeling doesn't change whether there's any harm, or not.
If it comes down to just a word, then the conversation is over. I don't care about disrespecting the word, when definitions change over time. I care about disrespecting people, which you have given plenty of evidence that you don't.
"In our minds, marriage is all about man and woman. When we think of marriage, man and woman comes to mind."
ReplyDeleteAs others have quite rightly pointed out, this is in YOUR mind, when I think of marriage I think of the legalities and responsibilities involved between 2 parties. Why? Because I think it's a stupid idea and has no merit beyond legal advantages.
Many other people think of other things, love, commitment etc, they're not as jaded as me obviously.
The point is people see it differently, society is diverse and you appear to be the only person here who is asserting their view on marriage is somehow the de-facto.
"Disgust of gay men causes humans to avoid gay men because our brains hae evoled to develop a behavior immune system."
This is quite frankly the most laughable thing I've read in a long time.
Do you have any credible sources that indicate that homosexuals are any kind of a risk to heterosexuals when it comes to spreading disease?
Disgust is an emotion, not everyone has it, it's clearly not evolutionary in this case because not all, in fact very few people have this kind of behaviour. It's more than likely nurture rather than nature, your social bias has caused you to view homosexuality as disgusting, the same way Muslims are disgusted when people draw Mohammed.
Why don't you make like the rest of the 21st century and drop your social bias and replace it with a bit of acceptance, come to terms that homosexuality doesn't threaten you or your manhood and just get over it.
"REAL MEN WITH whole male brains don't do shit like that." "
ReplyDeleteCrux of the issue. REAL MEN are threatened by being associated with that. Charlie is probably also fairly misogynistic going by this logic.
"Even if you do talk about other species (in this case birds), you're only talking about one kind of species. What about black swans, mallards,or even vultures? "
Blackswans? I see what you did there ;)
Not to mention Bonobos. You know our closest non-human relative?
Martin,
ReplyDeleteHomosexuality is no more natural than mental disorders.
Again, Mental disorders and homosexuality occur in many species.
Mental disorders and homosexuality are both caused by environmental and genetic factors although the genetic factors are weak.
Regardless of my gender or sexuality I would never TOUCH someone like Charlie. He is in no way a REAL MAN to me at all. The thought of any contact with him is repulsive.
ReplyDelete"Homosexuality is no more natural than mental disorders.
ReplyDeleteAgain, Mental disorders and homosexuality occur in many species.
Mental disorders and homosexuality are both caused by environmental and genetic factors although the genetic factors are weak. "
It's not a mental disorder. That's what people are trying to tell you. It's a natural behavior on a preference spectrum.
There are even strong evolutionary reasons why homosexuality would be selected FOR.
"Gay relationships were esteemed and valued in other societies"
ReplyDeletebut what happened??? Something obviously went wrong and people turned completely against homosexuality
History repeats itself often so don't expect a gay utopia.
"but what happened??? Something obviously went wrong and people turned completely against homosexuality"
ReplyDeleteWestern Imperialism.
You know...the sort of thing that introduced slavery. You want to argue that?
Hey you know what, Africans used to have great civilizations and empires. What happened there!? There must be a reason Black run society always goes to shit /spits
You're a disgusting bigot
"History repeats..."
ReplyDeleteWhen people don't learn from it. Finish the quote if you're going to paraphrase it, bigot.
"It's not a mental disorder. That's what people are trying to tell you. It's a natural behavior on a preference spectrum"
ReplyDeleteThat's a straw man fallacy. You pro gay atheists are constantly proving that you are argue like Christians.
I never claimed that homosexuality is a mental disorder. My point is, they are similar regarding nature.
And no I don't accept any ideas of racial superiority or that. But I don't reject that because of ideology, my ideology is formed because of the evidence showing the contrary. Charlie should tread carefully because the same sorts of studies have been done to argue blacks as inherently less intelligent or recently less attractive.
ReplyDelete"I never claimed that homosexuality is a mental disorder. My point is, they are similar regarding nature. "
ReplyDeleteYou fucking liar.
"REAL MEN WITH whole male brains don't do shit like that.""
People can check what you say. You are a liar.
And a fucking blind hypocrite, Charlie you argue more like a Christian than any atheist I've ever seen.
Western Imperialism.
ReplyDelete"You know...the sort of thing that introduced slavery. You want to argue that?"
As an atheist, you should know that negative events causes people to run to religion. When people dont understand something that's not good, they turn to relgion for answers.
People didn't understand their disgust of gay men so they turned to religion for answers.
Charlie you do not know what any of the fallacies mean so stop using them.
ReplyDelete"As an atheist, you should know that negative events causes people to run to religion. When people dont understand something that's not good, they turn to relgion for answers.
ReplyDeletePeople didn't understand their disgust of gay men so they turned to religion for answers. "
No you idiot. Religion introduced the taboo. The cultures did not HAVE disgust as you know it. That's what we've established.
You cannot assert that into reality.
I'm going to make a point and not refer to anyone else in doing so. This is to avoid having the word "fallacy" thrown at me in relation to someone else's statements.
ReplyDeleteIf a person posits that the word "marriage" is to only apply heterosexual couples and some other word (I'll use "shmarriage") is to refer only to homosexual couples, and both words give the respected couples equal rights under the law, then that person is arguing:
1) to restrict the definition of "marriage" to mean a union that excludes homosexuals.
and
2) for the use of a new term for homosexual unions that are in every way equal to marriage under the law
If we use the word "institution" in conjunction with "marriage" (institution of marriage), then I propose that we should also use it in conjunction with "shmarriage" in the same way (institution of shmarriage), since they are essentially the same thing except for the sexual preferences of the respected parties.
We now have two separate institutions that are completely equal in regards to the law. Separate but equal.
I'm starting to think Fagbashing is Charlie's religion. He even crafted that nice origin myth for it.
ReplyDelete@atheistdeceitbuster
ReplyDeleteJust curious, but is there any amount of evidence that would change your mind on this issue? If so, what would it take?
"You fucking liar"
ReplyDeleteTHE QUOTE below is not insinuating that gays are mentally ill.
"REAL MEN WITH whole male brains don't do shit like that"
Are you ready to feel stupid???
Simply having a abnormal brain structure is not neccessarily a mental disorder.
you FAILED AGAIN
@Ghostcat
ReplyDeleteMy theory is a six pack /snark
"It's not a mental disorder. That's what people are trying to tell you. It's a natural behavior on a preference spectrum"
ReplyDeleteThat's a straw man fallacy. You pro gay atheists are constantly proving that you are argue like Christians.
I never claimed that homosexuality is a mental disorder. My point is, they are similar regarding nature.
It was just a coincidence Charlie put those two together.
I mean, if someone had said "Mental disorders and black people occur throughout nature", Charlie absolutely would not have drawn any association between those two things just happening to be lumped together.
I myself frequently bring up two completely unrelated things in the same sentence that have nothing to do with one another beyond the fact they both exist. It's called communication skills.
"Are you ready to feel stupid???
ReplyDeleteSimply having a abnormal brain structure is not neccessarily a mental disorder.
you FAILED AGAIN "
Yet you argue like it is, knowing people would take it that way. That necessarily is lying.
http://xkcd.com/169/
Klans men and Charlie are alike.
ReplyDeleteBecause they're both made of carbon..nothing beyond that.
Charlie you haven't by any chance been on the Infidel Guy Show have you? Because you're argument and insane style of repetition and bigotry is frightfully familiar.
ReplyDelete"Just curious, but is there any amount of evidence that would change your mind on this issue? If so, what would it take?"
ReplyDeleteEvidence regarding what?
There's evidence in my favor, not yours..Im the one whos been citing studies.
As far as gay marriage is concerned, it's about identities. Nothing more an nothing less and there's evidence that marriage is an identity of husband and wife.
If gays accepted a word similar to marriage with full rights, I would support them.
Charlie let me fill you in.
ReplyDeleteI am not talking to you because I believe you have anything valid to say.
I am not talking to you because you are remotely intelligent.
I am not talking to you to convince you.
I am talking to you to keep you talking because I know that you yourself are the best fucking evidence against your argument. Keeping you talking lets you lay out more and more of your bile and bigotry and shows everyone exactly what your type are like.
"If gays accepted a word similar to marriage with full rights, I would support them. '
ReplyDeleteThen why not marriage? What harm does it do?
@Charlie
ReplyDeleteDisgust is a disease avoidance behavior, not a phobia.
This is a self-defeating definition. Avoidance is driven by fear: fear, however slight, of a consequence, however remote. You own definition incorporates fear: the fear of disease. "Disgust" is the reaction, avoidance the outcome.
Incidentally, disgust is not necessarily to do with disease. After all, the reaction you're garnering here is not really the result of people equating your views to a physical disease, but to their bleak and rather Orweallian upshot with regard to a free society.
@Barefoot Hiker
ReplyDeleteAnd even odder that he keeps coming to this and arguing that Homophobia with it's psychological implications is wrong...but this proves that it's right. He has a irrational fear/disgust and argues for it rather than acknowledging it's irrationality.
Fear is indeed the mindkiller. The little death that brings total mental oblivion
@Charlie
ReplyDeleteDifferent identities is not separate but equal
In this, you're correct; "separate but equal" is based on the exploitation of different identities, to the detriment of the identity with less political, social, or economic power.
@barefoot hiker
ReplyDeleteThe point we made with the separate but equal is that it's the same argument and the only reason to legally divide the separate identities is because one views one is inherently inferior.
I've had this argument with non-white racists "blank culture doesn't HATE the other race...they just don't want to mix with them and have their culture tainted" Tainted, by WHAT?
If gays accepted a word similar to marriage with full rights, I would support them.
ReplyDeleteSo now that we've got you on record about that statement, let me ask.
Do all the studies and discussion about how "bad" male homosexuality is no longer apply because the word "marriage" isn't used?
To Tom Bourgue
ReplyDelete"If we use the word "institution" in conjunction with "marriage" (institution of marriage), then I propose that we should also use it in conjunction with "shmarriage"
That's where you're creating your own argument to argue against in which makes it a straw man fallacy
Marriage and shmarriage can be under ONE institution...It's possible for One institution to have two entities
The instution of marriage consist of two entities in which are mariage and gayrriage.
So, it's not "separate but equal"
Nice attempt to use the struggles lf blacks as a DECEITFUL TACTIC.
Institute - to establish, organize and set in operation.
barefook hiker,
ReplyDelete"to the detriment of the identity with less political, social, or economic power"
this is a SLIPPERY SLOPE FALLACY.
Christians use those all the time.
We have blacks, whites, asians, ect. Does being labeled "black" gives me less political power? Did we have to change the label "black" to be allowed to vote?
@Charlie
ReplyDeleteThey're not even allowed to donate blood
Essentially because of attitudes like yours. One to one, straight people are just as prone to contracting, spreading, and dying of AIDS as gay people; they also indulge in unsafe sex; they also are prone to promiscuity. There's nothing particular about gay people relative to straight people in any of the regards that affect the spread of AIDS other than their partners are of the same gender -- and so this prohibition is, rightly, being legally challenged. After all, blood is screened no matter who gives it. Declaring you're not going to bother with blood from gay people on a basis you figure it's full of AIDS and not worth your time is every bit as prejudiced as refusing to accept blood from black people because it might end up in white people. Blood is NEEDED. Take it, test it, use it. Period. Anything else is blind prejudice that costs lives.
[b]That's where you're creating your own argument to argue against in which makes it a straw man fallacy[/b]
ReplyDeleteThis shows clearly that you have no idea what a straw man fallacy is. In order for it to be a straw man fallacy, I would have to be characterizing a person's argument in a fashion that is easier to argue against. I made no reference to anyone else.
Also, I made no reference to "the struggles of blacks".
Why are you opposed to marriage being inclusive towards gays. Simply saying it's an identity issue is loose grounds to oppose it. Have you considered that this is an identity issue for gays as well? That they are wanting to be recognized within the marital institution too and not wanting their kind to be dumbed down to the "schmarriages" of civil union (which doesn't always allot them equal rights). I don't think it's so much an identity issue for you as it is one of privileged bigotry. Why your blood curdles at the thought of homosexuals being associated with marriage, I know not why. But vying for exclusivity of the word on little basis other than "it's an identity issue" is a true portrait of how small-minded and fearful you are. I mean it's a word at its most inclusive meaning "a social union or legal contract between people that creates kinship". Since when did that come to mean "only people of heterosexual stature get this label"?
ReplyDelete"Avoidance is driven by fear"
ReplyDeleteThis is VAGUE AND IRRELEVANT.
Many things could cause avoidance. fEAR, ANGER, DISGUST, ECT.
The difference is, disgust SPECIFICALLY evolved as a disease avoidance behavior.
"to the detriment of the identity with less political, social, or economic power"
ReplyDeletethis is a SLIPPERY SLOPE FALLACY.
Please. Tell us what a slippery slope fallacy is, and how it applies here.
His premise is that not being able to get married doesn't give you the same rights as married couples would. He might not understand that you're supposedly for "full rights" of this alternative to marriage.
But even if that was your stance, that they wouldn't get full rights, it would be like saying:
Bob: "If they don't give me a soda, then I won't have a soda"
Charlie: "Slippery slope fallacy!"
.. because definitionally, your social/economic power, granted through marital rights, would not be granted.
Thomas,
ReplyDelete"In order for it to be a straw man fallacy, I would have to be characterizing a person's argument in a fashion that is easier to argue against"
that's exactly what you did... You FALSELY assumed I argued in favor of a separate institution in which I did not.
There's a difference between social bonding and a male bending over like a bitch to get fucked like a bitch. REAL MEN WITH whole male brains don't do shit like that.
ReplyDeleteIt took a while for the truth to out. But there it is. Like most homophobes, Charlie, in the end, is just a plain vanilla misogynist.
Charlie said:
ReplyDeleteThomas,
"In order for it to be a straw man fallacy, I would have to be characterizing a person's argument in a fashion that is easier to argue against"
that's exactly what you did... You FALSELY assumed I argued in favor of a separate institution in which I did not.
--------------------
I made no reference to you whatsoever.
As a gay person I honestly don't care what word you use for the legal contract that grants me the same rights as a straight person. Unfortunately, the word marriage is written into many legal contracts such as health insurance in companies. To get my insurance with my partner's company we had to pay twice as much as a heterosexual couple simply because we don't have the word marriage.
ReplyDeleteA marriage contract in the my state is less than 100 dollars, but to get one of the legal contracts that come with a marriage my partner and I will have to pay a lawyer 500 dollars for it, because I don't have the word marriage. There are over 1000 legal benefits that come automatically with marriage, start doing the math on that.
To say that we can get all the same rights and easier is an outright lie.
Charlie says we should already get the same rights just not the word. So Charlie go out and campaign to have all these legal documents changed so that the word marriage and whatever you want to call us mean the same thing when it comes to legal contracts. Though I don't think you'll do that because most of your arguments have been there to back up your disgust for us. Which is fine, I don't care if you like us, or if your disgusted by us.
Oh, also, even if my legal contract says schmarriage, I'm still going to say my partner and I are married, and what are you going to do about that? You can't own a word.
jt,
ReplyDelete"to the detriment of the identity with less political, social, or economic power"
"Please. Tell us what a slippery slope fallacy is, and how it applies here"
A slippery slope argument states that a relatively small first step leads to a chain of related events culminating in some...
He's FALSELY assuming different identities will lead to "less political, economic and social power".
Let's grant for a second that Charlie's assertions about the negativity of male homosexuality are true.
ReplyDeleteWhy does that matter if the "m-word" is used, but not if a 100% identical version, that doesn't use the "m-word", is used?
If we're talking about something that's functionally the same, the same bad consequences should apply to each. For some reason, he's fine with the harm done to the group using word-A, but not word-B.
If it just comes down to "respect", then I'm sorry, but we're not so irrational to assume that one's subjective perceptual opinion should dictate people's rights. We need something more logical and rational than that.
Tradition of words doesn't matter either, as they regularly grow over time. As others have pointed out, "marriage" has had by no means a one-definitional history. Get over it.
"Like most homophobes, Charlie, in the end, is just a plain vanilla misogynist"
ReplyDeleteThats a red herring fallacy
I love women. It just disgust me to think that some men play the role of women.
I don't usually call women bitches. I was just making a point.
jt,
ReplyDelete"to the detriment of the identity with less political, social, or economic power"
"Please. Tell us what a slippery slope fallacy is, and how it applies here"
A slippery slope argument states that a relatively small first step leads to a chain of related events culminating in some...
He's FALSELY assuming different identities will lead to "less political, economic and social power".
It's weird how you get what a slippery slope is, then totally misuse it.
I already explained this. His error is not understanding that you are okay with them having the same rights - not about a slippery slope.
If he was right and you were not in favor of giving them the same rights, it would be definitionally less "less political, economic and social power" - because they'd not be receiving the same "less political, economic and social power".
Marriage is more than just two people being together. There's tax deductions. There's automatic right granting over spouses. Etc.
So if you don't grant that, they'd have less. Where exactly is the slippery slope?
Jt,
ReplyDeleteYou're way way way off base. I have to say the same thing to Christians.
"Let's grant for a second that Charlie's assertions about the negativity of male homosexuality are true"
"Why does that matter if the "m-word" is used, but not if a 100% identical version, that doesn't use the "m-word", is used?"
First of all, that's a loaded question and a straw man fallacy.
My argument regarding Disgust of gays is unrelated to my argument regarding the gay marriage issue.
They are two completely different arguments.
"It just disgust me to think that some men play the role of women."
ReplyDeleteThen stop thinking about gay sex all the time, seems simple enough. You don't have to participate in it, you don't have to watch gay porn, you don't even have to think about it.
jt,
ReplyDelete"If he was right and you were not in favor of giving them the same rights"
but he was not right as usual so that's another straw man fallacy..I'm in favor of gays having full rights without the word marriage.
jt,
ReplyDelete"If he was right and you were not in favor of giving them the same rights"
but he was not right as usual so that's another straw man fallacy..I'm in favor of gays having full rights without the word marriage.
So do you concede that it wasn't a slippery slope then?
Are you going to answer my question about the relevancy of the "harmful" effects of male homosexuality to whether the "m-word" is used or not?
..or the relevancy of an irrational emotion like "respect" to guide us in making that decision?
"Then stop thinking about gay sex all the time"
ReplyDeleteThat's a straw man fallacy
You simply don't get it.
Gendered views aren't wrong or right.
My views are very gendered. So as soon as I know a man is gay, I automatically view him as playing the role of women. It's not thinking about "sex". It's just that he likes men in a sexual way and according to my gendered views, that's the role of women, not men.
"Let's grant for a second that Charlie's assertions about the negativity of male homosexuality are true"
ReplyDelete"Why does that matter if the "m-word" is used, but not if a 100% identical version, that doesn't use the "m-word", is used?"
First of all, that's a loaded question and a straw man fallacy.
What does my question assume that makes it loaded? I'm curious if you know what this fallacy is too.
My argument regarding Disgust of gays is unrelated to my argument regarding the gay marriage issue.
Ah, so that's why no one can understand your shitty communication skills, and thus, keep misunderstanding you. You have two separate arguments going on.
Do you understand that if you can't explain yourself, and people misunderstand you, that it might not be because they're using fallacies?
They are two completely different arguments.
Then I guess the one I'm interested in is the "m-word" issue.
jt,
ReplyDelete"Are you going to answer my question about the relevancy of the "harmful" effects of male homosexuality to whether the "m-word" is used or not?"
It's disrespectful towards our valued identity of marriage. So disrespect is simply unethical.
It's not about "harm" it's about respect and good ethics.
Not only did he use a slippery slope fallacy, he used a straw man fallacy in which lead to the slippery slope fallacy
Again that's YOUR problem. If you've come to find yourself deeply obsessed with your own idea of gender roles, it's not the homosexuals fault that YOU think that men should love women not men. I find it hard to believe that you don't have cognitive dissonance in how you'd support full rights of gays using a different definition but you still harbor hegemonic disgust for homosexuality.
ReplyDeleteApparently I should have read that last post backwards. I see the "loaded" part now.
ReplyDeleteAs loosely as you use the term, all statements are loaded, because they're ALL assuming something. Go figure. There's a little more to it than that.
Jt,
ReplyDelete"Ah, so that's why no one can understand your shitty communication skills, and thus, keep misunderstanding you"
Its not my fault that you FALSELY assume shit without even checking. The problem is, you pro gay atheists are used to debating with Christians so you assume that I used their same arguments...
jt,
ReplyDelete"Are you going to answer my question about the relevancy of the "harmful" effects of male homosexuality to whether the "m-word" is used or not?"
It's disrespectful towards our valued identity of marriage. So disrespect is simply unethical.
Respect has nothing to do with ethics. Ethics is about how to handle morally ambiguous problems.
I don't respect you. That's not unethical.
Again, if it comes down to "respect", your argument has no basis in rationality.
Not only did he use a slippery slope fallacy, he used a straw man fallacy in which lead to the slippery slope fallacy
Do I have to explain it a third time? He did not use a slippery slope.
The fact that not giving Bob a soda means he doesn't have a soda is not a slippery slope.
It's either that, or you have constructed a strawman, thinking he said something he hasn't, and you are assuming technicalities in his point that don't exist.
@atheistdeceitbuster
ReplyDeleteWell that is your view and that's fine. I find it strange that the only way you can view people is how you have determined what their role in bed is.
But maybe I'm making another straw man fallacy, since you think everyone is doing that.
Are you just talking about sex, you already said you weren't. So are you saying every gay man is cooking in the kitchen, what are you trying to imply?
What is the proper role of men? Working on cars, being the top? We don't know you have never defined your position.
You already want gay people to have the same rights but a different word, if gays accept a different word, why are you spending so much time trying to convince people that gays are diseased?
What is your goal?
Jt,
ReplyDelete"Ah, so that's why no one can understand your shitty communication skills, and thus, keep misunderstanding you"
Its not my fault that you FALSELY assume shit without even checking. The problem is, you pro gay atheists are used to debating with Christians.
Yes, actually, it is your fault. If you weren't such a poor communicator, it wouldn't have been a question that talking about how "bad" male gays are, and how the very same group of people shouldn't be able to use the "m-word" has absolutely nothing to do with one another.
so you assume that I used their same arguments..
You are employing a strawman argument, assuming that we made such as assumption.
I haven't assumed that you have used the same arguments. I have been dealing the the arguments you have presented, in one poorly constructed manner, or another.
I was not able to find the complete study Charlie keeps touting online, but I was able to find a couple decent news stories about it:
ReplyDeletehttp://mentalhealth.about.com/library/sci/0602/blhomo602.htm
http://tampabaycoalition.homestead.com/files/703NoFearFactorInHomophobiaStudyClaims.htm
Firstly, I find it really ironic that Charlie dismissed other studies for having too small a sample size, while this one consists of 138 participants.
Moreover, though, it is most interesting to me that one of the authors of this study specifically contradicts Charlie’s assertion that “homophobia” is an evolution based avoidance mechanism:
*Article citation*
Lohr suspects that the type of disgust associated with homophobia arises from social conditions rather than psychological ones -- that it represents a prejudicial attitude more akin to racism than to phobia. If that's the case, any attempt to treat or reduce homophobia would have to be conducted through a process of attitude reformation, which could occur in a social context such as homes or schools rather than in a clinical setting.
"If contempt and disgust drive homophobia, then it seems more of a moral or social problem than a psychopathological one," Lohr said. "If we start to consider negative attitudes pathological -- implying that there's something medically wrong with prejudiced people, that they're somehow sick with their own attitudes -- that seems to me misguided."
*End citation*
So even if the term is a misnomer, this study shows that “homophobia” is akin to racism. It in no way justifies what Charlie is arguing, even asserting what Charlie has denied many times.
The entire idea that disgust is a legitimate motivation while fear is not is completely absurd.
@atheistdeceitbuster
ReplyDeleteSo you would delay gays basic rights because of your pedantry on your perceived definition of the word "marriage"? Would you hold back the 14th amendment until blacks could come up with a word of their own that meant "black citizen"? You are on the wrong side of history on this one. People will look back on these conversations and cringe that anyone ever thought this way.
RORSCHACH,
ReplyDelete"I find it hard to believe that you don't have cognitive dissonance in how you'd support full rights of gays using a different definition but you still harbor hegemonic disgust for homosexuality"
1. Nature
2. ethics
3 values
1. disgust of gay men is NATURAL
2. Supporting gay rights is a part of my code of ethics
3. Opposing gays using the word marriage is a part of my value system
GET A CLUE
Just FYI, charlie,
ReplyDeleteStrawman arguments aren't when someone misunderstands you. It's when someone misrepresents you. Typically, misrepresentation doesn't occur back to the person who's being misrepresented.
It's going to happen that people will misunderstand each other. We don't begrudge theists that, as long as they honestly concede they were wrong, and try not to repeat it.
Unlike you wailing about strawman arguments every time they have a misconception, we just correct them and continue. It's when the misrepresentation is purposeful and deceitful that it's a problem... not every time someone misunderstands what you're trying to say.
@atheistdecitbuster
ReplyDeleteWhy don't you have any disgust for gay women?
1.If it's natural to disgust then how come you come to cite gendered values for your disgust, not nature
ReplyDelete2. and 3. Conflict with eachother. Why make a special allowance for using the word marriage whereas you (allegedly) support them across the board?
@Charlie
ReplyDeleteIs it rational to base a social policy based on a subjective opinion?
RORSCHACH and GHOSTCAT,
ReplyDelete"So you would delay gays basic rights because of your pedantry on your perceived definition of the word "marriage"
it's easier for gays to obtain full, equal rights without the word marriage because most people would support equal rights without the word marriage for gays...The problem is, religous people are so used to using a religious argument, they're not exposing their identity/value argument because they think their religious argument is more important.
"it's easier for gays to obtain full, equal rights without the word marriage because most people would support equal rights"
ReplyDeleteNo it isn't, state senators have worked to even prevent gay couples from seeing each other in hospitals. Your argument is faulty.
John K,
ReplyDelete"So even if the term is a misnomer, this study shows that “homophobia” is akin to racism. It in no way justifies what Charlie is arguing"
Are you ready to feel stupid?
ANY TYPE OF DISGUST is more akin to racism than a phobia.
Digust of feces is more akin to racism than disgust
Disgust of bestiality is more akin to racism than disgust
Disgust of incest is more akin to racism than disgust.
GET A CLUE. You pro gay atheists are NOT smart, just deceitful. I'm an evolved atheits.
So now the only reason you don't support homosexuals being able to use the term "marriage" is because other people wouldn't approve of it for religious and/or historical reasons?
ReplyDeleteI'm an evolved atheits.
ReplyDeleteThat's just beautiful. Thread. Complete.
Crew needs to clarify when they say "with a false premise you can prove anything". This is slightly wrong, with a false premise you can imply anything, not prove. To prove something you must use the formula A and (A implies B) therefore B. The computer nerds will know that if A is false the AND operator will never return true. But the implication operator (<=): 0 <= 0 and 0 <= 1 therefore implications are always true with a false premise.
ReplyDeleteRORCHACH,
ReplyDelete"how come you come to cite gendered values for your disgust, not nature"
That's a loaded question....Disgust is natural and disgust of gay men fuels my gendered views.
I disagree that it'd be easier and you do too based on what you've said. And it's not just the religious who argue, it's YOU too! When you call gays a health risk you're offering a justification for your disgust....even though you claim to support them. These kinds of justifications are likewise used by Christians to invalidate gay marriage (or shmarriage) on the grounds it's a cultural poison and you know that too. Add to it that you have yet to address why you maintain it's nature to be disgusted by gays when you cite the matter of you being deeply gendered as the source for your disgust, and I think you have got to be one of the most confused/ignorant people I've ever wasted time on.
ReplyDeleteatheistdeceitbuster
ReplyDeletewhat is your issue, just curious?
It's not a loaded question. I've pointed at an area of flaw where you use gender to justify your disgust. You've shown yourself that it isn't natural rather your embracement of hegemonics that is your rational for disgust. You call it a loaded question just to dress up your argumentative suit, which by the way looks horrible on you. You have no basis to show that your disgust is natural.
ReplyDeleteRORSCHACH
ReplyDelete"These kinds of justifications are likewise used by Christians to invalidate gay marriage (or shmarriage) on the grounds it's a cultural poison and you know that too"
That's a FAULTY ANALOGY FALLACY
I oppose gay marriage because of the identity issue. Nothing more an nothing less. I simply value the identity of marriage as husband and wife...
On the other hand, there are SCIENTIFIC STUDIES showing gay men are a health risk. the FDA won't even allow them to donate plasma.
I would love to see the gay movement take on FDA.
@atheistdeceitbuster
ReplyDeleteIt was a quote from one of the authors on the implications of your precious study.
I will agree at this point that what you are talking about is not based in fear, call it homophobia or whatever you like, but it is in no way vindicated because of that. You will notice I used scare quotes to imply a less common use of the term.
"Digust of feces is more akin to racism than disgust".
You have degraded into near gibberish.
I've tracked down some information on the "studies" that Charlie keeps citing.
ReplyDeleteThe first, which Charlie described as "Homophobia rooted in disgust, not fear," is covered here and here. I wasn't able to track down an abstract of the actual article. Here are some key quotes, though:
By using a research tool known as the Padua Inventory, which assesses contamination obsessions, the researchers found "a perception of contagion that feeds into homophobia."
In other words, that the homophobes perceive a risk of contamination. More relevant:
Lohr suspects that the type of disgust associated with homophobia arises from social conditions rather than psychological ones -- that it represents a prejudicial attitude more akin to racism than to phobia.
[...]
"If contempt and disgust drive homophobia, then it seems more of a moral or social problem than a psychopathological one," Lohr said. "If we start to consider negative attitudes pathological -- implying that there's something medically wrong with prejudiced people, that they're somehow sick with their own attitudes -- that seems to me misguided."
So even the authors of the study Charlie cites believe that anti-gay disgust or bigotry is not psychopathological, not medical, and is instead "a moral or social problem."
Immediate and obvious problems with the study: it's a survey of graduate students, so it's a small non-representative sample size, and it appears that the metric they used is specifically designed to gauge contamination phobias, which may have biased the results in that direction. Notably, from one of the authors:
Olatunji said the researchers did not yet know the extent to which the results could be replicated in a broader sample. "Obviously you don't want to make generalizations when you don't have a very inclusive population," Olatunji said. "That may be something we may be able to address in the future."
Charlie is clearly jumping the gun, and it's hilarious that the authors admit that their study has the same kinds of problems that Charlie cited in other quoted studies in the thread. One more quote for irony:
Olatunji said that anti-gay hostility is a prejudicial attitude more closely resembling racism than a phobia.
As to the other study, it appears to be this one, which does indeed talk about the evolutionary origins of moral disgust. Specifically, how the evolutionary mechanism which causes us to react negatively to things like rotten food was hijacked by the moral part of our brain to elicit similar responses to moral offenses. More information's available here and here.
ReplyDeleteSo where did Charlie get this wrong? Aside from his basic misunderstanding that this means "moral disgust" has an evolutionary advantage, he apparently hasn't read past the first couple of sentences. While the disgust response to bitter foods probably did have an evolutionary advantage related to disease avoidance, the study showed that similar responses are elicited from situations where disease isn't even involved. Specifically the last test, where participants were cheated and experienced the same sense of moral disgust.
What it does not state is that all disgust is necessarily out of disease avoidance (and in fact, that some disgust obviously is not), that the disgust mechanism is reliable for detecting disease (obviously the bitter and sour liquids these participants took were not disease-causing agents), or that disgust toward homosexuality is an evolved or adapted trait (homophobia was not tested in this study).
So, Charlie, "study shows" nothing of the sort with regard to your claims. Next time, make sure you understand what the hell you're talking about.
RORSCHACH
ReplyDelete"I've pointed at an area of flaw where you use gender to justify your disgust"
I just told you.....Disgust fuels my gendered views. There's nothing wrong with that
"You have no basis to show that your disgust is natural".
Are you ready to feel stupid?
Study shows homo "phobia" is rooted in disgust not fear.
(Olatunji, doctoral student Suzanne )
2. Gay men elicit disgust
(knobe 2006)
4. Disgust is an evolutionary disease avoidance behavior
(Hanah Chapman)
Of all the things you choose to attack, you attack an alleged faulty analogy fallacy? I was saying that your justifications for disgust were likewise used by the very christians you try and distance yourself from and that it's counter intuitive to your position of "supporting gays" to label them as health risks. Scientific studies don't show that gays are health risks, it demonstrates the need for healthful measures of safe-sex practices for gays. Your connotation is in no way supportive and only shows what kind of traitor/hypocrite you are. And as I've pointed out before, the whole identity issue stands on weak grounds. Why do you discount it as an identity issue for gays as well?
ReplyDelete@atheistdeceitbuster
ReplyDeleteContinuing to use studies in your argument that have been demonstrated not to imply what you say they imply?
You are done.
You still haven't demonstrated it's a genetic/evolutionary issue. You've just shown it's disgust that brings about a phobia and this is more linked to sociology of gender/sexuality. Not so much genetics or evolutionary behavior.
ReplyDeleteAnd I'm still not sure why it's rational to base social policy on subjective opinions!
ReplyDeleteSo, Charlie, "study shows" nothing of the sort with regard to your claims. Next time, make sure you understand what the hell you're talking about.
ReplyDeleteYou're the one who didn't read the whole study or didn't understand it and that link doesn't have all the information. It's just a small part of it.
Here's a quote
"Disgust is an evolved psychological system for protecting organisms from infection through disease avoidant behaviour. This ‘behavioural immune system’, present in a diverse array of species, exhibits universal features that orchestrate hygienic behaviour in response to cues of risk of contact with pathogens. However, disgust is also a dynamic adaptive system. Individuals show variation in pathogen avoidance associated with psychological traits like having a neurotic personality, as well as a consequence of being in certain physiological states such as pregnancy or infancy. Three specialized learning mechanisms modify the disgust response: the Garcia effect, evaluative conditioning and the law of contagion. Hygiene behaviour is influenced at the group level through social learning heuristics such as ‘copy the frequent’. Finally, group hygiene is extended symbolically to cultural rules about purity and pollution, which create social separations and are enforced as manners. Cooperative hygiene endeavours such as sanitation also reduce pathogen prevalence. Our model allows us to integrate perspectives from psychology, ecology and cultural evolution with those of epidemiology and anthropology. Understanding the nature of disease avoidance psychology at all levels of human organization can inform the design of programmes to improve public health"
Hm, looks like one of my comments got eaten by the filter. I'm sure it'll show up eventually.
ReplyDeleteI freed six comments from the spam filter. It seems to get really overzealous on long comment threads. Bad spam filter! Bad!
ReplyDelete"I was saying that your justifications for disgust were likewise used by the very christians you try and distance yourself from"
ReplyDeleteMy justification of disgust is based on SCIENTITIFIC STUDIES...If christians agree with science, they're right.
Congrats, Charlie, you've shown you can copy-paste, but not that you actually understand what's being said. It'd be nice for you to provide a link to what you're copypasting from, but it's largely irrelevant. Nothing in that quote addresses any of the points I made with respect to your misinterpretation of the Chapman-Anderson study.
ReplyDeleteThe thing is you're discounting how society has an influence on disgust. I'm saying that you're discounting the matter of society's influence on the "yuk factor." Here's a quote you might have missed from the study: "If contempt and disgust drive homophobia, then it seems more of a moral or social problem than a psychopathological one," Lohr said. "If we start to consider negative attitudes pathological -- implying that there's something medically wrong with prejudiced people, that they're somehow sick with their own attitudes -- that seems to me misguided."
ReplyDeleteJohn K.
ReplyDeleteConsidering the fact that FDA doesn't even allow gay men to donate blood, gay men must be a health risk...They wouldn't not allow them for nothing. So the disgust of gay men is NOT irrational. They are a TRUE health risk.
Also, study shows disgust is NATURAL
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2007/03/070328101621.htm
QUOTE
"The reason we experience disgust today is that the response protected our ancestors," said Dan Fessler, associate professor of anthropology and director of UCLA's Center for Behavior, Evolution, and Culture. "The emotion allowed our ancestors to survive long enough to produce offspring, who in turn passed the same sensitivities on to us."
Across a series of subtle and ingenious studies, Fessler has managed to illuminate the ways in which disgust may have served to protect our ancestors during such biologically precarious situations as pregnancy and to maximize the likelihood of our forbears' reproduction when they were at their most fertile"
No, you're justification is based off of a flawed interpretation of the studies.
ReplyDeleteI just don't understand what is Charlie trying to achieve. Regardless of all the argumentation here regarding history, semantics and studies the bottom line is there is no good reason not to allow gay people to marry and while homophobia might be a misnomer of sorts who really gives a shit if it serves its purpose?
ReplyDelete@Charlie
ReplyDeleteYou know Christians use those a lot.
You know, for a guy who dotes on accusing other people of using strawman arguments, you pull this one out waaaaaaay too often.
@Charlie
ReplyDelete"Avoidance is driven by fear"
This is VAGUE AND IRRELEVANT.
It's neither. It's a direct, plain statement... five words: a subject, copula verb, and adjectival phrase. Nothing vague about it. It's also entirely germane to your central theme.
"Here's a quote you might have missed from the study: "If contempt and disgust drive homophobia, then it seems more of a moral or social problem than a psychopathological one"
ReplyDeleteBut you're not considering other studies showing disgust is an EVOLUTIONARLY behavior immune system.
Charlie also doesn't seem to understand the naturalistic fallacy (even if something evolved naturally does not mean it's right/useful/reliable), circular logic ('gay men are a disease risk because the CDC won't let them donate blood, and the CDC wouldn't have that rule unless they were a disease risk'--which has nothing to do with marriage, morality, or lesbians), and evolution (which is not some wise guiding hand that produces perfectly-reliable instincts, nor is it something that is likely to cause major effects over the course of two to three generations, nor does it suggest that every emotion and notion is the direct result of an adaptive trait).
ReplyDeleteNeedless to say, these are the least of his misunderstandings, but they're significant nonetheless. He's a kook, and his ratio of abuse/coherence is rapidly approaching Mabusian proportions.
I AM! But I'm saying that an evolutionary impulse isn't exclusively evolutionary influenced! The way your social schema is oriented heavily influences whether you feel disgust or not. It is not purely instinctual.
ReplyDeleteHe's trying to reach ascension into the Timecube dimension. It can take years of argument and mental focus to reach that stage of atheits evolution.
ReplyDelete@Charlie
ReplyDeletethis is a SLIPPERY SLOPE FALLACY.
No, it's not, actually. A slippery slope fallacy is one that presents an original case or fact and insists it extends to an outcome that does not necessarily follow. That's not what I was doing in observing that disadvantaged groups end up on the business end of "separate but equal" arrangements.
But you're not considering other studies showing disgust is an EVOLUTIONARLY behavior immune system.
ReplyDeleteNo, you idiot, I'm recognizing what those studies actually say, which is that disgust began as a way to avoid disease (and not necessarily a reliable one, since it could be triggered by any bitter or sour taste or foul smell, not just those caused by rotting food or disease-spreading agents) but was hijacked by the moral part of the brain, so that situations and stimuli with absolutely no chance of causing infection would elicit a disgust response. Such situations included, as the study showed, being cheated in a transaction.
@Charlie
ReplyDeleteIt just disgust me to think
You're admitting, right here, that disgust is not necessarily tied to an avoidance of disease. There's no threat of a physical disease to be gained in avoiding an idea, which is what you're talking about when you use "disgust" here. You've just tacitly disavowed your own conviction by using the word this way.
Perhaps you need to invent another word, because "studies show" you're not using it in the way it was originally intended (at least, as you purport).
@Charlie
ReplyDeleteMy justification of disgust is based on SCIENTITIFIC STUDIES
I'd venture to say it's been long obvious to everyone here, Charlie, that in fact your disgust isn't based on "scientific studies"; rather, it's culturally based, rooted in latent Christian doctrine, and that you've gone out of your way to cherry pick these "scientific studies" both as a means of self-justification after the fact and as a paper-thin shield against the charge that simply parroting the Christian party line.
Can anybody please tell me what homosexuality has to do with atheism??
ReplyDeleteJust because some theists justify their homophobia with their fairy-tale-book? Guess what, all others will find other made up reasons.
@Harise
ReplyDeleteIntrinsically nothing of course. However, you'll tend to find people debating all sorts of things on here, and as (from my experience) the majority of atheists tend to be on the liberal side of the fence, we'll jump to the defence of liberal values and will deride bigotry as and when we come across it. That, and we just enjoy a good argument sometimes, no matter what the subject!
"
ReplyDeleteI love women. It just disgust me to think that some men play the role of women. "
If women are fine what's wrong with men acting like women.
Back to basic logic A=A
All I can say is that I become immediately suspicious of the motives of anyone who is ferociously bigoted against another group. I don't spend this much time or energy thinking about or discussing my own sex life let alone that of others.
ReplyDeleteAnd, as usual, the bigots cannot present a reasoned, rational argument to justify their opinions.
Can't get enough of these "Are you ready for X?" responses. Please give us some more of those, Charlie.
ReplyDeleteWhat I'd like to know is, even if "homophobia is a disease avoidance behavior" as you claim, what the fuck does that have to do with whether gays should be allowed to get married or not?
You know even if Homophobia is disease avoidence behavoir there's the problem that humans are not purely instinct driven. As I stated there are theories that xenophobia is danger avoidance behavior...the fact that it has a natural origin means squat because we should be able to recognize that evolution has not fitted us perfectly into being 'nice' and 'just'. It's up to us to swallow our pride and choke down our disgust at times when the needs of our higher brain function override that of reflex.
ReplyDeleteCharlie is basically arguing that he's a dumb animal who can't move beyond instinct.
I'm wondering if Charlie's done or if he's just eating lunch.
ReplyDeleteOh and I doubt that Charlie 'loves women'.
ReplyDeleteIn all meanings of the phrase.
@Rorschach
ReplyDeleteHe'll be back soon. This is more or less his religion.
What I'd like to know is, even if "homophobia is a disease avoidance behavior" as you claim, what the fuck does that have to do with whether gays should be allowed to get married or not?
ReplyDeleteHe says it doesn't. He just happens to be having two debates at the same time.
1) Whether homosexual males are "bad" or not
2) Whether they should be allowed to use the "m-word" or not, even though he is happy to say that it would be functionally identical to the "not-m-word".
These two arguments just happen to be occurring at the same time, and it's just coincidence they're both about a negative attitude towards one select group of people.
And he wonders why everyone is "misrepresenting" him.
ReplyDelete@Jt
ReplyDeletePure deceit and trickery on our part repeating and responding to exactly what he said.
Tom Foss,
ReplyDeleteYou're about to feel like the complete fool you are.
"No, you idiot, I'm recognizing what those studies actually say, which is that disgust began as a way to avoid disease"
You just proved my point dumb ass and the disease avoidance behavior has proven to be useful today.
That makes perfect sense because gay men are in fact the undisputed champs of std's. FDA won't even allow them to donate blood so the disease avoidance behavior even in the present correlates with scientific studies to this day.
"(and not necessarily a reliable one, since it could be triggered by any bitter or sour taste or foul smell, not just those caused by rotting food or disease-spreading agents)"
Don't forget about visual disgust.
"but was hijacked by the moral part of the brain"
You're WRONG...The moral part of our brains evolved and guided us on our do's and dont's to avoid toxics and diseases. So we will naturally be against things that our disgust evolved us not to do. We will naturally see it as a threat.
GET A CLUE
so that situations and stimuli with absolutely no chance of causing infection would elicit a disgust response. Such situations included, as the study showed, being cheated in a transaction.
And.....he's back.
ReplyDeleteing,
ReplyDelete"Charlie is basically arguing that he's a dumb animal who can't move beyond instinct"
Avoiding eating your own feces is instictive because of the bad smell. So are you willing to move beyond that and eat your own shit??
So are you a shit eater????
Our disease avoidance behavior towards gay men is obviously useful today because it actually correlates with FDA. FDA doesn't allow gay men to donate blood so gay men are obviously a health risk to society.
Disguts of gay men - health risk to society
So we're disgusted by the RIGHT people, that's for sure. Out of all the people in the world, the disease avoidance behavior should be used on gay men and it is because studies shows it..
It all makes perfect sense
By the way, this argument is unrelated to the gay marriage argument.
"So we will naturally be against things that our disgust evolved us not to do"
ReplyDeleteWhat should I do about the evolving disgust I feel at bigots?
Being anti-gay is equally as disgusting as being anti-black. Subjugation of anybody for things they cannot control is immoral in the highest order.
So you are disgusted by homosexuals. Good for you. Keep it to yourself. The rest of the world should not have to adjust their behavior to make sure that you never feel uncomfortable. Such intolerance is simiular to so many imams and pastors who are eager to draw offense at inconsequential things.
Methinks the lady (Charlie) doth protest too much.
ReplyDeleteI'm disgusted by two-faced hypocrites like yourself who has still managed to miss the point after 340 comments.
ReplyDeleteTom Foss,
ReplyDelete"Charlie also doesn't seem to understand the naturalistic fallacy (even if something evolved naturally does not mean it's right/useful/reliable)"
Are you ready to feel like the IDIOT you are???
but that also doesn't mean it can't be right or useful.
In the case of gay men, our disease avoidance behavior (disgust of gay men or homophobia)correlates with the findings of FDA and CDC
CDC - 1 in 5 gay men are infected with hiv
FDA - gay men can't donate plasma or blood because they have been deemed as a public health risk to public safety
t
"What should I do about the evolving disgust I feel at bigots?"
ReplyDeleteFirst of all, expression of disgust is not "bigotry"
Bigot - a person who is obstinately or intolerantly devoted to his or her own opinions and prejudices; especially: one who regards or treats the members
You're bigoted towards anyone who acknowledges FACTS about the disgust of gay men AND your'e bigoted towards anyone who opposes gay marriage.
"Being anti-gay is equally as disgusting as being anti-black"
Are you ready to feel like an idiot???
Study shows homophobia is rooted in disgust but not one study shows racism is rooted disgust. Disgust is natural. I can't help it, sorry.
"Subjugation of anybody for things they cannot control is immoral in the highest order"
Disgust is good for us. We should listen to it. That's why FDA won't allow gay men to donate blood. Disgust of gay men( homophobia)is good for us.
So you are disgusted by homosexuals. Good for you. Keep it to yourself. The rest of the world should not have to adjust their behavior to make sure that you never feel uncomfortable. Such intolerance is simiular to so many imams and pastors who are eager to draw offense at inconsequential
Look, I have to go now... I'm tired of debating against 10 pro gay "atheist" at one time.
ReplyDeleteOh, and by the way, Charlie, your understanding of anthropology is crude and amateurish. Consider the following:
ReplyDelete...as humans became more reliant on social groups and the cultural information they provided, basic disgust was co-opted by the emerging tribal instincts to help perform a variety of novel functions that arose in conjunction with this increased sociality. In doing so, disgust’s most characteristic features, features that initially evolved to solve adaptive problems linked to poisons and parasites, were brought to bear on those new functions in the social domain. Moreover, it is exactly this *imperfect fit* between the basic disgust response and many of those social functions it was later coopted to perform that gives rise to the sorts of puzzling results turning up in the recent research on moral cognition. In short, some of the more troubling features of moral judgments discussed in the first section can be understood as cognitive byproducts, generated by the mismatch between “unanticipated” problems and the kludgy solution
disgust helps provide.
(continued because blogger hates long posts)
pro gay "atheist"
ReplyDeleteThere is a difference between pro-rights and pro-gay, you know.
But in either case - Unapologetically.
"In the case of gay men, our disease avoidance behavior (disgust of gay men or homophobia)correlates with the findings of FDA and CDC"
ReplyDeleteYet homosexuals do not have this alleged evolved disgust. Therefore your argument fails.
If you're going to divide people up and tell us who to hate and why, make sure you have a damned good argument. So far you don't have a single one.
Ibis,
ReplyDelete"Oh, and by the way, Charlie, your understanding of anthropology is crude and amateurish"
BULLSHIT,
Until you can't refute this, you have nothing
In the case of gay men, our disease avoidance behavior (disgust of gay men or homophobia)correlates with the findings of FDA and CDC
CDC - 1 in 5 gay men are infected with hiv
FDA - gay men can't donate plasma or blood because they have been deemed as a public health risk to public safety
So the disgust we evolved is obviously useful today.
gD44,
ReplyDelete"Yet homosexuals do not have this alleged evolved disgust. Therefore your argument fails"
Do you realize how irrational your claim is??
That's like saying muddy pigs aren't disgusted by muddy pigs so therefore humans can't be disgusted by muddy pics.
Gay people have gay brains. We are disgusted by what they find sexually appealing(referring to the gay people of the same sex of our own)
If I had presented arguments based on misused studies, and then had the actual studies presented and had it pointed out where I misused them, I would be "tired of arguing" as well.
ReplyDeleteIf there is any instance where a disgust instinct can be shown to prompt the wrong behavior, it cannot be used as a justification for any behavior. This is basic logic.
The very authors of the study he touts state that "homophobia" is disgust based and similar to racism.
This guy was out of ammo 100 posts ago.
"You're bigoted towards anyone who acknowledges FACTS about the disgust of gay men AND your'e bigoted towards anyone who opposes gay marriage."
ReplyDeleteI haven't heard you present anything more than a collection of disparate facts (many of which appear to be things you're making up) and I have no strong opinions on marriage, gay or straight. All I see is you attempting to justify your disgust of homosexuals and doing a remarkably poor job of it.
"Disgust of gay men is good for us"
No, actually it's not... because you're nurturing your misanthropy, which is inherently anti-human. This kind of divisive tribalism is the cause of too many problems already and is a signature feature of many religions. It's a shame you fail to recognize the analogies.
I don't care if you dislike homosexuals. But stomping your feet over it to the extent that you have has damaged whatever credibility your position may have had. Now, there is no mystery that it had none to begin with.
"Gay people have gay brains. We are disgusted by what they find sexually appealing(referring to the gay people of the same sex of our own)"
ReplyDeleteYou said humans evolved a disgust of homosexuals. I pointed out that homosexuals do not have this alleged "evolved disgust". Then you call me irrational and present an apples-to-oranges analogy in order to distract from the point that your argument failed.
I don't expect intelligent arguments from someone who has yet to provide one. All I can say is that I hope you find a bit of peace with yourself and overcome your masturbatory justifications for your disgust. It's kind of an undesirable quality.
A slippery slope argument states that a relatively small first step leads to a chain of related events culminating in some...
ReplyDeleteWell, at least he knows about wikipedia.
So as soon as I know a man is gay, I automatically view him as playing the role of wome
I suspect it's more that you worry that he views you like a woman.
I simply value the identity of marriage as husband and wife...
Why? What's so important about it?
Considering the fact that FDA doesn't even allow gay men to donate blood, gay men must be a health risk...They wouldn't not allow them for nothing.
Because the FDA is always right and never bows to any kind of political pressure.
@Charlie
ReplyDeleteThat's like saying muddy pigs aren't disgusted by muddy pigs so therefore humans can't be disgusted by muddy pics
No, Charlie, it's not like saying that because humans and pigs have separate evolutionary histories that would account for that difference, and humans and other humans do not.
@Charlie
ReplyDeleteAvoiding eating your own feces is instictive because of the bad smell.
You'll say anything, won't you? Just pull it right out of thin air... Christians do that, Charlie. Okay, so how do you account for the fact that dogs do just exactly what you're saying there's no way they possible could, given that they have a sense of smell thousands, and for some chemicals, millions of times more sensitive than our own? Please feel free to pull another "fact" out of thin air to explain the previous one.
@Charlie
ReplyDeleteGET A CLUE. You pro gay atheists are NOT smart, just deceitful. I'm an evolved atheits.
Charlie, you're a bigoted BS artist who nobody here agrees with... so get your OWN clue, and leave ours alone.
I am still waiting to hear Charlie state his case against homosexuals/same-sex marrige. I will willfuly concede your silly word game with homophobia - how does that justify you in your bigoted views against gay rights?
ReplyDeleteAnd by rights I mean they are to be treated the same as heterosexuals. Not like the *rights* of blacks to have their own water fountain for *people of colour* or *schools for people of colour*.
bare foot hiker,
ReplyDelete"No, Charlie, it's not like saying that because "humans and pigs have separate evolutionary histories that would account for that difference, and humans and other humans do not"
Are you forgetting that homosexuals are homosexuals so therefore, what heterosexuals find disgusting, homosexuals find sexually appealing???
Also gay people's brains are wired and structured differently and it obviously ruined their natural disgust of same sex attraction
Disgust of homosexuality is a part of being heterosexuals. STraight men are disgusted by same sex sexual attraction and same for straight women.
If that's not obvious to you, you have to be delusional
"The very authors of the study he touts state that "homophobia" is disgust based and similar to racism"
ReplyDeleteYou failed to understand that disgust of anything is more like racism than a phobia
Also, not one study shows racism is rooted in disgust.
You're about to feel like the complete fool you are
ReplyDeleteYou'd be the undisputed expert..
You just proved my point dumb ass and the disease avoidance behavior has proven to be useful today.
That makes perfect sense because gay men are in fact the undisputed champs of std's.
Citation please. Gay men top the list for HIV, followed by blacks, bur there are lots of other STIs. Please show that gay men both lead the pack in all STIs and have done so for the entire history of anti-gay bigotry.
Not that it matters. The study you cited showed that not all disgust comes from disease-avoidance, merely that both moral and physical disgust provoke the same response. The wild conclusions you are drawing from this study are wholly unsupported.
FDA won't even allow them to donate blood so the disease avoidance behavior even in the present correlates with scientific studies to this day.
A regulation is not a study, Charlie. Please stop citing it as if it were.
Also, the FDA forbids blood donations from people who have traveled overseas or done IV drugs. By your logic, world-travelers should elicit the exact same response as gay men.
More than that, gay men who haven't had sex since 1977 should provoke no disgust, since they're free to give blood. And straight-identified guys who just give head now and then are probably safe too, since oral is a low risk for transmitting HIV.
Interestingly, the "disgust" seems to correlate well with social norms and taboos, far more than with any scientific finding. Odd, that.
Don't forget about visual disgust.
Irrelevant. What's relevant is the moral disgust, which clearly had no disease-causing component.
You're WRONG...The moral part of our brains evolved and guided us on our do's and dont's to avoid toxics and diseases.
If I'm wrong, then the authors of the study are wrong, because I'm repeating what they sain, you numbskull. Being treated fairly (the subject of the last test) has nothing to do with avoiding toxins or diseases.
In fact, the test showed that people experience disgust reactions to things that cannot cause disease (flavors and smells of harmless products, photographs) and to things that have no disease-avoidance component (unfair treatment), showing that even if the disgust reaction were always in response to disease agents, it can have false positives.
GET A CLUE
LEARN TO READ.
One more thing: your 1 in 5 statistic is a lie, omitting the key qualifier: in certain major cities. And while you're very quick to dismiss and deny the equally-well-supported link between blacks and HIV, you ignore the confounding factors that inflate this statistic.
To sum up: you have made unsupported claims, you have misinterpreted the research, you have made generalizations and drawn overly broad conclusions that even the researchers say are unsupported, you have criticized other research for the same flaws that your studies show, and you have commuted a smorgasbord of fallacies. Please feel free to come back when you are mature and literate.
"Also gay people's brains are wired and structured differently and it obviously ruined their natural disgust of same sex attraction"
ReplyDeleteNow you've made a claim which requires justification. Don't just make stuff up. Show us the science that supports the point I listed above
bare foot hiker,
ReplyDeleteUntil you can't refute this, you have nothing
In the case of gay men, our disease avoidance behavior (disgust of gay men or homophobia)correlates with the findings of FDA and CDC
CDC - 1 in 5 gay men are infected with hiv
FDA - gay men can't donate plasma or blood because they have been deemed as a public health risk to public safety
So the disgust we evolved is obviously useful today
(continued)
ReplyDeleteCommon sense and anecdotal evidence is supported by recent research showing that disgust is indeed operative in a number of different types of these social norms. In these cases, the emotion provides the types of intrinsic motivation mentioned above, including motivation to comply with the norm in question, to avoid the actions they prohibit, and to punish or direct punitive attitudes at transgressors of the norm. Indeed, disgust has been shown to play such roles in a number of different types of norms, including the rules of table etiquette (Nichols 2002a, 2002b, 2004), taboos restricting the consumption of meat (Fessler & Navarrete 2003), and taboos against incest (Lieberman et al. 2003, Fessler & Navarette 2004).
[...]
More generally, the anthropologist Richard Shweder and his colleagues have called attention to an entire class of norms that follow the logic of disgust, which they call purity norms (Shweder et al. 1997, Haidt et al. 1997, Rozin et al. 1999). As their name suggests, purity norms are often understood as regulating issues of purity, not only guarding the sanctity of the physical body, but also protecting the soul from contamination and spiritual defilement. Indeed, purity norms are often distinguished from other classes of norms, such as harm norms or fairness norms, in that transgressions of purity norms usually do not result in direct physical harm or the inequitable treatment of any person. More traditional or religious cultures often see transgressors of a purity norm as defiling themselves by disrespecting the sacredness of God (or the gods), or by violating the divine order. Purity norms are not completely absent from largely secular cultures, however; their presence is just not as central to the social structure or prevailing moral code. They are often given a different justification in secular cultures, as well: transgressions of purity norms are usually conceived of as “crimes against nature” or violations of the natural order.
Also confirming commonsense suspicions are recent neuroimaging experiments
that link the disgust response to prejudices and ethnic membership. This research shows
disgust to be operative in sustaining a class of biases and prejudicial attitudes towards
those in particular outgroups or tribes. As was mentioned above, distinct emotions are often associated with the different types of attitudes directed at different outgroups and
their members (Cottrell & Neuberg 2005). Particularly interesting (if not completely
surprising) is the demonstration that disgust is often the emotion linked to the most
extreme prejudices, directed at members of the lowliest, most vilified and dehumanized
ethnicities (Harris & Fiske 2006).
All quotations from Moral Disgust and The Tribal Instincts Hypothesis by Daniel R. Kelly, a paper to appear in Signaling, Commitment and Emotion, Eds. R. Joyce, K. Sterelny and B. Calcott. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.
Petr,
ReplyDeletew"ill willfuly concede your silly word game with homophobia - how does that justify you in your bigoted views against gay rights?"
Hey dumb ass,
The two arguments are unrelated. homophobia (disease avoidance behavior)is unrelated to why I oppose gay marriage
Oh, and for good measure, for Martin from the same paper:
ReplyDelete"Certain types of perfectly edible (i.e. non-poisonous) food disgust some people as well. Common offenders in this category include cuisine like Brussels sprouts, escargot, caviar, pork rinds, Whoppers and deep-fried Twinkies."
QED
Let's use some Charlie Logic
ReplyDeleteAccording to this site (http://www.avert.org/usa-statistics.htm), 42.6% of people with AIDS are black. Therefore, our "evolved disgust" of blacks is justified. It's good for us and protects our health.
Good luck going through life with this kind of thinking, sir.
gd44,
ReplyDelete"Now you've made a claim which requires justification. Don't just make stuff up. Show us the science that supports the point I listed above"
BULLSHIT,
SOURCES
Gay Brains Are Wired Differently Say Scientists
http://www.medicalnewstoday.com/articles/111663.php
LESBIAN'S BRAINS NOT THE SAME
http://www.outsidethebeltway.com/lesbians_brains_not_same/
Gay brains structured like those of the opposite sex.
http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn14146-gay-brains-structured-like-those-of-the-opposite-sex.html
ibis,
ReplyDelete"Certain types of perfectly edible"
"certain" doesn't mean ALL.
Until you can't refute this, you have nothing
In the case of gay men, our disease avoidance behavior (disgust of gay men or homophobia) correlates with the findings of FDA and CDC
CDC - 1 in 5 gay men are infected with hiv
FDA - gay men can't donate plasma or blood because they have been deemed as a public health risk to public safety
"BULLSHIT,
ReplyDeleteSOURCES"
Great! Now all you have to do is show how this "different wiring" has "obviously ruined their natural disgust of same sex attraction"
Also, brains don't have wires.
You're about to feel like the complete fool you are
ReplyDeleteYou'd be the undisputed expert..
You just proved my point dumb ass and the disease avoidance behavior has proven to be useful today.
That makes perfect sense because gay men are in fact the undisputed champs of std's.
Citation please. Gay men top the list for HIV, followed by blacks, bur there are lots of other STIs. Please show that gay men both lead the pack in all STIs and have done so for the entire history of anti-gay bigotry.
Not that it matters. The study you cited showed that not all disgust comes from disease-avoidance, merely that both moral and physical disgust provoke the same response. The wild conclusions you are drawing from this study are wholly unsupported.
FDA won't even allow them to donate blood so the disease avoidance behavior even in the present correlates with scientific studies to this day.
A regulation is not a study, Charlie. Please stop citing it as if it were.
Also, the FDA forbids blood donations from people who have traveled overseas or done IV drugs. By your logic, world-travelers should elicit the exact same response as gay men.
More than that, gay men who haven't had sex since 1977 should provoke no disgust, since they're free to give blood. And straight-identified guys who just give head now and then are probably safe too, since oral is a low risk for transmitting HIV.
Interestingly, the "disgust" seems to correlate well with social norms and taboos, far more than with any scientific finding. Odd, that.
Don't forget about visual disgust.
Irrelevant. What's relevant is the moral disgust, which clearly had no disease-causing component.
You're WRONG...The moral part of our brains evolved and guided us on our do's and dont's to avoid toxics and diseases.
If I'm wrong, then the authors of the study are wrong, because I'm repeating what they sain, you numbskull. Being treated fairly (the subject of the last test) has nothing to do with avoiding toxins or diseases.
In fact, the test showed that people experience disgust reactions to things that cannot cause disease (flavors and smells of harmless products, photographs) and to things that have no disease-avoidance component (unfair treatment), showing that even if the disgust reaction were always in response to disease agents, it can have false positives.
GET A CLUE
LEARN TO READ.
One more thing: your 1 in 5 statistic is a lie, omitting the key qualifier: in certain major cities. And while you're very quick to dismiss and deny the equally-well-supported link between blacks and HIV, you ignore the confounding factors that inflate this statistic.
To sum up: you have made unsupported claims, you have misinterpreted the research, you have made generalizations and drawn overly broad conclusions that even the researchers say are unsupported, you have criticized other research for the same flaws that your studies show, and you have commuted a smorgasbord of fallacies. Please feel free to come back when you are mature and literate.
"According to this site (http://www.avert.org/usa-statistics.htm), 42.6% of people with AIDS are black. Therefore, our "evolved disgust" of blacks is justified. It's good for us and protects our health"
ReplyDeleteAre you ready to feel stupid again???
First of all,
STudy shows proverty is linked to hiv, not race.
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2010/07/19/health/main6691867.shtml
STudy shows black GAY men are fueling the hiv rates among blacks..So it's still a gay problem
http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=newsarchive&sid=aEoOje23AiHc&refer=home
DEBUNKED
NOT ONE study shows racism is rooted in disgust. NOT ONE study shows blacks elicit digust
So, you want to take the part of the study that relates to your disgust of homosexuals as justification, but ignore the parallels it draws with racism?
ReplyDeleteThis is called cherry picking.
According to the CDC, HIV infections are highest in black/African Americans in the United States. Would disgust based discrimination against this group be justified? If not, you are engaging in special pleading.
http://www.cdc.gov/hiv/topics/surveillance/resources/slides/race-ethnicity/slides/race-ethnicity_2.pdf
“Also gay people's brains are wired and structured differently and it obviously ruined their natural disgust of same sex attraction”
So your disgust is justified but theirs is due to a ruined brain, special pleading again.
Should we find it interesting that a whopping majority of HIV/AIDS infected people are black? If your anti-homosexual stance is justifiable, then anyone can justify, say... policies of segregation or apartheid, or just good old-fashioned, Southern American black hatred - because the AIDS/HIV statistics could justify it.
ReplyDeleteEnough of that sarcasm because you probably won't recognize it. Sir, it seems you're just a typical hater, with no good reason to hate.
Charlie: I'm wondering what your purpose is in continuing to argue this point. If you're hoping to convince people, I think it's clear from this thread alone that the more you discuss the subject, the more people are turning against you.
ReplyDeleteI googled you, you know, to find out more about who we're talking to. Now that I know, when I Google "Charlie Check'm" I get the following results:
1. Your Myspace page.
2. "Why Wanna-Be Rapper Charlie Check’m Will Never Represent the Atheist Community"
3. An article discussing your getting kicked off of Atheist Nexus. Approvingly.
4. A post by Friendly Atheist promoting your video. In the middle of the comments, he finds out that you're a homophobe and is embarrassed. He decides against deleting the post, but it's a struggle.
5. A page calling you "retarded."
6. A page at the Atheist Nexus noting that you were banned.
7. The Rational Response Squad calling you out for your homophobia.
8. A post on Yahoo Answers calling you a troll.
9. ANOTHER post calling attention to your Atheist Nexus ban.
10. A music web page.
If I were just speaking as your PR agent, I would call this an epic fail. Among the top ten search results, eight are from sources other than you, and they are universally negative.
You seem to be aggressively committed to alienating the very people who ought to be your core musical audience (assuming you have one). I don't entirely understand why. I suppose you could say you are defending your principles, but you have done it remarkably badly. I can't find a trace of any person, either on this thread or on any site I located through Google, who appears to have been persuaded towards your side. And meanwhile, you seem to be killing what appeared to be a promising niche music career a couple of years ago.
I'm just wondering what you think you're getting out of it?
May I ask any and all of the people here to please tell me what on earth we are doing and/or accomplishing here?
ReplyDeleteIt's no secret that a lot of men who employ anti-gay tactics and behaviors are actually gay themselves.
ReplyDeleteCharlie: it's better to come out of the closet. You are gay. Just go with it, finally.
You are gay!
You are gayer than 8 guys screwing 9 guys.
You are gayer than pink balloons shooting out of a unicorn's ass.
Come to terms with it and begin enjoying life for a change.
@atheistdeceitbuster
ReplyDeleteYou said, "REAL MEN WITH whole male brains don't do shit like that," referring to anal sex.
1) What's the difference between male #1 who likes anal-play and male #2 who likes anal-play?
Notice: One of those males is heterosexual, one is homosexual. I haven't said which one is which, so you won't be able to tell either. See if you can answer correctly.
2) What's the difference between a male who likes anal-play and a female who likes anal-play?
Point being, many straight people, male and female, enjoy anal sex.
I apologize if some of this was covered in the previous 360+ message, I couldn't slog thru them all. For one, it is important to differentiate the disgust felt toward a homosexual act and disgust at the person themselves. I might find eating dead animals disgusting but that doesn't mean I support stripping away the rights of carnivores or treating people that eat meat as sub-human. Whether or not you personally don't find homosexuality appealing is rather besides the point.
ReplyDeleteSecondly it is highly doubtful that your disgust is evolved. For one STDS can be received thru heterosexual sex just as easily so obviously it is not a strong selection pressure or we would find that disgusting as well. It appears you are trying to take a small evolutionary principle and extrapolate it out in order to justify your own feelings toward gays.
Yes, blood donors are screened for sexuality. As a regular donor I can attest to that but so are people that visited certain nations at certain times. It is an attempt to screen out people that have been subject to disease outbreaks. That fact that homosexual men have suffered from an outbreak of disease does not mean that it is inherent in the act. We don't have an evolved 'disgust' of people that ate meat (mad cow disease) in Europe in 1985 just because it shows up on donor screening questionnaires so it is rather pointless to keep bringing that up.
STudy shows proverty is linked to hiv, not race.
ReplyDeletehttp://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2010/07/19/health/main6691867.shtml
Poverty is also linked to race, genius. Black people are more likely to be in poverty. So are gays, in many places. But somehow I doubt you'll dismiss the confounding factors that complicate the connection between gays and HIV.
STudy shows black GAY men are fueling the hiv rates among blacks..So it's still a gay problem
http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=newsarchive&sid=aEoOje23AiHc&refer=home
That's for the U.S. Please cite studies to demonstrate that this is true in Africa, where 68% of HIV-infected individuals are.
Please don't let this "Charlie" past the call screeners anymore. He's been booted off Atheist Nexus at least twice that I know of and he never lets up on this nonsense. He's really not worth the waste of time.
ReplyDeleteYou're such a hypocrite, Charlie. You pretend you simply care about the "identity" of words. The original meaning of the word "gay" had absolutely nothing to do with homosexuals, but you don't seem to have any problem using the word to refer to them. I don't see you insisting that "gay" is a misnomer and that we have to stop using "gay" to refer to homosexuals in order to preserve the identity of the word. Why is it only with gay marriage and when people label you a homophobe that suddenly you give a shit about what words are "supposed" to mean.
ReplyDeleteMartin: Anyway, I'm disgusted by brussels sprouts. But I'm pretty sure they won't give me a disease.
ReplyDeleteCharlie: Not one study shows any type of vegetables elicit disgust. You FAILED AGAIN.
Dr. Kelly: Certain types of perfectly edible (i.e. non-poisonous) food disgust some people as well. Common offenders in this category include cuisine like Brussels sprouts…
Charlie: "certain" doesn't mean ALL.
Dumbass.
Charlie: Study shows homophobia is rooted in disgust but not one study shows racism is rooted disgust.
Drs. Harris & Fiske: Analyses revealed medial prefrontal cortex activation to all social groups except extreme (low-low) out-groups, who especially activated insula and amygdala, a pattern consistent with disgust.
Charlie: [crickets]
Double dumbass.
Charlie: Disgust is good for us. We should listen to it.
Dr. Kelly: The social norms that recruit disgust appear to require, most basically, some kind of avoidance and aversion motivation. In co-opting disgust in particular, the activities proscribed by those norms, as well as those actors who transgress them, are not simply avoided and found aversive. Rather, they are also subliminally infused with a very specific kind of offensiveness, are often considered tainted and contaminating, so much so that they can induce a desire to cleanse or purify oneself. […]The vividness and visceral power of the emotion could lead people to remain doggedly committed to other attitudes and norms that involve disgust, even if those attitudes and norms can be shown to be unjustified or rationally unfounded.
Charlie: Wahh. What about the FDA?
Unjustified and rationally unfounded.
And while I am at it, in the U.S. of all the HIV cases due to Male to male sexual contact, blacks/African Americans rate highest at 42% with white second highest at 35.7%.
ReplyDeletehttp://www.cdc.gov/hiv/topics/surveillance/resources/slides/msm/images/slide5.gif
So, is disgust for say, Asian gay men at 1.2% no longer justified? Why only generalize about the sexual practices of gay people and not by race as well? There was certainly a time when there was revulsion at idea of drinking from the same water fountain or swimming in the same pool as black people, is this attitude now acceptable in light of disease statistics?
Why stop there, why not use statistics by state or country to justify disgust?
The real factors are promiscuity, anal intercourse, and lack of protected sex, not things you can tell about a person based upon a level of disgust you have for them, or even their gender preference.
I am still waiting for this idiot to answer my many times repeated question why shouldn't gays have the same rights as straights. Tick tock.
ReplyDeleteWow, nice party gang. Like it.
ReplyDeleteAfter all this the purpose of Charlie's disgust argument is starting to elude me. I haven't watched the show yet, but he's vaguely setting up some weak saw that the gay rights movement invented or at least championed the term homophobia to misdirect the public from the NATURAL origin of dislike of gays and turn it into an "irrational fear" isn't he? Thus undermining it with all that postmodernism stuff they use that can do anything! Even turn Man against his very Nature!
Interestingly, if he is saying that, he's admitting that ideas have rather a lot of currency in how peoples feel about certain things isn't he.
Hmmm.
Anyway, the disgust syllogism is obviously absurd, as many have pointed out. No Psych worth their diploma is going to say that there is anything absolute about disgust except disgust itself. What actually disgusts us varies wildly. Take your average westerner to a Cambodian market with all its deep fried spiders and cockroaches for sale as snacks and see what face they make. Hell watch some video of the old ladies in South American countries making that drink that's fermented by spitting in it. Put some cooked pork in front of an orthodox Jew. Let a dog into your house when you have fairly strict Muslims from some places as guests. Show the soles of your feet to some people, go back in time the medieval Rennaisance England and throw your shit out in the street like everyone else (or parts of Calcutta today). Then maybe collect it and sell it to a tannery for a living. etc etc.
A quick glance at the world pretty thoroughly ruins any usefulness for that explanation (not that any has been really suggested except "it matches other disease identifying methods in nonspecific ways" Yeah great).
So when it comes to 'homophobia is disgust->disgust is a disease avoidance behaviour' let's not pretend there's anything but a vast chasm between those two things, bridged only by addressing a whole lot of human variability (and no widespread cultural homophobia doesn't cut it. It's disgust itself as any truly specific metric of human nature that is failing here).
"There's a difference between social bonding and a male bending over like a bitch to get fucked like a bitch. REAL MEN WITH whole male brains don't do shit like that."
ReplyDeleteProof that Charlie's problem with gay people is not out of disease avoidance, but out of his idea that gay men act like women.
In other words, he's a raging homophobe because he's a raging misogynist.
This also explains why his "disease avoidance" excuse falls flat when it comes to lesbians and heterosexual women, but he still chooses to mock gay women by saying that they "play the man".
John K,
ReplyDeletegay men 44 times more likely to contract hiv than heterosexual men (including black heterosexual men)
Source CDC
So are you saying CDC is LYING???
Why has FDA deemed gay men a health risk to society???? Why can't gay men donate blood? So they're just fucking with gay men for nothing or is it something to this???
Why weren't blacks or any other group deemed as a health risk by FDA???
Gay men are CLEARLY a disease threat model because unlike vegetables, gay men elicit UNIVERSAL DISGUST in every culture and society. That's how we know the disgust is not socially driven.
Charlie,
ReplyDeleteWhy are you still here?
"May I ask any and all of the people here to please tell me what on earth we are doing and/or accomplishing here? "
ReplyDeleteBecause its worth letting people like Charlie talk because their facade breaks down and they expose themselves as idiotic bile spewing bigots like he did before with his cute little bout of slur slinging. The point is to get Charlie to make a fool of himself
"Gay men are CLEARLY a disease threat model because unlike vegetables, gay men elicit UNIVERSAL DISGUST in every culture and society. That's how we know the disgust is not socially driven. "
Repeated Charlie, it's not universal.
@atheistdeceitbuster: We have already been through examples like ancient greece. By the way do you realise that most gay men and women are equally as disgusted by straight sex as well?
ReplyDeletefor the fourth time: Why shouldn't gays have the same rights as straights.
I just want to know why we should even give two craps about how Charlie feels about gay people. I don't hate gay people; I'm not afraid of them; and they certainly do not disgust me.
ReplyDeleteDoes he have any political power?
Is he going to act violently towards gay people?
He certainly doesn't have the charisma to influence people like him to become anti-gay activists.
It seems to me, Charlie, you just want to feel special. You want to be the odd man out in a room full of atheists. But you've got us wrong. This community doesn't fight against theists because we want to feel superior or because we just don't like that they believe something we don't. Maybe that's why you are against them, considering you insist that we conform to your ideas.
We are fighting against theists/religionists because most of the time, they are encouraging and spreading ignorance, hate, violence, disgust, and fear. I really couldn't care less WHY or HOW you hate gays. I don't care if a drag queen wearing a rainbow boa and a tiara killed your entire family while you watched, you are still a prejudiced and small-minded individual. In the end, I just plain disagree with you. I don't think you have any power in the world around you and certainly no power to change my mind or world view.
Mostly, you have an impotent position that is inevitably going to be crushed by the onward momentum of society.
"Gay men are CLEARLY a disease threat model because unlike vegetables, gay men elicit UNIVERSAL DISGUST in every culture and society."
ReplyDeleteSo Italy and Spain aren't real?
You realize gay people can freely give blood in Italy and Spain, right?
Just a few high points:
ReplyDeleteDEFINITIONS: Yes, homophobia has drifted from the clinical diagnosis of a pathological aversion to homosexuality, so that it now includes overall bigotry. So what? Dictionaries are written to be descriptive, not proscriptive. And anyway, words, particularly scientific ones, are prone to being co-opted by the public. We call people neurotic who have no diagnosable neuroses. We call people codependent when there is no pattern of abuse/enabling. We call people "psycho" as in "my psycho ex" when there's no diagnosable personality disorder. Deal with it. Charlie is a homophobe, all and sundry understand that I'm calling him a bigot, no miscommunication has occurred. (cue tides go in, tides go out joke.)
NATURALISTIC FALLACY: People have pointed out several times that just because something evolved a certain way does not mean that it's necessarily a good idea or behavior to enshrine in our current society. EVEN IF Charlie had made the case that homophobic disgust is adaptive, which he hasn't, then there is no cause to elevate that to a guiding principle. The blood donation issue actually works against his argument, because it involves applying disease avoidance in its most basic, minimalized, necessary context, thus rendering all the associated emotional baggage obsolete. Because we have such things as modern medicine, blood testing, and a scientific understanding of disease, any ostensible instinct on the matter is rendered obsolete and unnecessary--and quite happily, too, as bigotry has clear social downsides.
AD HOC FALLACY: Charlie is a bigot. His arguments are clearly emotional as he keeps returning to "disgust," as though his visceral reaction justified anything. He encrusts his emotion with this notion of "disease avoidance behavior" even though he's been given multiple examples where instinctual disgust is inappropriate. If you want to see the fruits of overcoming disgust, go to a French restaurant--they make use of some horrifying ingredients. (Snails! Ewwww!)
AD HOMINEM ARGUMENT: Charlie continually attacks his opponents, not their arguments, saying they are sounding or acting like Christians, and his constant refrain of "get ready to feel stupid again." This is a childish bullying tactic.
FALLACIES: Charlie's constant mashing of the "strawman fallacy" or what-have-you is only making him look more foolish, as he clearly has only the vaguest notion of what their criteria are, and more than a few he seems to make up whenever he feels like shouting at someone and accusing them of acting like a Christian. He might as well say, "My hair looks like a bird: your argument is invalid!"
I'm out, until Charlie has been banhammered into next week as he has so richly, ostentatiously earned.
Repeated Charlie, it's not universal.
ReplyDeleteEven if it were, that wouldn't necessarily mean what he wants it to mean. It could just be the same moral objection over and over.
@petr
ReplyDeleteWhy shouldn't gays have the same rights as straights.
He's not saying that. It's even more inane. He just doesn't want them using the word.
"Charlie continually attacks his opponents, not their arguments, saying they are sounding or acting like Christians, and his constant refrain of "get ready to feel stupid again." This is a childish bullying tactic."
ReplyDeleteNot only that, but despite the constant insults he lobs at his opponents, he seems to think that saying "fuck" means it's totally okay to start spewing bigoted anti-gay language at people, no matter what orientation they have, either because he thinks everyone who disagrees with him is gay, or because he thinks calling someone gay is a horrible insult, which just says so much about him.
Because it's not "respectful", yanno.
@JT: Throughout this whole argument he turned out to be such a bigot that I wouldn't be surprised if he now openly admitted that it's not just some sort of silly word game anymore.
ReplyDeleteI can't possibly respond to everyones claims so, take this test...if you get all the answers right, you agree with me.
ReplyDeleteTake this test..
1. Gay men aren't allowed to donate blood so explain why FDA has deemed gay men a health risk to society in Europe, USA and China???? Are they just fucking with gay men for no reason?
2. Why do gay men elicit disgust in almost every nation and almost every culture throughout the world???
3. Why do feces, rotten foods and gay men elicit unversal disgust among humans all over the world and vegetables don't?
4. Why do many buddhist dislike gays when buddhism isn't against homosexuality?
5. STudy shows gay men elicit disgust. Is this true?
6. Study shows some disgust is a disease avoidance behavior. Could this behavior still be useful today??
7. Could our disease avoidance behavior still be used to avoid a group who FDA deemed a threat to pubic health??? Is it possible???
if you get all the answers right, you proved my argument is correct.
Can you site any of these studies that show people are disgusted by gays. And why don't you have a problem with lesbians?
ReplyDelete@atheistdeceitbuster: You must ask yes/no questions to make it into a test you dimwit.
ReplyDelete"1. Gay men aren't allowed to donate blood so explain why FDA has deemed gay men a health risk to society in Europe, USA and China????"
ReplyDeleteOh, NOW you expand it to regions outside the US?
Gay men can donate blood in Italy, Spain, Sweden, UK, South Africa, and New Zealand. How many of these aren't in Europe? Why do you think the US Food and Drug Administration has any authority over anyone else other than the US? Why are you ONLY using it as a source when you know full well that it isn't the only health organization in the world? Does "universal" only mean "USA" to you?
"if you get all the answers right, you proved my argument is correct."
So the only way we can answer "right" is by agreeing with you? Why?
Why are you pissed off by men who you say "take the role" of women if you don't think women are lesser than men? Do you think that women's only "role" is to be a penis receptacle?
Why aren't you disgusted by heterosexual men and women when they're shown to be harbingers of disease? Do you think Chlamydia isn't a disease?