Re: Gays overreacting/looking for trouble?
 

Perish the thought that I should assume your support for anything. :)

However my comment was clearly in relation to what I know is a topic you have often brought up in duscussion (logical fallacies), not your views directly on the topic of 'Gays overreacting etc'.

If I have misunderstood your interest in the subject, maybe we can start another thread and discuss it some time. In the context of this thread, it was a passing comment intended to re-introduce a link to a website you yourself brought to the forum a few weeks ago.

Re: Gays overreacting/looking for trouble?
 

There are certain circumstances where it is justified (depending on how it is applied), For instance, if I were to walk up to a Nuclear Power station, I would be refused access. This would technically be discrimination, but seeing as I know nothing about the technology used , if I were allowed free access I could do a lot of damage.

Also, another example. IIRC, the procedure is that they victim has to be examined by a doctor, and they are entitled to a female doctor if one is present. Again, technically, this is discrimination but is justified as being examined by a man may put the woman under more stress.

But, I do agree. In general, discrimination against people based on their race, sexual orientation, age or gender is wrong.

Re: Gays overreacting/looking for trouble?
 

True, it's not only women that get raped (a fact that is often forgotton), but, when people do get raped, they often are frightened of members of the same sex as the rapist. When my Ex (as she is now) was raped, for months afterwards the only blokes she talked to where Me, her dad and her brother in law. She was scared of every other bloke (including ones she had previously been friends with).

You argue it is just a psychological response, and, yes it is. But, Fear is a psychological response.

Re: Gays overreacting/looking for trouble?
 

Yes, I'm aware of that, however the implication was seemingly that I would agree with you that it was a circular argument.

And, as you said, "Perish the thought that I should assume your support for anything."

Re: Gays overreacting/looking for trouble?
 

Far be it from me to put words in your mouth. I did saymight have, and my whole reason for mentioning your name at all was by way of acknowledging that I was using source material that you originally introduced to the forum.

Additionally, you did not make clear earlier that you had drawn a distinction in my post between discussion of a logical fallacy and direct discussion of the topic subject.

So, is it a circular argument then?

Re: Gays overreacting/looking for trouble?
 

What's wrong with circular arguments?? Just cuz you can't find a way out of a circular argument at first, doesnt mean eventually another choice might not present it's self out of the maelstrom.

Re: Gays overreacting/looking for trouble?
 

I think you are misunderstanding what I mean by 'circular argument'. Have a look at this:

http://www.nizkor.org/features/falla...-question.html

and especially this paragraph from within that page:

When you say something is discrimination simply because it just is, then your reasoning is fallacious.

Re: Gays overreacting/looking for trouble?
 

I always thought it was a 'Tautology'
http://www.hyperdictionary.com/dictionary/tautology

As far as Im aware there is no objective moral standard by which we can say if one thing is moral or not. So in the end we have to take a subjective standard.
I can't use any other justification for using discrimination other than the definition applies to the case in hand.

'DISCRIMINATION'
http://www.hyperdictionary.com/searc...discrimination

'unfair treatment of a person or group on the basis of prejudice'

Its an 'unfair' (a subjective value) treatment of a group (men and homosexuals) based on a prejudice (that men who wear earrings are less worthy than women who wear earrings).

Where I suspect we differ is on the subjective word 'unfair' as you've already shown, you think its 'immature' (another subjective value) to quote:-

Re: Gays overreacting/looking for trouble?
 

In which case, why didn't you say "according to the list of logical fallacies that Graham linked to"?

You see *how* you phrase something and the *words* you use, *can* imply alternative meanings or even be discriminatory...!

Earlier where? Which post? What distinction? You've just made a claim, please can you supply some cites/ quotes/ references so I have some idea as to what exactly you are referring to?

Excuse me, but I'm tempted to say "do your own homework" here! You have claimed a circular argument, it is down to you to prove your case!

Re: Gays overreacting/looking for trouble?
 

Any danger of this getting back on topic sometime this week?? :D

Re: Gays overreacting/looking for trouble?
 

No, a tautology is a sentence in which you repeat yourself, as in:

"this is adequate enough" (the example from your link). The words 'adequate' and 'enough' are by themselves sufficient to make the point. you do not need to use them both in a sentence; if you do, you repeat yourself - a tautology.

A circular argument, on the other hand, is one in which you conclude that something is true simply because you state, or assume, that it is so.


Now, you are discriminating. :) You link to a dictionary definition of the word, but you only quote in the thread the definition that suits your purpose. Let's clarify things by quoting the full definition, shall we?

From hyperdictionary.com:

Discrimination:

unfair treatment of a person or group on the basis of prejudice
the cognitive process whereby two or more stimuli are distinguished

So, discrimination can be 'unfair', or it can be the mere process of deciding between one thing an another, with no necessary moral loading, positive or negative (basically the same definition that I quoted from dictionary.com earlier today, although you will note that when I quoted from the dictionary, I quoted the complete definition, not just the bits that suited my argument) :)

As for moral standards, I understand your point about there not being an absolute standard. Personally, I disagree with it from a faith point of view, but that is off topic. I didn't expect that you would share my view on that, which is why I asked you how you arrived at your own moral code. This is an important question, as you appeal to morality to back up your assertion that all discrimination is always wrong.

It appears to me, from what you have posted here, that you derive your moral standpoint by choosing, from several dictionary definitions of a word, the one that suits your point of view. Which leaves me no closer to understanding how you chose from among those definitions.

I am still forced to the conclusion that you are caught in a circular argument - you hold that something must be true, simply because you say it is.

Re: Gays overreacting/looking for trouble?
 

Ok enough.

Any further off topic posts are going to be removed.

Re: Gays overreacting/looking for trouble?
 

while I will admit I am :nworthy: to debate an issue in the fine detail you guys like, we do seem to be straying from that issue? :)

I work in the food industry - the issue of 'jewelry' is fraught with controversy - 'sleeper' earings & wedding rings are allowed - studs are ok if they don't contain 'stones' - etc.

- body enhancement is ok - but I think male & female have to tailor that to their role where necessary, imo the 'gay' spin on this story is irrelevant?

<edit> oops i said that before I saw Russ' post :dozey:

Re: Gays overreacting/looking for trouble?
 

Russ, in all seriousness I don't see what is off topic about the discussion that's going on in this thread. The original news article contains claims about discrimination, we are trying to pin down the nature of discrimination. Is it always wrong, or is it at times justified? There is no doubt that it is 'discrimination', in one strictly-defined sense of the word, that men can't wear ear rings while on police duty. But is this necessarily wrong? And is it enough to say 'it's discrimination simply because it is?'

If this is not at the heart of the topic, please tell me what is.

EDIT

On reflection, I promise not to get too diverted by logical fallacies, tho'. :cool:

Re: Gays overreacting/looking for trouble?
 

This whole 'tautology' and 'circular argument' business is serious doing my nut in and is dragging the thread off-topic.