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.

Re: Gays overreacting/looking for trouble?
 

As per my edit above, I promise to be good. :angel:

Re: Gays overreacting/looking for trouble?
 

No the only circular argument is yours.
I have not picked the definition that appears the best, I have pick the definition that by the rules of language applies in this case.
Discrimintion as defined by 'the cognitive process whereby two or more stimuli are distinguished' could in no way apply in this case.
I thought we were having a proper discussion but I can see your only interested in rhetoric and point scoring.
Not allowing men(gay or straight) to wear earrings, while allowing women to, is discrimination pure and simple.
If the gays wanna kick up a fuss, more power to them. Anyone who says they're over reacting is a either a queer hater or closet homophobe.

Re: Gays overreacting/looking for trouble?
 

I intend to honour a promise (above) not to keep revisiting logical fallacies, so I am happy to leave it there and let anyone interested in reading this discussion decide whose reasoning best fits the definition.

As for the definition of descrimination, which is nearer to the heart of the topic, the 'cognitive process' definition is not to be so easily dismissed. It serves to point out, quite neatly, that it is possible to speak of discrimination without the very word necessarily implying something improper or unjustified. So, when you say women being allowed to wear ear rings while men are banned, is discrimination, you are correct. When you say that this is therefore wrong, you are incorrect - especially if the only evidence you have to back this up is a quote from a dictionary which, when you read it in full, does not back up your point of view.

Re: Gays overreacting/looking for trouble?
 

So what am I?

Re: Gays overreacting/looking for trouble?
 

Discrimination is wrong, letting women wear earrings but not men is discrimination, ergo it is wrong.
Its about time you justified your discriminatory stance on allowing police women but not policemen the right to wear earrings. Which is in apart, also pandering to the prejudice that men who wear earrings deserve less respect than women who wear earrings.

Re: Gays overreacting/looking for trouble?
 

Thats absolute drivel zendawn - I am neither - and you already know that I think you (and they) are seriously over-reacting. You seem to think anyone who disagrees with you is a paid up member of some queer bashing brigade. Get a grip back on reality please.

Re: Gays overreacting/looking for trouble?
 

Pray tell us 'what are you?'. What is your stance on homosexuality??

Re: Gays overreacting/looking for trouble?
 

I think they're overreacting. So which one am I?

Re: Gays overreacting/looking for trouble?
 

Ooooh hark at her and her handbag :)

Now who's over reacting? Im sure there we're pleanty of racists who thought that blacks were just causing trouble when they tried to fight for the right to sit at the front of a bus.
Im also sure that alot of white people didnt think of themselves as racists.
Im also sure that some black people thought that other black people were just causing trouble too.

Re: Gays overreacting/looking for trouble?
 

Yes??? and what do you think of homosexuality???

Re: Gays overreacting/looking for trouble?
 

Answer MY question first please.

Re: Gays overreacting/looking for trouble?
 

No you answer mine. please.

Re: Gays overreacting/looking for trouble?
 

Sorry, your point was what exactly ?

That I am over over-reacting to your statement that I am either a "queer hater or closet homophobe" by saying such an assertion is "drivel" or are you trying to say I'm a racist now as well ?

Re: Gays overreacting/looking for trouble?
 

Yeah right, like you can't tell im using an analogy??

Re: Gays overreacting/looking for trouble?
 

Since I can't be bothered to read twelve pages of this - did anyone actually agree with you that they are not over-reacting, or that the thread title is insulting ?

Re: Gays overreacting/looking for trouble?
 

It would be polite for you to answer mine first, seeing as I asked first. You claimed that "Anyone who says they're over reacting is a either a queer hater or closet homophobe" so in direct response to that, I'm asking you which one you consider me to be, seeing as I am someone who believes they are overreacting.

Re: Gays overreacting/looking for trouble?
 

and since I also believe the same - I am also curious, which am I ?

Re: Gays overreacting/looking for trouble?
 

So far only Graham (I think). But Im not trying to get people to see my point of view. Im trying to understand how other people can allow a form of discrimination and accuse people of over reacting to it.

Re: Gays overreacting/looking for trouble?
 

I dont feel I can answer that question without fear of being banned! :)

Re: Gays overreacting/looking for trouble?
 

It would certainly help if you could justify your answer. And you'd only get banned if you break forum rules.

Re: Gays overreacting/looking for trouble?
 

I see ;)

Well that's easy. The discrimination in this case is against all the men wearing earrings - yet the gay community are trying to turn it into discrimination against them - since it isn't, then they are over reacting.

It would be like if they banned all the police from wearing leather jackets - and then the rockers claiming that it is deliberte discrimination against them because they like to wear lether jackets - clearly an over reaction.

Re: Gays overreacting/looking for trouble?
 

Yes I can understand your way of thinking.
I can also see how some homosexuals may find this an irrelevance especially if they dont wanna be police officers.
Over reaction is a value judgement, one used against gays not the police.
It is the police who are causing trouble by not allowing both sexes to wear earrings and if homosexuals wanna fight for a right denied them (even if its just cuz they are men) then I say let them fight.

Re: Gays overreacting/looking for trouble?
 

But that is by definition discriminatory to the intellectualists perpetrating their pedantry and definition refinement, as a sub clause to the ongoing discussion notwithstanding the original prospectus.

Re: Gays overreacting/looking for trouble?
 

By Russ' god is this thread still going?

Re: Gays overreacting/looking for trouble?
 

Well it seems it's ok to discriminate against a section of society, as long as their issues can be classed as insignificant.
It also seems ok to use discriminatory language that puts the already oppressed on the defensive.

Re: Gays overreacting/looking for trouble?
 

Except, of course, that so far you have completely failed to prove:
1. That discrimination is always wrong
2. That the language of the question is inflammatory
3a. That it is not possible for two sections of societies issues both to be significant at the same time, but one be judged more significant than the other and
3b. Choosing one over the other does not make the other 'insignificant'.

Other than that, good post. :rolleyes:

Re: Gays overreacting/looking for trouble?
 

This is beginning to sound like the Spartucus film!!!! :D

Incog.Who has completely lost the plot of this thread because she still doesn't understand some of the postings in this thread.I'm usually very good at getting meanings from poorly written,half syntaxed and poorly spelt meanderings by students but I've had real trouble comprehending some of the postings in THIS thread.I'm still trying to decipher posting 203.

However I know it will be my fault for not understanding. ;)

Re: Gays overreacting/looking for trouble?
 

I dont have to prove anything. Its discrimination. I think discrimination is wrong. Whatever the circumstances.
The languege is inflammatory as it's attacking gays and not the people who are either being discriminatory or those who hold prejudicial ideas about men and earrings. Yes! Even with a question mark at the end.
Let those who are prejudiced defend their ideas. What is it about policemen (as opposed to policewomen) wearing earrings, that means they deserve less respect than a policeman without earrings but a policewoman with earrings???

Re: Gays overreacting/looking for trouble?
 

I'd be the first to say that my grammar is poor but I dont see what's so hard to understand about that post and why I think it is discrimination to stop men or homosexuals from wearing earrings.

Re: Gays overreacting/looking for trouble?
 

Maybe, but you DO have to back it up if you want people to take your point of view seriously.

Re: Gays overreacting/looking for trouble?
 

NO I Don't have to back it up, as Im sure people who agree with the principle or those who understand the point im making will not require any backup.
The words as written are enougth.

Re: Gays overreacting/looking for trouble?
 

Let those who are prejudiced defend their ideas. What is it about policemen (as opposed to policewomen) wearing earrings, that means they deserve less respect than a policeman without earrings but a policewoman with earrings???

Re: Gays overreacting/looking for trouble?
 

well i've shown the question to all my gay mates and none of them find it offensive.
the cocensus is that for the police to bring in a rule that affects straight and gay men, to say it is dicriminatory against gays is paranoia and suggests that any objection from straight men wanting to wear earings on duty as insignificant.
they too feel that neither gender should wear them on patrol.
your a police officer first, gay/straight/bi after

Re: Gays overreacting/looking for trouble?
 

I apologise for the daft example, but I could say "Zendawn has an unhealthy obession with gerbils" however unless I could back it up, no-one will take it seriously. See what I mean?

I could also say that adverts for shampoo discriminates against us baldies but unless I had some effective reasoning to back it up with, nobody will listen.

Re: Gays overreacting/looking for trouble?
 

That's a fair point if the argument was for allowing both genders to wear earrings but it is only one gender that is being discriminated against. If a subset of that gender (ie gays) wanna band together then I see no reason why they shouldnt and calling them trouble makers is inflammtory language.
I would also not see a problem if lesbians (who are allowed to wear earrings) wanna complain about the discrimination on behalf of both men or gay men.
Also the fact that some gays think its innsignificant doesnt make it any less of a problem for other gays.
My analogy about blacks on buses was meant to show that some other blacks thought it wasnt a good thing to fight over too. Watch the film on sky movies about the woman who rode on the bus and see how other blacks thought it wasnt a problem. And then see how when she won the fight, How everyone thought it was worth it

Re: Gays overreacting/looking for trouble?
 

Well I'm just bemused now.

I'm sorry zendawn but to borrow from one of the characters in Father Ted you are talking a*se.I'm not homophobic,I don't think policemen not being able to wear jewellery is discrimination and frankly zendawn,your attitude,language and behaviour all through this thread only go to prove that you are 'overeacting/looking for trouble'.

Goodday!

Incog

Re: Gays overreacting/looking for trouble?
 

Well as far as the language goes, you dont have to agree with the sentance to understand it.
As for backing it up, Im sure if people were prejudiced against me, they wouldnt need any evidence to attack me for having 'an unhealthy obsession with gerbils'.
Now what 'an unhealthy obsession' means is up for debate, but most people infer from that phrase that you mean 'have sex with' its what most people call an inuendo(sp?). Double meaning.

Re: Gays overreacting/looking for trouble?
 

Yes and your language/attitude is passive/agressive/dismissive.

Re: Gays overreacting/looking for trouble?
 

:banghead:

I give up

Re: Gays overreacting/looking for trouble?
 

if a group of men complain because it is sexist that is one thing.
but for a group to claim this is discrimination against gay men, when it is clearly not, is paranoia at best, overreacting/trouble making at worst.

Re: Gays overreacting/looking for trouble?
 

So do I! Mainly because I'm now even more confused.You are still wrong though and no matter how you try to confuse you will always be wrong.

Re: Gays overreacting/looking for trouble?
 

Nice passive/aggressive play there. Accusing me of trying to use the tactic of confusion in order to win an argument is very poor.

Re: Gays overreacting/looking for trouble?
 

There does not have to be 'intent' for an act to be discriminatory.
By definition one subset of a major group has been discriminated against. If that subset have a strong enougth group identity to want to band together then I dont see that as a problem.

P.s. I do think the sexist argument is stronger than the antigay argument in this case.

Re: Gays overreacting/looking for trouble?
 

:rofl:

OK, that's enough, this thread is going nowhere. It's a shame I'm having to close it as it could have been a lot more interesting.