Chris Broussard is for lack of a better word a bigot

[Dirkadirkastan]

Originally Posted by DirkFTW

I guess I'm having a hard time believing that someone would actually think it's impossible to be bigoted against a religion, and I hoped to get you to see otherwise. My understanding of bigotry is larger than just genetics (i.e., includes religion, language, and nationality). Maybe you really dislike the possibility of being viewed as a bigot, so you want to re-define bigotry to exclude your views. I guess we will have to agree to disagree on what constitutes bigotry.

I thought you considered it a useless label. Now you want to use it in a broader sense? OK...

I didn't dodge it; I thought it tangential to the conversation and a distraction. And given our disagreement on what bigotry even is, I'm not sure discussing the particular views of Mormons or the KKK do more than invite many more tangential questions that avoid the core disagreement. (Do you define the KKK as a religion. If not, what about secret societies like the Masons--can people opposed to them be bigots too? What about people who think global warming is a hoax and a part of a great conspiracy? Creationists? Must the KKK's views be banned/silenced or can I just disagree with them? Does my disagreement have to include ridicule and shaming in order to be acceptable? Are they really hypocrites or is that another negative-sounding label that they 'deserve' because they are KKK? Am I allowed to try to reason with them to change their mind? If reasoning fails, what am I required to do then to be seen as 'tolerant'? Do I have to get physical with them if words are not enough?)

I don't know why you keep bringing up this crap about "silencing" anybody. There has been no talk from me about legislating against their free speech. Everyone has a right to be hateful, and I have a right to call out their hate speech. That doesn't mean there's no fundamental difference between challenging ideas and claiming genetic superiority.

That's what I find most disturbing about your position. It doesn't look like you see any fundamental difference between the KKK's hatred of blacks and my own denouncement of the KKK. It's as if you think all ideas are worthy of equal respect and we just have minor philosophical differences.

I find their position despicable. Yet according to you, that makes me just as hateful, and therefore a hypocrite.

And here we are again at the foundational disagreement as to the definition of 'bigotry', where you seem to think mistreating someone based on their religion is never bigotry.

My point is still this: calling people names like 'bigot' isn't really intellectually useful. It may feel good in a juvenile sense, but you're not trying to change anyone's mind at that point. And if you're hoping to go a step (or more) further towards bullying and censorship to forcibly make people change their minds or religious beliefs... well that's rather intolerant and 'medieval'. Hardly the sunshine and rainbows that are advertised for the new world order.

Ultimately, I don't care what terms you want to apply to any of this. But putting down someone's genetic qualities is in my mind different from (and worse than) denouncing any beliefs they may have. Your point from the beginning is that they are somehow the same.

[Scoobay]

Originally Posted by Dirkadirkastan

Ultimately, I don't care what terms you want to apply to any of this. But putting down someone's genetic qualities is in my mind different from (and worse than) denouncing any beliefs they may have. Your point from the beginning is that they are somehow the same.

sorry hope this isn't too off topic but since you put it in this way i was just curious... I am reading your argument as calling homosexuality a sin is "putting down someone's genetic qualities". am i correct that this is what you are saying?

I am wondering what the evidence is that sexual orientation is genetically determined. i know some feel that there is conclusive evidence to such but i can't say that i've come across anything that is all that convincing. any help would be appreciated.

i think this is an important question. If you believe orientation is genetic then i can begin to understand the position that calling homosexuality a "sin" can be taken as offensive because if it's genetic then you have no choice. however i don't think everyone feels that way.

furthermore i think you always have a choice - is there genetic predisposition for other sexual behaviors? animals? objects? sorry don't mean to delve into too many specifics but it just starts to get really complicated for me thinking about all the implications...

[SeanL]

Originally Posted by Scoobay

sorry hope this isn't too off topic but since you put it in this way i was just curious... I am reading your argument as calling homosexuality a sin is "putting down someone's genetic qualities". am i correct that this is what you are saying?

I am wondering what the evidence is that sexual orientation is genetically determined. i know some feel that there is conclusive evidence to such but i can't say that i've come across anything that is all that convincing. any help would be appreciated.

i think this is an important question. If you believe orientation is genetic then i can begin to understand the position that calling homosexuality a "sin" can be taken as offensive because if it's genetic then you have no choice. however i don't think everyone feels that way.

furthermore i think you always have a choice - is there genetic predisposition for other sexual behaviors? animals? objects? sorry don't mean to delve into too many specifics but it just starts to get really complicated for me thinking about all the implications...

Well not necessarily genetic but it is congenital. It is believed for whatever reason that too much or too little androgens produced by the fetus OR mother causes the fetus' sexual orientation to switch. It could have nothing to do with the fetus itself but with the mother. There have been many studies on estranged siblings showing that younger brothers are much more likely to be gay than older brothers. This would mean that the first brother had an effect of the mother's body's response to testosterone.

Anyhow, regardless of what caused it, It is a scientific fact that it is biological. There have been multiple studies on gay and straight brains showing a difference. Here is one:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/health/7456588.stm

[Underdog]

Originally Posted by SeanL

Anyhow, regardless of what caused it, It is a scientific fact that it is biological.

It's a theory, not a fact - conducting a few studies is hardly conclusive evidence of anything whatsoever. Don't let your agenda muddle the vocabulary laid out by science.

[dude1394]

Originally Posted by Underdog

It's a theory, not a fact - conducting a few studies is hardly conclusive evidence of anything whatsoever. Don't let your agenda muddle the vocabulary laid out by science.

Unfortunately the "the science is decided" has become the latest way of shouting down opposition. It is screamed without anything being "decided" but it allows the folks on the correct side of the argument another shouting point.

[Underdog]

Originally Posted by dude1394

Unfortunately the "the science is decided" has become the latest way of shouting down opposition. It is screamed without anything being "decided" but it allows the folks on the correct side of the argument another shouting point.

Yep, no different than invoking "God" to win a debate... It's a shortcut to actual discourse, where one can revel in the smugness of thinking they know something rather than actually learning something.

[dude1394]

Originally Posted by Underdog

Yep, no different than invoking "God" to win a debate... It's a shortcut to actual discourse, where one can revel in the smugness of thinking they know something rather than actually learning something.

Gotta agree...

[Jack.Kerr]

Originally Posted by Underdog

Yep, no different than invoking "God" to win a debate... It's a shortcut to actual discourse, where one can revel in the smugness of thinking they know something rather than actually learning something.

The difference being that scientists allow science to correct itself, while fundamentalists refuse to consider that their understanding of their deities might ever grow or change.

[SeanL]

Originally Posted by Underdog

It's a theory, not a fact - conducting a few studies is hardly conclusive evidence of anything whatsoever. Don't let your agenda muddle the vocabulary laid out by science.

It is as much as a fact as anything else. There has been tons of studies on this subject.

On a completely separate point - this is a pet peeve of mine - I'm sure you mean hypothesis and not theory. Hypothesis and theory in the scientific field have two very different meanings.

[Underdog]

Originally Posted by SeanL

It is as much as a fact as anything else. There has been tons of studies on this subject.

No it isn't... The studies are inconclusive, as admitted by the researchers themselves. You have no idea what a "fact" is, do you?

On a completely separate point - this is a pet peeve of mine - I'm sure you mean hypothesis and not theory. Hypothesis and theory in the scientific field have two very different meanings.

So who are you parroting now? I know scientists and the intellectual elite love to bitch about the misuse of "theory" vs. "hypothesis," but my usage was 100% correct... A hypothesis is an idea built upon an observation, whereas a theory is a hypothesis that has been tested in the field... And you just posted links to lab tests studying the gay gene, so why would you call it a hypothesis? Hmmmm, maybe because you have no f*cking clue what you're talking about???

(or maybe you just love peeving yourself off...)

[SeanL]

Originally Posted by Underdog

No it isn't... The studies are inconclusive, as admitted by the researchers themselves. You have no idea what a "fact" is, do you?



So who are you parroting now? I know scientists and the intellectual elite love to bitch about the misuse of "theory" vs. "hypothesis," but my usage was 100% correct... A hypothesis is an idea built upon an observation, whereas a theory is a hypothesis that has been tested in the field... And you just posted links to lab tests studying the gay gene, so why would you call it a hypothesis? Hmmmm, maybe because you have no f*cking clue what you're talking about???

(or maybe you just love peeving yourself off...)

Actually I have multiple scientific degrees, so I do know what I am talking about. The fact that you are bashing scientists just shows that people who tend to vote Republican or at least favor their policies more are backwards and anti-science.