Donating = Loving
Bringing you atheist articles and building active godless communities takes hundreds of hours and resources each month. If you find any joy or stimulation at Atheist Republic, please consider becoming a Supporting Member with a recurring monthly donation of your choosing, between a cup of tea and a good dinner.
Log in or create an account to join the discussions on the Atheist Republic forums.
You're arguing against your point though. If I'm getting bullied for crooked teeth, braces will fix that right up.
I don’t understand how what I wrote is an arguement against my point. Please explain.
My point is that if my teeth are crooked, it’s none of society’s business because that they are crooked hurts no one. Saying I should use braces so I don’t get bullied is exactly what I’m saying is the problem with your position that society should dictate that I change, even tho my crooked teeth (sexual orientation) hurts none of the rest of them.
Well that's what I mean that your approach is indirect. You're no longer focused on the change itself being wrong, but rather that since not changing doesn't harm anyone, then changing becomes unnecessary and therefore wrong.
Ok, this doesn’t make a lot of sense to me either, John. I think this discussion between the two of us is simply exhausted for now. It’s been real and it’s been fun...
john: Are you saying that changing yourself to accomodate bullies is the right course of action?
If we're basing right and wrong on harm, accommodating is the easiest way to end the bullying.
Victim blaming rather than laying responsibility on the bully? I think we have a deep insight into the OPs dilemma here!
"Victim blaming rather than laying responsibility on the bully?"
He cannot take much of another position Chimp, bearing in mind his deity's track record of bullying....
I mean, I do love the fact that you guys are accusing me of victim-blaming, given that I arrived at that conclusion using Cyber's guide for morality. Follow the conversation more closely and you'll see I'm saying these things to argue against harm as the sole guide for morality.
Its undeniable that to reduce the harm of bullying, it is easier to change the outlook of one person (victim) than the outlook of ten people (society).
“Its undeniable that to reduce the harm of bullying, it is easier to change the outlook of one person (victim) than the outlook of ten people (society).”
Maybe so, but it’s not always worth it. I suspect folks like Rosa Parks would think it better to reduce bullying by changing the law.
And, btw, where did I ever say that I was putting forth a guide for morality?
Right, so look at her bus boycott. Sitting in the back of the bus is not more harmful than sitting in the front. Likewise being asked you to give up your seat isn't harmful, buses still expect you to give up your seat for pregnant woman. Harm reduction isn't the direct goal of civil rights; civil rights is concerned with a philosophical and political argument of what humans are entitled to. I would argue that woman suffrage, and gay marriage are all moral advancements, despite them not reducing any harm.
Hasn't that been what this conversation is about? Questioning whether something sexual (moral) can be wrong if it doesn't harm anyone? We've had similar conversations before, such as with rape and abortion, and you've taken a similar moral approach.
If you think that forcing someone to sit at the back of a bus based on the color of their skin is not harmful, if you thing laws against preventing some people from voting because of gender does not cause harm, if you think discriminating against people by preventing them from entering into a civil contract with each other because of sexual orientation does not cause harm then I just don’t know what else to say to you.
Well, you can start by telling me what exactly becomes harmed in each of these cases.
Seriously? I'm hoping that you're making some poor attempt at playing devil's advocate and not that you lack the compassion and empathy to understand how being treated like a second class citizen/less human is harmful.
People sit in the back of the bus all the time; likewise, we are all asked to follow certain rules that we rather not (speed limit). There is nothing inherently harmful about these things. Talking about compassion proves my point, that there is more to right and wrong than just a correlation with harm.
That's a bullshit correlation. The speed limit is there to keep people safe, because unregulated speeds are dangerous. Black people were put at the back of the bus so the white people wouldn't have to look at them, and because seats closer to the door are more convenient.
People sit in the back of the bus in high school so the driver can't see them doing illegal things. Ever been on a public transit bus? The front fills up first. And even if this were not the case, denying a whole race of people the right to choose where to sit is still heinous.
Speed limits aren't restricting anyone's rights. They're keeping us safe. Jim Crow laws weren't keeping anyone safe, they were keeping despicable people content and restraining an entire race from being able to use the basic pleasures of everyday life in the same manner as another race.
Harm is the problem. Treating someone as less human is deeply harmful. It seems obvious that no one would argue that the actual location on the bus is harming anyone, it is the emotional abuse, dehumanization, humiliation, etc. that comes with being forced to do so. How can you possibly be implying that dehumanization is not harmful?
He's being deliberately obtuse, maybe he thinks it's clever. More likely he gets his kicks from the idea he's winding people up.
It doesn't matter what the purpose of a rule is, they all have the same function: to make us do something we may not want to do, or stop us from doing something we do want to do. Let's suppose the rule had been that blacks had to sit in the front of the bus, and all the issues you mentioned about the back of the bus no longer applied, would you still consider that to be harmful?
Emotional abuse is sort of a vague concept. One of the most negative emotions people experience is having their heart broken, but would you consider break-ups to be emotional abuse? We have a powerful ability to choose our own mindset, so I can't agree or disagree with emotional harm. People can be resilient, but they can also be sensitive. I feel like by and large, nobody would consider being forced to sit somewhere is emotional abuse, schools have assigned seating after all.
So I don't feel like your issue is with what is being done, or whatever harm is being done, when blacks are asked to sit in the back. I think your issue is with why they are being asked to do so.
I'll just roll my eyes and walk away from this convo. As a person that is generally defensive of Christians and their intentions, I am continually surprised by your ability to look like an ass.
I do want to point out to everyone, however, that from my perspective those of you requiring harm before you call something wrong are the ones who lack humanity. It doesn't matter to me if there is no harm in whites drinking water from the fountain on the left, and blacks from the right. It doesn't matter to me that the source of each fountain comes from the same well, and neither is worse off than the other. I still disagree with it in principle, irrespective of harm.
I am also under the impression that everyone who fought for civil rights, where fighting for something much more important than which fountain they drank from, and which seat they sat on. Those who fought against segregation in schools, didn't do so because the education at black schools was bad, and the education of white schools was better, it was out of basic human principles. Malcolm Gladwell makes the argument that part of the reason why the Supreme Court ruled ruled for desegregation, was because they viewed the education by black teachers to be "psychologically damaging" for black students. Blacks needed to be taught by white teachers, for their own well being.
Okay, new rule. All Christians have to wear a bright red shirt that says in bold, I'M AN ASS with an arrow pointing up. They must wear it so that when the government is ready to round up the Christians to be thrown in torture camps, it'll make their job easier.
Still think the reason for a rule is unimportant?
Well its harmful to the extent to which I'll eventually be killed for it. Take away the threat of torture, and the shirt ceases to cause harm.
The threat was integral to the comparison. You can't just remove it. That's like saying if you remove the separation based upon prejudice from Jim Crow laws then they cease to be harmful. You're literally just removing the harmful part and calling the original thing harmless. Not sure if you realized, but that's now how you logic.
Well yea, of course. My point is that carrying that label does not naturally lead to such a harmful event, Given that it is integral to the comparison, then the label is harmful to the extend that it causing the torture.
But I see your question as saying that eating lettuce is harmful, because of a scenario in which every time you eat a lettuce someone hits you with a hammer. In that scenario sure, eating lettuce is harmful.
No, getting hit with a hammer is harmful, and I'm saying that separating people based on race is harmful. In both scenarios, the historical one and my hypothetical one, a group is being disserviced for superficial reasons. I never thought I would have to explain that to an adult. Labels are not good things to put on people. Human beings aren't just laundry. Separation by color doesn't apply, and it harms people to boot. As a victim of discrimination, I can tell you that it hurts. Do you know how it feels to be known as "the gay kid"? Yeah, I have the same rights as other kids, and I have the ability to choose. But I'm still separate from other people for no good reason. That hurts. So fuck you. Fuck you and fuck your half wit bullshit about labels.
Well, I'm going to assume you're at an age where your peers opinion are very important, and perhaps they should be. But you'll notice that by the time you're in college you couldn't care less what people think. Not just in a rebellious sense, but in a very real organic sense. Your labels will stop being your identities.
As I said to Stone Jade, we have a powerful ability to chose our own mindset. I'm literally paraphrasing Victor Frankl when I say that, which is ironic given your shirt label scenario, since he was a holocaust survivor, and no doubt had to wear such a label.
I'm 17. People's opinions about me don't matter. What matters is the injustice that happens to myself and others like me every day, perpetrated by people just like you, who say labels are harmless. Labels create prejudices, and with them comes contention. People hate me without knowing me because of some aspect of my being. The hate doesn't bother me on a personal level because I know people are assholes. I'm used to it. What pisses me off is the fact that those labels exist. I shouldn't have to cope. Most of civilized society understands that. That's why bullies get in trouble, because asking the victim to just change or get over it is unrealistic and inhumane. That's what disgusts me about your point of view. You act like my being hurt by others' actions against me is somehow my fault.
So yeah, I could change my mindset. I could roll over and let the assholes win. Or I could change things by actually making the world a better place to live, which is what everyone who disagrees with you has been doing for centuries. Liberty isn't won by the idle. Liberty is won by problem solvers. So if you're content, move out of the way. You're part of the problem.
But maybe, if I just change my mindset, I could have the privilege to live in absolute shit and smile more often.
People who think labels are harmless are not the ones using them against you. It is those who do think they harm you, that weaponized them because they know you let them harm you. If people hate you, they're going to hate you whether or not they put a label on you.
I'm not telling you to be idle, I'm telling you to learn to help yourself, before you help others. Otherwise, you'll literally turn yourself into the bully, that's the vicious cycle I told you about.