Monarchy Forum
Sign up Latest Topics
 
 
 


Reply
  Author   Comment   Page 3 of 5      Prev   1   2   3   4   5   Next
azadi

Avatar / Picture

Registered:
Posts: 1,474
Reply with quote  #31 
Quote:
Originally Posted by MatthewJTaylor

What do we call people who are biased against homosexuals?

Homophobes

What do we call people who are biased against Muslims?

Islamophobes


What do we call people who openly admit that they are biased against England?

Anglophobes.


I support banning Muslim immigration to Europe, but I'm not an Islamophobe, because I'm opposed to persecution of Muslims. I'm opposed to expelling Muslims from Europe, despite wanting to ban future Muslim immigration to Europe.
I'm opposed to gay marriage, but I'm not a homophobe, because I don't support criminalization of homosexuality.
I'm biased against England, but I'm not an Anglophobe, because I don't claim that England is a uniquely evil nation and I like some aspects of English culture.
VivatReginaScottorum

Avatar / Picture

Registered:
Posts: 367
Reply with quote  #32 
"I'm biased against black people but I'm not racist because I like jazz music and some black people are Roman Catholics."
__________________
That which concerns the mystery of the King's power is not lawful to be disputed; for that is to wade into the weakness of Princes, and to take away the mystical reverence that belongs unto them that sit in the throne of God. - James VI and I of England, Scotland and Ireland
azadi

Avatar / Picture

Registered:
Posts: 1,474
Reply with quote  #33 
Quote:
Originally Posted by VivatReginaScottorum
"I'm biased against black people but I'm not racist because I like jazz music and some black people are Roman Catholics."

I apologize for expressing my bias against England on this forum. It's understandable that the British members of this forum dislike me. I don't regret having condemned the wrongdoings of Britain against Kurdistan and Israel, but I regret having mentioned Gibraltar excessively on this forum. I actually don't care about Gibraltar. Gibraltar being a British colony is hardly unacceptable to me, because Spain ceded Gibraltar to Britain in the Treaty of Utrecht and the Gibraltarians don't want to rejoin Spain. I have mentioned Gibraltar on this forum, because British tabloid newspapers have mentioned a hypothetical war over Gibraltar. I sincerely want Spain to avoid going to war over Gibraltar, because the fate of the Spanish monarchy is far more important to me than the fate of Gibraltar.
I admit that the British Empire wasn't worse than other European colonial empires. I don't bear a grudge against other European colonial empires than Britain, because they haven't committed crimes against Kurdistan, but the Spanish, Portuguese, French and Dutch colonial empires weren't morally superior to the British Empire.
I admit that England isn't one of my favourite foreign countries, because it's a stronghold of Protestantism and liberalism. I prefer Russia and Spain to England. But hating England, because it's a stronghold of Protestantism is wrong, because the British state hasn't discriminated against Roman Catholics since 1829.

MatthewJTaylor

Avatar / Picture

Registered:
Posts: 277
Reply with quote  #34 
Quote:
Originally Posted by azadi

I support banning Muslim immigration to Europe, but I'm not an Islamophobe, because I'm opposed to persecution of Muslims. I'm opposed to expelling Muslims from Europe, despite wanting to ban future Muslim immigration to Europe.
I'm opposed to gay marriage, but I'm not a homophobe, because I don't support criminalization of homosexuality.
I'm biased against England, but I'm not an Anglophobe, because I don't claim that England is a uniquely evil nation and I like some aspects of English culture.

To clarify Azadi, I used Islamophobia and Homophobia as illustrations not as accusations against you.

__________________
ceterum censeo caetum europaeum delendum esse
The Scottish Tory - https://sites.google.com/view/scottishtory
Scots for a French Royal Restoration - https://sites.google.com/view/sfrr
Peter

Moderator
Registered:
Posts: 7,516
Reply with quote  #35 
Well, it's arguable that proposing measures against Muslims as a group is indeed Islamophobia. Gay marriage is another question. I acknowledge that people may oppose it for what seem to them legitimate reasons but otherwise have nothing at all against gay people, in which case they certainly should not be considered homophobes.

People opposing gay adoption is more complex. While they usually argue that a child needs the traditional mother-father arrangement of parents, that appears to ignore the fact that events such as the death or departure of one parent sadly often get in the way of that. Also that there is no evidence that children with a mother-mother or father-father arrangement are in any way harmed by it, excepting by the possible hostility of peers. Which itself is due to ignorant attitudes fostered by the mother-father parents of those peers. So to me suspicion is more justified with gay adoption opponents, though that still does not amount to enough evidence for conviction. A reasonable jury would require something rather more direct.
AaronTraas

Avatar / Picture

Registered:
Posts: 537
Reply with quote  #36 
Quote:
Originally Posted by azadi
It's understandable that you dislike me, because I'm biased against your country, but your personal attacks against me are unacceptable.


This is not why people dislike you. There are non-British members, such as myself, who has literally zero ethnic connection to the British isles, and little connection to British culture except what's inherited through the US culture. I'm a gun enthusiast who carries two knives on him everywhere with a strong American "get off my lawn" mentality -- I've got some strong opinions about the way the UK handles things that I suspect many if not most of the forum would disagree with. 

It's OK to have opinions. It's not OK to hit everyone over the head with them and then justify it by "these are my sincere opinions".

Quote:
Originally Posted by azadi
Claiming that I'm a troll is wrong, because I'm expressing my sincere opinions


You make no effort at reasonable or polite discourse, only repeating the same points about what you believe and what you want. You aren't discussing or arguing, you're just shouting and stirring up trouble. Sincerity of opinion doesn't matter. Lack of good faith in argument does. Thus: troll.
azadi

Avatar / Picture

Registered:
Posts: 1,474
Reply with quote  #37 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Peter
Well, it's arguable that proposing measures against Muslims as a group is indeed Islamophobia. Gay marriage is another question. I acknowledge that people may oppose it for what seem to them legitimate reasons but otherwise have nothing at all against gay people, in which case they certainly should not be considered homophobes.

People opposing gay adoption is more complex. While they usually argue that a child needs the traditional mother-father arrangement of parents, that appears to ignore the fact that events such as the death or departure of one parent sadly often get in the way of that. Also that there is no evidence that children with a mother-mother or father-father arrangement are in any way harmed by it, excepting by the possible hostility of peers. Which itself is due to ignorant attitudes fostered by the mother-father parents of those peers. So to me suspicion is more justified with gay adoption opponents, though that still does not amount to enough evidence for conviction. A reasonable jury would require something rather more direct.

I'm actually opposed to gay marriage, because I'm opposed to gay adoption.
Wessexman

Registered:
Posts: 1,852
Reply with quote  #38 
I think there is evidence that children do best, in general, with a parent of both sexes, especially boys. We know that fathers are very important for boys growing up. A mother-mother household cannot make up for that. The evidence in this area seems to be uniformly shoddy. It's one where activist-academics tend to dominate, and the surveys tend to have fatal errors, like small and/or non-random samples, self-selection, etc. But we have good evidence of what effect fatherless homes have on boys and young men. But it is true that often in terms of homosexual adoption, we are talking about kids who who don't have other options.

Anyway, anyone notice Azadi didn't answer my question?
VivatReginaScottorum

Avatar / Picture

Registered:
Posts: 367
Reply with quote  #39 
Having two mothers might not be as ideal as having a mother and a father, but it's still infinitely preferable to having no parents at all, or parents who are simply incapable of caring for a child, due to addiction for example. And I know from relatives who have worked in adoption themselves that the presence of role models of both sexes in a child's life- whether that may be aunts and uncles or grandparents- is one of the key considerations social workers make when placing a child with same-sex foster or adoptive parents, at least here in the UK. Besides, Wessexman, you have something of a history of sidestepping scientific evidence that doesn't fit your preconceptions.
__________________
That which concerns the mystery of the King's power is not lawful to be disputed; for that is to wade into the weakness of Princes, and to take away the mystical reverence that belongs unto them that sit in the throne of God. - James VI and I of England, Scotland and Ireland
AaronTraas

Avatar / Picture

Registered:
Posts: 537
Reply with quote  #40 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Wessexman
Anyway, anyone notice Azadi didn't answer my question?


Not just you. He doesn't answer questions he finds inconvenient. And then accuses everyone of either not engaging with him or attacking him or whatnot. 

Maybe he's not autistic, and he's just 13?
Wessexman

Registered:
Posts: 1,852
Reply with quote  #41 
Quote:
Originally Posted by VivatReginaScottorum
Having two mothers might not be as ideal as having a mother and a father, but it's still infinitely preferable to having no parents at all, or parents who are simply incapable of caring for a child, due to addiction for example. And I know from relatives who have worked in adoption themselves that the presence of role models of both sexes in a child's life- whether that may be aunts and uncles or grandparents- is one of the key considerations social workers make when placing a child with same-sex foster or adoptive parents, at least here in the UK. Besides, Wessexman, you have something of a history of sidestepping scientific evidence that doesn't fit your preconceptions.


When and where have I done this? That seems like a grossly unfair accusation that I resent and refute. My point here is the evidence sometimes quoted isn't scientific; it fails basic tests of scientific rigour. I recall the APA got a Lesbian activist-academic (of course) a decade or so ago to review the literature on same-sex parenting. She admitted as much, though she then tried to still claim we can take something away from this evidence. Almost uniformly these studies suffer from flaws like a small sample size, non-random samples that don't compare like with like (i.e., they compare upper middle class same-sex couples with heterosexual ones from lower middle class or working class backgrounds), self-selection through LGBT magazines and groups, and so on. Is this not unscientific? It actually isn't that unusual in this kind of social science, where activism.ofteb reigns. I recall reading just recently about a study on therapies for gender dysmorphia that try to get those suffering it to accept their bodily sex. Those running the study had advertised it entirely or mostly in trans- outlets. As someone pointed out, that's like only going to divorced groups to get participants for a study on marriage counseling.

As I indicated above, I'm in agreement about same-sex parenting being better than no parents or very bad parents. I also can see that other role models can be important besides parents, though I doubt they can completely make up for lacking a father or mother.
Wessexman

Registered:
Posts: 1,852
Reply with quote  #42 
Quote:
Originally Posted by AaronTraas


Not just you. He doesn't answer questions he finds inconvenient. And then accuses everyone of either not engaging with him or attacking him or whatnot. 

Maybe he's not autistic, and he's just 13?


He seemed to be trying to suggest he wasn't Autistic earlier.
Wessexman

Registered:
Posts: 1,852
Reply with quote  #43 
Quote:
Originally Posted by AaronTraas


Not just you. He doesn't answer questions he finds inconvenient. And then accuses everyone of either not engaging with him or attacking him or whatnot. 

Maybe he's not autistic, and he's just 13?


He seemed to be trying to suggest he wasn't Autistic earlier.

I don't bring this up because I have anything against Autistic people. I have an Autistic brother, although he is quite severe. I actually think people will be more forgiving with Azadi if he is honest about it.
VivatReginaScottorum

Avatar / Picture

Registered:
Posts: 367
Reply with quote  #44 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Wessexman


When and where have I done this? That seems like a grossly unfair accusation that I resent and refute. My point here is the evidence sometimes quoted isn't scientific; it fails basic tests of scientific rigour. I recall the APA got a Lesbian activist-academic (of course) a decade or so ago to review the literature on same-sex parenting. She admitted as much, though she then tried to still claim we can take something away from this evidence. Almost uniformly these studies suffer from flaws like a small sample size, non-random samples that don't compare like with like (i.e., they compare upper middle class same-sex couples with heterosexual ones from lower middle class or working class backgrounds), self-selection through LGBT magazines and groups, and so on. Is this not unscientific? It actually isn't that unusual in this kind of social science, where activism.ofteb reigns. I recall reading just recently about a study on therapies for gender dysmorphia that try to get those suffering it to accept their bodily sex. Those running the study had advertised it entirely or mostly in trans- outlets. As someone pointed out, that's like only going to divorced groups to get participants for a study on marriage counseling.

As I indicated above, I'm in agreement about same-sex parenting being better than no parents or very bad parents. I also can see that other role models can be important besides parents, though I doubt they can completely make up for lacking a father or mother.

I seem to recall writing a veritable essay on the scientific evidence in favour of evolution by the mechanism of natural selection some years ago which you more or less brushed off. I did not notice the part of your original post acknowledging same-sex parents as being preferable to no parents; perhaps you edited that in after I had first seen the post. I'm glad that we are on more or less the same page on that point. It may be true that the studies you are referencing do not meet proper standards of scientific rigour, but I haven't read any of them or the report you mention criticising them and so cannot really comment one way or another. I'm generally wary when people throw out accusations of bias as a way of discrediting scientific research, however, because I have seen perfectly sound science frequently attacked by vested interests in precisely the same way (with modern political conservatives being particularly prone to anti-science sentiment, although the left can be just as bad). 

__________________
That which concerns the mystery of the King's power is not lawful to be disputed; for that is to wade into the weakness of Princes, and to take away the mystical reverence that belongs unto them that sit in the throne of God. - James VI and I of England, Scotland and Ireland
Wessexman

Registered:
Posts: 1,852
Reply with quote  #45 
I had thought you were referring to the evolution discussion. I think it is a stretch to call that a history. I also don't quite remember it in those terms. For a start it was my, albeit limited, perusal of the evidence for evolution that made me think it wasn't conclusive and was partly a matter of one's preconceptions, rather than prior ideas I had. Also, I was actually impressed by the responses of you and Peter. They didn't change my mind fundamentally, but when does that happen in internet discussion? But they reinforced my view that I need a lot more knowledge before I can do anything beyond suspending my judgment and keeping quiet on the issue. I even read a book Peter recommended, I believe, by Jerry Coyne. Coyne, whilst something of a sophist outside biology, presented the Darwinian point of view persuasively. Again, this didn't fundamentally win me over, but it made me it clear to me I need a lot more knowledge before I can make any substantive criticisms of evolution, and perhaps the finding of knowledge will fundamentally change my views. I'm open to that.

I think there's a difference between the natural and social sciences. I would recommend that in the latter, research in all politically sensitive topics be treated with caution. I have seen a lot of dubious methodology. Definitely, don't take studies at face value. At least read the abstract if not the whole study. Only by doing this, for example, would you find that the study I talked about into so called non-affirming treatments for Gender Dysmorphia was done on a self-selected sample gathered through trans groups; in other words, it's scientifically useless. Yet it was spread around as a vindication of affirming-only treatments by outlets like Psychology Today. This kind of thing happens a lot in the Social Sciences, at least in politically sensitive areas. Why? Surely it wouldn't have been too exacting for this particular study to be run properly. The problem seems to be ideology and activism.

I will say I think heterosexual married couples should be preferred, all things being equal, for adoption. In the West, I believe it is often difficult to adopt a baby, infant, or even toddler, as those wishing to adopt them far outweigh those in need of adoption, so in practice I would restrict adoption of these to married heterosexual couples. I didn't edit the part about accepting homosexual adoption as better than nothing in my original post, I believe. I added the bit about Azadi. All my edits were within a few minutes of the original.
Previous Topic | Next Topic
Print
Reply

Quick Navigation:

Easily create a Forum Website with Website Toolbox.