State Apology to Homosexuals

nthclare

Im a pagan and I demand an apology for all the pagans who were called apostates....

My friend is a warlock, he's off on a rant aswel as my friend Jess the witch...

Let's all get an apology from king Leo, he has a lovely voice

One eyed Jack

AllForIt wrote: »

They are not apologising on your personal behalf? Why would you say that? Do you think they are apologising because of your religion that was responsible for it?

Nope, my religion has nothing to do with an apology from the State for the way the State enforced laws prohibiting homosexual acts. They are apologising on my behalf if they're apologising on behalf of the State, because they represent the people of the State, the vast majority of whom have nothing to apologise for, because they didn't do anything wrong.

Religion isn't responsible for anything, and wasn't responsible for anything. It's people are always responsible for their own attitudes and behaviour towards other people, no matter how they excuse themselves or attempt to justify their behaviour. In your opening post you mentioned that you couldn't believe how far this conservative Catholic country had come. It should hardly come as a shock to you that there are still plenty of conservative Catholic gay men in Irish society. I dunno 'bout you but I have many male friends who are conservative gay Catholics, some of whom are even proud to be so.

Ireland will never really be on the International stage. The last time we were on the international stage was because of Riverdance in the Eurovison Contest. No one internationally gives a flying f what we're about. But if even a small hint of what has gone here gets to Uganda or Russia then I think apologies and recognition of what has transpired here in the last few years might be worthwhile. Maybe not but it can't hurt.

I don't know have you ever actually met anyone from Uganda or Russia, but they're generally not as one-dimensional as identity politicians would want you to believe. Any I've ever met were grand, didn't do anyone any harm, had nothing to apologise for either.

facehugger99

RWCNT wrote: »

THIS. I absolutely want an apology for when the guards took my sack of weed off me when I was 18 on the way to a gaff party. Scabby bastards probably smoked it for themselves and all.

Perhaps those of us who bought a piece of briquette, masquerading as hash, from a dodgy scanger at the Ranalagh Triangle in the early 90's, could have some sort of redress scheme set up to compensate us?

Reparations next?

Jerichoholic

Great, now who's for a parade?

Annasopra

Irene Scarce Theatre wrote: »

"No secret that people involved in the founding of the state were homosexuals"

Padraig Pearse was the only one I was aware of. He was a homosexual paedophile. Personally I think homosexual paedophiles should be treated as an entirely separate group to homosexuals who are attracted to adults.

Kathleen Lynn captain of the Irish Citizens Army, Elizabeth, Nurse and Cumann na Mban activist

Annasopra

Phoebas wrote: »

Varadkar delivered repeal of the 8th and SSM.

He did in his sh ite.

nthclare

Will Vanadinker put an extra 20 Euro's a week in all our pockets ?

All this is a distraction as to what he's taking away rather than giving....

Uriel.

I think this apology is ridiculous. The State applied laws it or its predecessor State democratically created. They were stupid laws for sure, but it is ridiculous to be coming along and apologising. We can and have to learn from the past but we must also recognise the significant difference in culture and social fabric.

AllForIt

One eyed Jack wrote: »

It's true alright -


Marriage in Ancient Ireland

Marriage in the Celtic World

Thanks for the link, interesting stuff.

Gay men were of course always around from the earliest evolution of the species, but even though the ideologies changed, it remains consistent throughout human history that gay men were generally regarded as inferior. He'd better be an outstanding individual in some other respect which endowed upon him status in society, and therefore the protection of society.

I'd accept that totally. Gays are not capable of bearing children. Well they are but you know what I mean. But that's completely different from being persecuted.

Nah, there has always been shame attached to being an outlier. Religion served it's purpose in society to elevate a persons social status. It literally just provides another measure by which people would judge each other, and feel entirely justified in doing so.

Yes absolutely right. Religion served to elevate a persons social standing. Not that I'm particularly impressed by anyone who used it for that purpose. I do still remember the 80's as a teenager and all those pious ppl around who loved to exude that they were pillars of the community.

AllForIt

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

I'd agree with most of that. My OP was had noting to do with licking Varadkar arse, personally I don't particularly care for him.

I also don't care who brought about the motion to issue this apology - even if it was Varadkars idea - the Dail got behind it fully and noone on any political side gave the slightest hint they objected to it unlike many of the posters here.

_Kaiser_

AllForIt wrote: »

I'd agree with most of that. My OP was had noting to do with licking Varadkar arse, personally I don't particularly care for him.

I also don't care who brought about the motion to issue this apology - even if it was Varadkars idea - the Dail got behind it fully and noone on any political side gave the slightest hint they objected to it unlike many of the posters here.

No-one objects to it (and no-one in the Dail was going to object after SSM passing overwhelmingly and the parties ramping into electioneering mode at the moment - but more than that, there's no reason TO object)... but that doesn't mean that it's not just Leo just trying to keep his name in the news and feed his ego.

Honestly, the narcissism of the guy seems to know no bounds.

AllForIt

_Kaiser_ wrote: »

No-one objects to it (and no-one in the Dail was going to object after SSM passing overwhelmingly and the parties ramping into electioneering mode at the moment - but more than that, there's no reason TO object)... but that doesn't mean that it's not just Leo just trying to keep his name in the news and feed his ego.

Honestly, the narcissism of the guy seems to know no bounds.

Look at this point here

Scott Curved Stalker wrote: »

More populist rhetoric. Gearing up for the pink vote in the next election.

This to me is nonsense. The gay rights issue in terms of at least the states attitude to it is largely solved afaic.

That does not mean in terms of the next election that I'm going to vote for FG simply based on what they have done. Yes there are ppl who are so loyal minded that they will vote for a party based on what they have done for them in the past but I certainly am not one of those ppl. And this way of voting is noting new - some ppl vote for the same political party their whole lives - no mater what.

For Tatransk to say that there is a demographic of 'pink voters' who are so crucial to FG that this apology is designed to get their votes is just so utterly ridiculous - not least because those sorts would argue that the gay demographic is much smaller than what it actually is. I'd hardly think the pink vote is ever going decide which party becomes the next government and I object to the idea that gays don't have a mind of their own in relation to any other social issue other than their own personal one, as if they don't have other issues that effect them personally like everyone else. What would be the point of a gay voting for Leo and FG again when the issue has already been solved in legislation?

Btw, a lot of posters here have objected to it.

nozzferrahhtoo

One eyed Jack wrote: »

Religion isn't responsible for anything, and wasn't responsible for anything. It's people are always responsible for their own attitudes and behaviour towards other people, no matter how they excuse themselves or attempt to justify their behaviour.

I do not think you can so easily wash religion of their part in the equation. Religious texts which, for whatever reasons, appear to be important to adherents of many religions. And they often expressly forbid or demean or condemn homosexuals and/or homosexuals acts. The Bible being one of them.

You can blame "people" in order to make religion look clean all you like, but the fact remains religion influences people and beliefs, even unsubstantiated nonsense beliefs like the ones you subscribe to in your own religion, matter.

When parents watch their children die of relatively easy to treat and manage medical conditions, for example, solely because of their religious beliefs...... it would be nonsensical white noise to say Religion is not responsible for anything, it is people. Religious is DIRECTLY responsible for many attitudes and actions of otherwise good people.

As the old adage says, bad people will do terrible things, good people will do good things, but getting good people to do terrible things often requires religion.

The Bishop Basher

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

When parents watch their children die of relatively easy to treat and manage medical conditions, for example, solely because of their religious beliefs...... it would be nonsensical white noise to say Religion is not responsible for anything, it is people. Religious is DIRECTLY responsible for many attitudes and actions of otherwise good people.

As the old adage says, bad people will do terrible things, good people will do good things, but getting good people to do terrible things often requires religion.

It all sounds a little bit like the "I was just following orders" argument.

There's no doubt that religion has played a key role in many human atrocities and much evil throughout the ages but personal responsibility and accountability have to play a significant role otherwise we would all be blinded by religious nonsense.

The fact that many of us aren't, despite the attempted mass brainwashing of children is proof of the fact that it's most definitely a choice.

To say religion is DIRECTLY responsible is removing accountability from the person in my view..

One eyed Jack

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

I do not think you can so easily wash religion of their part in the equation. Religious texts which, for whatever reasons, appear to be important to adherents of many religions. And they often expressly forbid or demean or condemn homosexuals and/or homosexuals acts. The Bible being one of them.

What part in what equation? This thread is about the current Taoiseach making an apology on behalf of the State for civil laws which made homosexual acts between men a criminal offence under civil law. Civil law is a matter for the State, it's entirely the States responsibility.

You can blame "people" in order to make religion look clean all you like, but the fact remains religion influences people and beliefs, even unsubstantiated nonsense beliefs like the ones you subscribe to in your own religion, matter.

It's nothing to do with making religion look clean, it's simply a matter of holding the people who are responsible for introducing the law in the first place, and the people who continued to uphold the law, responsible for their actions, attitudes and behaviours towards others, fuelled by their own bigotry and prejudice.

When parents watch their children die of relatively easy to treat and manage medical conditions, for example, solely because of their religious beliefs...... it would be nonsensical white noise to say Religion is not responsible for anything, it is people. Religious is DIRECTLY responsible for many attitudes and actions of otherwise good people.

What do you mean otherwise good people? Who are you to judge anyone? Why should anyone even care what you think?

I would still maintain that it is people are responsible for their own actions, attitudes and behaviours, because religion is simply a set of ideas and ideals, one world view that is neither inherently good nor bad, but it's how people interpret it depends entirely upon themselves and their own inherent prejudices and bigotry.

As the old adage says, bad people will do terrible things, good people will do good things, but getting good people to do terrible things often requires religion.

Nope, all it requires to have anyone convinced of anything is to feed their already held prejudices and bigotry which are based upon their own fear and ignorance. That applies to any idea that one wants to propagate about other people.

Grayson

Rennaws wrote: »

It all sounds a little bit like the "I was just following orders" argument.

There's no doubt that religion has played a key role in many human atrocities and much evil throughout the ages but personal responsibility and accountability have to play a significant role otherwise we would all be blinded by religious nonsense.

The fact that many of us aren't, despite the attempted mass brainwashing of children is proof of the fact that it's most definitely a choice.

To say religion is DIRECTLY responsible is removing accountability from the person in my view..

And yet for centuries before we probably would have been faithful foot soldiers. What's different now is the environment we grew up in. And this environment has only existed for a short time. Decades really. Up till this point religion would have been the dominant influence on our upbringing, our society, our laws and . our morals.

However there are still plenty of people out there who grow up being told that these iron age stories are true. They live their lives according to them.

In the US there are 50 million evangelicals. They tend to vote against gay rights and reproductive rights. There's many that are against civil rights. Remember the KKK is technically a religious organisation.

And the only way religion exists is because it's passed on like a virus. Parents become indoctrinated as children and they pass this onto their own children. And when they pass it on it's because they think it's the right thing to do.

The number of people who go out, research all the big religions and make a choice, is tiny. Most people have the religion their parents passed on to them.

The Bishop Basher

Grayson wrote: »

The number of people who go out, research all the big religions and make a choice, is tiny. Most people have the religion their parents passed on to them.

They still have a choice though. It is always a choice..

Doing nothing is also a choice.

nozzferrahhtoo

Rennaws wrote: »

It all sounds a little bit like the "I was just following orders" argument.

There's no doubt that religion has played a key role in many human atrocities and much evil throughout the ages but personal responsibility and accountability have to play a significant role otherwise we would all be blinded by religious nonsense.

The fact that many of us aren't, despite the attempted mass brainwashing of children is proof of the fact that it's most definitely a choice.

To say religion is DIRECTLY responsible is removing accountability from the person in my view..

I am not so sure. I think rather that their actions can be perfectly rational GIVEN what they believe. For example the parents who watch their children die or relatively easy to manage medical conditions. To someone like me that is an awful abhorrent and evil action.

To THEM however they are doing the absolutely rational and right thing GIVEN what they believe about the state of the universe. Given what their religion has taught them about the universe and it's creator. If I believed what they believe, I would sit denying my child medical care and watching them die too.

Beliefs matter. What religions teach matters. Trying to pretend religion is innocent and that people are solely to blame is really to only contrive to paint half the picture.

nozzferrahhtoo

One eyed Jack wrote: »

What part in what equation?

Do keep up would you? I was replying to you saying "Religion isn't responsible for anything, and wasn't responsible for anything." by explaining exactly how and where religion IS responsible in things like our historical attitude and condemnation of homosexuals and homosexuality. I am pointing out that painting religion as innocent, and entirely blaming people, is a dishonest move to make.

One eyed Jack wrote: »

It's nothing to do with making religion look clean, it's simply a matter of holding the people who are responsible for introducing the law in the first place

Which is perfectly fine to do, but not while pretending religion and the religious had nothing to do with it. Or that many people who moved to make such laws, and other laws such as blasphemy laws or the 8th amendment which we only now are in the process of clearing out, were motivated by religious ideas, ideals and beliefs.

Religion has a LOT to do with it. Beliefs and what people believe actually matter. And the two are not as easily divorced as you seemingly want them to be.

One eyed Jack wrote: »

What do you mean otherwise good people? Who are you to judge anyone?

Who am I not to? We as a species judge, singly and collectively, the actions and motivations of others. We do it all the time. Lets not pretend otherwise. But what I am speaking of here specifically are people who love their children, have no seemingly evil or malicious bone or motivation in their body that we are aware of. Yet due solely to what their religion teaches them about the universe and it's creator..... they basically watch their child die by denying them simply medical interventions.

It is easy for people to observe that and automatically assume that they must be awful or bad or evil people. I see no reason to think they are. I reckon they are just as normal as the rest of us, but have been motivated by their religious beliefs to perform actions abhorrent to the rest of us. Actions we likely would ALSO perform were we believing the things they do about their god.

One eyed Jack wrote: »

I would still maintain that it is people are responsible for their own actions, attitudes and behaviours, because religion is simply a set of ideas and ideals, one world view that is neither inherently good nor bad, but it's how people interpret it depends entirely upon themselves and their own inherent prejudices and bigotry.

But as I said, beliefs do matter. If you genuinely believe that your god (you know the one you have NO evidence to offer actually exists) is mightily offended by certain medical interventions..... you are likely to deny your child those interventions.

And we can sit back and pretend to hold them accountable for "their own actions, attitudes and behaviours" all we like, but the simple fact is we can not, or at least should not, be doing that without being cognizant of A) their beliefs and the importance of beliefs.

And if religion teaches things people genuinely believe, then we can not simply wash religion of responsibility of the actions of it's adherents as if somehow religions can not be blamed but only people can.

nthclare

I don't think religion is to blame, it's all about sociology and evolution.

There will always be snowflakes lefties and narcissists tying to stir it up.

Peoples ego's trying to get a pat on their back or some wanting Pat on their back's, or have Patricia on her back....

Just like the beautiful butterfly who landed on a cabbage to a bunch of depressed caterpillars and said cheer up sure in a month you'll be soaring in the sky like I

Sure they thought she was mad and tortured and killed her....

Oh yes, ain't nowt as queer as folk

nozzferrahhtoo

^ I think I would say similarly that no ONE thing can be to blame. And everything you list is likely also entirely correct. But peoples attitudes and biases and agendas and bigotries do not form in a vacuum either. And what people believe actually does matter. And religions do teach things that can form and/or lead to abhorrent actions, views, and agendas. Declaring, as we have seen on the thread, religion to have nothing at all to do with ANY of it, is clearly as nonsense an extremist view as those who would like to pretend it is to blame for ALL of it. Neither are being in any way coherent or rational I think.

Grayson

Rennaws wrote: »

They still have a choice though. It is always a choice..

Doing nothing is also a choice.

When you say they have a choice, well they don't. You're assuming that they have full agency. they don't. If you raise someone from birth to believe a certain thing it's very hard for them not to believe that. It is a type of brainwashing. And the way the human brain works is that it will initially push back against news/opinions that run counter to thoughts that are already established in the brain.

It's nice to think that we are all perfectly rational beings that are capable of making our our decisions but we're not.

That doesn't mean that we can't hold people responsible for their actions, it just means that we have to recognise that there's many factors that lead to what that person does.

Grayson

nthclare wrote: »

I don't think religion is to blame, it's all about sociology and evolution.

There will always be snowflakes lefties and narcissists tying to stir it up.

Peoples ego's trying to get a pat on their back or some wanting Pat on their back's, or have Patricia on her back....

Just like the beautiful butterfly who landed on a cabbage to a bunch of depressed caterpillars and said cheer up sure in a month you'll be soaring in the sky like I

Sure they thought she was mad and tortured and killed her....

Oh yes, ain't nowt as queer as folk

What the fcuk are you on?

The Bishop Basher

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

Trying to pretend religion is innocent and that people are solely to blame is really to only contrive to paint half the picture.

I'm not though. I posted above that religion has played a key role in many human atrocities and much evil through the ages.

I think we're saying pretty much the same thing though and I can certainly see your point.

I just give religion a little less credence and place a little more accountability on the individual.

If there was no choice, we would all just blindly follow. But we do have choice and so many of us don't.

The Bishop Basher

Grayson wrote: »

If you raise someone from birth to believe a certain thing it's very hard for them not to believe that. It is a type of brainwashing. And the way the human brain works is that it will initially push back against news/opinions that run counter to thoughts that are already established in the brain.

And yet Atheism is growing rapidly despite the ongoing brain washing. I'm not disagreeing with much of what you say but again, I put more accountability on the individuals ability to choose.

nozzferrahhtoo

Rennaws wrote: »

I'm not though.

I did not mean you, I am sorry if that was not clear or if I could have been clearer. My bad. I meant more the conversation in general since it started and the poster who DID do that. Maybe re-read my post in that light and it will make more sense.

Rennaws wrote: »

I just give religion a little less credence and place a little more accountability on the individual.

I think it is a mix of the two, in different proportions, from person to person. I do not think there is a coherent way to say in general it is X% of one and Y% of the other. It will be 90% in one person and 30% in the next.

My original post was just pointing out that the attempt that was being made to make it 0% religion was as crass as it was wrong.

Rennaws wrote: »

If there was no choice, we would all just blindly follow. But we do have choice and so many of us don't.

"Choice" is a weird one for me. I do not think we "choose" what to believe. We are either convinced something is true, or we are not. I can not look into an empty box and choose to believe it full of money. I can not look at Lisa Hannigan and choose to believe she wants me romantically and sexually. Much as I might like to.

And given some beliefs I question just how much "choice" a person has. The example of dying children I gave for one. If I, like they, truly believed that medical intervention would put the eternal well being of my child's soul at risk......... then letting that child die for want of basic medical attention would not be a "choice" for me. I would be compelled to do it, and believe the whole way I was doing the right and only right thing.

Grayson

Rennaws wrote: »

And yet Atheism is growing rapidly despite the ongoing brain washing. I'm not disagreeing with much of what you say but again, I put more accountability on the individuals ability to choose.

And it may get to a stage where the majority look at religion and wonder how anyone can believe that. However there was a time when it was the exact opposite. And it's within living memory for most people. As far as history is concerned a period of time where the majority of people don't live their lives according to religion is exceedingly rare. And although there are still places like that today, you are exposed to the fact that different places exist and you can chose to go there.

I think we're both roughly on the same page though. I don't think you can remove the responsibility from someone for their actions. But at the same time I think you can't underestimate how the society they live in can influence it.

One eyed Jack

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

Do keep up would you? I was replying to you saying "Religion isn't responsible for anything, and wasn't responsible for anything." by explaining exactly how and where religion IS responsible in things like our historical attitude and condemnation of homosexuals and homosexuality. I am pointing out that painting religion as innocent, and entirely blaming people, is a dishonest move to make.

I'm keeping up just fine. Our historical attitude and condemnation of homosexuals and homosexuality existed long before the establishment of religion or civil law. These were ideas entirely propagated by people, long before the printing press was invented which allowed for the dissemination of these ideas at an even faster rate than the narratives spread and communicated through the spoken word, and now we have the internet to spread and propagate ideas about other people faster than ever before. Trying to suggest that religion is responsible for homophobia is simply choosing to ignore evidence which doesn't fit your own beliefs.

Which is perfectly fine to do, but not while pretending religion and the religious had nothing to do with it. Or that many people who moved to make such laws, and other laws such as blasphemy laws or the 8th amendment which we only now are in the process of clearing out, were motivated by religious ideas, ideals and beliefs.

It's also perfectly fine to suggest that religion has nothing to do with civil law which the judicial system is responsible for upholding, regardless of whatever you might want anyone else to believe is true.

If you want to take credit for clearing out the laws, then you must acknowledge that it was people, not ideas, who introduced the laws in the first place.

Religion has a LOT to do with it. Beliefs and what people believe actually matter. And the two are not as easily divorced as you seemingly want them to be.

Religious and civil law are easily divorced from each other, regardless of what you want to believe, or what you want others to believe.

Who am I not to? We as a species judge, singly and collectively, the actions and motivations of others. We do it all the time. Lets not pretend otherwise. But what I am speaking of here specifically are people who love their children, have no seemingly evil or malicious bone or motivation in their body that we are aware of. Yet due solely to what their religion teaches them about the universe and it's creator..... they basically watch their child die by denying them simply medical interventions.

I'm not entertaining your goalpost moving efforts. This thread is specifically about a law which made it illegal for men to engage in homosexual acts. If men who engaged in homosexual acts were otherwise a good person, did engaging in homosexual acts make them a bad person because they broke the law?

Personally, I don't think it did, because I don't judge people the same way you do, and that's why I questioned your use of the word otherwise in that context, and why I questioned why you think you're in any position to judge other people. Let's not pretend we all judge people the same way according to the same criteria or that we agree on what is either morally right or wrong.

It is easy for people to observe that and automatically assume that they must be awful or bad or evil people. I see no reason to think they are. I reckon they are just as normal as the rest of us, but have been motivated by their religious beliefs to perform actions abhorrent to the rest of us. Actions we likely would ALSO perform were we believing the things they do about their god.

I have to ask you to stop with the 'we' and 'us' business. I have no wish to be included in your narratives.

And we can sit back and pretend to hold them accountable for "their own actions, attitudes and behaviours" all we like, but the simple fact is we can not, or at least should not, be doing that without being cognizant of A) their beliefs and the importance of beliefs.

What do you mean "pretend to hold them accountable", I do hold people accountable for their actions, attitudes and behaviours and I'm not particularly interested in justifications based upon ignorance, bigotry and prejudice.

And if religion teaches things people genuinely believe, then we can not simply wash religion of responsibility of the actions of it's adherents as if somehow religions can not be blamed but only people can.

But only people can be held responsible for their actions, attitudes and behaviours towards others. Who spreads and propagates religion, or any ideology for that matter? People do, and people are not nearly as one-dimensional as you appear to want people to believe. That's why your argument that people are compelled to do something because you believe they should do it just doesn't map to reality, because you're still ignoring the fact that in spite of the law, and in spite of their religious beliefs, men were still having sex with each other, and for some men the fact that it was a social taboo made it all the more a turn-on for them rather than feeling persecuted.

joe40

Irene Scarce Theatre wrote: »

"No secret that people involved in the founding of the state were homosexuals"

Padraig Pearse was the only one I was aware of. He was a homosexual paedophile. Personally I think homosexual paedophiles should be treated as an entirely separate group to homosexuals who are attracted to adults.

Well since one group are criminals (if they indulge their sexuality through child abuse) and the other group are like "citizens".
Yeah they probably should be treated differently

nozzferrahhtoo

One eyed Jack wrote: »

I'm keeping up just fine. Our historical attitude and condemnation of homosexuals and homosexuality existed long before the establishment of religion or civil law.

If you say so, it appears the opposite from your posts though. However I must point out I never said anything about whether issues with homosexuality existed before religion or not. So you are opening up rabbit holes at this point.

What I am commenting on is the influence of religion on modern, and relatively modern, attitudes, laws and so forth. Which as I said to a user above does in part come down to peoples own bigotry. No one is denying that I think. But to deny religion has anything to do with it at all, as you did in the first post I replied to, is the issue I am calling out. So no, the rabbit holes suggest you are not keeping up that well at all.

However I would be cautious of accepting your assertions of the attitude to homosexuals before religions came into the picture. After all the old testament to name one example, which is itself pretty darn old at this stage, is a religious text against homosexuality. "Before" those texts our knowledge or history gets ever sketchier. But there are certainly discussions of homosexuality in roman and greek times which suggest it was more open and accepted than one might think.

One eyed Jack wrote: »

Trying to suggest that religion is responsible for homophobia is simply choosing to ignore evidence which doesn't fit your own beliefs.

Sure but once again we get a situation where you are contriving to slowly edit what I have said to you into something else that suits you better. Almost by the clock really. What I am saying is not that IT is responsible for it, but it is far from blameless for disseminating it, reinforcing it, grouping people around it, and fostering it. And your attempt to act like it's hands are clean is simply choosing to ignore evidence which doesn't fit your own beliefs.

One eyed Jack wrote: »

It's also perfectly fine to suggest that religion has nothing to do with civil law which the judicial system is responsible for upholding, regardless of whatever you might want anyone else to believe is true. If you want to take credit for clearing out the laws, then you must acknowledge that it was people, not ideas, who introduced the laws in the first place.

Religious and civil law are easily divorced from each other, regardless of what you want to believe, or what you want others to believe.

I do not take credit, let alone sole credit, for anything of the sort thanks all the same. The only thing I am saying here however, which you did not actually address in this response paragraph is once again "Which is perfectly fine to do, but not while pretending religion and the religious had nothing to do with it. Or that many people who moved to make such laws, and other laws such as blasphemy laws or the 8th amendment which we only now are in the process of clearing out, were motivated by religious ideas, ideals and beliefs.".

You are acting like I am on the opposite extreme to your obvious extreme. That by acknowledging religion had a part in all this that I am somehow ignoring the "civil" aspect you are now waffling on about. Which I am not. What I AM doing is acknowledging the part BOTH heavily play in it, and calling out someone who is pretending it was all one and none of the other. Disagreeing with your extremism on it, and unsubstantiated claims about it, does not position me at the opposite extreme where you seemingly want to pretend me to be.

One eyed Jack wrote: »

I'm not entertaining your goalpost moving efforts. This thread is specifically about a law which made it illegal for men to engage in homosexual acts.

Again like clockwork, your usual move of projecting what only you are doing onto others as if they are doing it when they are not. The only goal posting moving came from you when I responded directly to what you said and you started this "This thread is about" dodge. I am well aware of what the thread is about thanks, but I am also well aware of what you said on the thread which I am now calling out and rebutting. So I will happily move the goal posts thanks. Back to where you just took them from.

The thread is not just about what you claim here either however. It is not "specifically about a law which made it illegal for men to engage in homosexual acts". It is ALSO about how and why/if that law warrants an apology. And investigating whether an apology is warranted does by necessity involve an investigation into how and why the law itself was ever formed.

Which is not an answer we are going to reach by unsubstantiated and fantastically nonsense claims like religion having had nothing to do with it, and we can only blame the people.

One eyed Jack wrote: »

I have to ask you to stop with the 'we' and 'us' business. I have no wish to be included in your narratives.

And you can ask, and be ignored once again because I on numerous occasions explained to you EXACTLY what I mean when I use those words in that way. And it is a perfectly valid and justifiable use of them, so your requests to edit my posts by A) pretending I said things differently to how I did and actually asking me to say things different to how I do..... is denied.

One eyed Jack wrote: »

What do you mean "pretend to hold them accountable", I do hold people accountable for their actions, attitudes and behaviours and I'm not particularly interested in justifications based upon ignorance, bigotry and prejudice.

Interesting that you ask a question the answer to which is in the text you are quoting. What I mean by "pretend to hold them accountable" in this particular way is that this involves not being cognizant of A) their beliefs and the importance of beliefs. If we presume to hold people accountable without in any way also involving beliefs and the importance of beliefs as relevant in the equation then yes "pretending" is pretty much all you are in effect doing.

Holding people accountable to their actions generally involves assuming they could meaningfully have done otherwise. That is what the concept of "free will" is essentially based on. However some beliefs are so ingrained and powerful that the adherent to a given belief could NOT really do otherwise in any meaningful way.

Again to the example of the parents who watch their children die, sometimes quite painfully, of otherwise very basic medical conditions. To me a horrific action that my instinct is to hold them 100% accountable for. But I ALSO realize that if I held the belief they do, and really believed it, then I likely would be unable to do any different than they did. In pedantic THEORY of course I could say I would be CAPABLE of doing otherwise. But not really. If what they believe is true actually IS true about the universe, then us as parents giving medical intervention to our children is actually a highly immoral act in fact.

So in situations like that I can but blame the religion and not the person. The person is, given what they have been led to believe, doing 100% the most moral thing they can by letting that child die.

One eyed Jack wrote: »

But only people can be held responsible for their actions, attitudes and behaviours towards others.

Except as I just explained in the sentences above this one, that is simply not a true statement from you. I have given an example where the belief, not the person, should be held accountable morally and ethically. LEGALLY of course we can only hold the parent responsible and slap them in prison for neglect of a child leading to death. And so they should be. I have no objection to their arrest and incarceration. But I know on the moral and ethical level what should actually be held accountable for their actions because as I said, given what they believe, they were doing the most moral thing they could.

One eyed Jack

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

Sure but once again we get a situation where you are contriving to slowly edit what I have said to you into something else that suits you better. Almost by the clock really. What I am saying is not that IT is responsible for it, but it is far from blameless for disseminating it, reinforcing it, grouping people around it, and fostering it. And your attempt to act like it's hands are clean is simply choosing to ignore evidence which doesn't fit your own beliefs.

Again though, how are these ideas disseminated, reinforced, grouping people around them and fostering them? They don't do anything on their own. They are spread by people, and shared by people.

Interesting that you ask a question the answer to which is in the text you are quoting. What I mean by "pretend to hold them accountable" in this particular way is that this involves not being cognizant of A) their beliefs and the importance of beliefs. If we presume to hold people accountable without in any way also involving beliefs and the importance of beliefs as relevant in the equation then yes "pretending" is pretty much all you are in effect doing.

Nope, I'm holding people ultimately responsible for their own actions, attitudes and behaviours, whereas you appear to want to hold ideas responsible for peoples actions, attitudes and behaviours, because ultimately, it is entirely down to the individual what they choose to believe, and how they choose to manifest that belief.

Holding people accountable to their actions generally involves assuming they could meaningfully have done otherwise. That is what the concept of "free will" is essentially based on. However some beliefs are so ingrained and powerful that the adherent to a given belief could NOT really do otherwise in any meaningful way.

What they felt could or couldn't do isn't based upon the belief itself though, it's dependent upon their adherence to that belief and how meaningful it is to them. Contrary to your earlier adage, religion isn't required to motivate anyone to do anything. They choose to do it.

Except as I just explained in the sentences above this one, that is simply not a true statement from you. I have given an example where the belief, not the person, should be held accountable morally and ethically. LEGALLY of course we can only hold the parent responsible and slap them in prison for neglect of a child leading to death. And so they should be. I have no objection to their arrest and incarceration. But I know on the moral and ethical level what should actually be held accountable for their actions because as I said, given what they believe, they were doing the most moral thing they could.

Nope, all you've actually given me is an example of your own moral and ethical standards, nothing more, which are entirely based upon your own beliefs about people.

Zubeneschamali

Mutant z wrote: »

There may need to be a lot more apologising in future when you look at the demographic change which is currently taking place in this country and the less than friendly views some of those demographs hold towards gay people.

I agree - a lot of people should apologize for current, active racism after they admit it and stop it.

nozzferrahhtoo

One eyed Jack wrote: »

Again though, how are these ideas disseminated, reinforced, grouping people around them and fostering them? They don't do anything on their own. They are spread by people, and shared by people.

Again you are acting like I am somehow denying that, but as I explained in the last post just because I am calling out your extreme, I am not at the opposite one. I know we can hold people accountable for their actions AND I know we should hold them accountable for disseminating unsubstantiated and dangerous beliefs.

So we are 100% agreed there, but I am ALSO saying that your attempt to leave religion blame less in the first post I replied to is simply wrong. That people are accountable in the ways you list is agreed, that this somehow means religion is not, is not.

One eyed Jack wrote: »

Nope, I'm holding people ultimately responsible for their own actions, attitudes and behaviours, whereas you appear to want to hold ideas responsible for peoples actions, attitudes and behaviours, because ultimately, it is entirely down to the individual what they choose to believe, and how they choose to manifest that belief.

Same thing again, pretending I am not agreeing with most of that. Your black and white "whereas" thinking here is yours, not mine. I am saying it is BOTH. You are pretending that because I am blaming one, I am somehow not blaming the other.

Again: I am saying it is both and calling out your original claim it was only one. Further I do not agree AT ALL that people "choose what to believe" in the way you suggest. People very often can not choose to believe, or not believe, something. They either become convinced by it, or they do not. Entirely out of their control.

If you want to claim that someone who thinks, for example, that their god is against medical intervention and blood transfusions..... that the person CHOSE that belief..... you have a lot of substantiation ahead of you to offer for that claim. If you think I can CHOOSE to believe the empty box that is beside me is actually full of money when it patently and demonstrably is not.... then again you have a lot of substantiation left to offer.

By all means go choose to believe you can fly. I very much doubt you actually can choose it.

One eyed Jack wrote: »

Contrary to your earlier adage, religion isn't required to motivate anyone to do anything. They choose to do it.

And as I said "choice" has to be meaningful in terms of accountabiltiy and free will. We can pedantically CLAIM someone can choose an action but if everything they know and believe is against it, I do not think the idea they actually functionally have a choice is a meaningful or coherent claim.

If I actually believed a blood transfusion would commit my child's eternal soul to hell or some form of diminished or horrific level of well being you could pedantically shout at me that I have a "choice" but functionally I don't. There is nothing BUT refusing that blood transfusion I could do.

On paper you can claim I have a choice. In reality however, I really wouldn't.

One eyed Jack

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

I am ALSO saying that your attempt to leave religion blame less in the first post I replied to is simply wrong. That people are accountable in the ways you list is agreed, that this somehow means religion is not, is not.

And who is responsible for religion? People.

Who is responsible for the law we're actually talking about here? People.

Same thing again, pretending I am not agreeing with most of that. Your black and white "whereas" thinking here is yours, not mine. I am saying it is BOTH. You are pretending that because I am blaming one, I am somehow not blaming the other.

You're not blaming the other though, you're actually excusing peoples behaviour because of you want to believe that ideas made them do it as though they had no choice in the matter. Law makers at the time weren't ignorant spud munchers in thrall to the Church, and they haven't been since. They chose to implement and uphold the law, because of their own moral and ethical standards.

On paper you can claim I have a choice. In reality however, I really wouldn't.

In reality I haven't claimed you are compelled to do anything.

nozzferrahhtoo

One eyed Jack wrote: »

And who is responsible for religion? People. Who is responsible for the law we're actually talking about here? People.

Again, not disagreeing with that AT ALL. In at least two posts now I have made that clear. But you keep saying it like it is somehow news to me in your mind.

The fact that the religion was created by people, can be blamed on those peoples, sure.

The fact that LATER, long after those people died, that religion causes people to do awful things can be blamed on that religion AND if you like the people who created it.

AGAIN: I am saying it is both, and you do not seem to get that. It was solely a rebuttal to your point religion has nothing to do with it.

One eyed Jack wrote: »

You're not blaming the other though, you're actually excusing peoples behaviour because of you want to believe that ideas made them do it as though they had no choice in the matter.

Now once again you are distorting what I said, and making that move of telling me what you believe I think rather than responding to what I said I think. When you turn "psychic" in a conversation, the debate you have lost.

I do not excuse peoples behavior, I explain it. The two are not the same thing. Though quite often people act like they are. For example many times in conversations about pedophilia where I discussed explanations for pedophilia and why people have those compulsions, I was accused of trying to "excuse" pedophilia.

No. Not a bit of it. Offering explanations for peoples behaviours and actions......... and excusing those behaviors and actions........ are two different things. And the only one claiming I am excusing them is you because I sure as hell have said or done no such thing.

One eyed Jack wrote: »

In reality I haven't claimed you are compelled to do anything.

Ehhhh I did not say you did? I said "On paper you can claim I have a choice. In reality however, I really wouldn't."

One eyed Jack

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

Again, not disagreeing with that AT ALL. In at least two posts now I have made that clear. But you keep saying it like it is somehow news to me in your mind.

The fact that the religion was created by people, can be blamed on those peoples, sure.

The fact that LATER, long after those people died, that religion causes people to do awful things can be blamed on that religion AND if you like the people who created it.

AGAIN: I am saying it is both, and you do not seem to get that. It was solely a rebuttal to your point religion has nothing to do with it.

I get what you're saying alright, I simply disagree with it.

What you don't appear to want to acknowledge is that individuals are entirely responsible for their own attitudes and behaviours towards others, and some people use religion as a justification for their attitudes and behaviours towards others, and some people don't.

In relation to the law we're talking about here, some people used religion as a justification for the law, and some people didn't need to use religion as a justification for the law. Either way, what it comes down to is that ultimately it was the people who made that decision should be held responsible for making that decision, and for continuing to support that decision. The State, as in the people of the State were not responsible for that decision and so there is no need for an apology on behalf of the State for something that the State was not responsible for, nor was religion responsible for it.

The responsibility for the law in the first place rests entirely with the people who introduced the law, and the responsibility for the continuation of that law rests entirely with the people who chose that the law should continue to stand in Irish legislation. Using religion either as an excuse or a scapegoat ignores the reality that people have minds of their own, and they chose to continue to support a law which was unjust in the first place. People were not compelled to support the law, they chose to.

The denial of fact you're trying to propagate is similar to your earlier claims about how homosexuality was perceived in Ancient Greek and Roman cultures. FAR from being tolerant of homosexuality, Ancient Greek and Roman civilisations were just as intolerant of homosexuality as many people, whether they be religious or not, are today.

Now once again you are distorting what I said, and making that move of telling me what you believe I think rather than responding to what I said I think. When you turn "psychic" in a conversation, the debate you have lost.

I do not excuse peoples behavior, I explain it. The two are not the same thing. Though quite often people act like they are. For example many times in conversations about pedophilia where I discussed explanations for pedophilia and why people have those compulsions, I was accused of trying to "excuse" pedophilia.

No. Not a bit of it. Offering explanations for peoples behaviours and actions......... and excusing those behaviors and actions........ are two different things. And the only one claiming I am excusing them is you because I sure as hell have said or done no such thing.

I'm not telling you what I believe you think at all, I'm questioning what you think based upon what you've written. As far as I can see all you're doing is offering excuses by way of explanations which suit what you already believe about people, and I'm questioning what you believe about people on the basis that your explanations simply don't make any sense to me given what I already know about people.

Ehhhh I did not say you did? I said "On paper you can claim I have a choice. In reality however, I really wouldn't."

My point is that in reality, I haven't argued that you are compelled to do anything. In reality, you do have a choice, and whether or not you believe you don't, is entirely your responsibility, and you are accountable for your own choices, and excuses that you were compelled to do anything is like your earlier argument that people who are religious are compelled to believe what is written in their religious texts, and act accordingly. They're not. They have choice, they have free will.

People chose to exercise their free will to continue to support a law which made sexual activities between men a criminal offence in Irish legislation. It was not religion which made them do this. They chose to do so of their own free will. It is those people who should apologise for their actions, not the State, nor the current Taoiseach on behalf of the State.

Another blow for leo and his peeps!!
He'll stick that on his soch meeds and count himself in the progressive trendy new, trudeau / Emmanuel Macron boys club...

this sums it up

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=doPR-6X9h7c

nozzferrahhtoo

One eyed Jack wrote: »

What you don't appear to want to acknowledge is that individuals are entirely responsible for their own attitudes and behaviours towards others

It is not that I do not "get it" I just do not believe your assertion that this is true. I think the things people believe, beliefs they did not and likely could not choose but have become convinced of, strongly control and constrain what peoples attitudes and behaviors can be.

You can go on and on telling me people choose their own actions, but aside from on paper that is simply not always true. Peoples actions, and the choices they feel they can make, are constrained by what they believe about the world.

If I brought you to the top of a tall building, we could CLAIM you have a choice to walk off the edge of it. But given what you believe about the world, gravity and the result of such an action I do not think it meaningful to pretend you actually do have a choice there. Unless you are suicidal, you likely have no such choice really.

Similarly, as I said, we can claim a parent had a choice to watch their child die, or obtain medical interventions. However given what such a parent might believe about the universe and it's creator, and the implications of offending that creator by obtaining medical intervention..... they do not in effect actually have any such choice.

You simply want to separate choice and belief as if the two are non-overlapping and I simply do not buy it.

One eyed Jack wrote: »

In relation to the law we're talking about here, some people used religion as a justification for the law, and some people didn't need to use religion as a justification for the law.

I am sure that is 100% true and I never disagreed with it. However I also ADD to that, rather than contradict it, by saying a lot of the support for such a law, push for it, desire for it, and more likely came from religious inspired claims and ideas and attitudes and beliefs. If you genuinely believe god is against homosexuality, and that homosexuality puts the eternal well being of the souls of good people in jeopardy, you are in a group which is likely to be very much supportive of such a law.

No one needs religion to justify their bigotry. Your inability to see two men holding hands in a restaurant without feeling you have to complain to the management under the impression the management should be obliged to act on your complaint by imposing on the homosexuals in question for example.......... does not have to have religion at it's base. But it could. And it would be fuel if it did.

But that one does not NEED religion to initiate and instill and fuel such bigotry does not mean religion does not initiate and fuel and instill such bigotry. If we go around convincing people a god exists, and that this god is offended by homosexuality even to the point of making homosexuals and/or their supporters suffer in an after life...... then it is a fools errand to act like this is not going to affect peoples choices, actions, attitudes, biases, bigotry and the laws they support.

One eyed Jack wrote: »

The responsibility for the law in the first place rests entirely with the people who introduced the law

Again that is not something I disagree with. Only people make laws. So I do not think we need to state the blatantly obvious at each other. The only point of contention I am bringing up is that of pretending religion has or had nothing to do with this at all, and that the two can simply be separated leaving religion clean, and only the people to blame.

It is you and only you in this conversation claiming people are "Using religion either as an excuse or a scapegoat" and that this "ignores the reality that people have minds of their own". This assertion from you simply claims they made their choice first and used religion to justify it second. Clearly you are closed to the issue that some people will believe the religion first, and it will lead them to those conclusions second. The exact other way around to what you are peddling here.

Basically your need for religion to come clean makes you invent the narrative that if people do such bad things in the presence of religion, it must simply be they are justifying it with religion after the fact. And that is not an assumption you are bolstering with any substantiation whatsoever.

One eyed Jack wrote: »

The denial of fact you're trying to propagate is similar to your earlier claims about how homosexuality was perceived in Ancient Greek and Roman cultures. FAR from being tolerant of homosexuality, Ancient Greek and Roman civilisations were just as intolerant of homosexuality as many people, whether they be religious or not, are today.

Your lack of historical knowledge is not a denial of fact on my part. Further no one is claiming here that there was no such intolerance back in those days. So once again the real denial of fact going on here is the same one that usually goes on with you, which is a denial of what I ACTUALLY said in favor of what you would prefer I had said.

What I DID say was that there was more tolerance in those times "than one might think". But rather than reply to that, you replied to something of your own invention instead. Again. As usual. Like clock work.

But there was more tolerance back then than one might expect, where tolerance of it had less to do with gender and more to do with social status at times. If the male recipient of sex was of the right age and/or social standing it was in fact quite accepted.

One eyed Jack wrote: »

I'm not telling you what I believe you think at all, I'm questioning what you think based upon what you've written.

That is demonstrably a lie however. Your exact words were not questioning but descriptive. "You're not blaming the other though, you're actually excusing peoples behaviour" was not anything remotely like questioning. It was outright declaring I was doing and thinking things I never once did, said or indicated on this thread anywhere ever.

And I am happy to explain to you the VAST difference between seeking explanations and motivations in peoples behavior........... and seeking to "excuse" that behavior. If at some point you want to pretend the two are the same thing in order to pretend I am doing or saying things I am not, then you can be expected to be called out on that crass little canard.

One eyed Jack wrote: »

As far as I can see all you're doing is offering excuses by way of explanations which suit what you already believe about people, and I'm questioning what you believe about people

I have only offered one belief about people on this thread however, and it is one I have not seen you directly question and certainly not directly rebut except to repeat the assertions they were a response to. And that claim is that the choices people make, and the beliefs that they hold while making them, are not simply separable into non-overlapping elements like you appear to claim.

What I believe about people is that while we can claim on paper they can choose every choice available to them, such as to treat their child for a disease or not, those choices are going to be functionally constrained by the beliefs they hold.

And if people create, support, or implement a law against homosexuals and homosexual behavior I do not think we can leave religion blameless in the creation of a system of thought that leads people to think homosexuals and homosexual behavior are worthy of having laws erected against them. We can not simply pretend, as you have here, that religion has nothing at all to do with it.

One eyed Jack wrote: »

My point is that in reality, I haven't argued that you are compelled to do anything. In reality, you do have a choice

And in reality the choices you feel you can take, regardless of what choices you actually have, will be constrained by many things including what you believe about reality. And my only point has been that if religion distorts what people believe about reality, then religion has to be held partially accountable for what choices people make under the constraints of those beliefs.

Your love of religion might want to leave religion blameless of the creation of insidious and pointless little laws like outlawing homosexual sex.... but it is not as blameless in the entire equation as you want it to be.

AllForIt

One eyed Jack wrote: »

....... individuals are entirely responsible for their own attitudes and behaviours towards others, and some people use religion as a justification for their attitudes and behaviours towards others, and some people don't.

I couldn't disagree more with this as someone who has an interest in psychology and relevantly the interconnects between ones psychology and the culture in which one lives.

There are certain ppl in life who are more immune to cultural influences than others - maybe it's because they are more intelligent or it's emotional i.e they have been rejected to at least some degree within their culture which forces them to think more critically about the culture they live in.

Not everyone has the time to think about issues that has nothing to do with them, life is hard enough. But it is afaic true that ppl 'soak up' and hold views that they hear, without questioning them - such as teaching from a religious organization, and if they see ppl all around them agreeing, or at least not kicking up a fuss, they will go with the flow.

My point is ppl are not always 'entirely' responsible for their own thoughts and viewpoints - they are highly influenced by the culture in which they live.

The Bishop Basher

AllForIt wrote: »

My point is ppl are not always 'entirely' responsible for their own thoughts and viewpoints

Yes they are.

And half the population being a bit thick, doesn't excuse them from being accountable for their own actions.

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

You simply want to separate choice and belief as if the two are non-overlapping and I simply do not buy it.

I see huge comparisons between this and the "ah sure I was a bit drunk" argument.

Sorry. I don't buy it doesn't wash.

You chose to get drunk which led to you carrying out the act your refusing take accountability for. That's a concept that's generally accepted by society.

Religion is no different. You chose to follow a religion. Even if you've never thought about it and just blindly followed, that's a choice in itself.

We must be accountable for our own actions otherwise, taking your point to it's logical conclusion, I can do pretty much whatever I want and claim that "religion made me do it.."

The second we stray from the concept of 100% personal and individual accountability, which we appear to be doing more and more lately, I think we're slowly eroding and destroying a fundamental principal on which the foundations of our society are built.

AllForIt

Rennaws wrote: »

Yes they are.

And half the population being a bit thick, doesn't excuse them from being accountable for their own actions.

Maybe the reason half the population is a bit thick is if they come from a culture where they are encouraged not to think for themselves and rather take instruction on issues from what they believe to be a higher authority - like church leaders for example.

And I would say the whole reason we are where we are today is that due to education and availability of easily accessible information there are less and less of those sorts of ppl around anymore. Thanks internet.

nozzferrahhtoo

Rennaws wrote: »

Yes they are.

And half the population being a bit thick, doesn't excuse them from being accountable for their own actions.

Yet it is only you throwing value judgements like "Thick" at them. Not agreeing with you, not knowing the same things you might know or think you know, not sharing the same beliefs as you does not make anyone "thick". You are trying to ride a high horse that is not even there.

There are things we already know about human psychology and evolution,such as children are sponges that tend to believe.... often without question.... what their are taught as true by authority figures like teachers and parents. This does not make them "thick" it makes them human.

Human choice does not exist in a vacuum. It exists in the context of what the person making a choice believes to be true about the world, and the result of their actions. That is what choice and accountability MEANS after all. To meaningfully make a choice, or meaningfully be held accountable for your choices......... you have to have an understanding or expectation about what the result of your actions will be.

Rennaws wrote: »

I see huge comparisons between this and the "ah sure I was a bit drunk" argument. Sorry. I don't buy it doesn't wash.

Well by all means if you want to take issue with arguments I have not presented then find someone who is presenting them and take it up with them. I am not sure a vague linking (and it was vague as you mention "comparisons" without actually offering or describing ANY of them here) of my position with someone who is not here achieves however, except to deflect.

Rennaws wrote: »

The second we stray from the concept of 100% personal and individual accountability, which we appear to be doing more and more lately, I think we're slowly eroding and destroying a fundamental principal on which the foundations of our society are built.

There is that danger of course, but that just means that we have to progress carefully and understand what we are doing, what we want to achieve, and how we want to get there.

For example more and more we are getting information from science that suggests Free Will (as most people seem to understand it) does not actually exist. I am as yet unconvinced either way myself, but I can not ignore the mounting arguments and evidence against it.

What I also can not ignore is a large quantity of studies that show that in the absence of belief in free will..... people behave worse. To the point philosophers and speakers on the topic of whether free will exist or not also speak about whether it is "dangerous knowledge" that we should be disseminating.

But it does not HAVE to be so. There is nothing about the knowledge free will does not exist that by necessity has to result in the destruction of the moral order, or our punitive processes of justice and law. It in fact entirely depends on the narrative and structures we erect based on that knowledge.

But suffice to say I do not think an argument about what is actually true or not, needs to be derailed by a utilitarian discussion of the effects of that truth. In other words, in this last paragraph here you have moved away from discussion of whether yours or my claims are actually true or not into a more scare mongering discussion about the effects of acknowledging that truth. A useful discussion to have! Do not get me wrong! But deflecting from one by use of the other, is not as useful.

The Bishop Basher

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

Yet it is only you throwing value judgements like "Thick" at them. Not agreeing with you, not knowing the same things you might know or think you know, not sharing the same beliefs as you does not make anyone "thick". You are trying to ride a high horse that is not even there.

Eh, I think you need to re read the the previous posts. It was AllForIt who brought up intelligence as providing immunity to cultural influences. I used the word "thick" somewhat facetiously. AllForIt then confirmed the statement using the same term in the same context yet you accuse me of making value judgments. You'll need to be more consistent if you expect me to take you seriously.

As regards the rest of your post, we'll agree to disagree. I'm not getting into some long winded multi quote debate with you about personal responsibility and accountability. I hold myself and those around me 100% responsible for their words and actions. You want to believe differently that's your call.

AllForIt

Rennaws wrote: »

Yes they are.

And half the population being a bit thick, doesn't excuse them from being accountable for their own actions.

Rennaws wrote: »

Eh, I think you need to re read the the previous posts. It was AllForIt who brought up intelligence as providing immunity to cultural influences. I used the word "thick" somewhat facetiously. AllForIt then confirmed the statement using the same term in the same context yet you accuse me of making value judgments. You'll need to be more consistent if you expect me to take you seriously.

As regards the rest of your post, we'll agree to disagree. I'm not getting into some long winded multi quote debate with you about personal responsibility and accountability. I hold myself and those around me 100% responsible for their words and actions. You want to believe differently that's your call.

That's quite the spin on what I was saying. I never said anyone was thick and I get you don't want to accept in any way whatsoever my point.

It's no wonder Nozz goes off on long winded posts when it's necessary to unravel the way you spin an argument.

nozzferrahhtoo

Rennaws wrote: »

Eh, I think you need to re read the the previous posts. It was AllForIt who brought up intelligence as providing immunity to cultural influences. I used the word "thick" somewhat facetiously. AllForIt then confirmed the statement using the same term in the same context yet you accuse me of making value judgments. You'll need to be more consistent if you expect me to take you seriously.

As regards the rest of your post, we'll agree to disagree. I'm not getting into some long winded multi quote debate with you about personal responsibility and accountability. I hold myself and those around me 100% responsible for their words and actions. You want to believe differently that's your call.

I do not need to re-read anything thanks. If you want to dodge and run out of the discussion then by all means that is fine. But do not pretend it is my failing rather than your own leading to this.

But you show the error in your thinking, and your unwillingness to engage when you even write "You WANT to believe differently" because that is my point entirely. Belief is not commonly about what one "WANTS" at all. You are either convinced something is true, or you are not. There is less choice in this than you appear to think.

A further indication that it is you that needs to re-read what you are replying to, and not me at all, shows up when you point out that you do think I believe differently at all. Like Jack, you appear to think that me expressing something additional to your position means I do not hold your position. I corrected him on it a few times, I am happy to correct you on it too.

I DO hold people accountable for their actions. The issue is I ALSO do not view their actions by some simplistic dynamic like yourself of assuming actions and choices exist in a vacuum. Rather I realize they are heavily influenced and curtailed by the beliefs people hold at the time. And while we might imagine "choice" as being some equal plane of options that one person can take as easily as another....... the reality is that choice, and the choices a person can realistically or functionally actually make...... are heavily influenced by their environment.

I will repeat my previous example of the parents who, due solely to religion, watch their children die of easily treatable medical conditions. I think there are very few, if any, loving parents on this planet who could make such a choice WITHOUT nonsense religious beliefs. However WITH the beliefs in question installed on their neck-top computer...... I think there are very few loving parents who could not NOT make that choice. If you firmly believed the eternal well being of your child would be curtailed or made miserable by means of medical intervention..... YOU would likely deny your child that intervention too and watch them die.

Beliefs matter and while I agree we should hold people accountable for their actions (those parents should be slammed right in jail for example) I ALSO (not instead, as you and Jack have been pretending but ALSO) think the beliefs, and the people who perpetuated those beliefs too them, have blood on their hands too.

JupiterKid

Unless and until these gay men convicted under homophobic laws decades ago have those convictions quashed, Leo's latest action is simply empty virtue signalling and attention diverting. All style, no substance...

When are you actually going to do something meaningful about the housing crisis Leo? You and your weasel sycophant Murphy have done sweet FA.