Posted by Roarkiller on 08.02.2011, 01:01 PM:
quote: That said... Roarkiller, it hasn't escaped my notice that you're fighting a 1-on-5+ battle here and, although I'm sure you don't need me to say this, I want to mention that I hope it doesn't seem like we're picking on you. I do understand your position much better now than when we began, and I respect you a lot for continuing to explain and clarify your arguments rather than just leaving the discussion.
Because this thread so needs the humour XD On a serious note, I'll fight to the end of the world for my ideals and principles. Right is right, wrong is wrong, that is my first and foremost rule unto myself.
Anyway, excellent post Mushka, this is an extremely fine example of a clear rebuttal using excellent examples and relevant facts.
quote: Originally posted by Mushka
Thanks for clarifying the distinction between dislike and disapproval. I agree that I can disapprove of smoking but still get along with friendly smokers, although it will always be something of a wedge and I will pressure them to break the habit. Now I understand why your feelings on this matter are as they are, and it's a hard position to argue against. (OT - as for covering of women, I'm sure you're better-informed than I am on this, but I was under the impression that this does not actually originate from Islamic teachings but from tribal traditions?).
Took a while to understand this part, but thanks for the understanding. Elaboration on your question towards the end.
quote: Many of your points I now find it hard to attack, because as you say, it basically comes down to fine points of religion and culture. That's a good thing - I can agree to disagree about stuff like that. In many of my counterarguments here, I can't rely on pure logic, as I have to ground them in my own beliefs. But my aim is to demonstrate a set of beliefs that are self-consistent and can withstand the criticisms that you've presented. There's no reason that you would need to think the same way.
If you'd like, I can extend to cover such topics.
quote: Here's one point that I have to bring up though. The comparison made between transgendered people and criminals, such as this one, miss the mark entirely:
quote: According to the counter argument, the murderers and kleptomaniacs should also be accepted, because it isn't their fault.
It's not about who is at fault, but rather what is practical. I also object to the term fault in this context because it implies that transgendered people are at fault for something.
Once again, I did not say they are at fault in any way. The term emphasised upon is "state of mind", the key similarity betwen the two groups I addressed, not their actions or whether they are at fault.
quote: At least to me, it's not fundamentally important whether, in a philosophical sense, a criminal chooses to commit crimes, or whether it's a matter of their upbringing/genes/God controlling that action. Either way, it is out of concern for the safety of myself and others that I would have them put in a correctional institution. Not for punishment or retribution. It's important to have a deterrent against future crimes, and wherever possible, to rehabilitate people back into society. Even if it isn't their fault, I can't accept them; I might get killed.
I wholeheartedly agree with this, but only because you missed the point. The counter-argument states that these people deserve little to no sympathy simply because of their acts. In other words, they are hating the person, not the act. Something I obviously and expressively disagree.
Jail them, send them for rehab, but DON'T hate them, and please be understanding. These people need it more than those homo groups.
quote: When it comes to people who are queer or transgendered, whether it's by choice or by nature is something for science and philosophy to settle (and currently it seems like it's by nature). But either way, unlike with criminals I have no objection to the way they are. I can't find any way to conceive of GLBTQ people as being anything but a positive force in society. Even if it is their "fault", why not accept them?
I accept them as part of society and as who they are, I just don't approve of it. But this is beating a dead horse.
quote: When it comes to someone, such as a parent, being offended by their child's decision, my only answer is "tough". I don't think it makes logical sense to factor in their concerns. If a parent is offended by their son or daughter over their sexual orientation, it is not the fault of the child. It's the same thing I'd tell you if you said you were offended by the way I tie my shoes.
When you're a parent one day, read this part you wrote.
No, it matters a lot, because these are the people who brought you up, and they have a certain expectation from you. It matters if they send you to school and you end up in a gang fight in a back alley, even if it's your decision. It matters if your whole family and relatives are pious, god-loving people and you end up as an atheist, even if it's your decision. It matters if you've been brought up as a boy doing boy things and suddenly you want to become a girl, even if it's your decision.
It matters. Because what you're saying is "I say so, so there" kind of attitude. You're not taking into consideration the feelings of the peple around you. And they can feel pain too, and it's not enough to just say "it's my decision".
Shoelaces are trivial. Sexual orientation is not. Shame and reputation are often at stake.
And I can say this from personal experience. I let down a LOT of people when I was 14 to pursue my own interests instead of developing myself academically. And it wasn't an easy decision. Even now I have small regrets over the decision.
quote: You brought up that a sex change is a type of bodily harm and thus akin to suicide.
Whoa, HUGE leap there. I never said anything of the sort.
My exact words were: "Personally, I will never approve of anyone who goes under the knife just because they are unhappy with themselves. Sex change, to me, is very similar to the lines of boob jobs and botox and whatever is the trend now. Very superficial and shallow."
I was referring to people who felt the need to change themselves externally just to feel good. Hence that last line.
quote: That said, I do think it's absurd that we live in a society where people would feel any pressure to change their bodies to conform or gain acceptance. It's not good to make people feel so insecure with their bodies that they would risk getting breast implants. But I don't think that any kind of peer pressure or desire for acceptance is what motivates transsexuals to have a sex change.
Therein lies our difference. My belief is that transgenders act as such because of psychological factors, not inborn. Reasons scattered across the board, sorry to have you dig for them.
On Orphic's part, gonna have to do the reading some time later. Fasting month means I have prayers from evening to midnight earliest and wake up at five, and with work that sucks I have little time for anything, literally.
On your early question then. This one needs some explanation on Islamic teachings.
The style of clothings come from Middle East traditions, yes, because of the weather and culture there. But the need for covering is based on Islamic teachings. Truthfully, there isn't a need to wear turbans or long flowing robes and all that, so long as the basic rules of covering up is followed. The extent of cover, as previously stated, depends on your school of thought.
To give an example, imagine the era of ladies and gentlemen, literally. Let's say the 40's. Now, imagine the long bellowing skirts, the long sleeves, the veils.
And suddenly the description doesn't seem too far from the basic requirements, does it? In modern terms, wearing a standard office suit with long pants, plus an additional headscarf, already satisfies the basic requirements.
To be a little more specific, upon reaching puberty, a child is deemed an adult, and so is expected to conform to every rule; the time pre-dating their puberty is being a time of non-compulsion, but highly recommended for them to practice it anyway.
Women are to cover every part of their body save their hands and face, while men are to cover from their navel to their knees. Of important note is that the covered parts more or less correspond to what modern society expects the general public to cover anyway; topless men are okay, topless women are not.
The coverage of women is more than a man for two reasons: to protect their modesty, and to protect a woman from the lustful eyes of men. As we can see, both are for the protection of the woman, not to restrict them in any way. Besides, a little extra cloth is hardly restricting.
And so contrary to popular belief, such coverings is not to restrict women in any way. Rather, the opposite is true: fashion for women nowadays focus on revealing more and more skin, otherwise of sexy designs, both obviously intended to lure the eyes of men. The very "liberation" that women fight for (as famously quoted by the French president's wife, who ironically, is a model whose job is to showcase her body) is already by default a tool to makes themselves nothing more than an object of desire, the very opposite of what women rights are fighting for.
An equally important but oft forgotten note is that men are also subject to such rules as well, and yet they receive a lot less attention. Strange but true.
__________________ I am me. I am who I am. I am Roarkiller. No one else is me.
Roarkiller.net Isakaya High RPG Site
quote: Originally posted by fenkashi Screw your opinions, they are not relevant ^^.
|