The Moral Arc

[Aeson]

As for "the violence would be hard to push any further" ... look at history. Hell, look at today! The Middle East is rife with examples. Russia is another. It's obvious that homosexuals can be oppressed in horrible ways. It's not like something that's never happened. It's happening in the world today!

[Kidlicious]

That's your interpretation of the Constitution. Other people (including a majority of SCOTUS in recent decisions) view various homosexual rights as Constitutional. It was until quite recently not upheld as Constitutional by SCOTUS.

Hypothetically at some point Christians could find themselves in a situation where SCOTUS changes it's view on the 1st amendment, like they have on several other amendments at several other times (inc the 1st at times) in the past. The question was to help you understand what it would be like to be in that situation, so you can perhaps develop empathy for those who have recently been, and may soon be again, in that type of situation.

There's no need for "mass anti-gay pogroms" to be unacceptable. I don't think it's ok for even one person to be jailed for having sex with a consenting adult in the privacy of their own home.

I don't think you should expect Christians to feel bad for homosexuals who aren't allowed to sodomize each other or to feel empathy for them when they have an irrational fear of being thrown in jail. No one here is for throwing homosexuals in jail.

[Kidlicious]

And the apparent zero-sum nature is why protected classes should not multiply.

African Americans and Native Americans did (and still do) have it much worse then other possible groupings in an open an sustained way (And now in a hidden and sustained way). This is why race should be a protected class and people get their rights curtailed in respect to race.

JM

"An injustice anywhere is an injustice everywhere."
-MLK Jr

So you've decide not to give me satisfaction? Very disappointing.

[Aeson]

I don't think you should expect Christians to feel bad for homosexuals who aren't allowed to sodomize each other or to feel empathy for them when they have an irrational fear of being thrown in jail. No one here is for throwing homosexuals in jail.

Strawman.

This is about SCOTUS, and the fact that Trump highly regards Scalia who voted to allow states to throw homosexuals in jail, and has listed Pryor as a potential nominee, who also supports letting states do so.

[Kidlicious]

Strawman.

This is about SCOTUS, and the fact that Trump highly regards Scalia who voted to allow states to throw homosexuals in jail, and has listed Pryor as a potential nominee, who also supports letting states do so.

I thought it was about how some democrats are acting crazy about the inauguration.

[Aeson]

So you've decide not to give me satisfaction? Very disappointing.

Soliciting sex from another man ... Pryor would have you jailed for that

[Kidlicious]

I could be wrong but I think this has to do with exactly what you said, empathy. Democrats are upset because people don't have empathy with homosexuals etc.. I've noticed this recently when a friend of mine got very upset when I suggested that I thought some people exaggerate when they tell stories about their oppression.

[Aeson]

That is part of it for many people most likely. It's also part of why Trump won, because Ds don't display empathy for white working class who are struggling, often deriding their suffering as illegitimate.

[Kidlicious]

That is part of it for many people most likely. It's also part of why Trump won, because Ds don't display empathy for white working class who are struggling, often deriding their suffering as illegitimate.

Yeah, like the All Lives Matter thing (not really a movement). It's mindless too.

[Kidlicious]

The thing about empathy is that people are actually suffering because people don't agree with them. That's what the whole safe space thing is about. If you rely solely on empathy for making decisions you will make the wrong decisions.

[Aeson]

It's not simply not agreeing. When it gets to blatantly disregarding the well-being of others is when it becomes an issue. And the problem isn't empathy, it's the blatant disregard for the well-being of others. Which generally requires a lack of empathy on the part of the person disregarding the well-being of others.

[Kidlicious]

It's not simply not agreeing. When it gets to blatantly disregarding the well-being of others is when it becomes an issue. And the problem isn't empathy, it's the blatant disregard for the well-being of others. Which generally requires a lack of empathy on the part of the person disregarding the well-being of others.

People don't generally have a disregard for others. They have a different worldview. Example, people who are against allowing massive amounts of unvetted Syrian refugees into their country do not have a disregard for them. They are simply reasonable people who care about others but don't think that is a good policy.

[Jon Miller]

Putting people on SCOTUS who would allow states to imprison homosexuals for consensual sex in their own homes is not anything close to "an acceptable compromise".

The point that isn't an acceptable compromise is if homosexuals are imprisoned for consensual sex in their own homes. That is the negative result.

It is possible to think up an infinite number of laws to constrain an infinite number of possible terrible outcomes for an infinite number of groups. To consider the lack of those laws an attack on each group, and so a reason why that group needs special status, is lunacy. And an attack on our rights. And is an attack on the groups that do need special status.

By the way, due to this thread, attacks on homosexuals are a bigger concern for me than they were previously (I previously had the probability of an attack on homosexuals being approximately 0, I have raised it to 1 in 100). So this is actually an example of a change in my position. A 1 in 100 is cause for some concern and it is reasonable to take action. Just not to freak out.

JM

[Kidlicious]

So forget equal rights so that the people whose racism you understand can be treated more special.

[Jon Miller]

Over 180 years of open sustained attacks on their lives, property, liberty and pursuit of happiness and the rest of the years (since the founding of this country) they have experienced a combination of hidden and open sustained attacks on their lives, property, liberty and pursuit of happiness.

So yes, I am happy to forget equal rights. I don't hold 'equal rights' as sacred, rather as a first order optimum.

JM