Is Ron Paul a homophobe

[Damian Mahadevan]

Watch this(only 2 minutes):

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F7RnlPQCKBQ


Does being furious at someone dropping their pants in front of you make you a homophobe? Sure he used "queer" in a derogetory manner but i dont think that makes him a homophobe.

 

[Thrasher]

What does make someone a homophobe, then? Or do they not even exist?
Same question can be asked for racists, misogynists, misanthropes, and other haters.

 

[hishadow]

Hehe, this was a rotten stunt by Sacha Baron Cohen. Why do you even mention this? If you're trying to dig up some dirt, I'm afraid you've dug your way to China on this one.

 

[Rithrandil]

I'd bring up the anti-gay marriage stuff as more relevant, tbh.

 

[Damian Mahadevan]

What does make someone a homophobe, then? Or do they not even exist?
Same question can be asked for racists, misogynists, misanthropes, and other haters.

Exactly. Is it what a persons says or a general attitude towards a group of people? Is one for example a racist when he points out a trend in crime by a certain race? There is ignorance and there is racism?

Hehe, this was a rotten stunt by Sacha Baron Cohen. Why do you even mention this? If you're trying to dig up some dirt, I'm afraid you've dug your way to China on this one.

I was curious as to what peoples thoughts on exactly makes someone a homophobe.

I'd bring up the anti-gay marriage stuff as more relevant, tbh.

Isnt he against that? I thougth he was pro right to choice as long as it doesnt hurt anyone.

 

[JemyM]

A just state is based on universal principles. Universal principles try to be as basic as possible and cover all citizens without exception. Universal principles seldom need to mention details in specific cases, the principle is universal without exceptions.

The pursuit of happiness as long as it doesn't harm anyone else is a universal principle.

The question then is "what is harm" and "can some's hurt be accepted"? Distress for someone or something that by all rational measures harm no-one, is irrational and thus qualify as a phobia. Phobia can be taken into account, if the phobic accept that he or she is a sick person and wish to be better, but a society cannot be built on respecting phobias, especially when the phobias can be cured and this form of phobia is artificial rather than natural.

The above principle can be used in all aspects of society without exception. It protects the homosexual who wish to live with his or her mate and pursuit their happiness. It protects the person with dark skin who wish to work to pursuit their happiness. It protects the woman who wish to pursuit their happiness. It protects the middleaged white male who wish to pursuit his happiness. Each of these people are protected by the universal principle and by understanding their protection under the universal principle they will defend the principle.

An attempt to restrict the simplicity and universality of the principle is in the long run an attack against all who are protected by that principle. I personally have little respect for those willing to attack my brothers and sisters for irrational reasons.

 

[DArtagnan]

If you focus on trivial matters like sexual preference, you make them important.

Why don't we move on?

 

[Zaleukos]

Watch this(only 2 minutes):

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F7RnlPQCKBQ


Does being furious at someone dropping their pants in front of you make you a homophobe? Sure he used "queer" in a derogetory manner but i dont think that makes him a homophobe.

His reaction to the Brüno skit doesnt make Ron Paul a homophobe. I'd say that unwanted (hetero- or homo-) sexual advances during an expected interview deserve a hostile reaction.

He might have done other things that are more relevant to earning the homphobe tag, but I am not familiar enough with his particular political fringe to know of those.

What does make someone a homophobe, then? Or do they not even exist?
Same question can be asked for racists, misogynists, misanthropes, and other haters.

How about "Treating people worse because of race/gender/whatever"?

If you think Paul would have reacted very differently to a female "reporter" pulling the same stunt on him you might have a case, but otherwise this skit doesnt prove crap.

 

[JemyM]

If you focus on trivial matters like sexual preference, you make them important.

Why don't we move on?

The sexual neurosis within cultures such as catholic strongholds and the US is a phobia I consider both artificial and self inflicted.

The anxiousness over nakedness and "foul language" cannot in any way or form be seen as rational. Neither can be rationally connected to any cause any harm. In fact, the tremendous amount of resources wasted to regulate this phenomenon and the pain and harm from attempt to regulate, is a serious cause of harm going on today.

The reason we cannot move on is that the harmful structure is backed up by the principle that it's not ethical to engage in the moral question "what is good". It's not ethical to rationally engage in moral questions.

When it's considered moral to protect the structure rather than the people, the society cannot be seen as just.

 

[DArtagnan]

That must be why I see the world society as anything but just.

I see nothing but perpetual ignorance behind harmful action or inaction, and of a very large variety.

 

[JemyM]

That must be why I see the world society as anything but just.

I see nothing but perpetual ignorance behind harmful action or inaction, and of a very large variety.

Man, unlike a machine (like a computer), have the capacity to be self-aware. Asking the question whether or not my actions are just and good is to be morally aware.

A system that asks it's participants to follow the system rather than ask it's participants to learn to understand the system and follow it only if it's just and good (and engage in debate if it by their experience is not), become counter-moral. When each individual follow order and expectation (to protect themselves) they become morally ignorant.

When the system also ask it's participants to believe the system is good, without the ability to explain why, it contribute even further to disable moral awareness. When individuals follow a system with the belief that it is good, rather than following the system if it's good, there's really no limit to the amount of evil mankind can do to itself.

I say that those who are morally aware and fail to oppose counter-moral teachings such as dogma is the immoral ones since they consciously contribute to disabling moral awareness.

 

[DArtagnan]

Well, the problem with abiding that people act outside the system - is that there has been a very prevalent conflict of interest in all matters, throughout history.

Given how ignorant I think we all are, I'd still prefer society as it is today - to semi-anarchy.

Questioning society is most definitely needed, but a widespread acceptance of breaking our pragmatic laws is a scary thought indeed.

What we need is more questioning and less action - until we're educated enough to change society in a mutually beneficial way.

Also, I'd like for the will to be instilled to change everything at the core, rather than patching up a thoroughly broken system. This would take a gargantuan effort, and it would have to be done under our current structure. This is why it would seem like utopia. But ignorance is still all that's holding us back.

Morals are, by nature, subjective. No one can ever be said to be morally in the right, or to be "good".

So we must move away from that concept, and instead establish things in terms of what's beneficial or harmful - without emotional or non-pragmatic tangents. Ethics need to be taken out of the equation.

Basically the same thing, though, so if we replace the word ethics with pragmatism - it would do.

Establishing what's beneficial or harmful, sadly, is all but impossible at this stage. It would take a unified world to even begin to do away with irrational stances towards what's "right" or "wrong".

I say we start by unifying language and distributing resources evenly. Even that is utopian now - but slightly less so.

 

[Ubereil]

So we must move away from that concept, and instead establish things in terms of what's beneficial or harmful - without emotional or non-pragmatic tangents. Ethics need to be taken out of the equation.

Ahem...

Übereil, who finds it interesting that all moral relativists he's come across have also(unconciously) been utilitalists, even though it's it's natural to him that moral relativism leads to moral nihilism (IE not caring about right and wrong, since it doesn't exist/is meaningless)

 

[JemyM]

I believe the basic problem with trying to track objective morality is that people tend to search the objective root in individuals rather than populations. That is a bit like studying the objective properties of water by studying a molecule. You can't. Within any population there exist a great variation of individuals who when added up form a deterministic and predictable pattern.

 

[DArtagnan]

I believe the basic problem with trying to track objective morality is that people tend to search the objective root in individuals rather than populations. That is a bit like studying the objective properties of water by studying a molecule. You can't. Within any population there exist a great variation of individuals who when added up form a deterministic and predictable pattern.

That's why I want to discard the concept when thinking about this. Morality has been irrevocably affected by things like religion or emotionally laden beliefs about what's right or wrong. There's just no way the average person will ever consider the ultimate pragmatist or "benefactor" a morally just person.

I'm not saying it's an easy task to ascertain what's beneficial or what's harmful, but I'm saying that if we leave aside the emotional or religious aspects, it's slightly less hard.

I just don't want to use words like good, evil, or ethical - because they're simply too messy to work with. "Cold" concepts like benefit and harm are easier when wanting to reach an agreement. I suppose you could say I don't want people to manipulate themselves by old-fashioned images - as our tradition is to let emotions rule. This pretty much always results in short-sighted conclusions.

We don't want to talk about objective truths either, because that's definitely impossible - at least so far. Which is why we will not tell ourselves that we're right - ever - as long as we're not omniscient.

What we should do, is work towards an agreement about things like basic necessities and the means by which we can achieve the most reasonable division of resources. I believe technology is one thing we have to aid us here, that we didn't have 30-40 years ago. We have the means to fully automate a lot of processes that would otherwise need to be carried out by a labor force. This was always detrimental to a fair and even society - because our nature has never been to work when we don't have to. That's something society has placed on us as a standard, and the vast majority suffer for it, every single day.

Übereil, who finds it interesting that all moral relativists he's come across have also(unconciously) been utilitalists, even though it's it's natural to him that moral relativism leads to moral nihilism (IE not caring about right and wrong, since it doesn't exist/is meaningless)

I strongly dislike labels because they cloud and simplify complex issues. If you want to call me morally relativistic and utilitarian for the sake of your own comprehension, then be my guest, but I'd like to suggest that you'll never get the complete picture in that way - assuming you even want that.

But if you think I'm not aware of the seeming applicability of those labels, I'd have to say you're very wrong

 

[Pladio]

DA & Others: If you haven't watched this, it is very interesting. It is quite long, I agree, but it's really good. It talks about utilitarianism in morality. I'm not sticking a label on you DA, but going away from good,bad choices to useful or non-useful is basically that concept. The problem is that sometimes the useful thing to do is something we consider incredibly bad. The examples in the video would illustrate the point. If you don't have time for the whole video there is a summary on the side and if that doesn't explain enough I would give better summary here.

I can even add some other examples which are not in the video.

 

[DArtagnan]

DA & Others: If you haven't watched this, it is very interesting. It is quite long, I agree, but it's really good. It talks about utilitarianism in morality. I'm not sticking a label on you DA, but going away from good,bad choices to useful or non-useful is basically that concept. The problem is that sometimes the useful thing to do is something we consider incredibly bad. The examples in the video would illustrate the point. If you don't have time for the whole video there is a summary on the side and if that doesn't explain enough I would give better summary here.

I can even add some other examples which are not in the video.

What video?

I'll watch it when I get home where I have sound.

But it sounds exactly like what I said above.

Some years ago, a girl called me utilitarian for the first time - so I'm aware of the concept. I had to look it up then, because I had no idea it existed.

But I don't pick up "ways to be" like that, and as such - I don't particularly like having such a label stuck on me. But, I admit, it does seem a pretty close match to what I'm suggesting.

Still trying to find some way to stand apart from it, though

 

[Pladio]

Oh oops

Sorry, this video :
http://www.justiceharvard.org/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=11&Itemid=8
It's by a Harvard professor.

 

[Ubereil]

I strongly dislike labels because they cloud and simplify complex issues. If you want to call me morally relativistic and utilitarian for the sake of your own comprehension, then be my guest, but I'd like to suggest that you'll never get the complete picture in that way - assuming you even want that.

What makes you think I think 'moral relativist utilitarian' tells the whole story?

But if you think I'm not aware of the seeming applicability of those labels, I'd have to say you're very wrong

The reason I linked to the wiki page on utilitarianism was to point out that your suggestion that we should abandon ethics for utilitarianism (IE the idea that we ought to do what's beneficial to us IE we ought to maximize utility) was a paradox, since utilitarianism very much is an ethical theory (so we'd be abandoning ethics for ethics).

I understand why you dislike the word ethics but from what you said you don't want to do away with it, you want to redefine our way of thinking about it.

Oh oops

Sorry, this video :
http://www.justiceharvard.org/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=11&Itemid=8
It's by a Harvard professor.

Just what I need: even more to read/watch... Out of curiostiy, where does the speaker stand on the issue?

Übereil

 

[Pladio]

He's a teacher, so he doesn't say much on his opinion, just keeps giving new possibilities to the students in the classroom.