hazydawn said:
I admit I still have some research and thinking to do on the matter but If we agree on certain ideals like freedom, equality, justice, the increase of happiness and decrease of pain, etc. there's a number of possible realities for any situation or issue were some of them would be the moral pinnacle.
The problem is, these are the same principles the founding fathers looked at when they decided slavery was okay. They just came up with justifications for why it was okay to enslave one "race" over others.
I mean, I agree with this notion of "good" being the minimisation of suffering and the maximisation of liberty (I'd be more specific in my definitions but I don't think we need to go all theological), but this has been the basis of many a movement that pulled a "no homers" on its compatriots. Now, not everyone thought that, and even the founding fathers decided blacks and women were worth less in part due to compromise, but 18th century America was a place that deeply valued freedom and liberty, and then said "but only for us good, decent, white folk."
There are many reasons they likely rationalised it, but they still rationalised it. And this, I would say, isn't much different then that it is now. In essence, we can argue what's right, but the reality of it is that we will always end up with what's popular. But even if we remove that, there is always a way to rationalise mistreatment of others.
Houseman said:
Exactly, so as Tumblr says, "check your privilege".
The "privilege" here being that science knows what you are.
I admit I haven't been following this thread too closely, but are you taking the piss?
I'm going to go on a slight tangent here, but one of the more baffling things about this statement is that the otherkin "community" has thus far been completely unwilling to prove themselves to "science," which I guess I'll use as a term of convenience. Homosexuals and transsexuals and left-handers have all been submitted. These other groups instead protest the concept of being tested, and honestly, that makes me a little suspicious of any such claim.
But you said "exactly," and you didn't mean it as it's used. "exactly" would indicate agreement, which would indicate there's no basis for your claims.
That doesn't address what I said, either. You said that this was true 100 years ago, indicating it'd be different now or at some point in the future. It won't. That was bundled with my premise.
Studies about what? "conversion therapy camps"? I would think that everybody would know about their existence by now.
Surely you know I'm aware of them for homosexuals, as my next sentence started talking about them. You even quote this next part. One could therefore reasonably infer that I was referring specifically to otherkin or people who think they're toasters. If you're assuming people are aware of that on a wide scale, then you're very likely wrong. I doubt the majority even know what an otherkin, furry, or toastie is.
Some people tried to "cure" homosexuality, and I'm pretty sure it can verifiably be said to have been a dismal failure.
But my point isn't whether they succeeded or failed, it was that they tried, and that they treated it as if it were something to be cured.
I think you meant that it was inconvenient to your point. The scientific method operates on attempting to falsify hypotheses. It's only through testing our ideas that we verify them. One way or another, homosexuality is something that would fall to such tests. You can phrase it as an attempt to "cure" or not, but we were always going down this path.
Loki saying "These people need counseling" is the exact same thing as saying that homsexuals "need counseling", with the implication that it's a disease that can be cured.
Well, no. It's not the exact thing. We know homosexuality cannot be cured. Can you cite me even one study[footnote]Note that one study does not a conclusion make, but it would be a start[/quote] that would indicate the same for "these people?"
What you've offered up is the notion that we can't disprove that they aren't like homosexuals, and that's not where the burden lies.
King Whurdler said:
I have a severe distaste for the phrase 'civilized nation,' but a lot of those places that make up the majority are behind the times to say the LEAST.
Howabout "industrial nation?" It carries with it many of the same (relevant) meanings without actually indicating that another nation is somehow inferior.
It's also worth pointing out that argumentum ad populum when it comes to video games probably shouldn't find a factor in countries that don't have a large number of game players, as game companies aren't actually marketing to them. The primary markets are far more gay-friendly. So even if the world was 90% homophobic overall, it wouldn't matter.
Dragonbums said:
Of course I'm not okay with it. Any more than knowing that children and women are still burned in this day and age for witchery.
However I'm not going to stomp in there all colonial moral high ground style and proclaim that what they are doing is wrong because we Westerners have stopped doing it.
How is that any different? It reads as "I'm sorry you're being tortured or violated, but I wouldn't want to interfere with your sovereign rights."
Can you actually demonstrate any of this "lasting change?"