Anti-Gay Bishop appointed to School of Divinity

[LonelyPilgrim]

It's already happened in this thread... RedCelt has already dismissed Bean's comments out of hand because of, by his own admission, a disagreement they have over another issue entirely in another thread.

This is all I've said (concerning Bean) in this thread:-

You're operating in Bean Land; a place where facts are arbitrary and temporary.

Which isn't due to a disagreement in another thread. The thread Bean mentioned wasn't a disagreement between us; it was Bean's (usual) misunderstanding of a (moral) concept.

And does that statement of yours not constitute a dismissal out of hand? It certainly reads as though it does. And when he called you on it, you didn't deny being mean to him in this thread. Instead you responded with:

Hmmm. Yes. Well. I believe that the technical term (coined by Wild Quinine) for you is "dick". Now... go read that thread again and you will better understand (if you can better understand anything) why I am so pleasant* towards you.

* By the word "pleasant", I mean the Beanesque version - whereby words are designed to mean what the person wants to say - rather than, y'know, the actual definition. One instance of which is your continued ignorance wrt the phrase ad hominem.

Which would seem to be a rather clear self-acknowledgement of your un-pleasantness and even signposts the other thread as your reason why.

I therefore see no reason to abandon my previous perception or its use in illustrating my point to Haunted, since I think it fits perfectly, unless you care to provide some other plausible interpretation of your words.

[RedCelt69]

You're operating in Bean Land; a place where facts are arbitrary and temporary.

...coming without any direct refutation of his point, constitutes an ad hominem or at least strongly implies one.

That's my ad hominem that is so objectionable? If you want to object (and you have, so I'll take that as consent) then by all means string me up for such terrible behaviour. I'd be happy, however, if m'lud would take into account the many times that I've (all too easily) disputed Bean's position.

My single, solo, isolatory ad hominem is a summation of prolonged experience with Mr Bean. So, really, it is a synopsis rather than my full position. But whatever floats your boat.

But if you'd prefer me to say you're just being gratuitously abusive, I'd be happy to oblige.

If the floatage of your buoyant device requires it - feel free. And I'll remind you that you've done exactly the same to me. As has Bean. So I won't be losing any sleep over it.

"-phobia combining form an exaggerated and persistent dread of or aversion to."

Rather exceeds mere dislike or disagreement with, no?

Each of the texts you pasted included "aversion". Phobia is not restricted to fear - and fear, alone.

The biggest problem with the word "homophobia" (other than the frowned-upon mixture of both Greek and Latin) is that it means "fear or hatred of the same". Which, contextually, is meaningless. It is a modern invention (from poor linguists) with a clear definition. Which doesn't require you to become a Bean apologist.

[RedCelt69]

I therefore see no reason to abandon my previous perception or its use in illustrating my point to Haunted, since I think it fits perfectly, unless you care to provide some other plausible interpretation of your words.

Hmmm. Your previous perception:-

Fundamentally, society here has gotten to the point that if you are 'wrong' about anything then you must be a BAD person, and since you are BAD person, nothing you say or do can avoid being tainted by your BADness, so you should just curl up somewhere and never dare to show your BAD face again. A moment's thought will show you that it's very hard to have intelligent public discourse if everyone who has a position that someone finds distasteful (on any issue, not just the one at hand) is automatically excluded from the conversation. It's already happened in this thread... RedCelt has already dismissed Bean's comments out of hand because of, by his own admission, a disagreement they have over another issue entirely in another thread.

If Bean suggested that black was darker than white, I wouldn't dismiss his position, no.

On the basis of all previous exposure to Bean, I approach every new post of his (with unbound joy) on the basis that it will almost certainly be full of errors. If it isn't, I'll assume that his account has been hacked.

You can deride such a position to the fullest. Me, I approach a situation with knowledge of previous similar situations... and don't fall over in shock if the momentum is maintained.

[Humphrey]

http://www.pinknews.co.uk/2010/06/28/appointment-of-anti-gay-bishop-at-top-scots-university-sparks-calls-for-funding-boycott/

On an unrelated note. This site 'Pink News' was founded and run by my bosses's son Benji who is also the technology correspondent for Channel 4 News. We've sold a few gay pre-nuptial agreements through them.

[Humphrey]

On the basis of all previous exposure to Bean, I approach every new post of his (with unbound joy) on the basis that it will almost certainly be full of errors. If it isn't, I'll assume that his account has been hacked.

I guess you are the Red Celt and he (Beany) is the ultimate Tory. If you were Buzz Lightyear he would be your Emperor Zurg.

[RedCelt69]

I guess you are the Red Celt and he (Beany) is the ultimate Tory. If you were Buzz Lightyear he would be your Emperor Zurg.

Hehe. Amusing mental imagery aside... it is rarely a case of political disagreements. One of his most recent attempts was to (wrongly) surmise what was meant by the words "progressive" and "retrogressive" (more appropriately, "regressive"). The ultimate Tory can be wrong about more than just politics.

[macgamer]

We're not arguing that there isn't intolerance, irrational exaggerated fear, and all of that other wonderful stuff out there being directed at homosexuals. We're just saying that tarring everyone who disagrees with homosexuality with the 'homophobia' label is a. incorrect and b. possibly motivated by a desire to de-legitimise them and their views. At least initially, when the term started being widely applied... now it's just the go-to word, I expect - which means it's down its job. I, at least, am not even saying that their views shouldn't be de-legitimised, just that I think this is an under-handed and cheap way of going about it.

Finally some sense.

[Haunted]

I find this troubling. People who are wrong are not inferior: they are mistaken. How would you even begin to quantify superiority or inferiority of knowledge?

I qualified this immediately in my next sentence where I said they were either ignorant (which can be a defence) or malicious. I would argue that ignorance is an inferior trait, but feel free to call me on that.

You may very well know more about particle physics than I do, but if we were stuck out somewhere in the North American wilderness the fact that I know which red berries to eat and which will kill you as well as what poison oak, sumac, and ivy look like is probably more important at just at moment.

Yes and on our respective topics we can each consider the other to be inferior. If you knew that I knew nothing about the North American wilderness (and I really don't) then you would not consider having a debate with me on the subject as worthwhile. You'd be as well just completely dismissing me out of hand until I had proven I had some knowledge (maybe survival experience or legitimate qualifications). In fact, if our debate was to be published or viewed by third parties then you would be compelled to dismiss me in case my rhetoric ends up confusing and misleading others. It would immoral for you to grant me a platform to spread my ignorance (especially if that ignorance was wilful).

If you're an Old Earth Creationist then we shouldn't listen to anything you have to say about anything and you certainly couldn't possibly be right about climate change.

Don McLeroyhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Don_McLeroy, YEC, moron, dentist. Yes, he could probably teach me a thing or two about teeth. Again, I'm not universally condemning people because they happen to be ignorant of something. Though if they are wilfully ignorant or malicious then I will, but that still won't mean they might know something about a topic I don't.

Fundamentally, society here has gotten to the point that if you are 'wrong' about anything then you must be a BAD person, and since you are BAD person, nothing you say or do can avoid being tainted by your BADness, so you should just curl up somewhere and never dare to show your BAD face again.

Yes, wilfully ignorant or malicious people should be ridiculed and berated.

A moment's thought will show you that it's very hard to have intelligent public discourse if everyone who has a position that someone finds distasteful (on any issue, not just the one at hand) is automatically excluded from the conversation.

Distasteful is a subjective adjective and as such is fairly immune from scientific enquiry. If you find, say, mullets distasteful then I can't say anything to that. I could maybe share my feelings on mullets, perhaps if I really liked mullets I could try to convince you that perhaps your experience with mullets is limited and that you should perhaps give them a fair chance. But that's it.
If someone finds homosexuals distasteful then same point. However, if you were a public figure then expressing in public your distaste of anything risks alienating the people you serve, or the interests of the organisation you work for. Best keep things like to yourself or private conversation not done on company time.

[elyettoner]

When a traditional belief isn't compatible with modernity then it needs to be changed or forgotten.

Who decides what is compatible with "modernity"? Who decides that "modernity" is correct? Just because the majority of people (supposedly) agree with something doesn't mean it's morally justifiable.

[Senethro]

When a traditional belief isn't compatible with modernity then it needs to be changed or forgotten.

Who decides what is compatible with "modernity"? Who decides that "modernity" is correct? Just because the majority of people (supposedly) agree with something doesn't mean it's morally justifiable.

Theres a thesis in there somewhere and I feel my decidedly amateur opinions couldn't do justice to it. How about I suggest a few examples? Tolerance of those with different cultural beliefs or biological traits, acceptance of the rule of law, acceptance of the scientific method and some derivatives or applications like statistics or evidence based medicine. I'd be prepared to accept that as a citizen of a so called "modern" culture I'm simply cheering on my own team as part of a subjective preference but I can't help but feel that I'm going to see less war and a longer life expectancy than in previous centuries and that this is good. Will we ever be in a position to make a utilitarian analysis of how well off an average citizen is in a feudal kingdom rather than an even slightly representative republic? If so I'd like to know.

[LaGinge]

Let us suppose for a second that his views did come across to the students, not through lectures, but perhaps through a debate - is university not the ideal place for such matters to be discussed? Is it not ideal that students are exposed to tolerant discussion? (the word tolerant implying respectful disagreement rather than blind conformism.) St Andrews is a place where young people from all around the world come with inherited worldviews and experience other people's as they make up their own minds. The path to having a generation of men and women who are ethically sound is not to mute those who are 'wrong' and issue loudspeakers to the 'correct': what if, God forbid, the authorities got it wrong? All stances must have a voice - you cannot kill an idea by keeping it in the dark - but everything is exposed when the lights are on it. Our society cannot afford to muzzle those who disagree with the majority in the name of protecting young minds. As Benjamin Franklin wrote: "Those who would give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary safety, deserve neither freedom or safety."

This is the same defence used to justify the teaching of creationism.

It’s fallacious and lazy to presume to do away a position because another party has used the same argument and been wrong (see Glen Beck on social justice if you need a self parody).

The question we’re asking is not who is right or wrong; if we were, then sure, I disagree with creationism; but we’re talking about the right to own a view. Your standpoint is so Orwellian that the only reason I’m not writing a paragraph on it is that I want to avoid being too pretentious. If you want to objectify worldview then send every student home with a well-proofed set of books – you don’t need to get yourself into debt from student loan if all you want is to become an intellectual zombie.
Either that or maybe allow someone who disagrees with the general consensus to speak up every now and again – It’s how Hitler inspired a nation, it’s how Martin Luther King inspired a nation – so there’s a couple of contradictory parallels to stick on your genetic fallacy shelf next to creationism.
I'm afraid that you'll learn that it's not just those who are 'right' who cry out for free speech - so yes, I am sure that Creationists do use a similar argument to mine - that is, one must not muzzle people purely on the basis that we disagree with them. There is no small amount of irony in your call to mute those who you believe suppress other people's freedom from having a public voice - on a par with the genius who suggested that the BNP should not be allowed to stand for parliament because they were fascist. Be careful not to become what you claim to be fighting.

I confess myself to be utterly bemused, anyway, as to why you would want less of a public forum of discussion over a subject which you clearly have very specific and eloquent views on, and which you have in fact started a public online discussion on. However, though I find such hypocrisy odd, I shall acknowledge your right to pursue it. "I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it." I suggest you offer N.T. Wright the same courtesy.

[macgamer]

The question we’re asking is not who is right or wrong; if we were, then sure, I disagree with creationism; but we’re talking about the right to own a view. Your standpoint is so Orwellian that the only reason I’m not writing a paragraph on it is that I want to avoid being too pretentious. If you want to objectify worldview then send every student home with a well-proofed set of books – you don’t need to get yourself into debt from student loan if all you want is to become an intellectual zombie.
Either that or maybe allow someone who disagrees with the general consensus to speak up every now and again – It’s how Hitler inspired a nation, it’s how Martin Luther King inspired a nation – so there’s a couple of contradictory parallels to stick on your genetic fallacy shelf next to creationism.
I'm afraid that you'll learn that it's not just those who are 'right' who cry out for free speech - so yes, I am sure that Creationists do use a similar argument to mine - that is, one must not muzzle people purely on the basis that we disagree with them. There is no small amount of irony in your call to mute those who you believe suppress other people's freedom from having a public voice - on a par with the genius who suggested that the BNP should not be allowed to stand for parliament because they were fascist. Be careful not to become what you claim to be fighting.

I could not agree more with what has been said.

I confess myself to be utterly bemused, anyway, as to why you would want less of a public forum of discussion over a subject which you clearly have very specific and eloquent views on, and which you have in fact started a public online discussion on.

May I hazard a potential explanation: Haunted has a certain insecurity of one form or another and feels threatened by any argumentation contrary to the prevailing cultural orthodoxy on this matter. Therefore Haunted promotes restriction of debate on this matter so that the 'heterodox' may be a source of trouble no longer.

[RedCelt69]

Haunted has a certain insecurity of one form or another

macgamer, are you married? Have you ever had sex? Have you ever masturbated?

You'll be happy to answer all 3 of those questions. Unless you have insecurities.

[macgamer]

macgamer, are you married? Have you ever had sex? Have you ever masturbated?

Usually this is between me and my confessor, but to satisfy your curiosity and demonstrate that I'm happy to have this discussion:

1) No
2) No
3) Yes

[RedCelt69]

macgamer, are you married? Have you ever had sex? Have you ever masturbated?

Usually this is between me and my confessor, but to satisfy your curiosity and demonstrate that I'm happy to have this discussion:

1) No
2) No
3) Yes

Interesting, what with the bible being very clear about (3); but I guess that a Hail Mary is a small price to pay for an orgasm.

We all have insecurities, btw. Every person on the planet is insecure about something or other. Some people just have larger collections of insecurities than others.

[LaGinge]

We seem to have lost our way in this discussion. Macgamer, much as I appreciate your support, your tendency to make personal comments appears to have distracted Haunted from giving me a reply, which I was genuinely interested in reading.
Perhaps we could endeavour to stray back on topic.

[macgamer]

Interesting, what with the bible being very clear about (3); but I guess that a Hail Mary is a small price to pay for an orgasm.

I'm glad I've been a source of amusement. Meditation on the matter of mortal sin and the Four Last Things is a better approach than the one you propose. A fallen creature as I am, have egregious failings of which I am well aware. That is the condition into which we are all born.

We all have insecurities, btw. Every person on the planet is insecure about something or other. Some people just have larger collections of insecurities than others.

Indeed, and there is nothing intrinsically wrong with having insecurities, it keeps us humble after all; it becomes a problem when our insecurities affect judgement, objectivity and interactions with other people.

@LaGinge - My intervention is over.

[RedCelt69]

appears to have distracted Haunted from giving me a reply

Or, he could just be busy - unless William Gibson's vision of us being permanently jacked-in has happened whilst I was asleep.

Meditation on the matter of mortal sin and the Four Last Things is a better approach than the one you propose.

The Four Last Things? Making a will and destroying your porn collection... fine. What are the other Two Last Things?

[macgamer]

The Four Last Things?

1) Death
2) Judgement i.e. the Last Judgement
3) Heaven*
4) Hell*

*You only get three and it's either or for three and four.

[RedCelt69]

The Four Last Things?

1) Death
2) Judgement i.e. the Last Judgement
3) Heaven*
4) Hell*

*You only get three and it's either or for three and four.

Well. No. You only get 1.