Is Ron Paul a homophobe

Ubereil said:

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

Click to expand...

I didn't say you did, I just suggested that you wouldn't get the complete picture.

If you don't, then that's good

But since you seem to expect nihilism from those of my disposition, there's definitely something wrong with your approach.

Actually, that whole confusion is a good example of why lables don't appeal to me.

Nihilism, as you said, would seem to reflect a lack of interest - which in a way is true, but in another way VERY untrue. I'm pretty sure I "care" more than most people would expect.

Again, they simplify and confuse - and I just don't think it's helpful.

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).

Click to expand...

I understand that other people have other theories, but I'm not the one calling me a utilitarian.

I don't like to use labels, unless I feel I fully understand them and can safely apply them and feel certain they match exactly.

Maybe what I'm saying is exactly the same as being a utilitarian, but my experience is that such concepts are too rigid and make people forget the big picture.

I'm having enough difficulty getting my position across, and I don't need a label to bring further misunderstanding.

That said, based on what I've read about the notion, it seems a close match in this case.

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.

Click to expand...

To me, it's not really important if we redefine what "ethics" mean to us, or if we do away with them and invent a new concept. However, if the utilitarian mindset is meant as a replacement, then I think it might be confusing to people who still have traditional ethics in mind when talking about these things.

I'd rather just explain things in my own way.

DArtagnan said:

But since you seem to expect nihilism from those of my disposition, there's definitely something wrong with your approach.

Click to expand...

If objective morality doesn't exist then we don't really have any reason to care. That leads to nihilism (or at it's height rational egoism). To quote wikipedia:

Wikipedia said:

Moral nihilism (also known as ethical nihilism or amoralism), is the meta-ethical view that nothing is moral or immoral. For example, a moral nihilist would say that killing someone, for whatever reason, is neither inherently right nor inherently wrong. Morality may simply be a kind of make-believe, a complex set of rules and recommendations that represents nothing real and is seen as a human creation.

Click to expand...

Moral nihilism is merely moral relativism from a different point of view (moral relativism is the subjective view, moral nihilism the objective view).

Admittedly, I haven't examined the subject at great depth. But I also haven't seen any convincing arguments for why a moral relativist should talk about what we ought to do. At best s/he can explain his/her own wishes on the matter, but s/he's got no real reason to expect other to agree with him/her.

Übereil

Ubereil said:

If objective morality doesn't exist then we don't really have any reason to care. That leads to nihilism (or at it's height rational egoism). To quote wikipedia:

Click to expand...

I don't follow. I don't believe in objective morality - and yet I care a hell of a lot. That's because all the people I know and care about are suffering from a completely irrational and non-pragmatic societal structure.

I don't know about you, but I think we'd all agree that less suffering is a nice thing to strive for.

Beyond my own personal situation and that of those I care for, I see nothing but benefit coming from everyone sharing equally and being free of current societal enslavement.

Admittedly, I haven't examined the subject at great depth. But I also haven't seen any convincing arguments for why a moral relativist should talk about what we ought to do. At best s/he can explain his/her own wishes on the matter, but s/he's got no real reason to expect other to agree with him/her.

Übereil

Click to expand...

Isn't it pretty simple?

If we all do what's beneficial rather than morally right - it's my claim we'd all have access to as complete a freedom as possible, with as few restrictions as possible. Assuming we have enough resources on this planet, it would result in the highest degree of artistic and creative freedom imaginable - and things like crime and disease would be minimised to the greatest extent.

In any case, that's where I come out - and that's why being pragmatic about how to approach division of resources and liberties of the people is what I prefer.

I have no idea why morals would enter the picture at all. I certainly don't need morals to tell me that a world without crime, disease, poverty, starvation, restricted freedoms, and so on is something to strive for.

It's rational and logical - but it isn't "good". I certainly don't give a shit if it's "good" or not, because I don't believe in that concept.

All this is assuming we can all agree to something approaching such a pleasant state of affairs. If we can't, then I must have been wrong in my assumption that such things are ultimately what people want.

The likely conflict would be about HOW to go about it, which is why pragmatism and rationality would have to dominate - rather than moral or ethical misconceptions.

Goodgawd. I have lint in my bellybutton. Oh, sorry, I thought everyone was staring intently at their navels in deep contemplation.

dteowner said:

Goodgawd. I have lint in my bellybutton. Oh, sorry, I thought everyone was staring intently at their navels in deep contemplation.

Click to expand...

Staring at people staring at lint in their bellybuttons is pretty low, even for a rightwing fascist

Ubereil said:

If objective morality doesn't exist then we don't really have any reason to care. That leads to nihilism (or at it's height rational egoism). To quote wikipedia:

Click to expand...

Yes we do, we just don't have any objective reason to care.

Ubereil said:

Moral nihilism is merely moral relativism from a different point of view (moral relativism is the subjective view, moral nihilism the objective view).

Admittedly, I haven't examined the subject at great depth. But I also haven't seen any convincing arguments for why a moral relativist should talk about what we ought to do. At best s/he can explain his/her own wishes on the matter, but s/he's got no real reason to expect other to agree with him/her.

Übereil

Click to expand...

That's a usual critique against moral relativism but it's pretty much unfounded. I can hold the view that my western conception of morality is better than say the Taliban conception of morality. That there's no objective reason to believe it doesn't mean that there are no reasons to believe it.
You said you haven't dwelled on this very much so I think some of your confusion might stem from how much stronger the word objective is in philosophy than in everyday language.

DA & others did you watch the video ?

Homophobe is such a silly phrase. Are black haters charcoalphobes? Are mexican haters tacophobes? Are Nazi haters Swastika-phobes? Nope. Why would folks who hate homosexuals be called homophobe? I think it's a word gays have made up to make themselves feel tough. Ooh, we're fearsome! Nope, just puke-inducing, but not fearsome.

Sorry. I try not to come into this particular forum, but the phobe designation cracks me up. If you're a queer, just don't tell me if we happen to meet in real life. Otherwise I adopt a don't ask and I won't assume policy.

Personally, I object to the hijacking of the word 'gay'!! It used to have a simple meaning of lighthearted and happy, but not any longer.

Pladio said:

DA & others did you watch the video ?

Click to expand...

Sorry, forgot about it yesterday.

I'll watch it today

crpgnut said:

Homophobe is such a silly phrase. Are black haters charcoalphobes? Are mexican haters tacophobes? Are Nazi haters Swastika-phobes? Nope. Why would folks who hate homosexuals be called homophobe? I think it's a word gays have made up to make themselves feel tough. Ooh, we're fearsome! Nope, just puke-inducing, but not fearsome.

Sorry. I try not to come into this particular forum, but the phobe designation cracks me up. If you're a queer, just don't tell me if we happen to meet in real life. Otherwise I adopt a don't ask and I won't assume policy.

Click to expand...

Homophobe fits well. It means an irrational fear of homosexuals, because there really aren't any rational reasons to fear homosexuals. Hating a nazi is not irrational. We commonly use the word racist instead of negrophobia.

crpgnut said:

Homophobe is such a silly phrase. Are black haters charcoalphobes? Are mexican haters tacophobes? Are Nazi haters Swastika-phobes? Nope. Why would folks who hate homosexuals be called homophobe? I think it's a word gays have made up to make themselves feel tough. Ooh, we're fearsome! Nope, just puke-inducing, but not fearsome.

Click to expand...

Homophobia is like racism, only directed at gays instead of pepole of a different race (if such a thing can be said to exist).

crpgnut said:

Sorry. I try not to come into this particular forum, but the phobe designation cracks me up. If you're a queer, just don't tell me if we happen to meet in real life. Otherwise I adopt a don't ask and I won't assume policy.

Click to expand...

And if it comes up by accident?

Pladio said:

DA & others did you watch the video ?

Click to expand...

I'm saving it for when I don't have a headache. Thinking of doing the same with the rest of the discussion.

Übereil

crpgnut said:

Homophobe is such a silly phrase. Are black haters charcoalphobes? Are mexican haters tacophobes? Are Nazi haters Swastika-phobes? Nope. Why would folks who hate homosexuals be called homophobe? I think it's a word gays have made up to make themselves feel tough. Ooh, we're fearsome! Nope, just puke-inducing, but not fearsome.

Sorry. I try not to come into this particular forum, but the phobe designation cracks me up. If you're a queer, just don't tell me if we happen to meet in real life. Otherwise I adopt a don't ask and I won't assume policy.

Click to expand...

They are negrophobic, mexicanophobic.

Phobia also does not send back to fear like awe, but much more to an irrational dimension of fear, disproportional to the actual threat. Spiders are not that fearsome but arachnophobia exists.
Homophobic is the guy who feels his sexuality endangered because a homosexual blinks at him or gropes his ass.
Nothing dangerous.

Paul's reaction suggests homophobia.

By your definition i disagree then. It seems he was offended due to his conservatism and religion more so than being his sexuality threatened. THe guy is 50+ years old, i doubt he has problems with his sexuality now.

Damian Mahadevan said:

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.

Click to expand...

I don't like this word of "queer" being used exclusively for gay/lesbians etc. … Because if they tend to use EVERY word (and that's my purely personal impression now) to label themselves as a distinct group - which terms are then left for those who are STILL a minority, different than others, but *not* gays & lesbians etc. ?

I mean that I'd like to use the word of "queer" for other minorities as well : For handicapped people, for highly sensitive people, for autists etc. … But no, there is no neutral term left for these groups to make them stand out from the rest … All of these terms are already being used by the gay/lesbian groups and connected groups … So, with no term/word left to mke a distinction between "the OTHER minorities", how are they able to label themselves as being different from any others ?

This is my purely personal impression, and I must admit that I'm not deep enough in English languge and American culture to really qualify for such a comment - but I just want "the OTHER minorities" to be known within the public as inddividual, distinct groups, too !

What I find REALLY GREAT is this : http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Autistic_Pride_Day

I wish there was more Pride Days of/for "the OTHER minorities" !!!