Wednesday, November 23, 2011

Action vs orientation

I used to be oriented away from enjoying coffee. Now I'm oriented toward coffee. My orientation and preferences changed, and it was a complex process because human psychology is complex.

However, every time I drink a cup of coffee, I choose to drink it.

Similarly, every time someone engages in a consensual sexual act, one has chosen to do so (by definition).

104 comments:

TruthOverfaith said...

Our Savior is speaking to us!! Please click the link below to see his glorious message!!!

http://whyevolutionistrue.wordpress.com/2011/11/18/jesus-appears-in-a-dog-butt/

Anonymous said...

You are an idiot. A weak analogy horribly executed.

axisoflogos said...

...waiting for a reasoned argument to appear...I guess this analogy is too strong to engage.

JesusSaves said...

And then Jesus said," Well fuck me and call me Cooter!! The Ravens beat the 49ers!! That's another $100 dollars that I owe that ass-wipe St. Peter!!"-Jesus H. Christ

NAL said...

Rho:

However, every time I drink a cup of coffee, I choose to drink it.

That's simple enough. For a second there, I thought that human psychology was complex.

merkur said...

For a second there, I thought that human psychology was complex.

It's an easy mistake to make, Nal. I used to think that philosophy was complex as well, but Rhology has conclusively demonstrated that all you really need is a series of secondhand soundbites that you don't really understand, and to ignore all those tricky ideas that you can't be bothered to learn about.

axisoflogos said...

...*yawn*...*chooses to prepare some tea*...

zilch said...

Ah, the old Argumentum ad Chaium. No answering that.

Rhology said...

NAL,

Yes, the action is simple enough.
The motivation is not. Thanks for bolstering my point.


merkur,

What are you even talking about?

merkur said...

I'm talking about the fact that your understanding of philosophy and psychology is so weak that it's almost impossible to have a sensible conversation. Do you really think that your decision to have a cup of coffee is equivalent in any meaningful way to your decision to have sex with your wife? (I don't want to give the game away, but if you answer "yes" then you prove my point. Just a clue.)

Rhology said...

Do you really think that your decision to have a cup of coffee is equivalent in any meaningful way to your decision to have sex with your wife?

I suppose that depends on your definition of "meaningful".
If I want a cup of coffee, I either have one or don't.
If I want sex with my wife, I either ask her and initiate or don't.

They're both decisions. That's the point.
The motivations and framework BEHIND those decisions are far more complex.

merkur said...

"They're both decisions. That's the point."

Barack Obama and Attila the Hun are both humans. Hannibal Lecter and Winnie the Pooh are both fictional characters. Das Kapital and the Code of Hammurabi are both important historical documents.

Saying "they're both decisions" isn't making a point. It's a statement which is both true and trivial. In order to have a point, the statement needs to be situated in an actual argument which goes somewhere.

"The motivations and framework BEHIND those decisions are far more complex."

Which is of course where any sensible discussion needs to focus. So please, go ahead. But don't post the blog equivalent of white noise and pretend you're making an important point.

merkur said...

"They're both decisions. That's the point."

Barack Obama and Attila the Hun are both humans. Hannibal Lecter and Winnie the Pooh are both fictional characters. Das Kapital and the Code of Hammurabi are both important historical documents.

Saying "they're both decisions" isn't making a point. It's a statement which is both true and trivial. In order to have a point, the statement needs to be situated in an actual argument which goes somewhere.

"The motivations and framework BEHIND those decisions are far more complex."

Which is of course where any sensible discussion needs to focus. So please, go ahead. But don't post the blog equivalent of white noise and pretend you're making an important point.

Rhology said...

In order to have a point, the statement needs to be situated in an actual argument which goes somewhere.

I'm sorry you're missing it. I'll try to elucidate.
Anti-anti-homosexuality-discrimination (aka pro-perversity) advocates like to whine about how homosexuality is an ontology, a condition, a state of being. They compare it to being black, for example.

I'm saying here that nobody can DO black. One IS one's ethnicity. One doesn't do one's ethnicity.

One does drink coffee, or not. One does engage in homosexual relations, or not. The WHY behind those actions can be and usually is quite complex, but bottom line - those are both ACTIONS.

One can experience desires for things that are not in fact good, such as a desire for someone else's car or a desire to rape a woman.

The orientation doesn't matter in the context of "discrimination" and suchlike. What matters is the action.

Thus a city that decides to make a law against discrimination against homosexuals has done something really foolish. If a homosexual chooses to make known how he likes to have sex, seems to me that should disqualify him from most any respectable job out there. In precisely what context would it be acceptable for me to tell my prospective employer my preferred sexual position?

merkur said...

"I'm saying here that nobody can DO black. One IS one's ethnicity. One doesn't do one's ethnicity."

Actually, one does. If you did any reading at all on ethnicity, then you would swiftly come to recognise the important of self-identification as a key component of ethnicity, and self-identification (particularly for minority groups) is a conscious choice. You might be on stronger ground if you were talking about race - although you show know signs of grasping that race and ethnicity are two separate categories - but even race is socially constructed, and therefore at least partly the result of conscious choices by individuals to act in a certain way. Look at how mixed race individuals in South Africa constructed their identities, for example.

"If a homosexual chooses to make known how he likes to have sex, seems to me that should disqualify him from most any respectable job out there."

Because.... TEH GAY!!!! Why exactly should it disqualify him from "most any respectable job out there"?

"In precisely what context would it be acceptable for me to tell my prospective employer my preferred sexual position?"

In precisely what context would it be acceptable for your prospective employer to ask you what your sexual orientation is? None whatsoever, and voila! Anti-discrimination legislation.

Rhology said...

important of self-identification as a key component of ethnicity

Acting in accord with what a large number of people think is a trait of "___ ethnicity" != BEING that ethnicity.



You might be on stronger ground if you were talking about race

Probably what you term "race" here is what I mean by "ethnicity".
There is only one race among humans - the human race.



although you show (no) signs of grasping that race and ethnicity are two separate categories

This is not relevant to the point made in the original post, actually, so I don't care to discuss it. Will it make you feel better if I say "race" going fwd?


but even race is socially constructed

Sorry, it isn't.
I am white. I can't be black. Because I'm white. See the difference?



Because.... TEH GAY!!!! Why exactly should it disqualify him from "most any respectable job out there"?

I think I just explained that. How about you deal with the whole of the comment?


In precisely what context would it be acceptable for your prospective employer to ask you what your sexual orientation is?

Oh, so you're in favor of don't ask don't tell.
Actually, I am too. Thanks!

merkur said...

"Acting in accord with what a large number of people think is a trait of "___ ethnicity" != BEING that ethnicity... Probably what you term "race" here is what I mean by "ethnicity".
There is only one race among humans - the human race."

Look, I realise that you wear your ignorance like a badge of honour, but you have access to the internet. It's a matter of moments for you to look up some fairly basic contemporary texts and to educate yourself - if only minimally - so that you can make sensible contributions, rather than piffle like "there is only one race among humans".

"Sorry, it isn't. I am white. I can't be black. Because I'm white. See the difference?"

If you were the product of a mixed marriage, would you be black or white?

"I think I just explained that. How about you deal with the whole of the comment?"

You didn't explain it at all, and I don't think I'm so stupid that I missed any such explanation. It's a simple question: why exactly should somebody's homosexuality, whether revealed or concealed, disqualify him from "most any respectable job out there"?

"Oh, so you're in favor of don't ask don't tell."

No, I'm in favour of anti-discrimination legislation. Don't ask don't tell is military policy, neither applicable to nor enforceable in the civilian sphere.

Rhology said...

If you were the product of a mixed marriage, would you be black or white?

I'd be of mixed ethnicity.
Why you thought that was a good question is, however, beyond me. THen again, maybe you didn't think it was a good question.


You didn't explain it at all, and I don't think I'm so stupid that I missed any such explanation

I'll paste it here:
In precisely what context would it be acceptable for me to tell my prospective employer my preferred sexual position?



No, I'm in favour of anti-discrimination legislation. Don't ask don't tell is military policy, neither applicable to nor enforceable in the civilian sphere.

Sigh.
YEs, I know it WAS military policy. I was saying that I prefer it in all arenas.
Please answer the above pasted question.
Also, since you said:
None whatsoever, and voila!

That sounds a lot like "don't ask", doesn't it?

merkur said...

"I'd be of mixed ethnicity. Why you thought that was a good question is, however, beyond me."

You said that "I am white. I can't be black. Because I'm white". What would you say if you were the product of a mixed marriage?

"I was saying that I prefer it in all arenas."

My point is that it isn't possible in all arenas, and that's why anti-discrimination legislation is necessary.

Rhology said...

What would you say if you were the product of a mixed marriage?

"I can't be Slavic because I'm mixed Jamaican-Indian."
This is really not that hard.


My point is that it isn't possible in all arenas,

For example?
What specific situation did you have in mind where I'd have a good reason to tell my employer what kind of sex I prefer?

merkur said...

""I can't be Slavic because I'm mixed Jamaican-Indian." This is really not that hard."

Why have you switched from "black" and "white" to Slavic, Jamaican and Indian? Two of those are nationalities, one of them is a pan-ethnic descriptor, and two of them are racial designations peculiar to the English language.

I see where you're coming from. You genuinely think these things aren't hard. You genuinely think that you can just sound off on issues about which you know next to nothing, and which you can't be bothered to learn about.

Thanks for proving the point I was making in my first comment. I'm happy to pick the discussion up when you start to exhibit a level of understanding of these fairly important beyond that of a seventh grade student. That's not intended as sarcasm.

Rhology said...

You're clearly quite impressed with yourself and your vast knowledge of anthropology. I'm very happy for you, believe me.
What you seem not to realise is that even if your challenge had merit, it is irrelevant to the issue at hand. Those things you said, pan-ethnic descriptor, racial designation, nationality... all those are ONTOLOGICAL aspects to a person, which is what I've been saying all this time. One does not DO them. One IS a member of them.

And were you going to answer my question about employers and letting them know about what kind of sex one prefers?

axisoflogos said...

Zilch said...
Ah, the old Argumentum ad Chaium.

That was funny!

merkur said...

"Those things you said, pan-ethnic descriptor, racial designation, nationality... all those are ONTOLOGICAL aspects to a person, which is what I've been saying all this time.

The point which you have so resoundingly and proudly missed is that they are *not* ontological but social. Would it kill you to do some basic reading on the subject?

"And were you going to answer my question about employers and letting them know about what kind of sex one prefers?"

The question: What specific situation did you have in mind where I'd have a good reason to tell my employer what kind of sex I prefer? When the prospective employer asks you in a job interview and you don't want to lie.

zilch said...

axis- I must admit that I too let the Argumentum ad Chaium, or more often, the Argumentum ad Cafeum, persuade me, when there's nothing else going on. And this is a deadend argument no matter how you spin it. The Book says homosexuality is wrong, so it's wrong, and basta. Or else, the Book is not pertinent, so it's not pertinent, and basta. Take your choice.

cheers from cool Vienna, zilch

merkur said...

Zilch - I agree, it is a deadend. That's why I'm not really interested in Rhology's views - they're so predictable - but in the pigs ear that he makes of anything resembling informed discussion. Race, ethnicity, homosexuality - these are fascinating and complex areas of human experience - but in his hands they're reduced to ill-informed bleating and whining. I'm hoping that anybody who happens to stop by might realise that thoughtful enquiry might be more interesting - and productive! - than wilful ignorance.

Lvka said...

I thought you don't believe in free choice, Rho... Weren't you a Calvinist the last time I checked?


every time I drink a cup of coffee, I choose to drink it.

Whatever happened to 'Total Depravity' and 'Predestination' ? Hmmm? :-\

zilch said...

merkur- yep. The thing that continually amazes me, though, is that intelligent people can believe the world is such a simple place: everything is either yes or no, black or white, a moral choice or not a moral choice, etc. I guess it leads to a feeling of security, but it pretty obviously does not square with the indescribably complex real world. Yeah, we do often need to make yes or no lines or choices, but worshiping those lines is taking things too far...

lvka- how's it going? Speaking of total depravity, I'm out of ţuică.

Lvka said...

Lvka - how's it going?

Oh, same old, same old... Why?

Rhology said...

merkur,

This is a very bizarre conversation.
So, if Joe's mother is black and his father is black, is he white if he acts white?

If a prospective employer asked you what your favorite sex position is, would you not walk out of the office in disgust? What possible application to any job would that question have? Who'd want to work for someone who asked about their favorite sex position?

What possible motivation would an employer have for asking an interviewee if they are homosexual? Do you think the possibility exists that the question might be provoked by some specific trigger? Can you think what that might be?


Lvka,
Another drive-by, ignorant, irrational comment. You haven't changed.

Lvka said...

You seem to be contradicting yourself, that's what I found so odd. (Unless you're not a Calvinist anymore?)

Rhology said...

It's because of your poor understanding of Calvinism, Lvka.

Thomas Powell said...

Rhology this whole "employer" scenario is a red herring. I think I see what's youre trying to do, but it's coming off as a poor attempt to fashion your arguments into reasonable discussion. I agree with merkur, this is seventh grade nonsense.

And please don't speak on anthropology and ontological argumentation when you clearly don't have ANY background knowledge. Wikipedia is good, I know, but not sufficient enough to craft a faulty argument.

As for the Bible- if you've read the Bible in Hebrew as it was originally written, without the "King James" English translation/interpretation, then you've got nothing. Because there are important contextual/social factors involved that you coming from your background have no clue about. Because you're reading a white persons view of it, not Jesus (and please don't tell me he was white).

merkur said...

"So, if Joe's mother is black and his father is black, is he white if he acts white?"

Thanks for demonstrating that you have still not done any reading on the issue, as well as comprehensively missing the point. You still haven't answered my question: what would the child of a mixed-race marriage be according to you, black or white? The reason you haven't answered is because you sense that your answer will cut the legs out from under your own argument, because while you might state in this discussion that they would be "mixed race", I can pretty much guarantee that if you saw them on the street you would label them 'black'. That's how race is socially constructed.

"If a prospective employer asked you what your favorite sex position is, would you not walk out of the office in disgust?"

You've completely lost me. What on earth does that have to do with anti-discrimination legislation?

"Do you think the possibility exists that the question might be provoked by some specific trigger? Can you think what that might be?"

You're going to have to explain what the hell you're talking about. What do "triggers" have to do with anti-discrimination legislation?

Thomas Powell said...

Merkur, this is what happens when rhology is backed into a corner. He diverts attention away from the issue at hand by asking questions that are irreverent and tosses out red herrings. He's a shameful, embarrassing example a Christian. And a human being.

Rhology said...

Thomas Powell,

this whole "employer" scenario is a red herring.

Why?


please don't speak on anthropology and ontological argumentation when you clearly don't have ANY background knowledge

Argument?



Wikipedia is good, I know

Oh, where did I appeal to Wikipedia?



there are important contextual/social factors involved that you coming from your background have no clue about.

Unless I've read about those factors, and you have no idea whether I have.



Because you're reading a white persons view of it, not Jesus

Are you arguing that it is impossible to read texts, taking care to separate one's reading from one's background?
Would you not be reading my post from a pro-homosexuality stance and thus be incapable of properly understanding where I'm coming from? If not, how do you know where the line of incomprehensibility lies?



(and please don't tell me he was white).

This is such a childishly foolish thing to say that from now on I know not to take you very seriously.

Rhology said...

merkur,

what would the child of a mixed-race marriage be according to you, black or white?

Actually, I did answer that question already.
Now you answer mine, please. If Joe's mother is black and his father is black, is he white if he acts white?



I can pretty much guarantee that if you saw them on the street you would label them 'black'.

You don't know anything about me, so I'll thank you to speak only from personal experience.
Perhaps when YOU see them on the street you label them 'black', and you can't imagine anyone doing otherwise.



You've completely lost me. What on earth does that have to do with anti-discrimination legislation?

Maybe you should review the comments we've exchanged. I have specifically made that connection a few times now.
How does it become known during the job interview that the interviewee is homosexual? is one question.
Why homosexuals want free rein to share with prospective employers about the kind of sex they prefer? is the other question.




What do "triggers" have to do with anti-discrimination legislation?

You suggested "When the prospective employer asks you in a job interview and you don't want to lie."
Lie about what? Why would he ask you?

merkur said...

“Actually, I did answer that question already.”

I just read through the thread, and I must be really dense, because I can't see any point where you answer the question. Please help me out, link back to the comment where you answered.

“Now you answer mine, please. If Joe's mother is black and his father is black, is he white if he acts white?”

No. Now my question: is Joe gay if he acts gay?

“Maybe you should review the comments we've exchanged. I have specifically made that connection a few times now.”

I'm going to have to appeal to Zilch or somebody else, because I'm struggling. As far as I can see, you haven't made any such connection.

“How does it become known during the job interview that the interviewee is homosexual?... Why homosexuals want free rein to share with prospective employers about the kind of sex they prefer?”

I'm sorry, is this a thought experiment, or an actual situation. I have no idea what you're talking about at this stage.

“Lie about what? Why would he ask you?”

Because he's as prejudiced against homosexuals as you are.

merkur said...

I'M SO CONFUSED.

Thomas Powell said...

LOL you're backed in Alan. Red herrings everywhere. It's hilarious. Tell your mother I said hi.

axisoflogos said...

zilch said...
The thing that continually amazes me, though, is that intelligent people can believe the world is such a simple place: everything is either yes or no, black or white, a moral choice or not a moral choice, etc.

zilch said...
And this is a deadend argument no matter how you spin it. The Book says homosexuality is wrong, so it's wrong, and basta. Or else, the Book is not pertinent, so it's not pertinent, and basta. Take your choice.

I choose a more complex argument, for with the Book, I know more than a declarative basta, I know that trasformare is possible.

Lvka said...

If we are born totally depraved, with no power to oppose the evil that is in us [per Calvin], and our will is bound by sin [per Luther], unless God unilaterally [monergistically] regenerates us, then since when do any of us have any "choice" in the matter?


It's because of your poor understanding of Calvinism

Then pleasepresent me with a richer one, explaining how or why my observations are invalid. Thank you.

Matthew C. Martellus said...

Then pleasepresent me with a richer one, explaining how or why my observations are invalid. Thank you.

Here you go.

zilch said...

Hehe, touché, lvka! You're right, I expostulated a dichotomy with no gray tones, and homosexuality, like all human endeavors, is rife with grey zones. But I was just caricaturing the argument as it has appeared here.

And you're right- trasformare is a given in life. But the question is: which varieties of trasformare should be encouraged, and which discouraged, and which ignored, and how? Not easy questions to answer.

cheers from chilly Vienna. How's the weather in Arad?

apropos of nothing: my captcha is "imptess". Is that a female imp?

Lvka said...

V.V.,


I understand what you're trying to say there, but merely re-defining terms is ultimately a non-answer, as far a I am personally concerned.

If someone cannot fight his own inclination, it's ultimately not a free choice. It is a bound choice, hence Luther's 'On the Bondage of the Will'.
___________________________________

How's the weather in Arad?

It's as cold as the souls of many atheists and Calvinists... :-) Why?

Lvka said...

Is that a female imp?



No. A female imp is an impess. An imptess is a female 'impt' (a yet-undiscovered mythical creature).

Lvka said...

A perfectly rational explanation for the virgin birth of Jesus Christ !

zilch said...

You may be a crazy Orthie, lvka, but you've got spunk.

Rhology said...

merkur,


mixed-race marriage

Answered in my Mon Nov 28, 02:48:00 PM CST comment.



"If Joe's mother is black and his father is black, is he white if he acts white?”

No.


Excellent, thank you.
Why not? Is it not because at least part of his ethnic/racial/whatever-you-want-to-call-it identity is ONTOLOGICAL? He was born that way and therefore he is that way?



Now my question: is Joe gay if he acts gay?

I've acted gay before, as a joke, and I am not gay.
Could you be more specific?


OK, now with respect to the "If a prospective employer asked you what your favorite sex position is, would you not walk out of the office in disgust?" question, I'd said early on:

Anti-anti-homosexuality-discrimination (aka pro-perversity) advocates like to whine about how homosexuality is an ontology, a condition, a state of being. They compare it to being black, for example.
I'm saying here that nobody can DO black. One IS one's ethnicity. One doesn't do one's ethnicity.

One does drink coffee, or not. One does engage in homosexual relations, or not. The WHY behind those actions can be and usually is quite complex, but bottom line - those are both ACTIONS.

One can experience desires for things that are not in fact good, such as a desire for someone else's car or a desire to rape a woman.

The orientation doesn't matter in the context of "discrimination" and suchlike. What matters is the action.

Thus a city that decides to make a law against discrimination against homosexuals has done something really foolish. If a homosexual chooses to make known how he likes to have sex, seems to me that should disqualify him from most any respectable job out there. In precisely what context would it be acceptable for me to tell my prospective employer my preferred sexual position?


Then you said:
In precisely what context would it be acceptable for your prospective employer to ask you what your sexual orientation is? None whatsoever, and voila! Anti-discrimination legislation.

So now I'm asking you to consistently apply this across the board.
You're in an interview. The interviewer asks "Are you homosexual?" In other words, he is asking "What is your preferred mode of sexual expression?"
If an interviewer were to ask me that, I'd reply, "None of your business, and how is that relevant to the job?"
If he insists, I'm outta there.
Why doesn't the homosexual respond in exactly the same way? What difference does his preferred mode of sexual expression make in doing the job? If the employers insists on knowing the guy's preferred mode of sexual expression, why not just go look for another job? That's clearly not one where anyone will want to work, where they want to know about their employees' sexual habits.

Instead, homosexuals seek super-rights and campaign for anti-anti-homosexual discrimination legislation. I don't see anyone campaigning for anti-anti-heterosexual discrimination legislation.

Is that clearer? It's a thought experiment.


Because he's as prejudiced against homosexuals as you are.

For all your high-falootin' talk of psychology and such, you apparently don't know the definition of "prejudiced". You talk a good game, though. Kudos for your big talk.

Rhology said...

zilch,
everything is either yes or no, black or white, a moral choice or not a moral choice, etc.

Is it EITHER true that everything is either yes or no, black or white, a moral choice or not a moral choice, etc, OR is it not true that everything is either yes or no, black or white, a moral choice or not a moral choice, etc.?

Lvka said...

Well... he was talking about the Big Bang... I just changed some words... :-)

zilch said...

rho- what do you mean by "true"? Is this going to be a sye gotcha?

lvka- btw, this atheist's soles are not cold. Warm socks are the key.

David said...

"I don't see anyone campaigning for anti-anti-heterosexual discrimination legislation."

Perhaps that is because there is no need for this, but there is a need for legislation to protect gays from discrimination. Frankly, your comments here simply reinforce the argument that such statutes are necessary and not foolish at all. It's not a matter of "whining". Given that your attitude is hardly unique, I'd say that gays have reason to want and need protection. You're making their argument for them.

But I'm still confused.

Does the anti-discrimination legislation in question *only* address those cases in which a prospective employee walks into the interview and announces that he is gay? Are the anti-discrimination laws really this limited in their scope? Aren't these laws also intended to protect against discrimination after hiring, too? Do you have any problem with protecting against discrimination after the hiring?

And I still don't understand why you care if someone says he's gay during the interview. If he can do the job, then hire him. This seems like a trivial reason to deny employment.

David said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Lvka said...

Oh, you never stroke me as someone who 'gets cold feet', Zilch... :-)

merkur said...

"If a homosexual chooses to make known how he likes to have sex, seems to me that should disqualify him from most any respectable job out there. In precisely what context would it be acceptable for me to tell my prospective employer my preferred sexual position?"

I'll get back to the rest of your comment later, but for now I'll just observe: you still haven't made an argument as to why being openly homosexual should disqualify anybody from any job, any more than being openly heterosexual should.

merkur said...

Prejudiced: “any preconceived opinion or feeling, either favorable or unfavorable.” (Dictionary.com)
Rhology: “an unrepentant homosexual.... [is] the same as an unrepentant thief, liar, witch, rapist, or murderer.” (http://rhoblogy.blogspot.com/2011/10/my-message-to-gay-man-or-gospel.html)

“I'm not prejudiced against homosexuals, I just think that they're the same as thieves, liars, witches, rapists and murderers.” Reader, you decide!

zilch said...

merkur and David- yep. As Gloria Steinem said, "There are really not many jobs that actually require a penis or a vagina, and all other occupations should be open to everyone." The same thing goes for what people choose to do with their twiddly bits in the privacy of their bedrooms: it shouldn't really affect their jobs, so as long as they behave nicely, it shouldn't really be anyone's business.

Lvka said...

it shouldn't really be anyone's business.


But Allan isn't just "anyone", Zilch... ;-)

merkur said...

“Why doesn't the homosexual respond in exactly the same way? What difference does his preferred mode of sexual expression make in doing the job? If the employers insists on knowing the guy's preferred mode of sexual expression, why not just go look for another job?”

a) Because he's not you. You seem to have great difficulty in understanding that other people aren't the same as you.
b) None at all.
c) Because jobs are hard to find, especially in a society where prejudice against homosexuals is widespread.

These answers seem rather obvious to me, but still.

“Instead, homosexuals seek super-rights and campaign for anti-anti-homosexual discrimination legislation. I don't see anyone campaigning for anti-anti-heterosexual discrimination legislation.”

If you could give us a specific example of this “anti-anti-homosexual discrimination legislation”, we might understand what on earth it is you're talking about. As it is, what you're saying just sounds like paranoid gobbledygook.

merkur said...

“Why not? Is it not because at least part of his ethnic/racial/whatever-you-want-to-call-it identity is ONTOLOGICAL? He was born that way and therefore he is that way?”

No, it's because racial and ethnic identities are socially constructed, e.g. the case of Sandra Laing. Cases such as these expose your biological essentialism as completely misguided.

The problem here is that you think that your perceptions are the norm. You seem unable to imagine that other people, in other times and in other places, might not share your view of the world.

Please, I'm beggging you. Just read a few articles on current thinking around race and ethnicity. It won't take you long, and it'll stop you from embarrassing yourself like this.

zilch said...

Oops, I owe an apology to axisoflogos: he's the one espousing trasformare, not lvka. Sorry about that, axis.

Lvka said...

I honestly doubt that "racial and ethnic identities are socially constructed", because the girl WAS truly black.. perfectly explained, to my knowledge, through recessive genes (one of her ancestors down the line might've been black).

merkur said...

"I honestly doubt that "racial and ethnic identities are socially constructed", because the girl WAS truly black.. perfectly explained, to my knowledge, through recessive genes (one of her ancestors down the line might've been black)."

Her parents looked white, they acted white, they were classified as white; you would have said they were truly white *right up until the point where they gave birth to a black child*. So a) the child of "white" parents is not necessarily "white", b) looking "white" does not make one "white". For me this is clear indication that the categories of "white" and "black" were socially constructed.

merkur said...

"the girl WAS truly black.. perfectly explained, to my knowledge, through recessive genes (one of her ancestors down the line might've been black)"

So if one of your ancestors is black, then you are "truly black"? That would be the One Drop rule in action, the absurdity of which is nicely laid out in http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/One-drop_rule#Other_countries_of_the_Americas

Lvka said...

Merkur,



en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dominance_(genetics)

merkur said...

I'm familiar with genetics, thanks. The point is that the concept of black and white are clearly different in different places and different times, and thus rather obviously socially constructed. Once again, try to put yourself in the shoes of the Laings neighbours (or even the Laings themselves, who were apparently unaware of any non-European heritage). Or read the section of the Wikipedia article, in which Brazilians express surprise at the sort of categorization that you reflexively made.

Lvka said...

The examples you offered don't fit the case of Sandra Laing, because -from what I read- she was fully black (ie, her appearence did not exhibit BOTH caucasian and negroid features at the SAME time [mixed together]). She was not what one would call a 'mulatta' [like the current US president, to use a simple and well-known example].

Lvka said...

Brazilians are a of mixed race (called metis). Mixed races are also races, and bear well-defined names. There's nothing "artificial" about it.

merkur said...

"The examples you offered don't fit the case of Sandra Laing, because -from what I read- she was fully black (ie, her appearence did not exhibit BOTH caucasian and negroid features at the SAME time [mixed together])."

Rhology gave the example of Joe, both of whose parents are black, and who is therefore inescapably black. I gave the counter-example of Sandra, both of whose parents are white, and who is therefore inescapably OMFG WTF SHE'S NOT WHITE. So Sandra Laing's case is clearly pertinent since it disproves Rhology's essentialism.

"Brazilians are a of mixed race (called metis). Mixed races are also races, and bear well-defined names. There's nothing "artificial" about it."

I never claimed that there was anything artificial about it, only that it is socially constructed.

Lvka said...

I'm familiar with genetics, thanks.


Don't thank me, read the article. (Thanksgiving was last Thursday).
___________________________________

You haven't actually disproven Alan's point, you just offered a quainter, more exotic, and more complex example than the one he gave, that's all.

(Alan's point was that we have no choice over the traits or features we're born with, but we DO have a choice over how to act on them).

merkur said...

Rhology: “I'm saying here that nobody can DO black. One IS one's ethnicity. One doesn't do one's ethnicity... So, if Joe's mother is black and his father is black, is he white if he acts white? ”

It is clear from the quote that Alan's point was that one has no choice over one's ethnicity and that no matter how we act that ethnicity is immutable.

Lvka: “Alan's point was that we have no choice over the traits or features we're born with, but we DO have a choice over how to act on them.”

So what you're talking about here, I have no idea. Also: isn't this fairly peripheral to this discussion, the main thrust of which is that Alan is embarrassing himself through his own ignorance yet again?

merkur said...

p.s. No offense Lvka, but I won't be replying if you attempt to take this tangent any further. I'd be more interested to know your views on homosexuality, since that's what the discussion is actually about.

Lvka said...

what you're talking about here, I have no idea.

Then you've missed the whole point of the discussion.


I'd be more interested to know your views on homosexuality

That it's a grave sin with serious eternal consequences.

That it's as repelling to the mind as other absurd combinations. (I'm talking about a mental repulsion here, not about a physical one).

That it is a sad and disturbing disfigurement of friendship. [Just like incest deforms fraternal or parental feelings; or just like paedophilia distorts the love for children; and like zoophilia is a monstruous deformity of the love for pets and animals; etc].

That it's a heart-wrenching, soul-crushing, mind-harrowing, and tragic condition, since to forego any romantic or erotic fulfilment is devastating. [I'm talking here about the sacrifices that some religious homosexuals undergo].

That it's an outright hillarious topic.

That it's an irrelevant aspect with regard to forming (or not forming) a friendship or other kind of human connection or relationship with someone.

That in its feminine form is one of the most beautiful things on earth.

[Yes, I think and feel all of the points above simultaneously].

merkur said...

My point being that Alan was making exactly the opposite point regarding ethnicity to the one that you thought he was making. (He thinks that it doesn't matter how you act, black folk still gonna be black.)

So I'm not convinced that I missed the point of the discussion, only that you didn't understand him correctly. The reason for Alan pursuing this argument is that he wants to deny that being gay is like being black; because that would give TEH GAYZ, of which he has TEH HORRORZ, too much power for his liking.

I'm fascinated by your views on homosexuality, though. Apparently homosexuality is like paedophilia and zoophilia, and also homosexuality is outright hilarious! This implies that you must therefore think that paedophilia is outright hilarious, which seems a pretty strange position to take.

Matthew C. Martellus said...

LVKA SAID:

I understand what you're trying to say there, but merely re-defining terms is ultimately a non-answer, as far a I am personally concerned.

Except that the article in question is a far cry from a "mere re-definition of terms," as is obvious from a serious reading. Failing to deal with the arguments I actually made is a non-answer, as far as I am personally concerned.


If someone cannot fight his own inclination, it's ultimately not a free choice. It is a bound choice, hence Luther's 'On the Bondage of the Will'.

Which, as an argument against my position, is only meaningful if you specify which modality the terms "cannot" and "free" refer to - something that would be obvious from a serious reading of the article.

zilch said...

lvka, you said, of homosexuality:

That in its feminine form is one of the most beautiful things on earth.

Er, do I get you right here? Are you saying that girl-on-girl action is okay with you and/or the Bible? Or is it just "beautiful" in the way that sin is "beautiful"? Hmmm.

Rhology said...

David said:
there is a need for legislation to protect gays from discrimination

I'm doubtful of this; that's the thing.
To be clear, if I meet a gay person dressed -ahem- flamboyantly, I have every desire to treat them with the love of Christ. Violence is not an option, and it's not attractive to me either.
That said, if a person were to come to an interview for a serious job dressed flamboyantly, I'd treat that the same way as I'd treat someone who came in with a T-shirt and sandals - this person isn't treating the interview or opportunity seriously. S/he better be WAY more qualified than any other applicant if s/he wants to be considered for the hire.

That's why I've been asking "How would the interviewer know to ask?" about the interviewEE's preferred manner of sex? Was it b/c the homosexual person dressed in such a way as to warrant the asking? I've been in many job interviews and not once has any question ever approached a question about sexual preference. Don't know if I've even been asked if I'm married.

As for the legislation you claim is necessary, it seems to me the inverse is also necessary but I don't see anyone clamoring for it. It's far more politically correct to be loud-and-proud homosexual than to be loud-and-proud hetero. When's the last Hetero Pride March you heard of? When's the last time anyone suggested proclaiming "Heterosexual History Month"? If we are to celebrate historical achievements by remarkable people, why bring up their sexual orientation at all? What difference does one's sexual orientation make in a great invention or discovery? Who among us speaks in the following way: "Albert Einstein, a great mind and influential scientist, who was also heterosexual, is the originator of the theory of relativity"?

We don't need anti-discrimination legislation to protect gay people. We need regular laws to protect them from unprovoked violence just like everyone else is protected from unprovoked violence. If gays are targeted by people for violence, from where I stand there's at least a solid argument to be made that some of that is due to homosexuals' demanding super rights and that they not only be tolerated but fully accepted for whatever perverse things they want to do in public, such as parade down a street naked and wave sex toys around.
Where is the "Missionary Position Pride Parade" where people who prefer missionary position sex march around proclaiming their preferred manner of sexual expression? It's not there. So many of the most visible homosexuals are most visible b/c they insist on flaunting their sexual preferences in public, and not everyone is OK with that. Not everyone prefers to peacefully share the Good News of Jesus with homosexuals like I do. Some prefer violence against the Other. In that case, the answer for the Other is to prioritise carefully. For what reason is s/he spending all this time and energy flaunting his/her sexual preference all over the place?

Rhology said...

Do you have any problem with protecting against discrimination after the hiring?

Is open discussion of whether employees prefer to watch porn during sex or prefer sex doggie-style acceptable within the workplace?
How precisely would it become known that the hypothetical homosexual person is in fact homosexual? Are you asking what if s/he flaunts it? Should we also introduce anti-discrimination legislation that guarantees that anyone can talk about anything at any time in any workplace without any adverse consequences?


If he can do the job, then hire him. This seems like a trivial reason to deny employment.

Precisely my point. His preferred manner of sexual expression shouldn't enter into the question at all, and that includes both sides of the equation. Why would the prospective employer ask? Why would the prospective employee tell?

Rhology said...

merkur said:
you still haven't made an argument as to why being openly homosexual should disqualify anybody from any job, any more than being openly heterosexual should.

That's the problem word - "openly". I'm not "openly" hetero. I don't talk about my sex life on the job, or in job interviews. Why would anyone else?



Prejudiced: “any preconceived opinion or feeling, either favorable or unfavorable.”

And my "opinion" about this isn't preconceived. It's the result, the conclusion of a great deal of careful thought and consideration. And thanks for quoting me - that's exactly right.



"If the employers insists on knowing the guy's preferred mode of sexual expression, why not just go look for another job?”
a) Because he's not you. You seem to have great difficulty in understanding that other people aren't the same as you.


That's no answer. Please try again. You don't know anything about me.



What difference does his preferred mode of sexual expression make in doing the job?
b) None at all.


Good, so you agree with me that it shouldn't be an issue FOR EITHER OF THEM.



If the employers insists on knowing the guy's preferred mode of sexual expression, why not just go look for another job?
c) Because jobs are hard to find, especially in a society where prejudice against homosexuals is widespread.


1) And how would the employer know that the interviewee is homosexual? Did the interviewee tell him? Why did the interviewer ask?
2) You're actually proposing that if an interviewer asks an interviewee about his/her sexual preferences, the interviewee should just answer, rather than walk out, figuring that place is not where s/he'd want to work?
3) When's the last time an interviewer asked you how you like your sex?




If you could give us a specific example of this “anti-anti-homosexual discrimination legislation”

Here.
Here.
Here.



what you're saying just sounds like paranoid gobbledygook.

You're just not paying attention. Maybe you should read more widely.
Or, to quote you: The problem here is that you think that your perceptions are the norm.



No, it's because racial and ethnic identities are socially constructed,

Even though you said that a man born to a black woman and a black man would be black even if he acted "white". Sounds to me like you really don't know what you think.



For me this is clear indication that the categories of "white" and "black" were socially constructed.

Except the person's skin would be dark brown. Except her genetic makeup would reflect an African descent.
YOu know, except for all that stuff.
What YOU seem to be missing is that yes, of course, questions of social identity and behavior play into it but so does the genetic makeup and skin color. You have to admit that at least part of it ONTOLOGICAL, which is what I've been saying from the beginning. If you think I've ever said that it's ALL ontological, you're simply guilty of a false assumption.



So if one of your ancestors is black, then you are "truly black"?

What if ALL your ancestors are black?
How did the ancestors know they were black, anyway? Was it b/c of their society or b/c all their skin was heavy on the melanin?
Yeah, both. Exactly. You only want to admit the former when it's clearly both.
Lvka is right (for a change) when he says: You haven't actually disproven Alan's point, you just offered a quainter, more exotic, and more complex example than the one he gave, that's all.

Rhology said...

zilch,
"There are really not many jobs that actually require a penis or a vagina, and all other occupations should be open to everyone."

Actually, I can think of several that don't require a penis per se but require that men do them, or in which it is at least highly preferable that men do them, and not women.
Bricklayer and other jobs that require brute physical strength. Which is really quite a lot.
Soldier in combat zones.
Pastor.

On the other side of the equation, it honestly baffles me why it is acceptable that men become OBGYNs. Yes, I know there are women OBGYNs. The question is why any women ever choose a male one.
Babysitters and childcare workers - a women is much preferable to a man, all things being equal.
Nurses in military hospitals.
Etc.

Bottom line - news flash, men and women aren't the same. Each generally do different jobs better than the other.
But outside of that, yes, I agree with the 2nd half of the statement that many, many occupations should be open to everyone.



The same thing goes for what people choose to do with their twiddly bits in the privacy of their bedrooms: it shouldn't really affect their jobs, so as long as they behave nicely, it shouldn't really be anyone's business.

So you agree with me over and against merkur. Thanks.

David said...

All you did in your reply was move the goalposts, introduce issues and scenarios that are different from those addressed by anti-discrimination legislation and throw out endless red herrings and digressions.

Are there any scenarios in which an employer can find out an employee is gay, and yet, it would be wrong to fire that employee on the grounds of sexual orientation? Say an employer accidentally bumps into a male employee at the movies, and the employer sees that the employee is with his boyfriend. What if the employee’s boyfriend picks up the employee at the office; and the employee does the polite thing and introduces the guy as his boyfriend. Would it be wrong if the employer then fires the guy because he’s gay?

Maybe you are clueless about the history of discrimination and violence against gays, and therefore truly ignorant about the need for anti-discrimination legislation. Maybe the problem is that you are simply too young to know first-hand about the history of persecution of gays, and therefore, you can’t understand why gays might want a “pride day”. Or maybe you are simply blinded by your personal feelings about homosexuality.

Regardless, you continue to make the case for the need for anti-discrimination legislation. If I was gay, and I read your comments, then damn straight, I’d want a law that protects me against discrimination by folks such as yourself.

zilch said...

rho- David said it. If there were no discrimination of the kind you also seem to deplore against gays, then this legislation would not be necessary.

lvka and rho- both of you seem to be laboring under the delusion that being black or white is the matter of one gene, and can be pigeonholed one way or another. Sorry, the genetics of race is more complex than that, and the sociology of race, as merkur and thomas have pointed out, is even more complex. And as far as "all your ancestors being black" goes, there's no such thing- go back far enough, and you can probably come up with any color you want.

merkur said...

So your examples are:

Homosexual History Month in your town. No “anti-anti-homosexual legislation” is mentioned, and the decision was made after public consultation.
Lund vs Boisson in Canada. No legislation is mentioned, and the Court of Queen's Bench found in favour of Boisson, who had made the anti-homosexual remarks.
SunTV, again in Canada. No legislation is mentioned, and Erickson's petition on Change.org appears to have a whopping 476 signatures.

Those are shitty, shitty examples, but I suppose for you they constitute evidence of - well, at this stage I have no idea what you think they constitute evidence of. You appear to be a very confused young man.

merkur said...

“Except the person's skin would be dark brown. Except her genetic makeup would reflect an African descent. YOu know, except for all that stuff.”

Did you even read about Sandra Laing? The entire point of the example is that skin colour is not a good guide to racial categorisation. And everybody's genetic makeup reflects an African descent. So what are you talking about?

“What YOU seem to be missing is that yes, of course, questions of social identity and behavior play into it but so does the genetic makeup and skin color. You have to admit that at least part of it ONTOLOGICAL, which is what I've been saying from the beginning. If you think I've ever said that it's ALL ontological, you're simply guilty of a false assumption.”

My assumption was based on your own words. When I first pointed out that “race is socially constructed, you replied “Sorry, it isn't”. you then went on to say “Those things you said, pan-ethnic descriptor, racial designation, nationality... all those are ONTOLOGICAL aspects to a person, which is what I've been saying all this time. One does not DO them. One IS a member of them.” You accompanied that statement by saying that “even if your challenge had merit, it is irrelevant to the issue at hand”, i.e. that even if race is socially constructed, it's irrelevant to your argument. So you can try and wriggle your way out of the net you cast for yourself, but your protest that I'm making a false assumption is fucking bullshit.

“What if ALL your ancestors are black? How did the ancestors know they were black, anyway? Was it b/c of their society or b/c all their skin was heavy on the melanin?”

Do you think anybody at all in the middle of Cameroon ever refers to anybody else as “black”? Clue: no, they don't. If they did use the word “black”, do you think they would use it in the same way that you use it, with the same social and cultural connotations that it possesses for you? Clue: no, they wouldn't. Your claim is that “black” has an ontological aspect – but it doesn't to Cameroonians, or at least it doesn't have the same aspect, which is what we mean when we say that race is socially constructed. For everybody's sake, just do some reading. I know you can lead a horse to water, etc, etc, but here's a nice article to get you started: http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/race/. This is a really interesting topic, and I promise that reading about it won't make you a gay Satanist.

Feather Rogers said...

Alan,

Homosexuals dont talk about their sex life on the job. How sheltered do you have to be to realize that homosexuals are just like you- they don't brag about the bedroom. They just don't want to hide or live a lie. They want to be able to be seen together just like you and wife when you're out and about, without being judged or discriminated against. Thats the real issue, not sex positions. You're applying this perverse, deviant label to homosexuals, and that kind of generalization is just naive and silly.

merkur said...

“That's the problem word - "openly". I'm not "openly" hetero. I don't talk about my sex life on the job, or in job interviews. Why would anyone else?”

Of course you're openly hetero. You got married, didn't you? When somebody asks you if you're married, you tell them, don't you? When your boss asks how your wife is, you tell him, don't you? That's being openly hetero. If your boss asks if you're married, you don't walk out of the interview on the grounds that it's none of their business and you don't want to work there. That's being openly hetero, and it's something you don't have to worry about because being hetero is the norm.

“And my "opinion" about this isn't preconceived. It's the result, the conclusion of a great deal of careful thought and consideration.”

“Conceived” means to form or hold an idea (thanks dictionary!). The fact that you've carefully considered your opinion is the reason why it's preconceived. The dictionary is your friend.

“1) And how would the employer know that the interviewee is homosexual? Did the interviewee tell him? Why did the interviewer ask?”

I have no idea why the interviewer asked. You proposed a purely hypothetical example featuring imaginary people, and now you're expecting me to explain the motivations of those imaginary people. That seems a little fucking deranged, not least because it's entirely irrelevant to the discussion how the employer knows that the interviewee is homosexual.

“2) You're actually proposing that if an interviewer asks an interviewee about his/her sexual preferences, the interviewee should just answer, rather than walk out, figuring that place is not where s/he'd want to work?

No, I'm proposing reasons why an interviewee might not walk out.

“3) When's the last time an interviewer asked you how you like your sex?”

Absolutely never, which is why this hypothetical question looks like paranoid gobbledygook. You asked for reasons why a homosexual might not just go and look for another job if he was asked about his sexual orientation in an interview. I gave you three reasons, and it really isn't relevant that you don't think those reasons are good enough.

Also, I'm really confused about what exactly you're objecting to. At the moment, you appear to be objecting to employers asking staff about their sexual orientation.

merkur said...

But hey! Let's grant you the benefit of the doubt. Your position now is that “of course, questions of social identity and behavior play into it but so does the genetic makeup and skin color... If you think I've ever said that it's ALL ontological, you're simply guilty of a false assumption.”

So in your view the category of “black” is a combination of genetic disposition and social interpretation, which is of course exactly the same for the category of “gay”. Unfortunately this flatly contradicts your earlier rejection of any comparisons between being black and being gay.

Lvka said...

Are you saying that girl-on-girl action is okay with the Bible?

No. (Romans 1:26-27).
___________________________________

Or is it just "beautiful" in the way that sin is "beautiful"?

Yes.
___________________________________

Lvka is right

Always. :-) Like a Swiss clock. :D (Don't mind me saying so myself... I mean: I don't want to create the impression of "false humilty", now, would I?). :p
___________________________________

go back far enough, and you can probably come up with any color you want.

Actually, you can't: We all come from Africa, so the ultimate color is black. :-)
___________________________________

the sociology of race, as merkur and thomas have pointed out, is even more complex.

I agree. I just don't give a rat's S about what "society" thinks. For me what matters is Truth, as found in revelation, conscience, logic (reason), and science [the last of which explains how black children are born to white parents].
___________________________________

you must therefore think that paedophilia is outright hilarious

I don't.
___________________________________

Apparently homosexuality is like paedophilia and zoophilia, and also homosexuality is outright hilarious, which seems a pretty strange position to take.

When I watch Tom and Jerry going at each other with knives and guns I laugh; when I see or hear of two people doing this in real life I don't.

Rhology said...

David,

Are there any scenarios in which an employer can find out an employee is gay, and yet, it would be wrong to fire that employee on the grounds of sexual orientation?

How would the employer find out?
That would involve the employee saying so, wouldn't it?
My state is an at-will employment state. They can fire me whenever they want. Make the case why an employer shouldn't be able to release employees b/c he doesn't like their sexual preferences.



the employee does the polite thing and introduces the guy as his boyfriend. Would it be wrong if the employer then fires the guy because he’s gay?

So the employee told the employer. Mistake #1.
No, I would not have a problem with that. If the employer wants to fire someone for that reason, let him. The employer may have strong convictions that someone who is so deep into sin and perversity that he would appear in public with his "boyfriend" also has a good chance of being deep into sin and perversity in other areas, such as finance and accountability. Maybe he is wary of ending up on the wrong end of that deal and so fires the employee. And then of course he has to replace the employee, which is costly both in time and money. Nobody wins in h-ity, bottom line.



Maybe you are clueless about the history of discrimination and violence against gay

Or maybe I've thought it through farther than you could hope to.



I’d want a law that protects me against discrimination by folks such as yourself.

You have the right to your opinion, even really irrational opinions like that one. Government education has failed you too.


zilch,
And as far as "all your ancestors being black" goes, there's no such thing- go back far enough, and you can probably come up with any color you want.

1) And yet YOUR SKIN COLOR REMAINS STATIC.
That is why I keep referring to ONTOLOGY.
2) This is an argument on gay rights agenda-ists' own grounds. THEY are the ones who compare h-ity with ethnicity, not me. I'm showing why that's a bad comparison.

Rhology said...

Feather Rogers,
Homosexuals dont talk about their sex life on the job.

How do you know? Have you interviewed all homosexuals?
Then what's the need for this legislation? How is anyone to know?


How sheltered do you have to be to realize that homosexuals are just like you- they don't brag about the bedroom.

Your ignorance is astonishing.

Rhology said...

merkur,


bad evidence

I don't exactly spend my time compiling these sorts of things. If you haven't been paying enough attention, again, that's not my problem.



The entire point of the example is that skin colour is not a good guide to racial categorisation

And did you even read my last comment? My point is that IT IS PART OF THE EQUATION AND IT IS STATIC!
You admitted as much when you said that a man wouldn't be white if he acted white though all his ancestors were black. You're done here. Move on to another argument.



Do you think anybody at all in the middle of Cameroon ever refers to anybody else as “black”?

Hmm, think they might when trying to differentiate between two friends over there, one of whom plays soccer and one of whom is white?
"Which one plays soccer? The white guy?"
"No, the black guy."

The mountain of Duh continues to grow.


but it doesn't to Cameroonians, or at least it doesn't have the same aspect, which is what we mean when we say that race is socially constructed

Right, b/c white faces never stick out in Africa.
I've experienced that firsthand in Japan. It matters. Deal with it.



Of course you're openly hetero. You got married, didn't you? When somebody asks you if you're married, you tell them, don't you?

Yes. What does this have to do with identifying homosexuals? They can't marry (in my state), but there are plenty of single people around.




If your boss asks if you're married, you don't walk out of the interview on the grounds that it's none of their business and you don't want to work there.

You're confusing two things here - interview and work environment.
If my boss asks me, I tell him.
If the interviewer asks me, I seriously consider respectfully telling him that's none of his business.




“Conceived” means to form or hold an idea (thanks dictionary!). The fact that you've carefully considered your opinion is the reason why it's preconceived.

You seem to be in favor of draining all pejorative meaning from the word "prejudiced", to where it lacks any concept of unfair bias based on overgeneralisation and comes to mean fair, reasoned conclusion.
Is that your intention? Why did you call me "prejudiced" then?



I have no idea why the interviewer asked. You proposed a purely hypothetical example featuring imaginary people, and now you're expecting me to explain the motivations of those imaginary people.

Then I suggest you start thinking about that, since we're living in the real world.
If I'm an interviewer, I want to know whether the person can do the job. I don't care about their sexual preferences. But if they volunteer that information, then that's a strike against them, honestly. Um, thanks for telling me. Now go write some code. YOu know, what you're paid to do.



“3) When's the last time an interviewer asked you how you like your sex?”

Absolutely never, which is why this hypothetical question looks like paranoid gobbledygook.


Or why the fear driving the anti-discrim legislation is.
I think you're a bit confused at this point. If it doesn't happen, why make laws about it?




So in your view the category of “black” is a combination of genetic disposition and social interpretation, which is of course exactly the same for the category of “gay”. Unfortunately this flatly contradicts your earlier rejection of any comparisons between being black and being gay.

You forgot something - homosexual sex is an action. The "social interpretation" is irrelevant.

David said...

"The employer may have strong convictions that someone who is so deep into sin and perversity that he would appear in public with his "boyfriend" also has a good chance of being deep into sin and perversity in other areas, such as finance and accountability."

This is your rationale? A gay man is more likely to be "perverse" in accounting than a straight man? Holy sheeeet.


Thanks, you've really, really, really made it clear that anti-discrimination legislation is needed. You've really got some issue, old boy.

merkur said...

“My point is that IT IS PART OF THE EQUATION AND IT IS STATIC! You admitted as much when you said that a man wouldn't be white if he acted white though all his ancestors were black. You're done here. Move on to another argument.”

My answer was to your one specific question about a guy who “looks black” and both of whose parents “look black”, but that answer doesn't mean that race is static. I gave you the example of Sandra Laing, which (surprise!) you missed the point of. Don't just look at Sandra, look at her parents. Are they white or are they black? If they're both white, how did they give birth to a black child? If they're both black, how did acting white make them white? If they're both white, would acting black have made them black? If they're both black, etc, etc. The point is that physical characteristics that you associate with racial groups are insufficient; that you (and everybody else) is doing a lot of construction based on social context.

“Hmm, think they might when trying to differentiate between two friends over there, one of whom plays soccer and one of whom is white?”

My point being: in a place where there are no white people, the question wouldn't even come up. Let's say that one of their friends is albino, who would be referred to as white. Does that mean that albino Africans are white in the same way as you are white? Of course it doesn't, which is my point: you are assuming that the racial context in which you live is universal, and it isn't.

Let's take some specific examples: in some countries in which I have worked in Africa, people use the same word for all Americans/Europeans, including those that would be considered black in the US/Europe. Africans that are part of completely different ethnic groups would fall under the rubric 'black' if they were in the US, but that term has no meaning in their home country. So what exactly is ontological? It can't be their skin colour, because skin colour varies widely; it can't be facial features, because that also varies widely; so what exactly is it that is ontological?

“Right, b/c white faces never stick out in Africa. I've experienced that firsthand in Japan.”

My point is not that you personally don't stick out in Japan. My point is not that differences in physical features are meaningless. My point is that “race” is constructed socially around issues such as differences in physical features. Another example: to most people, my Jewish friends are physically indistinguishable from anybody else who happens to fall in the 'white' category, but the Nazi regime found them distinguishable enough to kill large numbers of their families. Do you think that the supposedly “ontological” differences between Jews and Aryans would have any meaning at all for a Nigerian?

zilch said...

Lvka, you say:

go back far enough, and you can probably come up with any color you want.

Actually, you can't: We all come from Africa, so the ultimate color is black. :-)


You have a different idea of "ultimate" than I do. Yes, probably, given the color of chimps and bonobos (our closest living relatives), all human ancestors were "black" (that is, darker than say, my Viking skin color) at one point in our evolution.

But our evolution goes back further than the apes in Africa. Apes evolved from other mammals, which evolved from reptiles, which evolved from amphibians, which evolved from fish... it seems likely that not all these ancestors were "black".

And about those Swiss clocks- somewhere in Switzerland (I'll have to look it up) there is a sixteenth century tower with a clock that runs the same way as the clock in my workshop here: widdershins, or in modern English "counterclockwise". My clock keeps quite good time, but has the unfortunate influence on me that I sometimes do a doubletake when I look at a "normal" clock and have to remember that "normal" clocks go the other way around.

rho- sure, sexual orientation is somewhat more labile than skin color. You might wake up one day and decide that you're gay, and thus may have no satisfying sex life any more, because that would be drinking evil coffee. But I would bet against it: most people know from a fairly early age on what sex they are attracted to, and it doesn't change very often. So "ontology" is not really any sort of absolute diagnostic.

merkur: interesting stuff about your African experiences. Thanks.

cheers from chilly Vienna, zilch

Rhology said...

David said...

This is your rationale? A gay man is more likely to be "perverse" in accounting than a straight man?

I know, it's crazy to think that I might strive to be consistent with the Bible.

Thanks, you've really, really, really made it clear that anti-anti-discrimination legislation is needed. You've really got some issue, old boy.

Rhology said...

merkur said...

My answer was to your one specific question about a guy who “looks black” and both of whose parents “look black”

Yes, that's called a reductio ad absurdum.
Your "ontology matters not at all" position can't acct for all the data. It is therefore to be rejected.


but that answer doesn't mean that race is static.

I believe I've made my position clear, and it's not that 'race is static'. I have said "YOUR SKIN COLOR REMAINS STATIC. That is why I keep referring to ONTOLOGY."
One wonders whether you'll ever move on from this point on which you've clearly been shown to be mistaken.


Are they white or are they black?

Newsflash: They are what they are.
You know, ontology.
Then they get to choose how they ACT.
Hey, wait! That's been my point this whole time!!!! Cool!!!!!!!!1


in some countries in which I have worked in Africa, people use the same word for all Americans/Europeans, including those that would be considered black in the US/Europe.

And in Japan, most all non-Asians are "gaijin". Yes.


So what exactly is ontological? It can't be their skin colour, because skin colour varies widely

Actually, it IS their skin color, b/c their skin color doesn't vary widely ON THE INDIVIDUAL. One's skin color and genome are the same from birth till death (barring extremes like excessive exposure to sun, chemicals, pharmaceuticals, etc).


My point is that “race” is constructed socially around issues such as differences in physical features.

and your mistake is in forgetting that those physical features are one of the CAUSES of the different constructs.

merkur said...

“Newsflash: They are what they are. You know, ontology.”

So what are they? White or black?

Rhology said...

Another category error - assuming that one's ontology is easily categorised. That doesn't mean it doesn't exist.

merkur said...

"Another category error - assuming that one's ontology is easily categorised. That doesn't mean it doesn't exist."

That's funny, because earlier, when arguing against the social construction of race, you said that "I am white. I can't be black. Because I'm white. See the difference?" Back then you clearly thought that one's ontology was easily categorised - have you changed your mind, or did you just forget what your position was?

Rhology said...

MINE is easily categorised. That's not true for everyone.
The constant here is your confusion (and obstinacy).

merkur said...

“Yes, that's called a reductio ad absurdum. Your "ontology matters not at all" position can't acct for all the data. It is therefore to be rejected.”

My position is that race is socially constructed around a number of factors, one of which is physical appearance. I'm not sure why you think that position doesn't account for this particular instance?

“I believe I've made my position clear, and it's not that 'race is static'. I have said "YOUR SKIN COLOR REMAINS STATIC. That is why I keep referring to ONTOLOGY."”

Ah, thanks for clarifying. I had falsely assumed that you thought race = skin colour, so I apologise. I can't dispute that skin color remains static, but I hope that you're aware that the designations “black” and “white” don't refer to skin colour, but are racial categories? Are you arguing now that there is no such thing as racial groups? It's very confusing.

“And in Japan, most all non-Asians are "gaijin".”

Are American-born Japanese “gaijin” also? That would be the equivalent to the example I gave. I was using my experience that your ontological assumptions are not shared by others, and therefore are unlikely to actually be ontological.

“and your mistake is in forgetting that those physical features are one of the CAUSES of the different constructs.”

Yes, but since race is constructed differently in different cultures in different places and different times, those physical features are not themselves “ontological”. I worry that I am misunderstanding your use of the word ontological. Perhaps you could define exactly what you mean by it?

merkur said...

Just as a reminder: are you going to give any examples of the legislation that you're railing against, or the "super rights" that you object to, bearing in mind that none of the links you've provided so far have mentioned either of those things?

merkur said...

"MINE is easily categorised. That's not true for everyone."

So on what basis should one categorise other people's ontology?