TWCL Forum Index TWCL
Forums for The Webcomic List
 
 FAQFAQ   SearchSearch   MemberlistMemberlist   UsergroupsUsergroups   RegisterRegister 
 ProfileProfile   Log in to check your private messagesLog in to check your private messages   Log inLog in 

Anti-Gay Activist to Write Superman Comic
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6  Next
 
Post new topic   Reply to topic    TWCL Forum Index -> General Ramblings
View previous topic :: View next topic  
Author Message
vulpeslibertas
Level 1 threat


Joined: 19 Dec 2005
Posts: 2489
Location: Here and there...mostly there. Sometimes kinda in between.

PostPosted: Sun Feb 17, 2013 10:35 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

mcmasters wrote:
I'm not quite following you here...
Why do you want to boycott/not-buy-from Card in the first place? There are two potential underlying justifications:

The first is that his method itself is wrong, e.g. he used force against innocent bystanders, therefore deserves to have the same thing done to him as a matter of justice. The idea here is that boycotting someone is itself wrong, and therefore should only be done to people who boycott someone. The problem with this is that you need to establish Primacy - i.e. Who was wronged first. You are correct if Card is initiating the problem, but if Card is merely responding to someone else and doing it to them because they did it first, then he is in the right instead. This falls into the category of ancestral feuds that go back centuries because "the other side started it".

The second underlying justification is that Card's beliefs are wrong, and that he ought to be penalized for having them. If this is the case, then how is this different than thought crimes? Moreover, how can you in fact establish that it is your beliefs which are the "correct" ones which we ought to be enforcing? How do we know that Card's beliefs are not the "correct" ones and he should be penalizing us for thought crimes?

EDIT:
I should specify "moral justifications". There is, of course, the economic justification that you don't want your money indirectly supporting causes that Card might support. There is also the communicative justification that you simply want to publicly state your opinion, and depriving another of income is a way to do that (although I feel that's a little underhanded).
_________________
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website
vulpeslibertas
Level 1 threat


Joined: 19 Dec 2005
Posts: 2489
Location: Here and there...mostly there. Sometimes kinda in between.

PostPosted: Sun Feb 17, 2013 10:53 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Overall, I think my general position on the subject can be summarized by this guy's presentation: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H-N74RT9QC4&feature=youtu.be
_________________
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website
mcmasters



Joined: 28 Jun 2012
Posts: 436

PostPosted: Mon Feb 18, 2013 11:03 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Vulpeslibertas thanks for taking the time to clarify for me.

vulpeslibertas wrote:
The second underlying justification is that Card's beliefs are wrong, and that he ought to be penalized for having them.


This would be closest to my feeling on the matter.

Quote:
If this is the case, then how is this different than thought crimes?


This one to me gets pushed outside the realm of thought crime by it's advocacy of actions that I find unfair and discriminatory. Someone thinks women are inferior to men? Okay, congratulations on your enlightened thinking but of course it's not a crime. Same person is actively vocal about laws that will codify an inferior position for women? Different animal (though obviously still not a "crime" crime).

That's where I am on the gay marriage thing, I think to be against it is discriminatory so in my book it's beyond a thought crime. (A whole other can of worms I don't want to open would deal with stuff beyond just the gay marriage question- is there a wider "gay agenda" and how hard is it being pushed and what is the push-back. We do seem to have gotten to the point in America where anything associated with homosexuality must be regarded as a virtue and to say otherwise is hateful. See, now THAT'S a thought crime!)

Quote:
Moreover, how can you in fact establish that it is your beliefs which are the "correct" ones which we ought to be enforcing? How do we know that Card's beliefs are not the "correct" ones and he should be penalizing us for thought crimes?


I don't believe in moral absolutes so I don't think my opinions on behaviors are "correct" in some absolute metaphysical sense. But however we arrived at them, we do still develop our own ethics and our own opinions about behaviors and we act on them. But that causes me to be fairly cautious about my morals and not push them on others; for example earlier when I spoke of boycott I should have stressed my feeling of personal action as opposed to, say, thinking anyone not wanting a boycott must be "wrong" or that me not buying Superman must mean I want the guy fired.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
vulpeslibertas
Level 1 threat


Joined: 19 Dec 2005
Posts: 2489
Location: Here and there...mostly there. Sometimes kinda in between.

PostPosted: Mon Feb 18, 2013 7:30 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

mcmasters wrote:
This one to me gets pushed outside the realm of thought crime by it's advocacy of actions that I find unfair and discriminatory.
I think this is a tenuous distinction. Could I not then say that any particular thing is "unfair", and therefore not a thought crime? The obvious counter-example: Being gay and defiling marriage is "unfair" to heterosexuals, therefore that should be a crime. It's simply a matter of defining anything you don't like as "unfair".

mcmasters wrote:
I should have stressed my feeling of personal action as opposed to, say, thinking anyone not wanting a boycott must be "wrong" or that me not buying Superman must mean I want the guy fired.
This, I think, is important. To force you to buy Superman comics (because not buying them would be "unfair") would be thought-crimes punishment to the same degree.
_________________
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website
Marscaleb



Joined: 28 Aug 2012
Posts: 255

PostPosted: Mon Feb 18, 2013 10:20 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

mcmasters wrote:

This one to me gets pushed outside the realm of thought crime by it's advocacy of actions that I find unfair and discriminatory.
...
That's where I am on the gay marriage thing, I think to be against it is discriminatory so in my book it's beyond a thought crime.


Sounds to me like you have only heard one side of the argument. A fair opinion would have to acknowledge that there is at least a reasonable debate here, but like many, you probably have never actually heard the other side of the debate. Allow me to offer you some illumination.

There are two things you need to be aware of: One, the legal effects of a marriage are extended to same-sex couples by way of civil unions.
This is important to realize because the debate is in fact NOT about actually denying/granting any legal rights; all parties already enjoy full rights as far as the law allows. All that is left is the debate over using the actual term "marriage," not over any actual rights or liberties. (There are actually two or three states that don't grant full rights to civil unions, and I don't know anything about countries other than America, but I have yet to see anyone take a stand on this matter in any realm other than America as a whole.)
Two, and most importantly to the arguments against same-sex marriage, marriage is considered by them to be a religious institution; and in order for the law to be able to make any declaration about who can be married, the law has to thus declare that marriage is NOT a sacred institution but is nothing more than an archaic social custom and by extension has no real meaning.

People who oppose same-sex marriage laws do so because such a law is infringing on religious beliefs; it is taking a religious matter and declaring that it is not religious. They find such laws offensive because despite the fact that everything the law provides to couples under the term of "marriage" is also provided under the term "civil union," people are demanding that the law override their religious institution. They feel that they are being attacked by people who want marriage to legally be regarded as NOT being a sacred institution established by God, but is now legally demeaned as nothing but an archaic social custom. Effectively, this about religious people being denied the right to treat marriage as something sacred, even though gay people still have access to every legal right granted by married couples.

There is of course more that could be said, more that could be debated, so on and so forth. But if you approach the matter objectively, you must acknowledge that this isn't a clear cut-and-dry case.
_________________
My webcomic: Mischief in Maytia
http://maytiacomic.com/
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website
Traegorn



Joined: 16 Feb 2010
Posts: 157

PostPosted: Mon Feb 18, 2013 10:46 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Let's just get rid of all legal marriages.

If the right wants it to be defined religiously, fine. Get it all out of the government. Including tue tax breaks and legal benefits.

If people want shared property, let them form an independent contract.

Easiest way to fix this.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website AIM Address
mcmasters



Joined: 28 Jun 2012
Posts: 436

PostPosted: Tue Feb 19, 2013 12:39 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

vulpeslibertas wrote:
mcmasters wrote:
This one to me gets pushed outside the realm of thought crime by it's advocacy of actions that I find unfair and discriminatory.
I think this is a tenuous distinction. Could I not then say that any particular thing is "unfair", and therefore not a thought crime? The obvious counter-example: Being gay and defiling marriage is "unfair" to heterosexuals, therefore that should be a crime. It's simply a matter of defining anything you don't like as "unfair".


I'm really wondering how you make distinctions between right and wrong, thought-crimes and Not-thought crimes, and fair and unfair. Technically, yes, I can say that any particular thing is “unfair” and define anything I don't like as “unfair.” I hope I'm putting more thought into it than that! I base these things on my upbringing, my life experiences, stuff I've learned (I dig the “Golden Rule”)...probably there is a genetic component thrown in there as well. Is this different from how you make your distinctions of right-wrong, fair-unfair, etc.? Are there magic treasure chests labeled “thought crimes” and “Not-thought-crimes” that you have access to and I don't?

Quote:
mcmasters wrote:
I should have stressed my feeling of personal action as opposed to, say, thinking anyone not wanting a boycott must be "wrong" or that me not buying Superman must mean I want the guy fired.
This, I think, is important. To force you to buy Superman comics (because not buying them would be "unfair") would be thought-crimes punishment to the same degree.


I'm having trouble unpacking this one. Forcing me to buy Superman comics would be a thought-crime to the same degree as thinking anyone wanting a boycott must be “wrong”...? Forcing me to buy Superman comics would be a thought-crime to the same degree as me not buying Superman must mean I want the guy fired...?

---

www.mcmasterscomics.com
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
vulpeslibertas
Level 1 threat


Joined: 19 Dec 2005
Posts: 2489
Location: Here and there...mostly there. Sometimes kinda in between.

PostPosted: Tue Feb 19, 2013 1:22 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

mcmasters wrote:
I'm really wondering how you make distinctions between right and wrong, thought-crimes and Not-thought crimes, and fair and unfair.
I'm not concerned with fair or unfair. Neither am I concerned with right or wrong. These are matters of opinion, therefore any law based on them must be a thought crime. Naturally, I have my own opinions, but I am not interested in forcing them on other people.

I am concerned with Rights. You have the right to an opinion of fairness, you have the right to an opinion on right or wrong. You have the right not to be beaten, or kidnapped, or murdered. One might call these things your Moral Property. I should not be allowed to take away your Moral Property without your consent. And so the only things which I feel should be rigorously penalized are infringement of rights. I am in agreement with CasualNotice here, that the government's only purpose is the enforcement of these contracts (and implicitly the protection of Moral Property when it is infringed upon).

So, (if I may take the liberty) I might summarize what it appears that you are saying as "Society should use social force for the Correct Opinion, but not an arbitrary opinion" (by all means, correct me if I am wrong), where my position would be "Society should use social force only for the prevention of force itself."

mcmasters wrote:
I'm having trouble unpacking this one. Forcing me to buy Superman comics...
From a Social Contract perspective, the ideal situation is that Mr. Card's beliefs should make no impact on your decision to buy (or not buy) Superman comics. If his opinion does not affect the final product, then you should buy (or not buy) the same as you do now. However, that is your personal decision, so Social Contract theory cannot make any binding moral judgment if you choose to buy less (or more) because of his opinions. However, the use of force to make you change your behavior would allow Social Contract theory to make a binding judgement.

vulpeslibertas wrote:
would be thought-crimes punishment to the same degree
I am sorry, the use of the words "to the same degree" is not very clear here. Forcing someone to buy Superman comics is wrong to the same degree as forcing someone to not write Superman comics. The wrongness is measured by the coerciveness of the force, not by the merit of the ideas.
_________________
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website
ewomack
Grand prize winner!


Joined: 05 Jun 2007
Posts: 469

PostPosted: Tue Feb 19, 2013 1:39 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Marscaleb wrote:

One, the legal effects of a marriage are extended to same-sex couples by way of civil unions. This is important to realize because the debate is in fact NOT about actually denying/granting any legal rights; all parties already enjoy full rights as far as the law allows.


This is debatable at best. Some people make this claim while others say Civil Unions are merely "second class marriages." Civil union laws also vary state to state and are often not portable. Marriage is pretty much recognized in every state equally. The point is that this is not a cut and dry issue.

Marscaleb wrote:

Two, and most importantly to the arguments against same-sex marriage, marriage is considered by them to be a religious institution; and in order for the law to be able to make any declaration about who can be married, the law has to thus declare that marriage is NOT a sacred institution but is nothing more than an archaic social custom and by extension has no real meaning.

People who oppose same-sex marriage laws do so because such a law is infringing on religious beliefs; it is taking a religious matter and declaring that it is not religious. They find such laws offensive because despite the fact that everything the law provides to couples under the term of "marriage" is also provided under the term "civil union," people are demanding that the law override their religious institution. They feel that they are being attacked by people who want marriage to legally be regarded as NOT being a sacred institution established by God, but is now legally demeaned as nothing but an archaic social custom. Effectively, this about religious people being denied the right to treat marriage as something sacred, even though gay people still have access to every legal right granted by married couples.


There is SO much more to marriage than religion. Marriage is just as much a state institution as it is a religious one. One can get married outside of a religious institution, for instance. So whose side wins out? The state or religion? Arguably as a citizen of a country such as the USA the legal definition of marriage carries far more implications than the religious one.

And when you say "religion" WHICH religion? Christianity? Buddhism? Judaism? Ba'hai? Jain? Muslim? Hindu? Anglican? What if Buddhists want to support gay marriage but Christians don't? Which "religious perspective" wins out? "Religious Institution" means different things to different people and saying that marriage is a "religious institution" opens up an entirely new debate. So again there is nothing cut and dry about this either.

And if marriage is truly a religious issue and those who don't support same-sex marriage don't want laws passed to open up marriage to homosexuals then why are so many of these religious people NOT against banning same-sex marriages on state constitutions? This sounds like a double standard. "Marriage is a religious institution that is beyond the law, so don't pass laws that open it up to same-sex couples. But oh, we can pass a law that bans it? Ok, I'm for that."

Nothing in this debate is cut and dry. But from a perspective of human and individual rights within a state, and from the perspective of the law, legally limiting marriage to just heterosexuals is discriminatory whether or not Civil Union grants equal rights.

And please don't accuse others of not being "objective" or claim that you're "offering them illumination" without good reason. The arguments you presented were neither more or less "objective" than the ones you were responding to. And I'm not claiming that mine are, in fact, I'm sure they're not "objective," they are my opinion, just as the ones you presented were your opinion. True objectivity is pretty much impossible.

Sorry, I didn't want to enter this debate... but it looks like I did...
_________________
Ed Womack
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website
vulpeslibertas
Level 1 threat


Joined: 19 Dec 2005
Posts: 2489
Location: Here and there...mostly there. Sometimes kinda in between.

PostPosted: Tue Feb 19, 2013 2:00 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

ewomack wrote:
limiting marriage to just heterosexuals is discriminatory whether or not Civil Union grants equal rights.
And yet... Twisted Evil ...isn't it equally discriminatory to prevent someone from marrying their cousin, or their dog, or a man from marrying three wives?

ewomack wrote:
And please don't accuse others of not being "objective" or claim that you're "offering them illumination"
Ditto this. This is an emotionally charged issue enough. At the end of the thread, we should remember that we're all webcomickers here to talk about webcomics, not social revolution.
_________________
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website
ttallan
Postpostpostpostpost!


Joined: 28 Feb 2008
Posts: 1128
Location: Ontario

PostPosted: Tue Feb 19, 2013 2:44 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Marscaleb wrote:
There are two things you need to be aware of: One, the legal effects of a marriage are extended to same-sex couples by way of civil unions.
This is important to realize because the debate is in fact NOT about actually denying/granting any legal rights; all parties already enjoy full rights as far as the law allows.

A quick review of the Wikipedia article on Same-sex unions in the United States seems to suggest this is not the case. According to the article, only 19 states currently grant same-sex unions those same legal benefits as marriage.
_________________
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Marscaleb



Joined: 28 Aug 2012
Posts: 255

PostPosted: Tue Feb 19, 2013 3:22 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

The real point I'm bringing up is, as was pointed in the rebuttall, that it is not cut-and-dry.

As I explicitly stated, there is much more to discuss and debate on the subject of same-sex marriage.

My point in bringing that up is to show that THIS IS NOT A SIMPLE ISSUE.

The greater majority of people I have seen who stand in defense of same-sex marriage do so under the false pretense that it is a simple issue; that the people who oppose it are only doing so out of a hatred of gays and the only arguments that they have against it are ridiculous fabrications (i.e. it will lead to dog marriage, it will cause traditional marriages to fail, it will cause widespread panic in the streets, etc, etc.)

And it is under that falsified fuel that people would be led to do things such as boycott a comic because it was written by someone with such a "clearly hateful" point of view.

I'm not going into a full debate about same-sex marriage here; that is only secondary to the real topic at hand. I only brought this up because it appears that a number of people here seem to be misinformed.

But to address the most obvious point, yes there are many religions out there, but do recall that every single culture in the history of the world has treated marriage with religious significance. Also, there is no religion that endorses homosexuality, only a small handful of them that do not explicitly forbid it.

ttallan:
Add to that the ten states that allow same-sex marriage, and the states that use "domestic partnership" (same thing different name) and you're covering more than half the nation. I apologize for giving some wrong numbers; I was going from memory and I think I was thinking of the states that don't allow civil unions, not the ones that don't grant equal rights between civil unions and marriages. I don't deny that civil unions do have some growth that needs to be made.
Also, you can ask pretty much anyone who is against gay marriage and they will be in support of nation-wide civil unions that are completely equal to all the legal benefits granted to traditional marriage. I think it's moronic that people are trying so hard to jump straight to same-sex marriage. If people pushed for national civil union laws they would go through easily and then homosexuals would at least have something. Furthermore, once a federal civil union mandate is in place, it would be a much easier legal battle to establish a federal same-sex marriage law. It's the most reasonable path, but instead folks are choosing to fight a much longer, harder, and more bitter uphill battle.
_________________
My webcomic: Mischief in Maytia
http://maytiacomic.com/
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website
Lo (Aquapunk)



Joined: 09 Oct 2009
Posts: 45

PostPosted: Tue Feb 19, 2013 5:03 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

What if I boycott Superman comics because I disagree with its contributing creators' views that Superman is relevant and powerful in today's postmodern world?
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website
Marscaleb



Joined: 28 Aug 2012
Posts: 255

PostPosted: Tue Feb 19, 2013 6:58 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Lo (Aquapunk) wrote:
What if I boycott Superman comics because I disagree with its contributing creators' views that Superman is relevant and powerful in today's postmodern world?


That doesn't strike me as hypocritical. Go for it.
_________________
My webcomic: Mischief in Maytia
http://maytiacomic.com/
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website
vaslittlecrow



Joined: 01 Aug 2005
Posts: 752

PostPosted: Tue Feb 19, 2013 7:54 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Lo (Aquapunk) wrote:
What if I boycott Superman comics because I disagree with its contributing creators' views that Superman is relevant and powerful in today's postmodern world?


This pretty much echoes my opinion on the matter.

As for gay marriage, I already stated all the opinion I've ever wanted to state on the matter here: http://barxotka.com/2012/10/28/why-government-needs-to-stay-out-of-marriage/
_________________
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website
Display posts from previous:   
Post new topic   Reply to topic    TWCL Forum Index -> General Ramblings All times are GMT + 1 Hour
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6  Next
Page 3 of 6

 
Jump to:  
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum


Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2005 phpBB Group

Hosted by Fluent
The Webcomics List is operated and owned by Ash Young. Syndicate the comic updates.