Total Posts:16|Showing Posts:1-16
Jump to topic:

Legality VS Social Acceptance

MakeSensePeopleDont
Posts: 1,104
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/15/2016 4:36:27 PM
Posted: 1 month ago
In the past five years, I have taken part in conversations, debates, arguments, discussions, etc. regarding political topics; specifically for this thread I'm talking mainly about topics such as gay rights and gender issues. In these talks, I have seen a major issue and brick wall between the two sides which hinders progress. This hindrance is failure to make the distinction between legality and social acceptance.

Legality -- Laws, rules and regulations set forth by government officials or other approved authoritative figures. These laws, rules and regulations are enforced by law enforcement officials and the Department of Justice (among others). Violation of these comes with consequences including, but not limited to: Fines, Probation, Community Service, and Incarceration.

Socially Accepted -- Also known as norms, values, taboos, etiquette, etc. Each of the items listed and those not listed have differing levels of importance and acceptance. The first important part to note is that there is no legal recourse to violation of them. The second important piece to note is that social acceptance is created by the individual, not the majority or the authority.

While legality is a necessity for civilized society to be born, blossom and properly function; social acceptance is a necessity for America to be born, blossom and properly function. Understand that America, its values, its foundations, the reason it is so great, so different, the reason so many people want to come to America; the reason it has become the best nation on the planet so quickly, as well as how it has become the global leader in human rights advancement and where the civilized world turns to for leadership in all aspects of human rights, political, military and social evolution -- these are all due to America's individualistic values.

Conversely, if you begin mixing legality and social acceptance, using law and authority to force people how to think, feel, act, etc. socially, you LITERALLY create a Communist, Fascist, Sharia state. In Communist nations like Russia, China, North Korea; in Sharia enforced nations like Iran and territories within other nations which currently enforce Sharia Law and Sharia Courts, people are told how to act, think and live socially under penalty of law.

This is why an individual or group in America can be racist or spread their racist views; or even display hatred of America without punishment. This is a GREAT thing...even if you, as an individual, don't approve or agree with their views.

All of the nations listed among others have even censored their internet services so legal repercussions can be handed down for saying the wrong thing online; in some, only government approved websites can be accessed. A perfect example is North Korea who accidentally made their internet public recently. We found that North Korea actually has their own internet where only a handful of websites exist and many of them have been created by and all of them are monitored by the state. Straying outside of this domestic internet or adding content the North Korean government disapproves of, is legally punishable including by death.

I hope this sheds some light on the differences between legality and and social acceptance, as well as the NEED to differentiate between the two within America and the western world.

I am happy to discuss further with anyone on any views regarding this. :)
Chang29
Posts: 732
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/16/2016 12:37:06 AM
Posted: 1 month ago
At 10/15/2016 4:36:27 PM, MakeSensePeopleDont wrote:
In the past five years, I have taken part in conversations, debates, arguments, discussions, etc. regarding political topics; specifically for this thread I'm talking mainly about topics such as gay rights and gender issues. In these talks, I have seen a major issue and brick wall between the two sides which hinders progress. This hindrance is failure to make the distinction between legality and social acceptance.

Legality -- Laws, rules and regulations set forth by government officials or other approved authoritative figures. These laws, rules and regulations are enforced by law enforcement officials and the Department of Justice (among others). Violation of these comes with consequences including, but not limited to: Fines, Probation, Community Service, and Incarceration.

Socially Accepted -- Also known as norms, values, taboos, etiquette, etc. Each of the items listed and those not listed have differing levels of importance and acceptance. The first important part to note is that there is no legal recourse to violation of them. The second important piece to note is that social acceptance is created by the individual, not the majority or the authority.

While legality is a necessity for civilized society to be born, blossom and properly function; social acceptance is a necessity for America to be born, blossom and properly function. Understand that America, its values, its foundations, the reason it is so great, so different, the reason so many people want to come to America; the reason it has become the best nation on the planet so quickly, as well as how it has become the global leader in human rights advancement and where the civilized world turns to for leadership in all aspects of human rights, political, military and social evolution -- these are all due to America's individualistic values.

Conversely, if you begin mixing legality and social acceptance, using law and authority to force people how to think, feel, act, etc. socially, you LITERALLY create a Communist, Fascist, Sharia state. In Communist nations like Russia, China, North Korea; in Sharia enforced nations like Iran and territories within other nations which currently enforce Sharia Law and Sharia Courts, people are told how to act, think and live socially under penalty of law.

This is why an individual or group in America can be racist or spread their racist views; or even display hatred of America without punishment. This is a GREAT thing...even if you, as an individual, don't approve or agree with their views.

All of the nations listed among others have even censored their internet services so legal repercussions can be handed down for saying the wrong thing online; in some, only government approved websites can be accessed. A perfect example is North Korea who accidentally made their internet public recently. We found that North Korea actually has their own internet where only a handful of websites exist and many of them have been created by and all of them are monitored by the state. Straying outside of this domestic internet or adding content the North Korean government disapproves of, is legally punishable including by death.

I hope this sheds some light on the differences between legality and and social acceptance, as well as the NEED to differentiate between the two within America and the western world.

I am happy to discuss further with anyone on any views regarding this. :)

Well said, social institutions should only use peaceful non-violent methods to expand their ideas, with law enforcement reserved for crimes with victims.

I would even say that a separation of government and society would benefit both.
A free market anti-capitalist

If it can be de-centralized, it will be de-centralized.
TBR
Posts: 9,991
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/16/2016 1:01:05 AM
Posted: 1 month ago
At 10/15/2016 4:36:27 PM, MakeSensePeopleDont wrote:
In the past five years, I have taken part in conversations, debates, arguments, discussions, etc. regarding political topics; specifically for this thread I'm talking mainly about topics such as gay rights and gender issues. In these talks, I have seen a major issue and brick wall between the two sides which hinders progress. This hindrance is failure to make the distinction between legality and social acceptance.

Legality -- Laws, rules and regulations set forth by government officials or other approved authoritative figures. These laws, rules and regulations are enforced by law enforcement officials and the Department of Justice (among others). Violation of these comes with consequences including, but not limited to: Fines, Probation, Community Service, and Incarceration.

Socially Accepted -- Also known as norms, values, taboos, etiquette, etc. Each of the items listed and those not listed have differing levels of importance and acceptance. The first important part to note is that there is no legal recourse to violation of them. The second important piece to note is that social acceptance is created by the individual, not the majority or the authority.

While legality is a necessity for civilized society to be born, blossom and properly function; social acceptance is a necessity for America to be born, blossom and properly function. Understand that America, its values, its foundations, the reason it is so great, so different, the reason so many people want to come to America; the reason it has become the best nation on the planet so quickly, as well as how it has become the global leader in human rights advancement and where the civilized world turns to for leadership in all aspects of human rights, political, military and social evolution -- these are all due to America's individualistic values.

Conversely, if you begin mixing legality and social acceptance, using law and authority to force people how to think, feel, act, etc. socially, you LITERALLY create a Communist, Fascist, Sharia state. In Communist nations like Russia, China, North Korea; in Sharia enforced nations like Iran and territories within other nations which currently enforce Sharia Law and Sharia Courts, people are told how to act, think and live socially under penalty of law.

This is why an individual or group in America can be racist or spread their racist views; or even display hatred of America without punishment. This is a GREAT thing...even if you, as an individual, don't approve or agree with their views.

All of the nations listed among others have even censored their internet services so legal repercussions can be handed down for saying the wrong thing online; in some, only government approved websites can be accessed. A perfect example is North Korea who accidentally made their internet public recently. We found that North Korea actually has their own internet where only a handful of websites exist and many of them have been created by and all of them are monitored by the state. Straying outside of this domestic internet or adding content the North Korean government disapproves of, is legally punishable including by death.

I hope this sheds some light on the differences between legality and and social acceptance, as well as the NEED to differentiate between the two within America and the western world.

I am happy to discuss further with anyone on any views regarding this. :)

No issue, but where have you seen people conflate the two?
MakeSensePeopleDont
Posts: 1,104
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/16/2016 1:07:57 AM
Posted: 1 month ago
At 10/16/2016 12:37:06 AM, Chang29 wrote:
At 10/15/2016 4:36:27 PM, MakeSensePeopleDont wrote:
In the past five years, I have taken part in conversations, debates, arguments, discussions, etc. regarding political topics; specifically for this thread I'm talking mainly about topics such as gay rights and gender issues. In these talks, I have seen a major issue and brick wall between the two sides which hinders progress. This hindrance is failure to make the distinction between legality and social acceptance.

Legality -- Laws, rules and regulations set forth by government officials or other approved authoritative figures. These laws, rules and regulations are enforced by law enforcement officials and the Department of Justice (among others). Violation of these comes with consequences including, but not limited to: Fines, Probation, Community Service, and Incarceration.

Socially Accepted -- Also known as norms, values, taboos, etiquette, etc. Each of the items listed and those not listed have differing levels of importance and acceptance. The first important part to note is that there is no legal recourse to violation of them. The second important piece to note is that social acceptance is created by the individual, not the majority or the authority.

While legality is a necessity for civilized society to be born, blossom and properly function; social acceptance is a necessity for America to be born, blossom and properly function. Understand that America, its values, its foundations, the reason it is so great, so different, the reason so many people want to come to America; the reason it has become the best nation on the planet so quickly, as well as how it has become the global leader in human rights advancement and where the civilized world turns to for leadership in all aspects of human rights, political, military and social evolution -- these are all due to America's individualistic values.

Conversely, if you begin mixing legality and social acceptance, using law and authority to force people how to think, feel, act, etc. socially, you LITERALLY create a Communist, Fascist, Sharia state. In Communist nations like Russia, China, North Korea; in Sharia enforced nations like Iran and territories within other nations which currently enforce Sharia Law and Sharia Courts, people are told how to act, think and live socially under penalty of law.

This is why an individual or group in America can be racist or spread their racist views; or even display hatred of America without punishment. This is a GREAT thing...even if you, as an individual, don't approve or agree with their views.

All of the nations listed among others have even censored their internet services so legal repercussions can be handed down for saying the wrong thing online; in some, only government approved websites can be accessed. A perfect example is North Korea who accidentally made their internet public recently. We found that North Korea actually has their own internet where only a handful of websites exist and many of them have been created by and all of them are monitored by the state. Straying outside of this domestic internet or adding content the North Korean government disapproves of, is legally punishable including by death.

I hope this sheds some light on the differences between legality and and social acceptance, as well as the NEED to differentiate between the two within America and the western world.

I am happy to discuss further with anyone on any views regarding this. :)

Well said, social institutions should only use peaceful non-violent methods to expand their ideas, with law enforcement reserved for crimes with victims.

I would even say that a separation of government and society would benefit both.

There is a separation between society and government in America already. This separation is insured via the U.S. Constitution and Bill of Rights; this is the premise of rights such as Amendment One -- Freedom of Religion, Speech and Press. The problem comes with the judicial branch of government, most notably the U.S. Supreme Court, and how they rule on cases regarding freedom of speech, religion and personal values.

However, while writing this topic, I was thinking more along the lines of people arguing their sides, for example: "Should homosexuality be socially accepted". This poll thread in the "OPINIONS >> Politics" section of this website is littered with community members arguing based on legal opinions rather than social opinions.
MakeSensePeopleDont
Posts: 1,104
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/16/2016 1:16:07 AM
Posted: 1 month ago
At 10/16/2016 1:01:05 AM, TBR wrote:
At 10/15/2016 4:36:27 PM, MakeSensePeopleDont wrote:
In the past five years, I have taken part in conversations, debates, arguments, discussions, etc. regarding political topics; specifically for this thread I'm talking mainly about topics such as gay rights and gender issues. In these talks, I have seen a major issue and brick wall between the two sides which hinders progress. This hindrance is failure to make the distinction between legality and social acceptance.

Legality -- Laws, rules and regulations set forth by government officials or other approved authoritative figures. These laws, rules and regulations are enforced by law enforcement officials and the Department of Justice (among others). Violation of these comes with consequences including, but not limited to: Fines, Probation, Community Service, and Incarceration.

Socially Accepted -- Also known as norms, values, taboos, etiquette, etc. Each of the items listed and those not listed have differing levels of importance and acceptance. The first important part to note is that there is no legal recourse to violation of them. The second important piece to note is that social acceptance is created by the individual, not the majority or the authority.

While legality is a necessity for civilized society to be born, blossom and properly function; social acceptance is a necessity for America to be born, blossom and properly function. Understand that America, its values, its foundations, the reason it is so great, so different, the reason so many people want to come to America; the reason it has become the best nation on the planet so quickly, as well as how it has become the global leader in human rights advancement and where the civilized world turns to for leadership in all aspects of human rights, political, military and social evolution -- these are all due to America's individualistic values.

Conversely, if you begin mixing legality and social acceptance, using law and authority to force people how to think, feel, act, etc. socially, you LITERALLY create a Communist, Fascist, Sharia state. In Communist nations like Russia, China, North Korea; in Sharia enforced nations like Iran and territories within other nations which currently enforce Sharia Law and Sharia Courts, people are told how to act, think and live socially under penalty of law.

This is why an individual or group in America can be racist or spread their racist views; or even display hatred of America without punishment. This is a GREAT thing...even if you, as an individual, don't approve or agree with their views.

All of the nations listed among others have even censored their internet services so legal repercussions can be handed down for saying the wrong thing online; in some, only government approved websites can be accessed. A perfect example is North Korea who accidentally made their internet public recently. We found that North Korea actually has their own internet where only a handful of websites exist and many of them have been created by and all of them are monitored by the state. Straying outside of this domestic internet or adding content the North Korean government disapproves of, is legally punishable including by death.

I hope this sheds some light on the differences between legality and and social acceptance, as well as the NEED to differentiate between the two within America and the western world.

I am happy to discuss further with anyone on any views regarding this. :)

No issue, but where have you seen people conflate the two?

Hey TBR, good to see you friend! Hope life is treating you well these days :)

I just got notification this morning of an updated poll on this site that displays this in action. Check out this link, it will take you directly to the poll. Read through the responses and let me know what you think -- maybe I am just reading them through a biased view...let me know what you see.

http://www.debate.org...
TBR
Posts: 9,991
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/16/2016 1:24:11 AM
Posted: 1 month ago
At 10/16/2016 1:16:07 AM, MakeSensePeopleDont wrote:
At 10/16/2016 1:01:05 AM, TBR wrote:
At 10/15/2016 4:36:27 PM, MakeSensePeopleDont wrote:
In the past five years, I have taken part in conversations, debates, arguments, discussions, etc. regarding political topics; specifically for this thread I'm talking mainly about topics such as gay rights and gender issues. In these talks, I have seen a major issue and brick wall between the two sides which hinders progress. This hindrance is failure to make the distinction between legality and social acceptance.

Legality -- Laws, rules and regulations set forth by government officials or other approved authoritative figures. These laws, rules and regulations are enforced by law enforcement officials and the Department of Justice (among others). Violation of these comes with consequences including, but not limited to: Fines, Probation, Community Service, and Incarceration.

Socially Accepted -- Also known as norms, values, taboos, etiquette, etc. Each of the items listed and those not listed have differing levels of importance and acceptance. The first important part to note is that there is no legal recourse to violation of them. The second important piece to note is that social acceptance is created by the individual, not the majority or the authority.

While legality is a necessity for civilized society to be born, blossom and properly function; social acceptance is a necessity for America to be born, blossom and properly function. Understand that America, its values, its foundations, the reason it is so great, so different, the reason so many people want to come to America; the reason it has become the best nation on the planet so quickly, as well as how it has become the global leader in human rights advancement and where the civilized world turns to for leadership in all aspects of human rights, political, military and social evolution -- these are all due to America's individualistic values.

Conversely, if you begin mixing legality and social acceptance, using law and authority to force people how to think, feel, act, etc. socially, you LITERALLY create a Communist, Fascist, Sharia state. In Communist nations like Russia, China, North Korea; in Sharia enforced nations like Iran and territories within other nations which currently enforce Sharia Law and Sharia Courts, people are told how to act, think and live socially under penalty of law.

This is why an individual or group in America can be racist or spread their racist views; or even display hatred of America without punishment. This is a GREAT thing...even if you, as an individual, don't approve or agree with their views.

All of the nations listed among others have even censored their internet services so legal repercussions can be handed down for saying the wrong thing online; in some, only government approved websites can be accessed. A perfect example is North Korea who accidentally made their internet public recently. We found that North Korea actually has their own internet where only a handful of websites exist and many of them have been created by and all of them are monitored by the state. Straying outside of this domestic internet or adding content the North Korean government disapproves of, is legally punishable including by death.

I hope this sheds some light on the differences between legality and and social acceptance, as well as the NEED to differentiate between the two within America and the western world.

I am happy to discuss further with anyone on any views regarding this. :)

No issue, but where have you seen people conflate the two?

Hey TBR, good to see you friend! Hope life is treating you well these days :)

I just got notification this morning of an updated poll on this site that displays this in action. Check out this link, it will take you directly to the poll. Read through the responses and let me know what you think -- maybe I am just reading them through a biased view...let me know what you see.

http://www.debate.org...

Nice to see you too.

There are a lot of comments on that opinion. read a bit, and don't see any examples, but I am not going through them all.

The reason I ask is, I see people complain of, say, people being fired for saying something and describe that as... well close to... Hell, I don't know, just looking for what you are trying to get at.
MakeSensePeopleDont
Posts: 1,104
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/16/2016 2:12:15 AM
Posted: 1 month ago
At 10/16/2016 1:24:11 AM, TBR wrote:
At 10/16/2016 1:16:07 AM, MakeSensePeopleDont wrote:
At 10/16/2016 1:01:05 AM, TBR wrote:
No issue, but where have you seen people conflate the two?

Hey TBR, good to see you friend! Hope life is treating you well these days :)

I just got notification this morning of an updated poll on this site that displays this in action. Check out this link, it will take you directly to the poll. Read through the responses and let me know what you think -- maybe I am just reading them through a biased view...let me know what you see.

http://www.debate.org...

Nice to see you too.

There are a lot of comments on that opinion. read a bit, and don't see any examples, but I am not going through them all.

The reason I ask is, I see people complain of, say, people being fired for saying something and describe that as... well close to... Hell, I don't know, just looking for what you are trying to get at.

Well in the cited case, the poll question clearly asks if homosexuality should be SOCIALLY accepted. In my view, as an American who fully believes in personal freedoms, this is a no-brainer; no it should not be socially accepted, it should be up to the individual to decide. This thought generated as demanding a society to accept an individual's sexual and relationship choices should not be enforceable across an entire society -- in violation of Amendment One - Freedom of Speech and Practice of Religion.

Conversely, the responding members on that thread who selected "Yes" seem to argue against Amendment One's rights not simply by stating that it should be illegal or citing a law, but instead by stating that it should be socially accepted. Although no legal argument is made directly, our political, civil and judicial experience even arguing within this community, proves to us a lengthy world history where MAKING something "socially accepted" comes with the unavoidable chain-link of legal repercussions. These legal repercussions are enacted to insure deterrence and punishment of opposing views, and assure those personal views and beliefs you demand total agreement with (complete acceptance of gay people in this case), are agreed with by all citizens; any dissenters can be subsequently labeled as uncivilized and criminals.
TBR
Posts: 9,991
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/16/2016 2:17:39 AM
Posted: 1 month ago
At 10/16/2016 2:12:15 AM, MakeSensePeopleDont wrote:
At 10/16/2016 1:24:11 AM, TBR wrote:
At 10/16/2016 1:16:07 AM, MakeSensePeopleDont wrote:
At 10/16/2016 1:01:05 AM, TBR wrote:
No issue, but where have you seen people conflate the two?

Hey TBR, good to see you friend! Hope life is treating you well these days :)

I just got notification this morning of an updated poll on this site that displays this in action. Check out this link, it will take you directly to the poll. Read through the responses and let me know what you think -- maybe I am just reading them through a biased view...let me know what you see.

http://www.debate.org...

Nice to see you too.

There are a lot of comments on that opinion. read a bit, and don't see any examples, but I am not going through them all.

The reason I ask is, I see people complain of, say, people being fired for saying something and describe that as... well close to... Hell, I don't know, just looking for what you are trying to get at.

Well in the cited case, the poll question clearly asks if homosexuality should be SOCIALLY accepted. In my view, as an American who fully believes in personal freedoms, this is a no-brainer; no it should not be socially accepted, it should be up to the individual to decide. This thought generated as demanding a society to accept an individual's sexual and relationship choices should not be enforceable across an entire society -- in violation of Amendment One - Freedom of Speech and Practice of Religion.

Conversely, the responding members on that thread who selected "Yes" seem to argue against Amendment One's rights not simply by stating that it should be illegal or citing a law, but instead by stating that it should be socially accepted. Although no legal argument is made directly, our political, civil and judicial experience even arguing within this community, proves to us a lengthy world history where MAKING something "socially accepted" comes with the unavoidable chain-link of legal repercussions. These legal repercussions are enacted to insure deterrence and punishment of opposing views, and assure those personal views and beliefs you demand total agreement with (complete acceptance of gay people in this case), are agreed with by all citizens; any dissenters can be subsequently labeled as uncivilized and criminals.

Yea, I am not reading that into it. "Should homosexuality be accepted by society" does not imply people are confusing social norms with law. Sure, the consensus could call the minority "uncivilized" that would be somewhat fair game, but I don't see anyone calling for criminal penitently for not accepting homosexuality.
MakeSensePeopleDont
Posts: 1,104
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/16/2016 2:28:56 AM
Posted: 1 month ago
At 10/16/2016 2:17:39 AM, TBR wrote:
At 10/16/2016 2:12:15 AM, MakeSensePeopleDont wrote:
At 10/16/2016 1:24:11 AM, TBR wrote:
At 10/16/2016 1:16:07 AM, MakeSensePeopleDont wrote:
At 10/16/2016 1:01:05 AM, TBR wrote:
No issue, but where have you seen people conflate the two?

Hey TBR, good to see you friend! Hope life is treating you well these days :)

I just got notification this morning of an updated poll on this site that displays this in action. Check out this link, it will take you directly to the poll. Read through the responses and let me know what you think -- maybe I am just reading them through a biased view...let me know what you see.

http://www.debate.org...

Nice to see you too.

There are a lot of comments on that opinion. read a bit, and don't see any examples, but I am not going through them all.

The reason I ask is, I see people complain of, say, people being fired for saying something and describe that as... well close to... Hell, I don't know, just looking for what you are trying to get at.

Well in the cited case, the poll question clearly asks if homosexuality should be SOCIALLY accepted. In my view, as an American who fully believes in personal freedoms, this is a no-brainer; no it should not be socially accepted, it should be up to the individual to decide. This thought generated as demanding a society to accept an individual's sexual and relationship choices should not be enforceable across an entire society -- in violation of Amendment One - Freedom of Speech and Practice of Religion.

Conversely, the responding members on that thread who selected "Yes" seem to argue against Amendment One's rights not simply by stating that it should be illegal or citing a law, but instead by stating that it should be socially accepted. Although no legal argument is made directly, our political, civil and judicial experience even arguing within this community, proves to us a lengthy world history where MAKING something "socially accepted" comes with the unavoidable chain-link of legal repercussions. These legal repercussions are enacted to insure deterrence and punishment of opposing views, and assure those personal views and beliefs you demand total agreement with (complete acceptance of gay people in this case), are agreed with by all citizens; any dissenters can be subsequently labeled as uncivilized and criminals.

Yea, I am not reading that into it. "Should homosexuality be accepted by society" does not imply people are confusing social norms with law. Sure, the consensus could call the minority "uncivilized" that would be somewhat fair game, but I don't see anyone calling for criminal penitently for not accepting homosexuality.

Agreed that I am thinking WAY FAR into this one, I am notorious for that. Allow me to attempt a simplification here with a single question:

How would one go about making society accept homosexuality?
TBR
Posts: 9,991
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/16/2016 2:38:29 AM
Posted: 1 month ago
At 10/16/2016 2:28:56 AM, MakeSensePeopleDont wrote:
At 10/16/2016 2:17:39 AM, TBR wrote:
At 10/16/2016 2:12:15 AM, MakeSensePeopleDont wrote:
At 10/16/2016 1:24:11 AM, TBR wrote:
At 10/16/2016 1:16:07 AM, MakeSensePeopleDont wrote:
At 10/16/2016 1:01:05 AM, TBR wrote:
No issue, but where have you seen people conflate the two?

Hey TBR, good to see you friend! Hope life is treating you well these days :)

I just got notification this morning of an updated poll on this site that displays this in action. Check out this link, it will take you directly to the poll. Read through the responses and let me know what you think -- maybe I am just reading them through a biased view...let me know what you see.

http://www.debate.org...

Nice to see you too.

There are a lot of comments on that opinion. read a bit, and don't see any examples, but I am not going through them all.

The reason I ask is, I see people complain of, say, people being fired for saying something and describe that as... well close to... Hell, I don't know, just looking for what you are trying to get at.

Well in the cited case, the poll question clearly asks if homosexuality should be SOCIALLY accepted. In my view, as an American who fully believes in personal freedoms, this is a no-brainer; no it should not be socially accepted, it should be up to the individual to decide. This thought generated as demanding a society to accept an individual's sexual and relationship choices should not be enforceable across an entire society -- in violation of Amendment One - Freedom of Speech and Practice of Religion.

Conversely, the responding members on that thread who selected "Yes" seem to argue against Amendment One's rights not simply by stating that it should be illegal or citing a law, but instead by stating that it should be socially accepted. Although no legal argument is made directly, our political, civil and judicial experience even arguing within this community, proves to us a lengthy world history where MAKING something "socially accepted" comes with the unavoidable chain-link of legal repercussions. These legal repercussions are enacted to insure deterrence and punishment of opposing views, and assure those personal views and beliefs you demand total agreement with (complete acceptance of gay people in this case), are agreed with by all citizens; any dissenters can be subsequently labeled as uncivilized and criminals.

Yea, I am not reading that into it. "Should homosexuality be accepted by society" does not imply people are confusing social norms with law. Sure, the consensus could call the minority "uncivilized" that would be somewhat fair game, but I don't see anyone calling for criminal penitently for not accepting homosexuality.

Agreed that I am thinking WAY FAR into this one, I am notorious for that. Allow me to attempt a simplification here with a single question:

How would one go about making society accept homosexuality?

Talking about homosexuality. PR campaigns. Pride parade. But, none of these are "making" anything, they are persuading not forcing.
MakeSensePeopleDont
Posts: 1,104
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/16/2016 3:07:15 AM
Posted: 1 month ago
At 10/16/2016 2:38:29 AM, TBR wrote:
At 10/16/2016 2:28:56 AM, MakeSensePeopleDont wrote:
At 10/16/2016 2:17:39 AM, TBR wrote:
At 10/16/2016 2:12:15 AM, MakeSensePeopleDont wrote:
At 10/16/2016 1:24:11 AM, TBR wrote:
At 10/16/2016 1:16:07 AM, MakeSensePeopleDont wrote:
At 10/16/2016 1:01:05 AM, TBR wrote:
No issue, but where have you seen people conflate the two?

Hey TBR, good to see you friend! Hope life is treating you well these days :)

I just got notification this morning of an updated poll on this site that displays this in action. Check out this link, it will take you directly to the poll. Read through the responses and let me know what you think -- maybe I am just reading them through a biased view...let me know what you see.

http://www.debate.org...

Nice to see you too.

There are a lot of comments on that opinion. read a bit, and don't see any examples, but I am not going through them all.

The reason I ask is, I see people complain of, say, people being fired for saying something and describe that as... well close to... Hell, I don't know, just looking for what you are trying to get at.

Well in the cited case, the poll question clearly asks if homosexuality should be SOCIALLY accepted. In my view, as an American who fully believes in personal freedoms, this is a no-brainer; no it should not be socially accepted, it should be up to the individual to decide. This thought generated as demanding a society to accept an individual's sexual and relationship choices should not be enforceable across an entire society -- in violation of Amendment One - Freedom of Speech and Practice of Religion.

Conversely, the responding members on that thread who selected "Yes" seem to argue against Amendment One's rights not simply by stating that it should be illegal or citing a law, but instead by stating that it should be socially accepted. Although no legal argument is made directly, our political, civil and judicial experience even arguing within this community, proves to us a lengthy world history where MAKING something "socially accepted" comes with the unavoidable chain-link of legal repercussions. These legal repercussions are enacted to insure deterrence and punishment of opposing views, and assure those personal views and beliefs you demand total agreement with (complete acceptance of gay people in this case), are agreed with by all citizens; any dissenters can be subsequently labeled as uncivilized and criminals.

Yea, I am not reading that into it. "Should homosexuality be accepted by society" does not imply people are confusing social norms with law. Sure, the consensus could call the minority "uncivilized" that would be somewhat fair game, but I don't see anyone calling for criminal penitently for not accepting homosexuality.

Agreed that I am thinking WAY FAR into this one, I am notorious for that. Allow me to attempt a simplification here with a single question:

How would one go about making society accept homosexuality?

Talking about homosexuality. PR campaigns. Pride parade. But, none of these are "making" anything, they are persuading not forcing.

Correct, and agreed with that these are persuasion and normalization tactics. What happens if these fail and a solid chunk of citizens still do not accept homosexuality? Does society then accept opposing views exist and learn to share the slide?

Personally, I don't think society would learn to share the slide. Instead, I see the future being filled with legal battles up to the U.S. Supreme Court, leaving it to whichever political party holds the majority of the nine seat court to decide.

This is evident by the currently ongoing legal battle over who can or cannot use which gender's bathroom. Instead of agreeing to disagree, sharing the slide, and coming to a healthy and reasonable compromise, the people who want to use whatever bathroom they feel like decided the best response was to ignore opposing views and beliefs and are currently attempting to force acceptance via the U.S. Supreme Court.

This is not my opinion, this is what is actually taking place right now. Persuasion tactics were rightfully employed, when these tactics failed and society showed reasonable and sizable disagreement, legal force is now being attempted.

I am guilty here of employing "Facts without Evidence" arguments in this particular case (the cited DDO poll), but history and even current events implores the use of this thought process.
TBR
Posts: 9,991
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/16/2016 3:18:34 AM
Posted: 1 month ago
At 10/16/2016 3:07:15 AM, MakeSensePeopleDont wrote:
At 10/16/2016 2:38:29 AM, TBR wrote:
At 10/16/2016 2:28:56 AM, MakeSensePeopleDont wrote:
At 10/16/2016 2:17:39 AM, TBR wrote:
At 10/16/2016 2:12:15 AM, MakeSensePeopleDont wrote:
At 10/16/2016 1:24:11 AM, TBR wrote:
At 10/16/2016 1:16:07 AM, MakeSensePeopleDont wrote:
At 10/16/2016 1:01:05 AM, TBR wrote:
No issue, but where have you seen people conflate the two?

Hey TBR, good to see you friend! Hope life is treating you well these days :)

I just got notification this morning of an updated poll on this site that displays this in action. Check out this link, it will take you directly to the poll. Read through the responses and let me know what you think -- maybe I am just reading them through a biased view...let me know what you see.

http://www.debate.org...

Nice to see you too.

There are a lot of comments on that opinion. read a bit, and don't see any examples, but I am not going through them all.

The reason I ask is, I see people complain of, say, people being fired for saying something and describe that as... well close to... Hell, I don't know, just looking for what you are trying to get at.

Well in the cited case, the poll question clearly asks if homosexuality should be SOCIALLY accepted. In my view, as an American who fully believes in personal freedoms, this is a no-brainer; no it should not be socially accepted, it should be up to the individual to decide. This thought generated as demanding a society to accept an individual's sexual and relationship choices should not be enforceable across an entire society -- in violation of Amendment One - Freedom of Speech and Practice of Religion.

Conversely, the responding members on that thread who selected "Yes" seem to argue against Amendment One's rights not simply by stating that it should be illegal or citing a law, but instead by stating that it should be socially accepted. Although no legal argument is made directly, our political, civil and judicial experience even arguing within this community, proves to us a lengthy world history where MAKING something "socially accepted" comes with the unavoidable chain-link of legal repercussions. These legal repercussions are enacted to insure deterrence and punishment of opposing views, and assure those personal views and beliefs you demand total agreement with (complete acceptance of gay people in this case), are agreed with by all citizens; any dissenters can be subsequently labeled as uncivilized and criminals.

Yea, I am not reading that into it. "Should homosexuality be accepted by society" does not imply people are confusing social norms with law. Sure, the consensus could call the minority "uncivilized" that would be somewhat fair game, but I don't see anyone calling for criminal penitently for not accepting homosexuality.

Agreed that I am thinking WAY FAR into this one, I am notorious for that. Allow me to attempt a simplification here with a single question:

How would one go about making society accept homosexuality?

Talking about homosexuality. PR campaigns. Pride parade. But, none of these are "making" anything, they are persuading not forcing.

Correct, and agreed with that these are persuasion and normalization tactics. What happens if these fail and a solid chunk of citizens still do not accept homosexuality? Does society then accept opposing views exist and learn to share the slide?
Those who don't accept some position of the majority are (depending on severity) ostracized. That is not a legal punishment, it's social.


Personally, I don't think society would learn to share the slide. Instead, I see the future being filled with legal battles up to the U.S. Supreme Court, leaving it to whichever political party holds the majority of the nine seat court to decide.
What legal cases? Where is anyone being charged with a crime for not "accepting" homosexuality? Baking a cake? That is not forcing anyone to accept anything, they can hate the f*gs all they like, and still bake a cake.


This is evident by the currently ongoing legal battle over who can or cannot use which gender's bathroom. Instead of agreeing to disagree, sharing the slide, and coming to a healthy and reasonable compromise, the people who want to use whatever bathroom they feel like decided the best response was to ignore opposing views and beliefs and are currently attempting to force acceptance via the U.S. Supreme Court.
And why not? Those who are the majority DO set the social standard. It is the choice of the minority if they want to participate within the society at all. If the society they live in conflicts so badly with their own subjective morals, then the society is not the place for them.


This is not my opinion, this is what is actually taking place right now. Persuasion tactics were rightfully employed, when these tactics failed and society showed reasonable and sizable disagreement, legal force is now being attempted.
I don't know... Can you show me a case?


I am guilty here of employing "Facts without Evidence" arguments in this particular case (the cited DDO poll), but history and even current events implores the use of this thought process.
Here is what I see more of. Some anti-pc person screams "1st amendment" when some nasty f**k says some nasty thing in public and is fired from a private company. This is not a legal issue, not a constitutional thing, it is a social thing. It is they who wrongly conflate social with legal.
MakeSensePeopleDont
Posts: 1,104
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/16/2016 4:59:26 AM
Posted: 1 month ago
At 10/16/2016 3:18:34 AM, TBR wrote:
At 10/16/2016 3:07:15 AM, MakeSensePeopleDont wrote:
At 10/16/2016 2:38:29 AM, TBR wrote:
At 10/16/2016 2:28:56 AM, MakeSensePeopleDont wrote:
How would one go about making society accept homosexuality?

Talking about homosexuality. PR campaigns. Pride parade. But, none of these are "making" anything, they are persuading not forcing.

Correct, and agreed with that these are persuasion and normalization tactics. What happens if these fail and a solid chunk of citizens still do not accept homosexuality? Does society then accept opposing views exist and learn to share the slide?
Those who don't accept some position of the majority are (depending on severity) ostracized. That is not a legal punishment, it's social.


Again, I agree with you fully.

Personally, I don't think society would learn to share the slide. Instead, I see the future being filled with legal battles up to the U.S. Supreme Court, leaving it to whichever political party holds the majority of the nine seat court to decide.
What legal cases? Where is anyone being charged with a crime for not "accepting" homosexuality? Baking a cake? That is not forcing anyone to accept anything, they can hate the f*gs all they like, and still bake a cake.


I would argue the following:

Removing law from the equation for a moment and allowing individual choice. When approached with a request like baking a cake for a gay wedding, it would be within reason to assume agreement equals acceptance and denial equals disagreement.

Inserting law back into the equation, and removing individual choice. After denying the request for a cake for a gay wedding, the police walk in and order "Mr. baker sir! You WILL bake that cake or you will be arrested!" The baker is being forced into acceptance under penalty of law.

That example can be successfully, and easily argued as you did, as business acceptance, not social acceptance; let's apply that to the following example:

1) Allowing people to use whichever bathroom / locker room they want to. I don't want a 40 year old man walking into the ladies locker room while my 10 year old girl is in there changing after practice. Not allowing him into the ladies room while my daughter is in there would be illegal and punishable by law including criminal record. This is not business acceptance, but personal, individual acceptance by force.

Now I could voice my disagreement, but it holds no value or weight in society. Social or society refers to the informal group; informal group being the people around you at any given time, regardless of familiarity or level of interaction. So my personal, individual disagreement is not societal agreement or disagreement. Instead, the officer ordering me to allow passage, me stepping aside -- or the officer forcibly moving me --, and the 40 year old man walking into the ladies locker room with my 10 year old daughter changing is societal agreement.

This is evident by the currently ongoing legal battle over who can or cannot use which gender's bathroom. Instead of agreeing to disagree, sharing the slide, and coming to a healthy and reasonable compromise, the people who want to use whatever bathroom they feel like decided the best response was to ignore opposing views and beliefs and are currently attempting to force acceptance via the U.S. Supreme Court.
And why not? Those who are the majority DO set the social standard. It is the choice of the minority if they want to participate within the society at all. If the society they live in conflicts so badly with their own subjective morals, then the society is not the place for them.


One could easily and reasonably argue that a 51% to 49% majority does not give right nor reason to the 51% to set all societal standards or norms. Society is built upon the contributions of all reasonably represented groups, not by the simple majority. This is fact, indisputable; and without this fact, and instead using simple majorities as you state, progress for minorities could never and would never occur -- society and humanity would remain stagnant.

Using this fact and applying it to your assertion that the simple majority decides societal standards, I would ask: Exactly what percentage of the population must the majority have in order to overrule all other groups and their views?

This is not my opinion, this is what is actually taking place right now. Persuasion tactics were rightfully employed, when these tactics failed and society showed reasonable and sizable disagreement, legal force is now being attempted.
I don't know... Can you show me a case?


Obama administration forces public schools to allow bathroom / locker room choice based on gender identity under penalty of loss of funding.

http://www.nytimes.com...

Washington state Human Rights Commission approved rule that allows anyone to use bathroom of their choice based on the gender they say they identify with, leading to man changing in ladies room with "Young girls changing for swimming practice".

http://dailysignal.com...

The U.S. Supreme Court currently has a hold placed upon a case regarding ability of individuals to choose a bathroom to use. They placed the hold on the case while they await a full bench.

http://www.nbcnews.com...

I am guilty here of employing "Facts without Evidence" arguments in this particular case (the cited DDO poll), but history and even current events implores the use of this thought process.
Here is what I see more of. Some anti-pc person screams "1st amendment" when some nasty f**k says some nasty thing in public and is fired from a private company. This is not a legal issue, not a constitutional thing, it is a social thing. It is they who wrongly conflate social with legal.

The websites I provided in the previous point show this is not a person being fired for saying something nasty, neither is it a social thing. Instead, those websites, specifically the Washington state incident, clearly show a legal problem which forces agreement and acceptance, while providing no protection for anyone but the "trespasser".
Bennett91
Posts: 4,199
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/16/2016 8:28:32 AM
Posted: 1 month ago
At 10/15/2016 4:36:27 PM, MakeSensePeopleDont wrote:
In the past five years, I have taken part in conversations, debates, arguments, discussions, etc. regarding political topics; specifically for this thread I'm talking mainly about topics such as gay rights and gender issues. In these talks, I have seen a major issue and brick wall between the two sides which hinders progress. This hindrance is failure to make the distinction between legality and social acceptance.

Legality -- Laws, rules and regulations set forth by government officials or other approved authoritative figures. These laws, rules and regulations are enforced by law enforcement officials and the Department of Justice (among others). Violation of these comes with consequences including, but not limited to: Fines, Probation, Community Service, and Incarceration.

Socially Accepted -- Also known as norms, values, taboos, etiquette, etc. Each of the items listed and those not listed have differing levels of importance and acceptance. The first important part to note is that there is no legal recourse to violation of them. The second important piece to note is that social acceptance is created by the individual, not the majority or the authority.

While legality is a necessity for civilized society to be born, blossom and properly function; social acceptance is a necessity for America to be born, blossom and properly function. Understand that America, its values, its foundations, the reason it is so great, so different, the reason so many people want to come to America; the reason it has become the best nation on the planet so quickly, as well as how it has become the global leader in human rights advancement and where the civilized world turns to for leadership in all aspects of human rights, political, military and social evolution -- these are all due to America's individualistic values.

Conversely, if you begin mixing legality and social acceptance, using law and authority to force people how to think, feel, act, etc. socially, you LITERALLY create a Communist, Fascist, Sharia state. In Communist nations like Russia, China, North Korea; in Sharia enforced nations like Iran and territories within other nations which currently enforce Sharia Law and Sharia Courts, people are told how to act, think and live socially under penalty of law.

This is why an individual or group in America can be racist or spread their racist views; or even display hatred of America without punishment. This is a GREAT thing...even if you, as an individual, don't approve or agree with their views.

All of the nations listed among others have even censored their internet services so legal repercussions can be handed down for saying the wrong thing online; in some, only government approved websites can be accessed. A perfect example is North Korea who accidentally made their internet public recently. We found that North Korea actually has their own internet where only a handful of websites exist and many of them have been created by and all of them are monitored by the state. Straying outside of this domestic internet or adding content the North Korean government disapproves of, is legally punishable including by death.

I hope this sheds some light on the differences between legality and and social acceptance, as well as the NEED to differentiate between the two within America and the western world.

I am happy to discuss further with anyone on any views regarding this. :)

If only conservatives understood this difference in the cases of gay marriage an abortion.
TBR
Posts: 9,991
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/16/2016 7:40:46 PM
Posted: 1 month ago
At 10/16/2016 4:59:26 AM, MakeSensePeopleDont wrote:
At 10/16/2016 3:18:34 AM, TBR wrote:
At 10/16/2016 3:07:15 AM, MakeSensePeopleDont wrote:
At 10/16/2016 2:38:29 AM, TBR wrote:
At 10/16/2016 2:28:56 AM, MakeSensePeopleDont wrote:
How would one go about making society accept homosexuality?

Talking about homosexuality. PR campaigns. Pride parade. But, none of these are "making" anything, they are persuading not forcing.

Correct, and agreed with that these are persuasion and normalization tactics. What happens if these fail and a solid chunk of citizens still do not accept homosexuality? Does society then accept opposing views exist and learn to share the slide?
Those who don't accept some position of the majority are (depending on severity) ostracized. That is not a legal punishment, it's social.


Again, I agree with you fully.

Personally, I don't think society would learn to share the slide. Instead, I see the future being filled with legal battles up to the U.S. Supreme Court, leaving it to whichever political party holds the majority of the nine seat court to decide.
What legal cases? Where is anyone being charged with a crime for not "accepting" homosexuality? Baking a cake? That is not forcing anyone to accept anything, they can hate the f*gs all they like, and still bake a cake.


I would argue the following:

Removing law from the equation for a moment and allowing individual choice. When approached with a request like baking a cake for a gay wedding, it would be within reason to assume agreement equals acceptance and denial equals disagreement.

Inserting law back into the equation, and removing individual choice. After denying the request for a cake for a gay wedding, the police walk in and order "Mr. baker sir! You WILL bake that cake or you will be arrested!" The baker is being forced into acceptance under penalty of law.

That example can be successfully, and easily argued as you did, as business acceptance, not social acceptance; let's apply that to the following example:

1) Allowing people to use whichever bathroom / locker room they want to. I don't want a 40 year old man walking into the ladies locker room while my 10 year old girl is in there changing after practice. Not allowing him into the ladies room while my daughter is in there would be illegal and punishable by law including criminal record. This is not business acceptance, but personal, individual acceptance by force.

Now I could voice my disagreement, but it holds no value or weight in society. Social or society refers to the informal group; informal group being the people around you at any given time, regardless of familiarity or level of interaction. So my personal, individual disagreement is not societal agreement or disagreement. Instead, the officer ordering me to allow passage, me stepping aside -- or the officer forcibly moving me --, and the 40 year old man walking into the ladies locker room with my 10 year old daughter changing is societal agreement.

This is evident by the currently ongoing legal battle over who can or cannot use which gender's bathroom. Instead of agreeing to disagree, sharing the slide, and coming to a healthy and reasonable compromise, the people who want to use whatever bathroom they feel like decided the best response was to ignore opposing views and beliefs and are currently attempting to force acceptance via the U.S. Supreme Court.
And why not? Those who are the majority DO set the social standard. It is the choice of the minority if they want to participate within the society at all. If the society they live in conflicts so badly with their own subjective morals, then the society is not the place for them.


One could easily and reasonably argue that a 51% to 49% majority does not give right nor reason to the 51% to set all societal standards or norms. Society is built upon the contributions of all reasonably represented groups, not by the simple majority. This is fact, indisputable; and without this fact, and instead using simple majorities as you state, progress for minorities could never and would never occur -- society and humanity would remain stagnant.

Using this fact and applying it to your assertion that the simple majority decides societal standards, I would ask: Exactly what percentage of the population must the majority have in order to overrule all other groups and their views?

This is not my opinion, this is what is actually taking place right now. Persuasion tactics were rightfully employed, when these tactics failed and society showed reasonable and sizable disagreement, legal force is now being attempted.
I don't know... Can you show me a case?


Obama administration forces public schools to allow bathroom / locker room choice based on gender identity under penalty of loss of funding.

http://www.nytimes.com...

Washington state Human Rights Commission approved rule that allows anyone to use bathroom of their choice based on the gender they say they identify with, leading to man changing in ladies room with "Young girls changing for swimming practice".

http://dailysignal.com...

The U.S. Supreme Court currently has a hold placed upon a case regarding ability of individuals to choose a bathroom to use. They placed the hold on the case while they await a full bench.

http://www.nbcnews.com...

I am guilty here of employing "Facts without Evidence" arguments in this particular case (the cited DDO poll), but history and even current events implores the use of this thought process.
Here is what I see more of. Some anti-pc person screams "1st amendment" when some nasty f**k says some nasty thing in public and is fired from a private company. This is not a legal issue, not a constitutional thing, it is a social thing. It is they who wrongly conflate social with legal.

The websites I provided in the previous point show this is not a person being fired for saying something nasty, neither is it a social thing. Instead, those websites, specifically the Washington state incident, clearly show a legal problem which forces agreement and acceptance, while providing no protection for anyone but the "trespasser".

I read this, just haven't had time to respond.
MakeSensePeopleDont
Posts: 1,104
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/16/2016 7:45:52 PM
Posted: 1 month ago
At 10/16/2016 7:40:46 PM, TBR wrote:

I read this, just haven't had time to respond.

No worries man. I'm not stewing over this and I'm not going to troll you on the thread either. You deserve the same respect I would expect here so take your time and enjoy life as much as needed friend -- no need to stress out over it.