Tezzeret's Gambit? I run a couple in my own casual Coatl/Skulker/Quirion Dryad deck. The +3/+3 on Simic Charm probably wouldn't be hugely useful, but the other two abilities work nicely in protecting your team and removing threats/impediments. With some slimming down of the mana curve, this could be a nice tempo deck. I'd take stuff like Overbeing of Myth and Prime Speaker Zegana and replace it with cheaper draw spells. Coral Barrier, Kruphix, Into the Wilds, and Favor of the Overbeing are good but seem out of place in this deck. You can find something better than Thought Scour.
May I recommend Pawn of Ulamog? It can be amazing even when not in multiples, and I find about eight sac outlets to be sufficient.
If you were to go heavier on vampires in general and perhaps Rite of Consumption as a 1-2 of, then Blade of the Bloodchief can get crazy. Probably not worth it if you don't go in that direction, though.
Should I expect the sealed product to be significantly more expensive than the contents a year or more down the line? What's FTV: Realms like in that respect?
The mechanics are massively more interesting in Gatecrash. Really only scavenge caught this Johnny's attention in RtR. Populate too, I guess, but there I felt spoiled by the more expansive effect of proliferate.
or the school will want to change the aim of the organization to "help gays become straight"
In my experiences with Catholicism and Catholic schools, this isn't the case. They don't give any legitimacy to ex-gay therapy or any notion that orientation can be changed. This strikes me as more of a Protestant phenomenon, though I'm sure it's far from a universal attribute there, either.
Seems like these kinds of threads carry all too much of a shared assumption with them that anyone who has any sort of objection to homosexuality is automatically going to be an unpleasant person when faced with it. Maybe it's heavily dependent on your region, but growing up in the Great Lakes area, the assumption usually rang false.
People can be wrong without being comic book evil.
Jim Crow laws state "separate but equal." If the nominal goal of them is, in their own words, equality, how is it not "mind-reading" on your part to say that equality isn't their goal?
They clearly do not tolerate the presence of black people in the same spaces. The separate yet equal fallacy aside, they clearly do not tolerate the presence of black people in the same spaces. Consider a middle ground between 'dense' and 'mind-reader'. I've reached that middle ground even if you haven't.
It's more or less exactly the same kind of situation you're talking about with homosexuality.
What clearly obvious pattern of intolerance am I ignoring when I look at anyone who holds a moral aversion to homosexuality? What is it that anti-gay people uniformly and without exception don't tolerate?
So why be anti-gay at all in that case?
Because it's a tenet of their religion?
Especially when so many other things your religion technically says to be against (wearing blended fabrics, for example) aren't seen as such a big deal anymore? To me, there doesn't seem to be any room in that structure for anti-gay world views period, because to hold an anti-gay world view is to judge gay people passively.
I'll certainly hold it as ideal that they treat homosexuality's prohibition like prohibitions against blended fabric or pork. You don't seem to understand that some anti-gay folk do exactly that. But even if they hold it more akin to blaspheming God's name or avoiding church, it does not automatically follow that they concern themselves significantly with their friends' un-Christian behavior. It does not automatically follow that behavior in-line with their own beliefs is a prerequisite for any friends they make.
Well, it certainly seems to flow from what you've said.
The hell it does.
Well, even something as simple as "having a sex drive at all is a choice" would be supportive of your case.
But that's not what I'm arguing and that's not what you argued. Stop conflating the two.
Sex drive is not a choice. Of course not.
Sex acts are a choice. Of course they are.
Otherwise, well, the gender identity and presentation parallel is still open for you to use if you want to stay with the ludicrous "having a sex drive isn't a choice but whether to act upon it on a lifelong scale is." Which I notice you ignored again, despite that it's the same principle for both. I'll even repeat it for your convenience:
I'm not sure why you keep bringing it up when I keep pointedly ignoring it. I keep ignoring it because it makes no relevant difference and it's a different topic. I will keep ignoring it.
I notice you slipped that "on a lifelong scale" qualifier in there. Did you notice that I didn't have such a qualifier there when you righteously demanded a citation? Or was that accidental dishonesty on your part?
Even so, I don't buy your "lifelong = impossible" argument. Life itself is still a series of moments, and in any one of those given moments you can choose to avoid sex. I'm not saying it'd be easy and I'm certainly not saying it'd be advisable, but I am saying we are volitional creatures who have a choice in the matter. No, I don't need a citation for that.
And for bonus points, try to convince me
No, not interested in any more of these tangents. If the race thing didn't go anywhere, why would this?
"Help wanted, no Irish need apply." "We don't serve black people here." "Gay people shouldn't be allowed to get married." You can find all kinds of rationale for why that sort of thing is intended to be good (you want the best workforce possible which means no Irish people as a general principle, or you believe in Jim Crow segregation as some kind of benevolent ideal, or you want to protect what you think of as the sanctity of marriage), but the end result is that you're still conveying intolerance (you aren't going to tolerate members of any mentioned minority in a position of real equality, because if you were you wouldn't be acting against it). "Intent" in those kinds of situations is absolutely worthless—those opinions, no matter how apparently passive, are still bigoted.
Jim Crow laws and the like plainly show an intent in deeming some situation intolerable - they don't seek to tolerate the class in question enjoying the rights in question. They're not "apparently passive" in the least. You're drawing a false equivalence and ignoring the distinction between obvious evidence of intent and ambiguous evidence of intent.
I assert that you need a clear pattern of intolerance and you retort with examples that... show a clear pattern of intolerance. You're not getting this.
Just because you can't get theories and proofs that are absolutely certain in the same way math has absolute proofs doesn't mean those theories are necessarily invalid or even less legitimate for that reason. You should focus on finding more concrete arguments than vague handwaves.
You have my concrete arguments. I explain plausible ways in which one can avoid hatred or intolerance with the beliefs in question. You yourself handwave these away with textbook arguments as if they encompass the whole of human behavior and supercede basic logic about what's possible. Psychology isn't as exact or as powerful as you want it to be. You still need to look at what human beings are actually doing.
It's "against your religion" (note: royal "you" throughout) but you don't actually go into what that means. What does it mean to be "against your religion"? Certain readings would say that gay sex means going to hell, and I don't care how much "tolerance" someone claims, I'm not going to appreciate when someone's belief is that I'm going to suffer eternally because I had sex with a woman instead of a man.
You may not appreciate such a belief - neither would I - but that has no bearing on whether you've been 'tolerated'.
It's not so black and white as 'commit this sin, go to hell'. Not when these religions (at least in my experience) regard all or most people, themselves included, as sinners undeserving of heaven.
It's usually considered a sin itself to hold oneself as pure enough to judge others. The relevant memes I remember constantly being hammered into me, growing up, can be summed up thusly: worry about your own spiritual health first. If you're adhering to that, then it hardly matters how anti-gay your worldview is, there just isn't room for hatred or intolerance. You aren't any closer to heaven than that homosexual sinner.
"I'm being optimistic" is not an argument for credibility.
Compared to "this textbook says your plausible pairing of beliefs and behavior doesn't happen", yeah, it is. You didn't set the bar high.
If you allow "intent" to rule the day here, then not only does that fall under the category of "love," but you also have to accept an abuser who says stuff like, "I hit you [non-consensually] because I love you."
The hell I do.
You know what, citation needed.
...what? A citation for the idea that you are able to choose not to engage in sexual intercourse? That sex is not involuntary like breathing or hiccups?
Before you retreat once again to something less insane, like "well, okay, it's a choice, but not a valid choice", then "well, okay, it's a valid choice, but it'll cause long-term damage maybe", just take a second to admit that, DUH, OF COURSE you can choose to avoid sex. We have volition in regards to sexual activity. We have the ability to restrain ourselves from such actions even if we shouldn't. SEX, the ACT, is something that EVERYBODY has control over. DUH.
Be less ridiculous. I don't need a citation to say that you don't involuntarily slip into sexual activity. That only happens if you're being raped.
The problem lies with people who are bigoted and in denial of it.
Those people certainly exist. They exist in smaller numbers than you think, due to your confusion over what bigotry means.
So, what, it's impossible to act hatefully or intolerantly without some kind of "intent" behind your actions?
Yes, that is exactly what those words convey: intent. If an action is a hateful action, that modifier has described something about the action's intent. Hateful actions can even conceivably have positive results; one might perform good deeds out of a desire to outshine a hated rival. To act intolerantly means - has to mean - a pattern of wanting to establish something (or someone) as intolerable, or else it's just accidental harm or harm for some unrelated purpose. Both hate and intolerance are inextricably tied to intent.
Now, it's certainly possible to act harmfully without intent, and each time you repeat this argument I can't help but think that you mean 'harmful' but don't feel like 'harmful' has enough sting to it. You can point to words with ambiguous intent and correctly assert that they are harmful.
They may be lying and they may be disingenuous. That may be possible or ever probable. But you're not always going to have the evidence that conclusively points in that direction.
If it were, then you could have things like signs saying "help wanted, no Irish need apply" while claiming that you're still perfectly tolerant and accepting of Irish people.
You keep coming up with examples that carry compelling evidence of bigotry. Evidence that really tips the scales toward dis-ingenuousness or self-deception. It's not always that obvious. It's not always there at all.
I'm not ever arguing that you disregard negative consequences. I'm arguing that you should stop grouping together "whites only" and "my moral code forbids this for me" as equally compelling and equally conclusive. They aren't.
And proving harm is not identical to proving bigotry.
You're falling into the common trap of looking only at overt and blindingly obvious effects, as if subtlety is some kind of mystical nonsense.
I don't look at subtlety as mystical. I look at it as subtle. Which is why it's often inconclusive.
That or you're attempting mind-reading
Distinction: I'm not claiming that your conclusions are wrong. I'm claiming that your conclusions are unsupported by the known evidence. You could still be right by accident.
since you're the one saying "there's nothing harmful happening here" without being able to point at anything other than your own opinions. Meanwhile, I'm pointing at actual theory such as minority stress
Which is theory that you cannot simply latch onto any given situation that bears some superficial similarity and expect your burden of proof to be forever satisfied. Soft science theories are ultimately generalizations.
The first has a really nasty habit of leading to the second, though
Which explains your inclination to make the leap. It's still a leap.
Applying that to a slightly broader scale, feeling pressured by extrinsic sources to abstain from sexual activity for no other reason than "other people don't like it" might not in and of itself cause huge amounts of stress, but combine it with all the other homophobia that's rampant in society and you get something that, consciously realized or not, is going to add up and do some real harm.
So you have to combine it with all the other homophobia first before it causes "some real harm"? Gee, you've sold me.
You're not saying it consciously, but it's sure a logical outgrowth of the whole implicit "intent affects the results of actions" thing you go on about.
Never implied that. That's your creation. Intent affects intent.
Just to hammer in the point: How do you know they're lying?
You never know with certainty. Even a registered Klansman could conceivably be putting on an incredibly elaborate act. But there's a certain point at which "he's lying to me or himself" becomes the more likely interpretation. At which the various benefits of the doubt look to be mostly or completely debunked. At which words are just plainly at odds with actions or with other words. "I'm not intolerant but IRISHMEN GET OUT" kinda hits that point.
A mere "homosexual acts are against my religion" isn't enough to make protestations of no hate or no intolerance or no superiority complex a likely lie. There's already a commonplace and real loophole - a way to hold that belief in a non-bigoted fashion - in Christianity's teachings that one shouldn't shun sinners and nonbelievers, nor place oneself on some higher moral standing.
My point here is that you're throwing around a lot of stuff about "mind-reading" but you're not really doing any better yourself.
Oh, I'm not doing perfectly - mindreaders don't exist - but I am doing significantly better than you. I'm not assuming the worst of people who aren't quite on my wavelength philosophically just because the worst is plausible. I'm not misusing words describing intent in describing outcomes. I'm satisfied with calling the harmful harmful and not reaching beyond the evidence at hand.
Also, what if the person ran over your dog with fully malicious intent but made it look like an accident and claimed no ill will? Does that make their action any less hateful?
Of course not. But it does make the hate hidden. That's a problem with bad people who are sufficiently good actors that you ought to fully realize exists: they resemble good people.
You shouldn't let that turn you so cynical that you label apparently good people bad just because they might be faking it.
So in your own words, you can have intolerant behaviour (and, by extension, bigotry) that stems from nothing other than intentions of love, without any "meanness" in sight.
Nothing other? No, those weren't my words.
There's really no way to have any kind of positive intent when you're talking about something like "I am opposed to this trait that no one has any control over at all,"
1. You keep repeating this lie. It's a little more blatantly false this time, though. Homosexuality is a trait no one has control over. Homosexual sex is something that EVERYBODY has control over. We aren't animals. We don't suddenly rape in the event of no willing partners and if we do, we rightly go to jail. At least revert back to your less ridiculous wording in previous posts. At least include the "without harm" qualifier.
2. Of course there is? "I want you to go to heaven" is deluded intent, but also most certainly positive intent. You seem to have a serious problem distinguishing between intent and outcome.
again, would you give these same defenses of "it's not actually bigoted" to people who have a "moral aversion" to black people
I don't see much point in continuing this part of the discussion if you won't recognize the difference between these examples.
Pretty much. Even if the person saying a specific thing isn't actually bigoted, they're still contributing to bigoted social structures.
And if that was all you were saying, 95% of our disagreements would evaporate.
I'll maintain my overarching stance that just because you aren't out there fighting to strip people of their rights doesn't mean you aren't bigoted.
Yes, the absence of evidence is not the evidence of absence, true. It sure is the absence of evidence, though, and a reason to question assumptions.
Holding homophobic views, supposedly without expressing them in negative ways, still impacts how you see and treat others (even subconsciously)
Which matters not at all if nothing negative comes of it. There remains absolutely no reason to call it bigotry until you get the actual evident behavior.
Suppose a secret bigot goes his entire life without translating his mere moral beliefs or his secret bigoted beliefs into negative behavior. Suppose he couldn't have been called a bigot without some sort of pseudo-psychological leap from his stated beliefs to something actually commonly recognized as bigoted? Okay... what have we lost by failing to identify his sins? What did he get away with?
and also still serves as validation for socially oppressive environments.
Unless it doesn't. You're still leaping. In this case, you're leaping from "homosexuality is immoral" to "we should impose negative social implications on out and proud homosexuals". You can believe the first and oppose the second.
In other words, you're claiming that people exist who, what, have control over the actual ranges of their intrinsic inclination for sexual self-expression, as opposed to their position in and out of it? Or that people exist who can exist outside of their innate ranges see no harm at all for doing so? That seems a bit like mind-reading to me
Different in what way from the mindreading that helped you determine that most people have abstinence outside of their innate range? I don't see you accompanying that assertion with anything other than some vague claim of psychological credibility. You posted studies, sure, but they effectively dealt with worst-case scenarios, or at lease worse enough to merit attention. There wasn't actually support for your 'most' percentage.
I don't necessarily have a problem with the idea of "innate ranges". I just don't think you've got a very good handle on it when you disqualify most people from abstinence. I think you greatly underestimate the capacity of most people for going without.
Also, yes, that's exactly it, you ran over the dog either way. To allow "intent" to alter the outcome of an action would be to say that since you didn't "intend" to run over the dog, then the dog isn't in fact dead.
Well, that's just silly. I doubt I said anything like that... nope, I didn't.
The dog died because you drove over it with a car. That remains the same whether there was hatred in your action or not. That remains the same whether you meant to run over the dog or not.
No one said that intent alters outcome. That was your own invention.
If bigotry was tied to some abstract quality of "meanness," then only the most fanatical Westboro Baptist Church types or KKK types would be bigoted.
Uh, no? There are many, many smaller and less headline-grabbing ways of being mean.
Actually, according to your definitions, the KKK isn't actually racist or bigoted since according to their website, they aren't actually hateful towards or intolerant of black people (i.e. they don't "intend" to be hateful so they actually aren't).
They're lying? Because their behavior actually betrays intolerant intent and notions of superiority?
It's the difference between running over a dog - it really could have been without hateful intent - and running over it repeatedly like something out of a cartoon.
Many people who send their children against their will to ex-gay camps or throw them out of their house for being gay or even just voice consistent disapproval do so fully believing that they're doing their children good, acting out of love.
They really might be acting out of love. It's not far-fetched for their motivation to be the betterment of their child. But they're certainly displaying intolerant behavior. Show me one of the three - hate, intolerance, superiority - and I'll buy your accusation.
You missed something about the concept of intent, apparently: evidence is still admissible. You just can't take a negative act and automatically assume negative intent, because there is more in the world than just intentionally malevolent acts. There are also accidents and mistakes. You need evidence that rules out accidents and mistakes.
I fail to see what's so unrealistic about saying that the values and attitudes one is exposed to by authority figures while growing up shapes their internal sense of values and attitudes.
That? Nothing unrealistic.
But when you imply that it must have shaped me negatively, particularly when you fail even to name the negatives, I need more to go on. Let's start with you naming the negatives. Otherwise, this is kinda irrelevant to the conversation.
It's important to go with a definition that doesn't allow some nebulous value of "intent" to shield one from personal responsibility for their actions, one that ignores the harm in contributing to negative social attitudes. A useful definition is one that doesn't let "intent" try to alter the outcomes of actions.
See bLatch's post. No point in retyping the same thing less eloquently.
Everflowing Chalice is my favorite mana rock and favorite card. The versatility only begins with the casting cost; Surge Node and proliferate tricks make it my go-to ramp when building my latest johnnyish deck.
edit: Enclave Cryptologist? Just thought of it and now want to try it in mine.
If you were to go heavier on vampires in general and perhaps Rite of Consumption as a 1-2 of, then Blade of the Bloodchief can get crazy. Probably not worth it if you don't go in that direction, though.
Looks fun. Flagstones of Trokair?
Police officer?
Worse than haunt?
In my experiences with Catholicism and Catholic schools, this isn't the case. They don't give any legitimacy to ex-gay therapy or any notion that orientation can be changed. This strikes me as more of a Protestant phenomenon, though I'm sure it's far from a universal attribute there, either.
Seems like these kinds of threads carry all too much of a shared assumption with them that anyone who has any sort of objection to homosexuality is automatically going to be an unpleasant person when faced with it. Maybe it's heavily dependent on your region, but growing up in the Great Lakes area, the assumption usually rang false.
People can be wrong without being comic book evil.
They clearly do not tolerate the presence of black people in the same spaces. The separate yet equal fallacy aside, they clearly do not tolerate the presence of black people in the same spaces. Consider a middle ground between 'dense' and 'mind-reader'. I've reached that middle ground even if you haven't.
What clearly obvious pattern of intolerance am I ignoring when I look at anyone who holds a moral aversion to homosexuality? What is it that anti-gay people uniformly and without exception don't tolerate?
Because it's a tenet of their religion?
I'll certainly hold it as ideal that they treat homosexuality's prohibition like prohibitions against blended fabric or pork. You don't seem to understand that some anti-gay folk do exactly that. But even if they hold it more akin to blaspheming God's name or avoiding church, it does not automatically follow that they concern themselves significantly with their friends' un-Christian behavior. It does not automatically follow that behavior in-line with their own beliefs is a prerequisite for any friends they make.
The hell it does.
But that's not what I'm arguing and that's not what you argued. Stop conflating the two.
Sex drive is not a choice. Of course not.
Sex acts are a choice. Of course they are.
I'm not sure why you keep bringing it up when I keep pointedly ignoring it. I keep ignoring it because it makes no relevant difference and it's a different topic. I will keep ignoring it.
I notice you slipped that "on a lifelong scale" qualifier in there. Did you notice that I didn't have such a qualifier there when you righteously demanded a citation? Or was that accidental dishonesty on your part?
Even so, I don't buy your "lifelong = impossible" argument. Life itself is still a series of moments, and in any one of those given moments you can choose to avoid sex. I'm not saying it'd be easy and I'm certainly not saying it'd be advisable, but I am saying we are volitional creatures who have a choice in the matter. No, I don't need a citation for that.
No, not interested in any more of these tangents. If the race thing didn't go anywhere, why would this?
Jim Crow laws and the like plainly show an intent in deeming some situation intolerable - they don't seek to tolerate the class in question enjoying the rights in question. They're not "apparently passive" in the least. You're drawing a false equivalence and ignoring the distinction between obvious evidence of intent and ambiguous evidence of intent.
I assert that you need a clear pattern of intolerance and you retort with examples that... show a clear pattern of intolerance. You're not getting this.
You have my concrete arguments. I explain plausible ways in which one can avoid hatred or intolerance with the beliefs in question. You yourself handwave these away with textbook arguments as if they encompass the whole of human behavior and supercede basic logic about what's possible. Psychology isn't as exact or as powerful as you want it to be. You still need to look at what human beings are actually doing.
You may not appreciate such a belief - neither would I - but that has no bearing on whether you've been 'tolerated'.
It's not so black and white as 'commit this sin, go to hell'. Not when these religions (at least in my experience) regard all or most people, themselves included, as sinners undeserving of heaven.
It's usually considered a sin itself to hold oneself as pure enough to judge others. The relevant memes I remember constantly being hammered into me, growing up, can be summed up thusly: worry about your own spiritual health first. If you're adhering to that, then it hardly matters how anti-gay your worldview is, there just isn't room for hatred or intolerance. You aren't any closer to heaven than that homosexual sinner.
Compared to "this textbook says your plausible pairing of beliefs and behavior doesn't happen", yeah, it is. You didn't set the bar high.
The hell I do.
...what? A citation for the idea that you are able to choose not to engage in sexual intercourse? That sex is not involuntary like breathing or hiccups?
Before you retreat once again to something less insane, like "well, okay, it's a choice, but not a valid choice", then "well, okay, it's a valid choice, but it'll cause long-term damage maybe", just take a second to admit that, DUH, OF COURSE you can choose to avoid sex. We have volition in regards to sexual activity. We have the ability to restrain ourselves from such actions even if we shouldn't. SEX, the ACT, is something that EVERYBODY has control over. DUH.
Be less ridiculous. I don't need a citation to say that you don't involuntarily slip into sexual activity. That only happens if you're being raped.
Those people certainly exist. They exist in smaller numbers than you think, due to your confusion over what bigotry means.
Yes, that is exactly what those words convey: intent. If an action is a hateful action, that modifier has described something about the action's intent. Hateful actions can even conceivably have positive results; one might perform good deeds out of a desire to outshine a hated rival. To act intolerantly means - has to mean - a pattern of wanting to establish something (or someone) as intolerable, or else it's just accidental harm or harm for some unrelated purpose. Both hate and intolerance are inextricably tied to intent.
Now, it's certainly possible to act harmfully without intent, and each time you repeat this argument I can't help but think that you mean 'harmful' but don't feel like 'harmful' has enough sting to it. You can point to words with ambiguous intent and correctly assert that they are harmful.
They may be lying and they may be disingenuous. That may be possible or ever probable. But you're not always going to have the evidence that conclusively points in that direction.
You keep coming up with examples that carry compelling evidence of bigotry. Evidence that really tips the scales toward dis-ingenuousness or self-deception. It's not always that obvious. It's not always there at all.
I'm not ever arguing that you disregard negative consequences. I'm arguing that you should stop grouping together "whites only" and "my moral code forbids this for me" as equally compelling and equally conclusive. They aren't.
And proving harm is not identical to proving bigotry.
I don't look at subtlety as mystical. I look at it as subtle. Which is why it's often inconclusive.
Distinction: I'm not claiming that your conclusions are wrong. I'm claiming that your conclusions are unsupported by the known evidence. You could still be right by accident.
Which is theory that you cannot simply latch onto any given situation that bears some superficial similarity and expect your burden of proof to be forever satisfied. Soft science theories are ultimately generalizations.
Which explains your inclination to make the leap. It's still a leap.
So you have to combine it with all the other homophobia first before it causes "some real harm"? Gee, you've sold me.
Never implied that. That's your creation. Intent affects intent.
You never know with certainty. Even a registered Klansman could conceivably be putting on an incredibly elaborate act. But there's a certain point at which "he's lying to me or himself" becomes the more likely interpretation. At which the various benefits of the doubt look to be mostly or completely debunked. At which words are just plainly at odds with actions or with other words. "I'm not intolerant but IRISHMEN GET OUT" kinda hits that point.
A mere "homosexual acts are against my religion" isn't enough to make protestations of no hate or no intolerance or no superiority complex a likely lie. There's already a commonplace and real loophole - a way to hold that belief in a non-bigoted fashion - in Christianity's teachings that one shouldn't shun sinners and nonbelievers, nor place oneself on some higher moral standing.
Oh, I'm not doing perfectly - mindreaders don't exist - but I am doing significantly better than you. I'm not assuming the worst of people who aren't quite on my wavelength philosophically just because the worst is plausible. I'm not misusing words describing intent in describing outcomes. I'm satisfied with calling the harmful harmful and not reaching beyond the evidence at hand.
Of course not. But it does make the hate hidden. That's a problem with bad people who are sufficiently good actors that you ought to fully realize exists: they resemble good people.
You shouldn't let that turn you so cynical that you label apparently good people bad just because they might be faking it.
Nothing other? No, those weren't my words.
1. You keep repeating this lie. It's a little more blatantly false this time, though. Homosexuality is a trait no one has control over. Homosexual sex is something that EVERYBODY has control over. We aren't animals. We don't suddenly rape in the event of no willing partners and if we do, we rightly go to jail. At least revert back to your less ridiculous wording in previous posts. At least include the "without harm" qualifier.
2. Of course there is? "I want you to go to heaven" is deluded intent, but also most certainly positive intent. You seem to have a serious problem distinguishing between intent and outcome.
I don't see much point in continuing this part of the discussion if you won't recognize the difference between these examples.
And if that was all you were saying, 95% of our disagreements would evaporate.
Yes, the absence of evidence is not the evidence of absence, true. It sure is the absence of evidence, though, and a reason to question assumptions.
Which matters not at all if nothing negative comes of it. There remains absolutely no reason to call it bigotry until you get the actual evident behavior.
Suppose a secret bigot goes his entire life without translating his mere moral beliefs or his secret bigoted beliefs into negative behavior. Suppose he couldn't have been called a bigot without some sort of pseudo-psychological leap from his stated beliefs to something actually commonly recognized as bigoted? Okay... what have we lost by failing to identify his sins? What did he get away with?
Unless it doesn't. You're still leaping. In this case, you're leaping from "homosexuality is immoral" to "we should impose negative social implications on out and proud homosexuals". You can believe the first and oppose the second.
Different in what way from the mindreading that helped you determine that most people have abstinence outside of their innate range? I don't see you accompanying that assertion with anything other than some vague claim of psychological credibility. You posted studies, sure, but they effectively dealt with worst-case scenarios, or at lease worse enough to merit attention. There wasn't actually support for your 'most' percentage.
I don't necessarily have a problem with the idea of "innate ranges". I just don't think you've got a very good handle on it when you disqualify most people from abstinence. I think you greatly underestimate the capacity of most people for going without.
Well, that's just silly. I doubt I said anything like that... nope, I didn't.
The dog died because you drove over it with a car. That remains the same whether there was hatred in your action or not. That remains the same whether you meant to run over the dog or not.
No one said that intent alters outcome. That was your own invention.
Uh, no? There are many, many smaller and less headline-grabbing ways of being mean.
They're lying? Because their behavior actually betrays intolerant intent and notions of superiority?
It's the difference between running over a dog - it really could have been without hateful intent - and running over it repeatedly like something out of a cartoon.
They really might be acting out of love. It's not far-fetched for their motivation to be the betterment of their child. But they're certainly displaying intolerant behavior. Show me one of the three - hate, intolerance, superiority - and I'll buy your accusation.
You missed something about the concept of intent, apparently: evidence is still admissible. You just can't take a negative act and automatically assume negative intent, because there is more in the world than just intentionally malevolent acts. There are also accidents and mistakes. You need evidence that rules out accidents and mistakes.
That? Nothing unrealistic.
But when you imply that it must have shaped me negatively, particularly when you fail even to name the negatives, I need more to go on. Let's start with you naming the negatives. Otherwise, this is kinda irrelevant to the conversation.
See bLatch's post. No point in retyping the same thing less eloquently.