Posted on 01/15/2014 3:47:52 AM PST by SoFloFreeper
ditor's note: Yolanda Young is the author of the memoir, "On Our Way To Beautiful", and the publisher and C.E.O. of Lawyers Of Color. Follow her on twitter @yolandayoungesq
(CNN) -- As "Duck Dynasty" star Phil Robertson returns from his brief "hiatus," he'll do so to the cheers of some surprising supporters — southern blacks. Robertson was suspended from the A&E hit show for calling homosexuality a sin and equating it to bestiality in a GQ profile. Receiving less attention were his comments that black people were happier before the civil rights movement.
Media have focused on two camps in the controversy. On one side are Robertson's predictable supporters, who include white evangelicals, southern Republican politicians and Fox News. On the opposing team are LBGT activists and progressives
(Excerpt) Read more at cnn.com ...
Only someone with no sense of proportion, severity, or scale would see those things as comparable.
Your signature line is amusing in light of the topic being discussed.
“(All animals are created equal, but some are more equal than others.)”
this sentence is the reason I usually avoid discussions that touch on Faith.
Since the concept of sin is rooted in ones Faith, it makes it difficult, if not impossible to use logic and reason in the discussion.
I'll just pass, since we are not able to even agree on sin.
Yeah, if I say that I used to feed the pigs and sing hymns on Sunday some people will say I am equating the two. Actually I am just mentioning two things I may have done on the same day when I was a teenager.
No it doesn't. Equates means equal to. 3 and 7 are both prime numbers, but 3 does not equal 7.
Again you are wrong. Saying they are both crimes states the relationship between them, not any form of equality. Red and blue are both colors. Red does not equal blue.
“Yeah, if I say that I used to feed the pigs and sing hymns on Sunday some people will say I am equating the two. Actually I am just mentioning two things I may have done on the same day when I was a teenager.”
If the question was ‘what are things you used do on Sunday?’, then there is a construct on which you can say they are being equated, but that would be stretching the meaning and usage of the word to render it almost meaningless.
Actually if you start with the original Christian religion, Catholicism, not all sins are equal. There are mortal sins and venial sins. Mortal sins result in eternal damnation while venial sins are absolved by a period of suffering prior to entering into heaven.
I am making no attempt to classify the nature of these sins only pointing out that your blanket statement that the punishment for all sins is equal may not necessarily be true.
How can any one say Phil was on “hiatus,”, when the entire season was already filmed and in the can? Next season I hope they take their #1 show and sponsors to RFDTV, Christian friendly, family friendly. We tape it, as we chose not to watch that channel other wise, and fast forward through the commercials too.
“No it doesn’t. Equates means equal to. 3 and 7 are both prime numbers, but 3 does not equal 7.”
Previously posted:
In mathematics, yes. In linguistics, not as precise as that. Equating one thing to another in the way we communicate is used more broadly to categorize, analogize or classify things or ideas through comparison. Equating lower taxes with higher revenue or equating higher spending with better results, for example.
“All men are created equal” does not mean we are equal in every way one can imagine.
Sorry, you tried to sound smart and got it wrong. Equate does not mean indicating two things are equal. It means they are equivalent.
Equivalent only requires that the two items are equal for the property being compared not for all properties possessed by each item. Equivalent and equal are two separate distinct terms both in mathematical and logical equations.
It is
...the original Christian religion, Catholicism,...
That is not true, though.
Both examples indicate the improper use of the term, so they are not supportive of the argument. Even though two things may have a relationship, it does not in itself indicate any equivalency.
“Even though two things may have a relationship, it does not in itself indicate any equivalency.”
As should be considered the case in any use of the term outside of mathematics, and even then you could run into trouble.
An example where a term is used incorrectly does not support your argument. It is obvious that all men are not created equal.
Only by defining a limited set of terms can the statement become accurate. The statement can then only be logically argued on the basis of the limiting set of terms. Comparison on the basis of any term not included in the set is not then part of the logical argument. All men are not the same height, so all men are not created equal. Exclude height from the limited set of terms, and height is no longer a disqualifier.
We wear the mask that grins and lies, It hides our cheeks and shades our eyes,— This debt we pay to human guile; With torn and bleeding hearts we smile
Blacks lied to whites because they felt all white people were members of the Klan?
OK, I get that. It's not true and it's an ugly stereotype of white people - but it makes sense on some levels.
And somehow Robertson was suppose to know that all blacks were liars? That's a stretch. Especially when blacks freely admit carefully hiding their true feelings.
Women in that time period also had to laugh (white women included) at sexist jokes, work for the lower wages of 'pin money' etc... Sometimes women 'lied' out of fear - at the joke at the sexist joke told at their expense. But women didn't hate and fear men all the time back them. Contrary to what feminist say... And blacks didn't hate all white people either. Many people put up with things they found offensive because it was an accepted part of the culture. It didn't mean they lived their lives with anger and hatred 24/7. They didn't.
Here's proof: Today we're bullied by Homeland Security - their roadblocks and tactics - and other police state activity.
We're objecting to it too.
In 50 years we'll be able to make a case for how fearful we were... how much we resented the intrusions into our personal lives. But are any of us 'fearful and hateful' every day? No, we factor the injustice into our everyday lives and live on... It's what happened in the past too.
All men are created equal
The opening of the United States Declaration of Independence states as follows:
We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness. That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed;[4]
“An example where a term is used incorrectly does not support your argument. It is obvious that all men are not created equal.”
We’re arguing the same side, just on what appears to be insignificant technicalities, the primary one being how language is actually used.
You stated earlier,
“Equivalent only requires that the two items are equal for the property being compared not for all properties possessed by each item. Equivalent and equal are two separate distinct terms both in mathematical and logical equations.”
On that point we agree and it seems obvious. Yet we codify, in the law of the land equality as a concept when it is “obvious that all men are not created equal.” ‘it is meant to convey an idea that the two items are equal for the property being compared’, regardless as to the validity of the comparison, which has to be judged separately.
My point exactly. The statement is only true within the limits of a set of defining terms. Therefore logical arguments can only occur within the limits of those defining terms.
Phil Robertson's statement was made within the limits of a defining term, sin. Logical argument can only occur within the limit of that defining term, sin. Very little of the negative criticism of Phil Robertson's statement has been within the limits of that defining term, therefore the criticism is not logical.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.