Heathmalc

Although I try to keep my opinions to myself, as opinions tend to lead to inflamed correspondence between opposing view-points, I will indulge here, because the author has stated that he/she wanted debate.

My view:

• I cannot say that I necessarily disagree with the above comment. The fact that people can be hurt by those that believe that homosexuality is immoral and sub-human, is without question factual. Does this make the people who believe this way wrong? Does it truly make them hateful? The answer lies in the opinion of the viewer, which was likely formed by their up-bringing. The above poster's comments may in-fact be considered hurtful and hateful. The subject matter: homo-sexuality , is as old as any political or religious sect in existence. It is well known that many kings, whether they were English, Egyptian, Spanish, African or otherwise, had little boys whom they had sex with. It is just as well known that many religious leaders have done the same... in all religious circles, from Christianity to Satanism. There have been Popes that had homosexual partners, and Satanic high-priests that have done the same. All religions have also claimed that homosexuality is wrong and or sinful at some point in their histories. Who was right? When were they right? This is a matter of opinion, and will always be that way until the end of the human race. Everyone who argues their view believes they are right, else they wouldn't be arguing. Because the idea of being right or wrong is decided by mankind's majority-view, and not by any valid rule, we are all fallible. Why do we say that murder is wrong? Because it is carved in a mountain somewhere? Or because it is the belief of the majority of mankind? We may feel that something is right or wrong, but that doesn't mean that it is. Because there is always someone else that feels exactly the opposite. For the purposes of this forum, it is better to keep our feelings and our opinions concerning a story's theme to ourselves. Because there is always another member who feels differently than we do. And since we are here to become better writers, and not to decide who is right or who is wrong, it is best to let others debate the merit of a story's theme. The people I speak of are the ones that purchase the story. I think that will be answer enough for any of us who are writers.

That is my opinion.

Regards,

Heath

__________________
How does a person become right without first being wrong?

Katastrof

Heath you are wrong.

You have just committed the fallacy of logic that in Latin is called argumentum ad populum,or in laymen terms the fallacy of the majority. Being ethically right or wrong is NOT decided by the majority (usually). If it was the Earth would still be considered the center of the universe, women would have no rights, and slavery would still be the norm (Historical Example! Did you know that in the Greek cities states the slaves out numbered the population of free people(men)? Now you know!) I mean, 50 million Elvis fans can't be wrong now can they? Yes, yes they can.

Consider this:

Millions of people smoke cigarettes, the tobacco industry is one of the most profitable industries. According to the majority logic since so many people smoke, it most be ethically correct. Hell with this logic we could assume its healthy because why would so many people smoke if it wasn't? However, we know better than this and smoking is not considered ethically correct (not ethically wrong either) nor is it even close to being considered healthy for you.

Simpler example: If everybody was jumping off a bridge would you do it?

But you are right, about how opinions regarding this piece shouldn't cloud peoples judgment. It's a wonderful piece. However I don't recall anyone saying that it wasn't. It is a hateful piece, and is on the verge of being hate writing (come on, saying gays should go and decay on an island is far from loving), but it has nothing to do with its writing merit, (which is very excellent by the way!). However, stating that opinions should not be brought into this piece is downright idiotic considering:

...the author encouraged it!

But enough that on to the writing!

I really loved the style of this piece, I mean if you were going for the Biblical/fable style you hit it right on! The writing is wonderful (even though the message is a bit disturbing) and hooked me right away. You foreshadowed the ending quite well, so much so that it was easy to guess the outcome of the story. However, the story isn't as slanted at the beginning, as some people believe. When I started reading I thought it was a Pro-homosexual piece. I have to agree with Wanderjarh though, it is eerily similar to propaganda writing...

__________________
Read: Auld Lang Syne

"Carpe Diem, quam minimum credula postero"
(Seize the day put no trust in tomorrow.) ~ Horace

Heathmalc

Am I ; Wrong?????

You said: Being ethically right or wrong is NOT decided by the majority (usually).

I beg to differ.

eth·ics /ˈɛθɪks/ Pronunciation Key - Show Spelled Pronunciation[eth-iks] –plural noun 1.(used with a singular or plural verb) a system of moral principles: the ethics of a culture. 2.the rules of conduct recognized in respect to a particular class of human actions or a particular group, culture, etc.: medical ethics; Christian ethics. 3.moral principles, as of an individual: His ethics forbade betrayal of a confidence. 4.(usually used with a singular verb) that branch of philosophy dealing with values relating to human conduct, with respect to the rightness and wrongness of certain actions and to the goodness and badness of the motives and ends of such actions.
Notice the value of the main definition? The ethics of a culture.

__________________________________________________ _____________

You said: ...if it was, then the earth would still be considered the center of the universe.

This is wrong. Science, as we know it, changed this belief. Which means that more people accepted that earth isn't the center of the universe, than didn't. So you see, the majority logic did prevail.

You also said: ...women would have no rights, and slavery would still be the norm.

Once again, this is wrong. Women have rights in some countries, because that is what the prevailing majority believe. In other countries, they don't have the same rights as men, and in others have no rights.

As for slavery, it is the same as the above example. If the prevailing majority are against it, then laws will ban it in that country. Just because it isn't legal in the United States, doesn't make it true for the entire world.
You only need go to Mexico to verify this, where it is perfectly legal to have slaves. In China there are slaves. In Iran there are slaves. And whether you know it or not, there are slaves right here in the United States.

You asked if I knew that the slaves in historical Greek cities outnumbered free men. Yes, I did know that. It is also true of Africa, Italy, China, Japan, France, Russia, and many other countries...Did you know that?

You then asked, rhetorically, if 50 million Elvis fans could be wrong. The answer lies in the question. What were they wrong, or right about? Was he the King of rock and roll? Yes. Does that mean he was the best? no. But then again, 50 million isn't a majority, is it? No... It is a fraction of the majority.

You use a very bad example here.

First, I stated that the majority of mankind dictate what we think as a people. You again take a small percentage of people (smokers), and try to use this as proof for your argument.

Ironically, you are wrong both times when you speak of ethics and smoking.

In the first instance: According to the majority logic since so many people smoke, it must be ethically correct.

Up until the 1950's, the majority of adults in the United States smoked. And because of that culture, during that time-period, it was ethically okay to smoke. You need only look to the leaders of our country during those times to see that this is true. After all, would the President of the United States smoke in the oval-office if it were unethical?

In the second instance:However, we know better than this and smoking is not considered ethically correct (not ethically wrong either)

You were correct when you said it isn't ethical, however, you say in brackets that it's not ethically wrong; And it is.

Our society has deemed that smoking causes cancer for not only the smoker, but those around them that inhale second-hand smoke. The majority of the adult population in our country feel this way, so that makes it unethical. If you want proof, then look to our leaders again. Do judges still smoke in court; Presidents in the oval-office? No.

Our culture dictates what is ethical, the majority dictates our culture.


Again, a bad example.

First: - If everybody jumped off the bridge, then there would only be one person left: "you" And if there is only one person left, then that means what that person believes is the new majority.

Second: - I said that the majority decided what we, as a society accept as right or wrong. I never said that the majority's beliefs would be agreed with. However, if the majority believed that it was okay to jump off a bridge, then it would become the accepted norm. It would be ethical.



Is it hateful? perhaps you should re-read the story.

In conclusion:

Just because the majority dictates what is accepted, that does not mean that everyone has to agree. If that were the case, then nothing would ever change because we'd follow blindly whatever we were told.

And to clarify - I said opinions should not cloud the logical reasoning of a critic's critique. "Keep personal opinions out of a critique," means that opinions should be saved for their place.

I am not the final say, nor do I wish to be.

The majority of the people want help with their writing here, so that they may become better. Whether you are pro-homosexual or anti-homosexual does not matter. Whether you prefer horror stories or fantasy stories does not matter. Therefore, the opinion doesn't matter. If it isn't helping someone write better, then it doesn't belong.

That is not an opinion.

__________________
How does a person become right without first being wrong?

Katastrof

Okay, I didn't want to argue but you're begging for it, so I'll make it short.
First I didn't see one word in the definition of ethics that says the majority decides the ethics. Sure the majority follows the ethics of its culture but that does not mean they decided that it was right or wrong. Their ethics are
a manifestation of what the people in power deemed to be right or wrong. Even in a democracy, where people are vested with the power to decide who represents them, it is still the representatives who have the real power. The majority accepts them because it is the law, not because they personally believe its right or wrong. Some might believe it, however others do not. Sometimes the majority believes in law sometimes they do not.

Take for example downloading music. It is against the law to download music for free, yet the majority downloads it anyways. The don't find it ethically wrong to do it even though it is ethically wrong to steal in our culture. It is still illegal however to download music for free even though the majority doesn't believe so. There, do you see it?

No the majority logic has nothing to do with it. Again, the majority accepted it, only after it was claimed to be true. At first most did not believe Galileo that the Earth revolved around the Sun. However it was true. It didn't magically become true because the majority believed that it did. No it was true because of scientific reason not majority logic. Here's a good quote:

"Every society but ours believed in magic; why should we think otherwise?" "Every society but ours thought the sun revolved about the Earth, rather than the other way round. Would you decide the matter by majority vote?" ~ Isaac Asimov

Do you see it now? If we decided anything by majority logic we would still think that science was magic and that not everyone is equal. People didn't believe Galileo, Copernicus or Kepler when they first made their assertions, most were downright hostile. It challenged a belief that the MAJORITY HELD. Eventually it was accepted by the majority because of the bandwagon effect, not because they had believed it right away even though it was true whether or not they accepted it. That's the fallacy of majority logic.

No its not. Historically the majority has never decided upon the right of the minority. Why would they? If the majority was always ruling why would they ever give the minority rights? It doesn't make sense and that's why majority logic is a fallacy and is not correct. Example, in Canada women were given the right to vote, not because the majority wanted to give them the vote but because the government at the time (Liberal-Conservative government of Robert Borden) needed more votes in order to beat the majority of the people who wanted to oust them out of government. (By the way that Conservative government of Bordon's never promised the vote to women before the were elected therefore the majority did not decide to give them the vote).

First off this is just semantics, you know what I'm saying but you're twisting my words to suit your own purpose. SO to clarify:

If the MAJORITY of people were jumping off a bridge (going to that is ) would you do it with them?

In majority logic you would, but in sane human being logic you wouldn't because you would die, which is an illogical thing to do. Why kill yourself just because the majority dictates so? This is an extreme example of why this logic is a fallacy, but it also applies to less extreme things.

Which is what majority logic dictates. People accept things not because the majority accepts it but because its logical to. Again, the Isaac Asimov quote proves my point. A single atom starts a chain reaction that creates an explosion. The explosion is the result of that single atom colliding with another atom. Its the same thing with ethics. One person starts it and proves that it right. It becomes ethically correct because one person found the logic behind it, not the majority of people. Its accepted by the majority because more and more people begin to see that it is right. It's called the band wagon effect.

Now enough this.

__________________
Read: Auld Lang Syne

"Carpe Diem, quam minimum credula postero"
(Seize the day put no trust in tomorrow.) ~ Horace

Heathmalc

First, I was originally talking about how we as a culture decided what was right or wrong.

You have somehow twisted what I was originally say, into whether or not someone would follow someone else off a bridge, which has nothing at all to do with what I was talking about.

We could go back and forth all day, twisting words to support that we are right, but as you said, this would be semantics.

Not that I mind arguing my position or beliefs...just not here.

I, like you have, can dig-up numerous quotes to support anything I want to argue for, or against. But my original point was that nobody really knows who or what, is right or wrong.

You made an excellent sparring-partner. Another time, another place...could have been fun.

Regards,

Heath

__________________
How does a person become right without first being wrong?