tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-23000001.post7678092991305266881..comments2023-08-10T22:16:51.246+08:00Comments on The Bosonic State: The Paradox of Thio Li-Ann's Anti-Gay StandJackson Tanhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/02267650599398779304noreply@blogger.comBlogger4125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-23000001.post-45885059052995738072009-07-31T21:50:03.878+08:002009-07-31T21:50:03.878+08:00Jackson, she is from a church which attempts to dr...Jackson, she is from a church which attempts to draw no go lines for the state. So this is just one of those lines.The Foolnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-23000001.post-44400183326544669262009-07-31T21:41:27.472+08:002009-07-31T21:41:27.472+08:00Donaldson Tan:
Haha! Was I? I thought yours were ...Donaldson Tan:<br /><br />Haha! Was I? I thought yours were more pointed... But then, I'm not really rebutting her arguments or subsequent letters. I'm just trying to figure out why a professor would forward such potholed arguments.<br /><br /><br />The Fool:<br /><br />You're quite right in saying that gays ought to have their rights. I have presumed right from the start. To me, it is a logical inevitability from the freedom of religion (or more appropriately, freedom of system of belief, so as to include atheist and agnostics).<br /><br />And actually, from what I've argued, she <i>can</i> impose her anti-gay opinions upon gays, but <i>only if</i> our society operates on the assumption that the Bible (or her interpretation of the Bible) is always right. Screw secularism, screw other religions, screw science, screw fairness; if at all, they can only come in second to that first assumption. But that is far from the case. Our society assumes secularism and freedom of religion.<br /><br />The whole point of my argument is that she recognises this. But she sticks to her stand and tries to build an argument that our society can accept (as opposed to unacceptable assumptions such as "the Bible is always right").<br /><br />On a side note, it appears to me that Singaporeans are more disagreeable to arguments that leans on the Bible as compared to the US.Jackson Tanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02267650599398779304noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-23000001.post-22976182096153828672009-07-31T12:46:37.050+08:002009-07-31T12:46:37.050+08:00I still cannot understand how a fellow human being...I still cannot understand how a fellow human being can stand up, and forcibly deny some others their rights, namely, in this instance, gay rights, which include amongst other things, the right to have sex, in whatever ways gays deemed sex to be.<br /><br />Now of course humans being social, are themselves bounded, at least notionally, by the greater rights of the society. So if she have argued how gay rights to their notions and practice of sex somehow curbed, cause loss or damage, or obstruct the rights and the exercise of these rights, of the society at large, then it is worthy of a listen, and we have some evidence to say she is an intelligent lady.<br /><br />(So what if someone wants to drink through a straw through their noses? Is is none of her business.)<br /><br />On the other hand, as it is, it is obvious that whatever gays do, she is totally free to hold any view, opinion, and to say anything, even that gay sex is immoral and a perversity.<br /><br />That is not a problem. That is her rights, that is her freedom. No one is denying her the rights to believe, think and say whatever she wants, feel and so on.<br /><br />But she cannot deny, in the same voice, others the very same rights. For such rights must be reciprocal and mutual, unless she is an imperalist herself.<br /><br />And another can be totally opposed to her, even to say that her brand of Christianity is but the religion of the devil in sheep skin. Again that is another's total freedom and right to believe and say such a thing.<br /><br />Then it shall be left to all the intelligent and discerning members of society to discern who is the fool and who is wise, who speaks nonsense and who has a glimpse of the deeper stuff of life, and so on.<br /><br />Finally, it is shame, that one of Singapore's presumably top academics is found wanting, weak, and academically cowardly, when it comes to performing on a truly level playing field on the international stage.<br /><br />And it is now hard to believe anyone who says we are world class in this and that anymore; and it is now suspect whether all the self proclaimed good performance here and there will really stand up and be repeatible when the playing field is truly leveled.The Foolnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-23000001.post-50506104174475249732009-07-31T07:28:53.638+08:002009-07-31T07:28:53.638+08:00Haha.. You are more direct than my piece on TOC.Haha.. You are more direct than my piece on TOC.Donaldson Tanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05652017880504259238noreply@blogger.com