Wondering

[slytherin_jenn]

> Del wrote:
> That's true, though you'll notice I did start a whole new thread to
> present my theory. I didn't just insert it into a pre-existing thread

Celoneth:
That's true, but its currently a loaded atmosphere where a lot of
people are already on edge and many being rather immature about the
entire matter.

Del:
> I know the evidence is weak, that's even why I don't believe in the
> theory myself. However, I'm puzzled as to how weak evidence relates
to moral motives.

Celoneth:
I'm not saying that weak evidence relates to motives, but historically
sides that promote prejudice use weak but loaded evidence to promote
their cause - such as women/minorities aren't intelligent because they
don't do well on a certain test - and then use that inconclusive
evidence to promote an agenda. I'm not saying that's what you were
trying to do - but for a lot of people it raises flags. I'm not saying
that one shouldn't speculate, but in the current hoopla over JKR's
announcement there's a lot of pre-existing tension that carries over
to other issues and may dilute your theory.

Del:
> I understand that. However:
> 1- English is not my mother tongue, so the loaded aspect of those
> terms is something I am not naturally aware of. Like for example I
> didn't know that saying "homosexual" can be offensive to some gay and
> lesbian people.

Celoneth:
I don't know what your native language is but there's a historical
context to some words. Calling homosexuality a moral crime (or making
it sound like that's what you're saying) is extremely offensive - not
only because of its meaning, but because of the persecution of
homosexuality through the legal system throughout Western culture.
Comparing homosexuality to murder, even if that's not your intent just
sounds bad, and even worse because bigots use those comparisons all
the time. When I see something like that written, it jumps out at me
and again it dilutes the point that you're trying to make. These
aren't language issues, they're context issues - you place terms and
concepts in your arguments that are bound to create controversy by
their very meaning and those kind of things tend to take over from
anything you originally intended. Its kind of like in the US when a
politician says something stupid during a speech - it doesn't matter
what smart things they've said - that thing becomes the discussion -
perhaps its not fair but unfortunately expectable.
Celoneth