Wednesday, August 14, 2019

Family restaurant



i) Since I wouldn't be offended by the straight couple at all, it's not a question of whether I'd be more offended. 

ii) I wouldn't be offended by the queer "couple".  Rather, their behavior is pitiful and repellent. These aren't comparative situations. 

7 comments:

  1. I would not be offended. I may find it inappropriate and be a bit disgusted as I don't think such a place is proper for such behavior.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. There's a distinction, which Rauser ignores, between disapproving of something and being offended by something.

      Delete
  2. "Would you be more offended if the couple is of the same sex?"

    1. Why does Rauser think there's necessarily a one size fits all answer? Some people might be offended, others might be disgusted, others might be find it pathetic, others might be indifferent, etc. Is Rauser suggesting there should be a one size fits all answer from people in general? If not, then what's the point of the question? If so, then on what basis does he think so?

    2. Speaking for myself, I wouldn't be "offended". In fact, given I've lived in the Bay Area, and been to the Castro district and other places like that, I've seen this quite often. I have had acquaintances and even friends who are homosexual. I've seen them kissing right in front of me. In fact, I've seen worse. Anyway, I'm fairly inured to offense from homosexual behavior.

    3. If anything, I'd most likely think it's sad. Many of them have psychiatric or related issues which society enables. They need help, but instead people approve of their behavior.

    4. Here's another question: What would be offensive to many homosexuals? According to homosexuals I've heard from, one thing would be a transgendered "woman" (who was "misgendered" at birth as a man) now claiming to be a lesbian. Many lesbians find these transgendered "women" offensive.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I have actually seen homosexuals be offended at the actions of heterosexuals kissing in public and showing affection. In other words I seen the reverse happen.

      Delete
  3. A prior question, which Rauser should answer, is whether in each situation God's law is violated, and why.

    ReplyDelete
  4. His tweets that deconstructing the Canaanite invasion is not Marcionism is also pretty great, in an ironic sense.

    ReplyDelete
  5. A man sits at his table, frenching his bulldog.

    Is Rauser offended?

    Perhaps he would object that the animal cannot consent to the sensual, sexual act.

    One wonders then, what consent the cow which provided the T-bone steak on Rauser's plate gave to being raised in prison, murdered and eaten.

    ReplyDelete