Kingdom on Earth (Re: Barack Obama comments)

I don't know. Was it?

---

Owing to the deficiency of the English language, I have occasionally used the academic jargon generator to produce phrases that even I don't fully understand. The jargons are not meant to offend anyone or to insult anyone's intelligence!

Dunno... You tell me.

---

“This life’s dim windows of the soul, distorts the heavens from pole to pole, and goads you to believe a lie, when you see with and not through the eye.” -William Blake

Well, I'll tell you what. I'm a racist and you're a homophobe. We're both bigots. We should be friends and see how we can help each other out.

---

Owing to the deficiency of the English language, I have occasionally used the academic jargon generator to produce phrases that even I don't fully understand. The jargons are not meant to offend anyone or to insult anyone's intelligence!

So, just by way of dissecting a bona fide racist under the scope, what in your view is the characteristic of this molecule:that leads a prevalence of it to be unsuitable for a candidate for President of the United States?Edited by crashfrog, : No reason given.

I don't really know what that word means anymore since its been butchered. If we take the prefix and suffix, we can supply meaning.Homo = manphobe = a derivative of phobia, which means, an irrational fearSince I don't have an irrational fear of man, I guess I'm not a homophobe. But then again, that's not really what people mean when they say someone is a homophobe.What they mean in actuality is someone who is deathly afraid of homosexuals.But I'm not afraid of homosexuals at either. So I can't be that version of a homophobe either.The real definition, as I see it, is a mischaracterized way of saying someone who disagrees with the practice of homosexuality.Well, if that makes me a homophobe, then so be it. I guess I'm a homophobe. But don't tell Jaderis that since I have enormous respect for her. I wouldn't want to tarnish or diminish my reputation as a homophobe.

---

“This life’s dim windows of the soul, distorts the heavens from pole to pole, and goads you to believe a lie, when you see with and not through the eye.” -William Blake

quote:

---

Once would have sufficed.

---

Clearly not, since you've been given that answer many times, yet here you are, asking the same question, again.

quote:

---

As it stands animals and children can consent. This has been discussed before. The definition then shifts to "informed consent". The two should not be confused. And that latter term has still not been made an objective definition, nor consistently applied.

---

Yes, there is no perfect way to objectively apply "informed consent". Big effing deal. In many cases it's too clear to bother arguing (except for you, apparently).Can a one day old infant consent?(Prediction: Silent H will not ever give a straight answer to this question)

quote:

---

is what reason do we have to choose one over the other? I don't see an answer to that.

---

First, what's "the other"?Second, to approximately 100% of the people in the world, consent is good, lack of (proper) consent is bad, and the point is so obvious it needn't be argued. If you want to argue this point, I'm bored already. Edited by nator, : No reason given.Edited by nator, : No reason given.

quote:

---

The real definition, as I see it, is a mischaracterized way of saying someone who disagrees with the practice of homosexuality.

---

So, does that mean that the definition of "miscegenation" has been mischaracterized, and the people who "disagree" with mixed race marriage aren't really bigots?What you apparently have a really difficult time with, Juggs, is the idea that just because a particular idea, concept, or act undertaken by consenting adults isn't right for you doesn't mean it isn't right for somebody else.We know you get icked out by gays (well, probably only the gay men). We know your religion condemns homosexuality and homosexuals. That's fine. Live your life being icked out and condemn people if you like.Just leave everyone else alone, including legally. Your personal feelings, including the religious ones, only apply to you.

homo refers to the genus in which the human species lies. it is, however, specifically a suffix which refers to "same" such as homogenous which refers to, generally, a mixture that becomes inseparable, like cake batter. this is where the word homosexual comes from: one who is sexual with the same as opposed to heterosexual: one who is sexual with the different. like heterogenous which refers to, generally, a mixture that retains the unique characteristics of it's parts, like trail mix.hence, homophobia is the fear of the same, and specifically the fear of people who are sexual with the same. you don't have an irrational fear of man, you have an irrational fear of penises touching.

"homo" as in homo sapiens is from the Latin meaning man"homo" as in homophobia is from the Greek meaning same

you know, i figured it was a language thing, but the dictionary i have doesn't list roots, cause it's lame. well, there you go.

There is no perfect way to objectively apply "X". Big effing deal. In many cases it's too clear to bother arguing.You could put lots of things in that equation. Sick, degenerate, unnatural, perverse, harmful to society, etc... The fact that it is not objective and admittedly cannot be applied objectively, except through "clarity" you assert, does not create much of an argument for its legitimacy. Bad prediction skills. The answer is yes. We have been over this before. Almost everything except the unconscious and the dead can give consent. But my guess is you meant Informed Consent, in which case you are equivocating on terms.Assuming you mean informed consent, then I'd say from my interpretation of what that means (not sure what yours is yet), the very straight answer is no. A one year old infant has no understanding beyond its own immediate desires.But here is where your inconsistency comes out. If you believe they cannot consent (simple or informed), and that is the basis of the rule, then what can you do with an infant at all? Hence, consent is either not the issue, not fully the issue, or not consistently the issue. So the question is what does informed consent have to do with anything, and why have you chosen to apply it to the case you have mentioned (beyond convenience)? Well I can't speak for what NJ's exact moral rule is, just as I cannot speak for yours (until you explain it). But clearly his rule ends up lumping them all in together. Let me take a crack at it (though remember I am Devil's Advocating).Aberrant mental behavior is harmful, to individuals and society, and so wrong (or should be legally restrained). Indeed people engaging in such display an inability to accurately/maturely judge their environment and so cannot (if we want to match it to your own stated criteria) give "informed consent" (like an undeveloped child or someone with a more overt mental incapacity). Hence homosexuality gets lumped in with the rest, as they are all clearly aberrant behaviors (which could be called "wrong"), or even cases that lack informed consent (if I want to use your own criteria).So why do I choose yours over the above? I don't see an answer. Well that sure makes it hard to discuss. Do they all mean the same thing by consent as you do? Applied to the same situations as you have? Apparently not, when bestiality is allowed across sections of Europe. They also have different takes on age issues and homosexuality. So it would seem your 100% claim breaks down at your front door.And then I could point out that a vast majority of the world views homosexuality as bad, and heterosexuality as good. The point is so obvious it needn't be argued. The same goes for religious, versus atheist.Appeal to majority is a logical fallacy... and that's if I bought your manufactured figure for sake of argument.I'm offering the above as an explanation, and have not advanced a further attack on your position. This is so clearly outside the bounds of this thread, I hope we can leave it at this. If you want to discuss it further, please start another thread. I'd even be willing to do a great debate on it.

---

h
"Civilized men are more discourteous than savages because they know they can be impolite without having their skulls split, as a general thing." - Robert E. Howard

Being told many times by many people does not mean they are right, and the single person wrong. He (and indeed anyone) has a right to keep repeating a question if it is not sufficiently answered.This is just as true in science as it is in moral questions. Shouting a person down is NOT an answer.On this subject NJ had an excellent point... in a past thread... that consent is simply a semantic tool used to disguise an absolute morality. I have never seen that objection answered at all.

---

h
"Civilized men are more discourteous than savages because they know they can be impolite without having their skulls split, as a general thing." - Robert E. Howard

Speaking of which there's about 3 or 4 of my questions you've declined to answer in your multiculturalism thread.Maybe now that you and Rrhain are done with your male entitlement whining, you can address them? Or are you supposed to be the sole arbiter of which questions have been answered, and which are never to be answered? That's a nonsense objection, since it could be true of anything where we draw a distinction between consent and somebody merely saying the word "yes" for whatever reason.Does the word "coercion" mean anything to you?

I have never claimed questions you asked in that thread have been answered. Nor have I claimed that you don't have a right to keep asking them. I will begin answering them once you show a capacity not to attack me personally, during the asking of a question as well as in your answers.I am only asking for civility, and I AM the sole arbiter of WHO I will answer.As far as Nator and NJ goes, she is claiming his question has been answered, which it hasn't been. That many tell him something, does not make it true. Yes.Frankly I'd love to see a mature, well-reasoned debate on this topic. But it would really have to be free of animus... and not in this thread.

---

h
"Civilized men are more discourteous than savages because they know they can be impolite without having their skulls split, as a general thing." - Robert E. Howard