Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
4 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,815 Year: 3,072/9,624 Month: 917/1,588 Week: 100/223 Day: 11/17 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Did Mod cause the collapse of evcforum?
DBlevins
Member (Idle past 3775 days)
Posts: 652
From: Puyallup, WA.
Joined: 02-04-2003


Message 286 of 424 (567755)
07-02-2010 1:09 PM
Reply to: Message 268 by Hyroglyphx
07-02-2010 8:39 AM


Re: Jackass Perspective
Sorry if you mistake my meaning. I don't mean to say you are particularily brilliant, or that you are not. I only wished to point out that you when you 'outed' yourself, you seemed pleased with your duplicity and surprised that others could not see past your mask.
The fact that you 'hid' behind another name, whether you thought anyone with half a brain should have recognized your 'clues', is what I was calling - disingenuous. I understand why you weren't telling people who you were. Regardless, you were not being candid about who you were.
As far as hiding online is concerned, it isn't too hard to do so when most users are not in the habit of digging through every reference you make about the past to deduce who you might be.
Finally, I don't want to derail this thread and certainly don't want you to feel I have any animosity toward you. Congratulations on your current open-mindedness, which I have always felt this board was about.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 268 by Hyroglyphx, posted 07-02-2010 8:39 AM Hyroglyphx has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 288 by Hyroglyphx, posted 07-02-2010 1:38 PM DBlevins has not replied

  
Hyroglyphx
Inactive Member


Message 287 of 424 (567758)
07-02-2010 1:26 PM
Reply to: Message 284 by Taz
07-02-2010 11:19 AM


Re: What is the conclusion (Part B)?
They're illegal because people want to get involve in other people's personal business, like prop 8.
That's the consequence, but that's not the reason.
One of the sure signs of creationist attitude is the need to explain everything.
I hardly see that as being unique to creationists. All disciplines of science want an explanation to lingering questions. That is the motivation that drives people.
No, it just stands to reason that one cannot ask a moral question without a reference point in absolute terms.
But we already know that there are moral absolutes that nobody can argue against.
I don't think consensus and conscience does an absolute moral make. I think they may give some indication to its existence, but if there are moral absolutes, I don't think we could identify them.
Indeed, if Hitler knew genocide was wrong, he wouldn't have felt morally righteous in committing it.
Let me try and explain the paradox I'm refering to:
Most morals are relative, unquestionably. They are often dictated by cultural influence. However, if all morals are relative, then they ultimately come down to the differences of opinions we have (one man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter).
I say this guy over here is immoral because he beheads innocent people. The guy says, no, I behead them because they're guilty. Which is morally right? Indeed, every culture known to man would agree that it is wrong to murder. They only differ on what constitutes murder. In that way, it is relative to the eye of the beholder. But murder is cohesively and unifomly wrong. Where does this sense come from?
We know that some absolutes exist, because to deny an absolute is to also affirm it simultaneously. But does it apply to morals?

"Men never do evil so completely and cheerfully as when they do it from mistaken conviction." — Blaise Pascal

This message is a reply to:
 Message 284 by Taz, posted 07-02-2010 11:19 AM Taz has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 289 by Taz, posted 07-02-2010 2:09 PM Hyroglyphx has replied

  
Hyroglyphx
Inactive Member


Message 288 of 424 (567763)
07-02-2010 1:38 PM
Reply to: Message 286 by DBlevins
07-02-2010 1:09 PM


Re: Jackass Perspective
I don't mean to say you are particularily brilliant, or that you are not. I only wished to point out that you when you 'outed' yourself, you seemed pleased with your duplicity and surprised that others could not see past your mask.
Actually it illicited feelings of shame, which ultimately led me to finally confess my identity. It wasn't easy. I stood the chance of ridicule, the veritable "I told you so's," the chance of being excommunicated, and the chance of hurting people. What I was surprised at was no one knowing who I was because I left some intentional hints -- hints that I thought were very obvious. But then, when you're guilty of something, you tend to be hyperfocused. And so it is likely that my "being obvious" might have really been my feelings of guilt manifesting in to paranoia.
Suffice it to say that I was conflicted. Since we're now on the subject morality, relatively speaking I had to decide what was ultimately right. Do I spare some feelings, including my own, or is hiding more immoral? I thought that hiding was more immoral.
Finally, I don't want to derail this thread and certainly don't want you to feel I have any animosity toward you. Congratulations on your current open-mindedness, which I have always felt this board was about.
Thank you! It's good to see you are back as well. Haven't seen you around these parts in a long while.

"Men never do evil so completely and cheerfully as when they do it from mistaken conviction." — Blaise Pascal

This message is a reply to:
 Message 286 by DBlevins, posted 07-02-2010 1:09 PM DBlevins has not replied

  
Taz
Member (Idle past 3291 days)
Posts: 5069
From: Zerus
Joined: 07-18-2006


Message 289 of 424 (567775)
07-02-2010 2:09 PM
Reply to: Message 287 by Hyroglyphx
07-02-2010 1:26 PM


Re: What is the conclusion (Part B)?
Hyro writes:
That's the consequence, but that's not the reason.
No, that is the cause for such laws to come about. People want to interfere with other people's personal lives, so they come up with bullshit excuses like protect the sanctity of marriage. That's how these laws came about.
I hardly see that as being unique to creationists. All disciplines of science want an explanation to lingering questions. That is the motivation that drives people.
No, you don't understand. Yes, science wants to explain everything, but not at the cost of sacrificing integrity and truth.
You will find that scientists really have no problem saying "I don't know". Good luck getting that sentence out of a creationist.
No, it just stands to reason that one cannot ask a moral question without a reference point in absolute terms.
Which is the same as referring to absolute terms to define what is not yet defined. It's like falling back to axioms (or idioms) to define a bigger picture.
Like I said, not every moral question can be answered, and you should accept that. We can try to answer them, but the fact that we can't answer some at this moment in time doesn't mean there isn't an absolute answer to be found later on. And since we have already found quite a few absolutes, it stands to reason that we should be able to find more.
I don't think consensus and conscience does an absolute moral make.
And that is exactly what I did not say.
I did not say that those are absolutes because people universally agreed they are absolutes. Read below.
I think they may give some indication to its existence, but if there are moral absolutes, I don't think we could identify them.
I take the approach to moral absolutes like the methods scientists use to approach theories and laws. The Newtonian model of gravity isn't accurate to a certain extent because consensus says so. It's accurate to a certain extent on its own merit.
Even if tomorrow all scientists decide to proclaim that they all universally agree to adopt the Aristotelian model of motion of the universe doesn't mean things naturally move in circles.
But the fact that the consensus among scientists tells us that the Newtonian model is extremely accurate and that it got us to the moon is a very big indicator that the model is accurate.
Moral absolutes work in a similar way. Just because the consensus tells us something is a moral absolute doesn't make it so. However, it is a very big indicator for it to be so.
Indeed, if Hitler knew genocide was wrong, he wouldn't have felt morally righteous in committing it.
Um, he didn't feel morally righteous when he committed those acts. And just because people know right from wrong doesn't mean they will always do right.
Most morals are relative, unquestionably. They are often dictated by cultural influence. However, if all morals are relative, then they ultimately come down to the differences of opinions we have (one man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter).
Now, you're talking about cultural values, which most of the time are morally neutral. Again, I've found that you have trouble understanding the concept of moral neutrality because you are still taking the creationist approach to morality. And please don't be offended.
Cultural values are often times (or rather most of the time) are morally neutral. There is nothing wrong with wearing a head scarf. It's not right either. It's just morally neutral.
And there is nothing wrong with being a terrorist. And it's not right either. It's morally neutral. Now, what one decides to act as a terrorist is another question.
I know that it is a common belief that Middle Eastern people view Islamic terrorists as heroes. And let us suppose for a moment that this is true. Now, here comes the tricky part, so please bear with me.
We view them as evil because they kill civilians who are nothing more than bystanders. They bomb schools full of children. They bomb buses full of religious pilgrims.
Many Middle Eastern people view them as heroes not because they kill innocent people but because of what they claim to defend against. You might not like to hear this, but we're not the most popular country in the world. Just by siding with Israel alone puts us way up there on their to-do list. This combines with the fact that we have entire armies occupying just about every part of the Middle East.
So, when you're saying one's hero is another's villain, you're comparing apples to oranges.
Ask those people who cheer for Hezbollah in American universities. You will find that they don't approve of the killing and genocidal proclamations of the organization. They cheer for them because of other aspects.
I say this guy over here is immoral because he beheads innocent people. The guy says, no, I behead them because they're guilty. Which is morally right? Indeed, every culture known to man would agree that it is wrong to murder. They only differ on what constitutes murder. In that way, it is relative to the eye of the beholder. But murder is cohesively and unifomly wrong. Where does this sense come from?
They seem relative to you because you're refusing to see the acts from different perspectives.
The beheaded people are innocent in our eyes because we value freedom and individuality. They regard those people as guilty and worthy of death because they don't value freedom and the fact that those people were christian alone warranted beheading.
Cultural values are morally neutral. But what people choose to act upon them can be viewed both ways. But in it all, and you even mentioned this, murder is viewed wrong in certain circumstances. Why? Because it's a moral absolute. And both we and they have a very clear distinction between murder and execution. Based on our cultural values (which are mostly morally neutral), we view the beheadings as murder. Based on their cultural values (which are mostly morally neutral), they view the beheadings as just executions.
We know that some absolutes exist, because to deny an absolute is to also affirm it simultaneously. But does it apply to morals?
I'm sorry, how does the first sentence make sense?
Absolutes of anything are hard to put our fingers on. Universal constants are absolutes and they can stand on their own merit. And because they are absolutes, people tend to stumble onto them often enough to have a consensus.
Even if tomorrow a wind called amnesia sweeps the Earth and we all forget everything we have learned in the last 6,000 years, eventually we'd still discover things like pi, the hydrogen atom, and the quadratic formula all over again. And this stands true for a moral absolute like murder.
Again, I must emphasize that the quadratic formula isn't an absolute because the consensus says so. But consensus does help us in determining it's absoluticity (this word is copyrighted by moi). Same with moral absolutes. Just because consensus says murder is wrong doesn't mean it's an absolute. But because it is an absolute, people have stumbled upon it often enough that we can all agree it's wrong.
Just because the bible says pi = 3 doesn't mean consensus is wrong, just like just because some sociopath says murder is right doesn't mean the consensus is wrong.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 287 by Hyroglyphx, posted 07-02-2010 1:26 PM Hyroglyphx has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 292 by Hyroglyphx, posted 07-02-2010 2:52 PM Taz has replied

  
Modulous
Member
Posts: 7801
From: Manchester, UK
Joined: 05-01-2005


Message 290 of 424 (567781)
07-02-2010 2:24 PM
Reply to: Message 279 by cavediver
07-02-2010 11:01 AM


he calls me tk421 when no-one is around
I'm just embarrassed he's showing off his bedroom attire in his avatar. Sideburns, for what it's worth, are excellent for 'motorcycling' shall we say.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 279 by cavediver, posted 07-02-2010 11:01 AM cavediver has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 291 by cavediver, posted 07-02-2010 2:35 PM Modulous has seen this message but not replied

  
cavediver
Member (Idle past 3643 days)
Posts: 4129
From: UK
Joined: 06-16-2005


Message 291 of 424 (567784)
07-02-2010 2:35 PM
Reply to: Message 290 by Modulous
07-02-2010 2:24 PM


Re: he calls me tk421 when no-one is around
Brings a whole new meaning to being at your "post", shall we say... and more to the question, why you're not at it? Hmmm?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 290 by Modulous, posted 07-02-2010 2:24 PM Modulous has seen this message but not replied

  
Hyroglyphx
Inactive Member


Message 292 of 424 (567789)
07-02-2010 2:52 PM
Reply to: Message 289 by Taz
07-02-2010 2:09 PM


Re: What is the conclusion (Part B)?
People want to interfere with other people's personal lives, so they come up with bullshit excuses like protect the sanctity of marriage. That's how these laws came about.
People don't invent laws just so they can interfere with your life. That is the inevitable consequence of some shitty laws, but not the purpose. Nobody passes anti-gay marriage laws just so they can interfere with their lives, they pass it because they think gay marriage is wrong and think it will infect society with their loose morals. But that's a slippery slope argument.
The consequence is that it is government interfering with personal lives, which is counterintuitive to the personal liberties of free citizens in a free society. The purpose is to stop gay marriage, for the reasons I listed above.
Yes, science wants to explain everything, but not at the cost of sacrificing integrity and truth. You will find that scientists really have no problem saying "I don't know". Good luck getting that sentence out of a creationist.
If you mean to say that most creationists act as if they're know-it-all's, then I would agree.
Which is the same as referring to absolute terms to define what is not yet defined. It's like falling back to axioms (or idioms) to define a bigger picture.
Yes, that is what I mean also. I appreciate you explaining it better than I.
Like I said, not every moral question can be answered, and you should accept that.
I do accept it. I stated that it appears absolute morals exist, but it is impossible to identify them. That's the crux of it. My only contention is whether or not people would accept that such a paradox exists.
Moral absolutes work in a similar way. Just because the consensus tells us something is a moral absolute doesn't make it so. However, it is a very big indicator for it to be so.
True, but then it stands to reason that there is a reason for it. For nothing in the known universe happens without a cause to create the effect.
Um, he didn't feel morally righteous when he committed those acts. And just because people know right from wrong doesn't mean they will always do right.
He did think it was right. The problem is, he equated it to drowning rats infected with bubonic plague. In his mind it served a greater good.
Now, you're talking about cultural values
The same principle applies, I'm just using it as a frame of reference.
I've found that you have trouble understanding the concept of moral neutrality because you are still taking the creationist approach to morality. And please don't be offended.
If I'm not offended it's because I don't know what that means.
And there is nothing wrong with being a terrorist. And it's not right either. It's morally neutral. Now, what one decides to act as a terrorist is another question.
But if all things are relative, something as innocuous to you and me, like a women showing her skin in public, is a mortal sin deserving of serious punishment. Again, relative morals amount to opinions. So to say something is morally neutral may only be your moral outlook, not everyone.
Many Middle Eastern people view them as heroes not because they kill innocent people but because of what they claim to defend against. You might not like to hear this, but we're not the most popular country in the world. Just by siding with Israel alone puts us way up there on their to-do list. This combines with the fact that we have entire armies occupying just about every part of the Middle East.
Correct, so who is right?
So, when you're saying one's hero is another's villain, you're comparing apples to oranges.
Blowing people up for good reasons as opposed to bad reasons is not comparing apples to oranges. That's describing, to the letter, what moral relativity is.
They seem relative to you because you're refusing to see the acts from different perspectives. The beheaded people are innocent in our eyes because we value freedom and individuality. They regard those people as guilty and worthy of death because they don't value freedom and the fact that those people were christian alone warranted beheading.
Yeah, I get that. That's what I said. I am giving a realworld scenario of moral relativity in action.
quote:
We know that some absolutes exist, because to deny an absolute is to also affirm it simultaneously. But does it apply to morals?
I'm sorry, how does the first sentence make sense?
Absolutes of anything are hard to put our fingers on. Universal constants are absolutes and they can stand on their own merit.
I am stating that we know some things are absolute, but you seem to understand that so there is no point in belaboring that point.
Just because the bible says pi = 3 doesn't mean consensus is wrong, just like just because some sociopath says murder is right doesn't mean the consensus is wrong.
True, or inversely, just because the consensus says something is wrong, doesn't necessarily make it so.

"Men never do evil so completely and cheerfully as when they do it from mistaken conviction." — Blaise Pascal

This message is a reply to:
 Message 289 by Taz, posted 07-02-2010 2:09 PM Taz has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 293 by Taz, posted 07-02-2010 3:19 PM Hyroglyphx has not replied

  
Taz
Member (Idle past 3291 days)
Posts: 5069
From: Zerus
Joined: 07-18-2006


Message 293 of 424 (567794)
07-02-2010 3:19 PM
Reply to: Message 292 by Hyroglyphx
07-02-2010 2:52 PM


Re: What is the conclusion (Part B)?
Ok, one more reply before I get banned for bringing this thread totally off the road and into the twilight zone.
True, but then it stands to reason that there is a reason for it. For nothing in the known universe happens without a cause to create the effect.
Perhaps, but let's hold off on trying to answer this question for a while... like a few hundred million years.
But if all things are relative, something as innocuous to you and me, like a women showing her skin in public, is a mortal sin deserving of serious punishment.
You're still not understanding what I'm saying.
Not everything has to be assigned a moral value. A woman showing skin is morally neutral. Heck, a naked woman walking down the street is morally neutral.
What we (society) defines as wrong based on cultural value is a different matter. The act of showing skin is morally neutral. But what it affects based on cultural value is open for interpretation. I would even go as far as argue that whether we define showing of skin as right or wrong has nothing to do with morals at all and just cultural value.
Again, not everything has to be assigned a moral value. Showing skin is neither right nor wrong. It falls under the culture label.
Blowing people up for good reasons as opposed to bad reasons is not comparing apples to oranges. That's describing, to the letter, what moral relativity is.
See? You're describing terrorism based on your cultural value, which of course would ultimately lead to the conclusion of it being morally repugnant.
It's like describing abortion doctors as baby killers. Or better yet. The other day, I was talking to a tea party member, and she kept insisting on describing us tax paying citizens as "slaves" and Obama as a "gangster".
If you decide to describe these acts in such a term, of course it becomes morally repugnant.
But people in the Middle East don't describe it as blowing innocent people up. They describe it as fighting imperialism to defend their culture and way of life, which they are right by the way.
If you sit down and talk about killing innocent people without ever mentioning the situation in the Middle East, they will agree with you that it's wrong. That's how they see what's happening to Iraqi innocent bystanders by the American Army. But if you were to simply talk about guerrilla warfare in your own country against an imperialistic super power that just invaded your country, of course both of you will agree that it's right to do so.
Simply by calling them terrorists, you're not being fair to describing who these people are. You're not willing to see these things from their perspective. And if you were to talk from the same angle of perspective, you will agree, which again proves an absolute somewhere in there.
Which is why when I said terrorism is morally neutral, I mean just that.
True, or inversely, just because the consensus says something is wrong, doesn't necessarily make it so.
Which goes back to confidence and how much we have of it in a certain group. I remember spending entire threads talking to you about this.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 292 by Hyroglyphx, posted 07-02-2010 2:52 PM Hyroglyphx has not replied

  
AZPaul3
Member
Posts: 8513
From: Phoenix
Joined: 11-06-2006
Member Rating: 5.3


Message 294 of 424 (567798)
07-02-2010 3:31 PM
Reply to: Message 276 by Huntard
07-02-2010 10:45 AM


Re: What is the conclusion (Part B)?
Hyroglyphx writes:
If siblings want to marry, but are disallowed because it is illegal, you have to ask the question why it is illegal if they are above the age of consent. Aren't they prohibited on the basis of someone else's version of morality and not their own?
Huntard responds:
They are. And I am against that.
Genetic inbreeding can produce horrendous deformities.
Though throughout history incest was practiced regularly, its results did not go unnoticed, hence the cultural taboo.
There is a very specific scientific rational for banning incest.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 276 by Huntard, posted 07-02-2010 10:45 AM Huntard has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 296 by Hyroglyphx, posted 07-02-2010 3:43 PM AZPaul3 has replied
 Message 318 by Huntard, posted 07-03-2010 5:18 AM AZPaul3 has seen this message but not replied

  
crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1467 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


Message 295 of 424 (567800)
07-02-2010 3:42 PM
Reply to: Message 263 by cavediver
07-02-2010 3:38 AM


Re: What is the conclusion (Part B)?
True, but NJ's whole argument was about applying moral relativism *TO* gay sex.
Ok, but again - if it was moral relativism he wanted to talk about, which is what he said he wanted to talk about then and says its what he wanted to talk about now, again, there's no reason to try to make that point specific to gay sex.
There are dozens of other applications of moral relativism, after all, and if it's moral relativism he wanted to talk about, there's no reason to apply it specifically to gay sex.
Nem/Hyro connected it to gay sex because he wanted to talk about gay sex, not moral relativism. If he wanted to talk about moral relativism he could have used literally any example besides gay sex, which he had already been told was offensive and distracting.
This argument is certainly going to upset/insult/offend some people, whether they are gay or not. But that cannot take away from the validity of the argument.
But it's an offensive argument, and the offense distracts from the point, which could be made on the basis of more innocuous examples. Just out of rational self-interest someone who wants to talk about moral relativism should pick an example that isn't so offensive, so people don't have an excuse to ignore the point. So people don't have an excuse to derail the thread with complaints about the offensiveness of the comparison.
I mean, that seems utterly obvious to me. If you want to make a point about algebra in word problems, don't pepper your word problem with racial slurs, because that's what people are going to respond to, not the algebra.
BUT THIS IS A FUCKING EVOLUTION VS CREATIONISM DISCUSSION BOARD
Agreed. And therefore, like Percy, I'm somewhat puzzled why you believe that being a museum of all flavors of bigotry is essential to the mission of being an evolution vs. creationism board. We don't need fundamentalist Christians to show up and tell us how disgusting they think the gheys are. We don't need thread after aggravating thread of loving gay relationships being equated with rape.
How does that advance the debate of evolution and creationism? We don't need to allow Christians to open thread after thread against homosexuals and their allies; we just need them to deliver the arguments for creationism, and respond to rebuttals by addressing evidence. Now, Percy lets people talk about other stuff too, but none of that is essential to the mission of EvC.
And for the record, some of my best friends have seen Brokeback Mountain, and they say it's actually quite good.
I'm always surprised when people don't evince enough self-awareness not to make the "but some of my best friends are.." argument.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 263 by cavediver, posted 07-02-2010 3:38 AM cavediver has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 300 by cavediver, posted 07-02-2010 4:01 PM crashfrog has replied

  
Hyroglyphx
Inactive Member


Message 296 of 424 (567801)
07-02-2010 3:43 PM
Reply to: Message 294 by AZPaul3
07-02-2010 3:31 PM


Re: What is the conclusion (Part B)?
There is a very specific scientific rational for banning incest.
What about homosexual incest that removes the ability to procreate deformed progeny? It's still not legal. Why is that?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 294 by AZPaul3, posted 07-02-2010 3:31 PM AZPaul3 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 298 by AZPaul3, posted 07-02-2010 3:56 PM Hyroglyphx has not replied
 Message 299 by Taz, posted 07-02-2010 3:58 PM Hyroglyphx has not replied
 Message 301 by Rahvin, posted 07-02-2010 4:31 PM Hyroglyphx has replied
 Message 303 by onifre, posted 07-02-2010 4:41 PM Hyroglyphx has not replied

  
crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1467 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


Message 297 of 424 (567804)
07-02-2010 3:51 PM
Reply to: Message 266 by AZPaul3
07-02-2010 5:08 AM


We have just been through the archives and all the messages courtesy of Crashfrog and the majority of us find that Mod, Purpledawn, Percy and any and all other members of the Moderation team did not err in this case.
I don't think that even comes close to being accurate, especially since a substantial number of people who were on my side back then are now permanently banned and can't pipe up to say so.
There was no error.
There was, actually, and Mod's all but admitted it. I don't expect an apology, in fact I think I've gotten all the admission it's possible to get out of him, and at any rate it doesn't exactly matter given the changes to moderator philosophy around here.
But your participation in this thread, AZPaul, has been the complete and vulgar invention of events that occurred only in your imagination. You've even admitted it.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 266 by AZPaul3, posted 07-02-2010 5:08 AM AZPaul3 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 336 by AZPaul3, posted 07-04-2010 8:13 AM crashfrog has replied

  
AZPaul3
Member
Posts: 8513
From: Phoenix
Joined: 11-06-2006
Member Rating: 5.3


Message 298 of 424 (567807)
07-02-2010 3:56 PM
Reply to: Message 296 by Hyroglyphx
07-02-2010 3:43 PM


Re: What is the conclusion (Part B)?
What about homosexual incest that removes the ability to procreate deformed progeny? It's still not legal. Why is that?
Since there is not rational scientific basis for such a ban I would suppose it is a religious thing against all forms of homosexuality not so much the incest part. I really don't know. You may have to go ask the fundamentalists and their political friends.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 296 by Hyroglyphx, posted 07-02-2010 3:43 PM Hyroglyphx has not replied

  
Taz
Member (Idle past 3291 days)
Posts: 5069
From: Zerus
Joined: 07-18-2006


Message 299 of 424 (567810)
07-02-2010 3:58 PM
Reply to: Message 296 by Hyroglyphx
07-02-2010 3:43 PM


Re: What is the conclusion (Part B)?
Hyro writes:
What about homosexual incest that removes the ability to procreate deformed progeny? It's still not legal. Why is that?
Because people tend to follow the rule of thumb rather than know the real reason behind the taboo.
Case in point. In Southeast Asia, people generally think warm is good and cold is bad. We know that too high of a fever will cause mechanical problems in the human body. So, we try to cool down the body of kids whose fever is running out of control. But in Southeast Asia, it is a common practice for people to cover those kids up even more, which by our standard is pretty darn stupid.
The point is the reason these people over there do it is because they follow the rule of thumb of hot is good and cold is bad. They refuse to think beyond that.
Incest has taken the same path. People in the past noticed horrendous birth defects in cases of incest, so they made up this rule of thumb of incest is bad. And what do you do when you're uneducated? You follow rules of thumb without thinking about it.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 296 by Hyroglyphx, posted 07-02-2010 3:43 PM Hyroglyphx has not replied

  
cavediver
Member (Idle past 3643 days)
Posts: 4129
From: UK
Joined: 06-16-2005


Message 300 of 424 (567811)
07-02-2010 4:01 PM
Reply to: Message 295 by crashfrog
07-02-2010 3:42 PM


Re: What is the conclusion (Part B)?
Nem/Hyro connected it to gay sex because he wanted to talk about gay sex, not moral relativism.
He wanted to talk about both, one in the context of the other. And that is about all there is to say about it.
I'm always surprised when people don't evince enough self-awareness not to make the "but some of my best friends are.." argument.
And I'm always amazed when yanks cannot detect satire, but there you go
Edited by cavediver, : No reason given.
Edited by cavediver, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 295 by crashfrog, posted 07-02-2010 3:42 PM crashfrog has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 304 by crashfrog, posted 07-02-2010 4:42 PM cavediver has replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024