Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 86 (8994 total)
71 online now:
Newest Member: Juvenissun
Post Volume: Total: 879,342 Year: 11,090/23,288 Month: 342/1,763 Week: 309/390 Day: 30/99 Hour: 0/2

Announcements: Topic abandonment warning (read and/or suffer the consequences)


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Discrimination against homosexuals carried into the 21st century
kuresu
Member (Idle past 1095 days)
Posts: 2544
From: boulder, colorado
Joined: 03-24-2006


Message 50 of 313 (378181)
01-19-2007 7:55 PM
Reply to: Message 34 by Fosdick
01-19-2007 12:26 PM


balls for the job
One of them stuck his hand in the other's pants and said: "If Ronnie has the balls for it."

i don't know why, but this has me laughing my ass off. Well, I know why not. It's not becuase of the biological impossibility. perhaps because of the gusto with which he said. or something. that, or I just ahve a sick sense of humor (which i have at times)


This message is a reply to:
 Message 34 by Fosdick, posted 01-19-2007 12:26 PM Fosdick has not yet responded

kuresu
Member (Idle past 1095 days)
Posts: 2544
From: boulder, colorado
Joined: 03-24-2006


Message 56 of 313 (378205)
01-19-2007 8:52 PM
Reply to: Message 51 by Rob
01-19-2007 8:22 PM


Re: our thoughts must be discriminating.
It is a violation of the natural order which must be assumed to be correct and good

Why?

Could this order of things be wrong? After all, slavery was once thought (and probably still is to some) thought to be part of the natural order. So were the heirarchical systems such as fuedalism and manorialism.

again, why must we assume the natural order to be correct and good?


Want to help give back to the world community? Did you know that your computer can help? Join the newest TeamEvC Climate Modelling to help improve climate predictions for a better tomorrow.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 51 by Rob, posted 01-19-2007 8:22 PM Rob has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 59 by Rob, posted 01-19-2007 10:24 PM kuresu has responded

kuresu
Member (Idle past 1095 days)
Posts: 2544
From: boulder, colorado
Joined: 03-24-2006


Message 76 of 313 (378257)
01-19-2007 11:59 PM
Reply to: Message 59 by Rob
01-19-2007 10:24 PM


Re: our thoughts must be discriminating.
no no no no no. listen to what you said.

of the natural order which must be assumed to be correct and good

you are talking about a single, specific natural order. why can't there be other natural orders? that's what I was getting at by referencing slavery and fuedalism. those concepts were once part of the natural order. but those natural orders no longer exist for the majority of us. Which means you cannot assume that this specific natural order is right and good--because history shows us that the natural order of things changes, and today, we view slavery as bad. 200 years ago, it was, if not good, not bad. changing natural order.

sin also has no real relation to right and wrong. I recognize right and wrong--but sin is a religious concept superimposed on "wrong". I view purposeful lying as wrong. you view it as a sin. the difference? your religious worldview. You do not need the concept of sin to determine right and wrong.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 59 by Rob, posted 01-19-2007 10:24 PM Rob has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 79 by Rob, posted 01-20-2007 12:10 AM kuresu has responded
 Message 84 by anastasia, posted 01-20-2007 12:33 AM kuresu has responded

kuresu
Member (Idle past 1095 days)
Posts: 2544
From: boulder, colorado
Joined: 03-24-2006


Message 80 of 313 (378267)
01-20-2007 12:13 AM
Reply to: Message 79 by Rob
01-20-2007 12:10 AM


Re: our thoughts must be discriminating.
um. . .acutally, w/o gravity, I would just float away. i would still exist, but i don't think anything beyond molecules would exist if there was no gravity (i'm no phycist, so i can't comment accurately on matters of existence w/o gravity, thats just my opinion)

however, mind actually responding to my rebutal? you know, with some real words, instead of a single phrase that's fairly insignificant and says nothing about the issue at hand?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 79 by Rob, posted 01-20-2007 12:10 AM Rob has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 82 by Rob, posted 01-20-2007 12:19 AM kuresu has responded

kuresu
Member (Idle past 1095 days)
Posts: 2544
From: boulder, colorado
Joined: 03-24-2006


Message 87 of 313 (378286)
01-20-2007 2:27 AM
Reply to: Message 82 by Rob
01-20-2007 12:19 AM


Re: our thoughts must be discriminating.
there's a difference between mistake and wrong. Doing such things are wholeheartedly wrong. and yes, in my mind, what the Nazi's did to twelve million people was pure evil.

that doesn't make those actions sins. i thought I laid out the difference clearly enough. the concept of "sin" is a wholly religious idea--basically, you are breaking god's law/word/whatever.
He doesn't like that. hence, its a sin.

Now then, since sin requires a god, and is a religious concept, and since I don't believe in God and don't follow any religion, how can sin apply to me?

There are right actions, and there are wrong actions. "sin" is an added layer, fluff if you will, to this picture. It is neither required or necessary to make value judgements. Removing the concept of "sin" does not remove concepts of "right" and "wrong".

and as a personal question, why do you have to have someone constantly reminding you such and such an action is "sinful"? is your moral fiber so weak that you have to have "sin" and the retribution that comes with it?


Want to help give back to the world community? Did you know that your computer can help? Join the newest TeamEvC Climate Modelling to help improve climate predictions for a better tomorrow.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 82 by Rob, posted 01-20-2007 12:19 AM Rob has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 97 by anastasia, posted 01-20-2007 1:28 PM kuresu has not yet responded
 Message 107 by Rob, posted 01-20-2007 6:52 PM kuresu has responded

kuresu
Member (Idle past 1095 days)
Posts: 2544
From: boulder, colorado
Joined: 03-24-2006


Message 88 of 313 (378288)
01-20-2007 2:36 AM
Reply to: Message 84 by anastasia
01-20-2007 12:33 AM


Re: Inalienable Rights...from now on, that is.
The natural order is equality

it is today. Go back 1,000 years ago. What was equality for medieval europe? they had no such concept. heirarchy was the natural order of things. from Lord->Vassal/Lord->Vassal/Lord . . .->Serf. Go back to the classical world. Slavery was acceptable. If you didn't pay your bills, were a prisoner of war, among other things, you could/did end up as a slave. And this was not seen as out of the natural order of things.

2-300 years ago, it was argued that africans were a lower race. the best way to use them was in slavery, and since they weren't human, it didn't matter. That was the natural order of things.

The natural order of things I refer to is an always changing ideal of the world--of how things should be. I recognize that this thing is changing, ever changing, for good or for worse.

You are referring to a natural order stuck in a specific idea/time, of an unchanging one. You say that this "natural order of sexuality" must be recognized as good and correct. This order, too, will change. It has changed. even 50 years ago, it was "unnatural" for blacks and whites to marry. it disturbed the "natural order of things". Today, it doesn't. why? that order has changed.

your arguments against homosexuality have about as much credence as those against interracial marriages.

Now you say the natural order is

The natural order is equality

then how is it natural to prohibit homosexuals the right to marry and enjoy the benefits of marriage? doing so, would be unnatural, to your order. Something tells me you didn't mean this--because you find homosexuality to be an abomination before the lord. therefore, its only right to discriminate against them. But then, that destroys your order of equality, doesn't it?

Rob, be careful. Be very careful. You claim to want equality, and yet you do not want to give equality.


Want to help give back to the world community? Did you know that your computer can help? Join the newest TeamEvC Climate Modelling to help improve climate predictions for a better tomorrow.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 84 by anastasia, posted 01-20-2007 12:33 AM anastasia has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 96 by anastasia, posted 01-20-2007 1:24 PM kuresu has responded

kuresu
Member (Idle past 1095 days)
Posts: 2544
From: boulder, colorado
Joined: 03-24-2006


Message 114 of 313 (378520)
01-21-2007 12:52 AM
Reply to: Message 96 by anastasia
01-20-2007 1:24 PM


oops
sorry about that. i didn't may attention to the name, assummed it was rob/scotness. if sounded a lot like what he would/was/is saying.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 96 by anastasia, posted 01-20-2007 1:24 PM anastasia has not yet responded

kuresu
Member (Idle past 1095 days)
Posts: 2544
From: boulder, colorado
Joined: 03-24-2006


Message 115 of 313 (378521)
01-21-2007 1:01 AM
Reply to: Message 107 by Rob
01-20-2007 6:52 PM


Re: our thoughts must be discriminating.
you've never read a bit on utilitarianism or Kant's categorical imperitive, have you?

'cause if you had, you wouldn't have made that jackass, dumb, stupid, idiotic, whatever else it is comment.

Get this straight, once and for all:
SIN IS NOT THE BASIS FOR RIGHT AND WRONG. IT IS A RELIGIOUS LAYER ADDED.

You still haven't replied how I know right from wrong w/o sin. Since I don't believe in God or sin, then how can I know right from wrong, according to you? Guess what, I do. I just told you that I think that what Hitler did to those twelve million plus people is wrong and evil. I also make this judgement without the sin concept

Let me repeat some basic concepts here that you are having trouble with.

One: SIN IS NOT THE BASIS FOR RIGHT AND WRONG
Two: I DO NOT CONDONE THE ACTIVITIES OF HITLER< OR FOR THAT MATTER, SOCIAL DARWINISM, EUGENICS, AND A WHOLE HOST OF OTHER ACTIVITIES.
Three: YOU STILL DON'T UNDERSTAND RELETAVISM. READ UP ON IT.

now then, one more comment from you about how I approve of Hitler's "final solution", or anything similar to it, and I will ask for your suspension.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 107 by Rob, posted 01-20-2007 6:52 PM Rob has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 116 by Rob, posted 01-21-2007 1:20 AM kuresu has responded

kuresu
Member (Idle past 1095 days)
Posts: 2544
From: boulder, colorado
Joined: 03-24-2006


Message 117 of 313 (378527)
01-21-2007 1:44 AM
Reply to: Message 116 by Rob
01-21-2007 1:20 AM


oh boy, here we go again
In fact, I impied that you are ignorant of the logical extensions of your own thinking

um . . .right.
My thinking . . .
Sin has nothing to do with right or wrong. your response: then how can you determine right or wrong. you, by accepting this, end up supporting Hitler's "final solution".

me:
no, read again. Sin is not the determination of right or wrong. it is a religious concept, that you are breaking god's law.

you:
you accept the "final solution" by that. because then all is relative and nothing right or wrong, and I can do whatever the fuck I want.

me:
no. no. no. read it again. no no no.

In utilitarianism, the determination for right and wrong rests in the how much good you do for the greatest number of people. in other words, its better to let the man drown than end up having the entire rescue crew (or many of them) drown with him. (Mill also argues that this is the basis of all morality--including judeo-christian. in other words, morality ain't religious)

In Kan'ts categorical imperitave, there are two questions you ask. First, would the world work if everyone did this? I can't recall the second question. the end effect, is that we do things becuase they are the right thing to do, and that is the most basic reason. the right thing to do is based off of the two questions (of which one is given).

now tell me, where does Kant (or Mill, essentially the father of utilitarianism), use sin in determining right and wrong? for that matter, the law of god?

the logical conlcusion of my statement that sin has nothing to do with the determination of right or wrong is this: sin is pointless for right and wrong determination.

It is not, accepting de facto that right and wrong are relative (and by that you mean I can do whatever the fuck I want w/o consequence, which is a misunderstanding of the concept of relativism), and that becuase it is relative (your defintion), Hitler is neither right or wrong. thus, I am forced to accept that I condone his activities because I can't declare them wrong.

I ask you again, how can I, who does not believe in Sin (by nature of being an atheist), determine right and wrong? To give you hint--I obviously can, since I declare Hitler's actions wrong and even evil. My basis isn't sin, so what is it?

you'll be surprised that you actually follow the same thing (unless you can only do what's right by fear of punishment).


Want to help give back to the world community? Did you know that your computer can help? Join the newest TeamEvC Climate Modelling to help improve climate predictions for a better tomorrow.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 116 by Rob, posted 01-21-2007 1:20 AM Rob has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 118 by Rob, posted 01-21-2007 2:07 AM kuresu has responded

kuresu
Member (Idle past 1095 days)
Posts: 2544
From: boulder, colorado
Joined: 03-24-2006


Message 119 of 313 (378537)
01-21-2007 2:12 AM
Reply to: Message 118 by Rob
01-21-2007 2:07 AM


Re: oh boy, here we go again
I only made the case that there is no logical reason to be good

you don't get it, do you?
I have a reason to act good. to do right. simply, it is the right thing to do

It has nothing to with wanting christianity or any other religion to be false. I personally don't see the need in my life for such concepts.

I do what is right because it is the right thing to do. I do good becuase such is. I use Kan'ts imperative, I use utilitarianism, I use my own compass.

why do I need a reason other than "it is the .... thing to do"?
why do you need more than this?

The simplest law in logic is this: A=A. I exist because I do. Doing right is the right thing to do. Good is good. that simple. that plain. that easy.


Want to help give back to the world community? Did you know that your computer can help? Join the newest TeamEvC Climate Modelling to help improve climate predictions for a better tomorrow.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 118 by Rob, posted 01-21-2007 2:07 AM Rob has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 120 by Rob, posted 01-21-2007 2:16 AM kuresu has responded

kuresu
Member (Idle past 1095 days)
Posts: 2544
From: boulder, colorado
Joined: 03-24-2006


Message 121 of 313 (378541)
01-21-2007 2:24 AM
Reply to: Message 120 by Rob
01-21-2007 2:16 AM


Re: oh boy, here we go again
you still missed it.

I determine my own, my own right and wrong. I don't base it off of what everyone else is doing. I don't base it off of what I'm told to do. you know that question "if everyone did it, would the world work?". If everyone killed who they thought to be undesirables, the world would be dead. then, murder itself is just plain wrong.

murder is wrong, period. What would be interesting, is to see just how many germans from the time actually supported the wholesale murder that was the holocaust. I want to wager not many. Even Hitler didn't start the murder (at massscale) until about 1943. Why? He started to lose the war in russia. and if he lost, he'd never be able to eliminate the jews. a slave is more valuable alive than dead--they can still do work.

so why do I need a reason other than, "it's the .... thing to do"?


Want to help give back to the world community? Did you know that your computer can help? Join the newest TeamEvC Climate Modelling to help improve climate predictions for a better tomorrow.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 120 by Rob, posted 01-21-2007 2:16 AM Rob has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 124 by Rob, posted 01-21-2007 10:52 AM kuresu has not yet responded

Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2020