Hard Light Productions Forums
Off-Topic Discussion => General Discussion => Topic started by: Kazan on October 13, 2006, 02:41:01 pm
-
... boobies in public!
http://www.nbc6.net/news/10068660/detail.html
seriously though... do laws against women going topless serve any secular purpose?
they're breasts ffs.... so what
-
\o/
-
seriously though... do laws against women going topless serve any secular purpose?
Yes, preventing auto accidents.
-
seriously though... do laws against women going topless serve any secular purpose?
Yes, preventing auto accidents.
hehe
i'm serious now
-
the sirius jump node?
Umm... its for the children? It's to prevent horny teenagers from wrecking society?
Ummm...
-
It's true! You ever see that video of the F1 driver crashing because a woman flashed him? :D
-
a lawmaker or lobbyist would probably argue that public boobies would lead to more rape/sexual assault. complete bollocks of course.
Liberate teh boobies!
-
Topless=braless. Braless=saggier quicker. And nobody wants saggy boobs.
And besides - there are plenty of women who's bare chests I just do not want to see - in fact, plenty of women who should be draped in the losest, thickest most opaque cloth one can find. Moreover, the boobs I do want to see unclothed are generally not that hard to find at the beach in summer. So, yeah. Go the quo.
-
(http://www.troycorp.com/images/antisag4.jpg)
-
Once you start using the "Its not secular" argument though you can't really protest much about bottomless too.
I'm always reminded of this when people bring this up.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OQW_HENbW10
-
i'm serious now
So am I. How many auto accidents are caused because people were talking on cell phones? And that doesn't really impair any of your senses. How is it going to work out when not only is the driver distracted, but he's checking out some chick on the street and not looking at the road?
For that matter, I find it amusing that you're apparently trying to draw a contrast between the 'secular' point of view (pro-topless) and the 'religious' point of view (pro-modesty). Does that mean you're fine with watching the 50-year-old at a food line in front of you drop his pants and start masturbating furiously? Because I'm fairly sure that that cultural taboo has roots in religion as well. :p
I'm just not very sympathetic to anyone who tries to blame some external force for something that they don't like, when really what they're protesting is basically somethat that has continued for the sake of continuing, and because it has continued for so long. Bras exist today because it's part of modern American culture, not because men are oppressing women or because religion is oppressing the masses. If you choose to see it that way, all you're doing is doing yourself a disservice and alienating those that don't share your hatred and intolerance of religion.
-
Does that mean you're fine with watching the 50-year-old at a food line in front of you drop his pants and start masturbating furiously?
:wtf:
How did you... I mean... Uh... O_o
-
For that matter, I find it amusing that you're apparently trying to draw a contrast between the 'secular' point of view (pro-topless) and the 'religious' point of view (pro-modesty). Does that mean you're fine with watching the 50-year-old at a food line in front of you drop his pants and start masturbating furiously? Because I'm fairly sure that that cultural taboo has roots in religion as well. :p
Hang on a sec.
Didn't we have a long argument last year where you were on the other side of the debate?
-
/me pukes
-
If you choose to see it that way, all you're doing is doing yourself a disservice and alienating those that don't share your hatred and intolerance of religion.
excuse me? if I was intolerant of religion I wouldn't defend their right to believe that bull**** - tolerance of an opinion doesn't require accepting the validity of that opinion, nor does it require considering that opinion non-harmful.
You and a bunch of other people need to learn to differentiate between "disagreeing with a position and debating against it's validity" and "wishing to make it illegal to be something" - I support their right to BE what they are as vehemently as I defend my right to be free from their coercion in government - the two are one and the same.
Don't confuse tolerance with being PC - it's being PC to accept the validity of a position even if it's invalid.
it is true that the taboo about exposed boobies in public is thanks to hyperventaliative "moralists" (Which are an exclusive feature of religion) and your "old man masturbating in public" is a false analogy - exposure of breasts/genitalia is not the same thing as actively engaging in usage.. furthermore there is a difference between what should be considered rude/inappropriate and illegal
allowing nakedness in public is not the same thing as allowing masturbation/sex in public.
way to setup a false dichtonomy
-
allowing nakedness in public is not the same thing as allowing masturbation/sex in public.
way to setup a false dichtonomy
See though, the American taboo of naked boobies turns it into a sexual thing. In France for instance, topless beaches and the like are common, but they are used to it, so they don't think twice. Here though, we're forced into the taboo so bare boobies is turned into a major thing.
-
If you choose to see it that way, all you're doing is doing yourself a disservice and alienating those that don't share your hatred and intolerance of religion.
excuse me? if I was intolerant of religion I wouldn't defend their right to believe that bull**** - tolerance of an opinion doesn't require accepting the validity of that opinion, nor does it require considering that opinion non-harmful.
You and a bunch of other people need to learn to differentiate between "disagreeing with a position and debating against it's validity" and "wishing to make it illegal to be something" - I support their right to BE what they are as vehemently as I defend my right to be free from their coercion in government - the two are one and the same.
Don't confuse tolerance with being PC - it's being PC to accept the validity of a position even if it's invalid.
How can you call yourself 'tolerant' when your behavior towards those that you see as religious is often offensive, provocative, and focuses very strongly on their religious affiliation?
it is true that the taboo about exposed boobies in public is thanks to hyperventaliative "moralists" (Which are an exclusive feature of religion) and your "old man masturbating in public" is a false analogy - exposure of breasts/genitalia is not the same thing as actively engaging in usage.. furthermore there is a difference between what should be considered rude/inappropriate and illegal
allowing nakedness in public is not the same thing as allowing masturbation/sex in public.
way to setup a false dichtonomy
Yet the taboo against public masturbation is also thanks to those aforementioned "hyperventaliative moralists" (I presume you're referring to the Puritans here).
-
How can you call yourself 'tolerant' when your behavior towards those that you see as religious is often offensive, provocative, and focuses very strongly on their religious affiliation?
I don't "see" them as religious, they are religious.
If denouncing their totalitarianism ways is offensive then you're going to be offended quite often - every time someone stands up for democracy you're going to be defended. Sure, some of them are not totalitarian - so they should know my statements of that nature don't apply to them. You find me a christian that isn't predjudiced against atheists, in america, and I will give you a freaking medal. Even the so called "liberal, tolerant" christians are closet bigots against people not of their religion in my expirience - my own mother even!
Denouncing their being deluded may be - but the truth sometimes hurts. I don't give a **** if they're offended by the truth - that's their problem not mine. Simple fact is: they fit the textbook definition of delusional. They are believing in something without the slightest scrap of evidence, and some of what they believe goes AGAINST evidentially established fact. Worse they let this delusion control decisions they make that affect other people.
Their religious offiliation is something they _choose_.
I have every right to denounce it, I can logically justify why it's dangerous, and I can demonstrate and prove the harm it's done to me.
No... whatever I do that you claim is offensive is not a single ten thousandth as offensive as what they have done.
Yet despite all these things I still defend their right to believe what they believe - I'd say that is the pinnacle of tolerance. I consider their beliefs (and rightly so) a threat to my rights, and the survival of the human species - and yet I defend their right to believe it!
After they have been responsible for the supression of my rights, the mutilation of my body, the cause of many wars, the death of millions, the source of mental illnesses, and any other offenses - I still defend their right to be what they are!
no... that is not intolerant - that is the very definition of tolerance - allowing something to exist that you disagree with.
Stop confusing "tolerance" and "agreement"!
If I was intolerant of their position I wouldn't be friends with them, if I was intolerant of their position I wouldn't have the best man in my wedding being one of the more religious people I know. If I was intolerant of them I would not consider hiring them if I was an employeer.
so stop insulting me with your faulty presumptions!
Yet the taboo against public masturbation is also thanks to those aforementioned "hyperventaliative moralists" (I presume you're referring to the Puritans here).
irrelevant - it can be secularily justied (rude because most people simple don't want to see someone beating it in public, potentially banable because exposing children to sexual acts _can_ be harmful to them if exposed in the wrong situation)
-
How can you call yourself 'tolerant' when your behavior towards those that you see as religious is often offensive, provocative, and focuses very strongly on their religious affiliation?
I don't "see" them as religious, they are religious.
If denouncing their totalitarianism ways is offensive then you're going to be offended quite often - every time someone stands up for democracy you're going to be defended. Sure, some of them are not totalitarian - so they should know my statements of that nature don't apply to them. You find me a christian that isn't predjudiced against atheists, in america, and I will give you a freaking medal. Even the so called "liberal, tolerant" christians are closet bigots against people not of their religion in my expirience - my own mother even!
Your opinion that someone is 'religious' is not necessarily fact. 'Religious' is a vague label that can have a wide variety of meanings. Someone may structure their entire life around biblical teachings, be openly bigoted against gays, bisexuals, atheists, etc etc and insist that they be kicked out of the country. Or they may go to church once a month, and occasionally use biblical ideas for guidance.
For that matter, if you don't belive in any sort of divine intervention, the all religion is just the opinion of the people that make it up. Therefore drawing generalizations based on it isn't really different than drawing generalizations based on someone's race or sexual preferences. It's a very fine line of stereotyping that you're trying to justify here.
Denouncing their being deluded may be - but the truth sometimes hurts. I don't give a **** if they're offended by the truth - that's their problem not mine. Simple fact is: they fit the textbook definition of delusional. They are believing in something without the slightest scrap of evidence, and some of what they believe goes AGAINST evidentially established fact. Worse they let this delusion control decisions they make that affect other people.
Their religious offiliation is something they _choose_.
I have every right to denounce it, I can logically justify why it's dangerous, and I can demonstrate and prove the harm it's done to me.
No... whatever I do that you claim is offensive is not a single ten thousandth as offensive as what they have done.
Yet despite all these things I still defend their right to believe what they believe - I'd say that is the pinnacle of tolerance. I consider their beliefs (and rightly so) a threat to my rights, and the survival of the human species - and yet I defend their right to believe it!
Your belief that you are doing something that benefits the survival of the human species is no more testable than the existence of a deity. At least, from what I've observed, no human has the ability to predict the exact consequences of their words. I haven't seen any evidence that indicates you to be an exception to that case. So how is your belief that your actions will promote the survival of the human species any more valid than their belief that there is a higher being, plane of existence, or other system at work that humans cannot understand?
After they have been responsible for the supression of my rights, the mutilation of my body, the cause of many wars, the death of millions, the source of mental illnesses, and any other offenses - I still defend their right to be what they are!
no... that is not intolerant - that is the very definition of tolerance - allowing something to exist that you disagree with.
Stop confusing "tolerance" and "agreement"!
If I was intolerant of their position I wouldn't be friends with them, if I was intolerant of their position I wouldn't have the best man in my wedding being one of the more religious people I know. If I was intolerant of them I would not consider hiring them if I was an employeer.
so stop insulting me with your faulty presumptions!
I am no more insulting you than you have insulted people on this board who have dared to take a stance that you see as religious. I implied that you were being intolerant. You have, in this very post, accused others of being bigoted. How is my accusation any more insulting than your own? And if it is not more insulting than your own accusations, why do you get offended when I do it, but seem to consider it completely acceptable for you to do it to others?
I can't speak on what you do in your personal life. I'm limited to my observations on the way you act here and the opinions you express. But I would like to point out that "Some of my best friends are ____" is a pretty old cliche. For that matter, I doubt very much that your religious friends would very much appreciate being called a "closet bigot". Most self-respecting people would.
Yet the taboo against public masturbation is also thanks to those aforementioned "hyperventaliative moralists" (I presume you're referring to the Puritans here).
irrelevant - it can be secularily justied (rude because most people simple don't want to see someone beating it in public, potentially banable because exposing children to sexual acts _can_ be harmful to them if exposed in the wrong situation)
Then there is a secular justification for laws against women going topless - public opinion. The existence of the law in the first place is a strong indication of that. The only way to really refute this argument is to get the law regarding appropriate dress in public rewritten or repealed by public consent.
-
exposing children to sexual acts _can_ be harmful to them if exposed in the wrong situation)
As opposed to the right situation?
my own mother even!
At any rate, that explains a lot.
-
You find me a christian that isn't predjudiced against atheists, in america, and I will give you a freaking medal. Even the so called "liberal, tolerant" christians are closet bigots against people not of their religion in my expirience - my own mother even!
I know plenty. I don't know what region of the country you hail from, but where I'm from, it's quite common for religion to remain a personal matter. Hell, I know atheists who attend the Congregational Church services in my hometown. You're viewing Christianity as some kind of monolithic interest group, and that's exactly what the religious right wants you to believe, but it's not true. Christianity is the largest religion in the world; does it really strike you as plausible that every one of them in an entire nation is trapped in this Manichean dogma that prevents them from accepting the limitations of personal views? Come on. I know you don't have the whole picture because I know the people who you claim don't exist. They're my neighbors, friends, and family. Just because our culture as a whole is overly saturated with religion doesn't mean you can decide what is going on in the mind of every Christian in the entire United States.
-
I know plenty, too. In fact, I'm struggling to think of anyone - of any faith or non-faith - who is bigoted for any sort religious reasons. Maybe a couple because of the Protestant-Catholic divide in central Scotland, but that's partially social and partially football more than it is down to actual faith.
-
If denouncing their totalitarianism ways is offensive then you're going to be offended quite often - every time someone stands up for democracy you're going to be defended. Sure, some of them are not totalitarian - so they should know my statements of that nature don't apply to them. You find me a christian that isn't predjudiced against atheists, in america, and I will give you a freaking medal. Even the so called "liberal, tolerant" christians are closet bigots against people not of their religion in my expirience - my own mother even!
Denouncing their being deluded may be - but the truth sometimes hurts. I don't give a **** if they're offended by the truth - that's their problem not mine. Simple fact is: they fit the textbook definition of delusional. They are believing in something without the slightest scrap of evidence, and some of what they believe goes AGAINST evidentially established fact. Worse they let this delusion control decisions they make that affect other people.
No offense Kaz, but you're not what I'd call "pinnacle of tollerance", becoause you see, in this text right here you are describing chistians as morons.
Real tolernace is when you don't slander other people, not jsut tolerate their existance. Yes, you claim it's the truth and they deserve it, but again you are making vast generalizations.
And if we want to get philosophical, you say everyone has the right to belive waht he wants, including what he belives is the truth. In that context, if I belive that you a idiot, than I would be speaking the truth (mind you, this is just an example for siscussions sake)
to make hte long story short, from you're posting in these forums I got the feeling that you don't like christians much, or religious people, since oyu somehow consider them apparenly stupid.
This might not be the truth, but that's the impression I'm getting... and I really shouldn't be getting it according to you...
-
I'm Catholic, and I hold no bigotry towards anyone.
-
i live in ****ing alaska, i dont want to see the womens tits :D
we got some of the grosest women ive seen.
-
WMC i'm not going to stand here and have you manipulate the definitions of the english language in an attempt to call me a bigot
-----
So how is your belief that your actions will promote the survival of the human species any more valid than their belief that there is a higher being, plane of existence, or other system at work that humans cannot understand?
because I can SHOW (quite easily) that religion is harmful
let's think
mmm... crusades... inquisition... half the wars in history.... religious terrorism (like abortion clinic bombings)... insertion of their goddamn bull**** into government aka theocracy.. GENITAL MUTILATION ... and a million other things!
You have, in this very post, accused others of being bigoted.
do you have a better word for a person who legislates their believes in violation of the rights of non-believers?
How is my accusation any more insulting than your own? And if it is not more insulting than your own accusations, why do you get offended when I do it, but seem to consider it completely acceptable for you to do it to others?
Your accusation is INCORRECT - that's how it's far more insulting.
Because when I say something it tends to be something I can back up with EVIDENCE ... let's see "Christian bigotry"... hmm
Anti-gay legislation? check
anti-atheist fervor? check
christianist lawmaking? check
seriously... it's OBVIOUS - it's staring your right in the face, just open your eyes!
For that matter, I doubt very much that your religious friends would very much appreciate being called a "closet bigot".
those friends, when I pointed out those positions to them to be constituting bigotry reevaulated their positions.
Then there is a secular justification for laws against women going topless - public opinion.
[yoda]argumentum ad populum does not an argumentum constitute.[/yoda]
-
And if we want to get philosophical, you say everyone has the right to belive waht he wants, including what he belives is the truth. In that context, if I belive that you a idiot, than I would be speaking the truth (mind you, this is just an example for siscussions sake)
Well, no. You would be exercising your right, but the truth is independent of your will.
-
Hell, I know atheists who attend the Congregational Church services in my hometown.
i bet you there AINO - Atheist In Name Only - more likely they're agnostics
You're viewing Christianity as some kind of monolithic interest group, and that's exactly what the religious right wants you to believe, but it's not true.
actually it is one big monolithic interest group from my position - i haven't met a non-bigoted christian in the last decade. I haven't met a christian who is willing to stand up for my rights as a non-christian IN MY ENTIRE LIFE.
You introduce me to a good, decent christian and then I'll believe they exist - my expirience shows me they don't.
Christianity is the largest religion in the world;
um... no it's not
does it really strike you as plausible that every one of them in an entire nation is trapped in this Manichean dogma that prevents them from accepting the limitations of personal views?
i never said i did - STOP MAKING PRESUMPTIONS! They all share fundamental beliefs - and religion from the ground is an evil in my analysis - in my EXPIRIENCE. Some of them are more dangerous than others - but you show me a christian who you think is a good decent person who will stand up for the rights of non-christians - and I will 9/10 show you a closet bigot.
There is a reason that the MORE contact I have with christians the more I despise them!
I know you don't have the whole picture because I know the people who you claim don't exist. They're my neighbors, friends, and family.
i'd wager if I could prove you wrong within a day of asking them questions. Christians I used to think were good decent people who stood up for the rights of non-christians turned out to be closet bigots.
Just because our culture as a whole is overly saturated with religion doesn't mean you can decide what is going on in the mind of every Christian in the entire United States.
You keep operating under the assumption that I have to - and that somehow they have unique thought. Guess what? religion is religion - it all relies on the same fundamental failure to use the brain properly - it is dangerous from the ground up
NEVER have I said that all christians are equally bad - some are far worse than others - I'm willing to bet there are some decent ones out there somewhere, and they would know my comments don't apply to them - but I haven't MET a single decent christian in years - all the ones that I was under the mistaken impression of them being decent human beings who stand up for the rights of non-christians turned out being closet bigots - INCLUDING MY OWN GODDAMN MOTHER
You SHOW ME a decent christian! You show me a christian who will stand up for my rights!
-
to make hte long story short, from you're posting in these forums I got the feeling that you don't like christians much, or religious people, since oyu somehow consider them apparenly stupid.
and you're ABSOLUTELY correct - why should I like a group of people who continuously suppress my rights?
why should I like a gruop of people who are responsible for the mutilation of my ****ing genitals?
why should I like a group of people who continuously start wars over their ****ing BASELESS beliefs?
why should I like a group of people as BLINDLY ARROGANT as the religious?
You assert that your god exist and operate your entire lives off that assertion - including making decisions that affect other people - AND YOU CANNOT PROVIDE ONE SCRAP OF EVIDENCE TO SUPPORT YOUR ASSERTION!
You're absolutely right - I don't like christians, I am EXTREMELY angry with them.
That DOESN'T keep me from being friends with them, that DOESN'T keep me from standing up for their rights, that DOESN'T keep me from wishing them well, that DOESN'T keep me from having fallen in love with a girl - who at the time I met her - was a christian (and has now become and atheist... that didn't take long after she and I started dating :D).
My best man is one of the most religious people I know - **** he even voted for bush!
-
Well, no. You would be exercising your right, but the truth is independent of your will.
that's one of those things that christians have a difficult time with in my expirience - realizing that simply believing something doesn't make it true.
-
You find me a christian that isn't predjudiced against atheists, in america, and I will give you a freaking medal.
*Raises hand*
-
You find me a christian that isn't predjudiced against atheists, in america, and I will give you a freaking medal.
*Raises hand*
You think "in god we trust" should get off the money?
You think "under god" should back out of the pledge?
You think the government shouldn't fund organizations that descriminate based upon religion?
You think we shouldn't be passing laws that only have religious purposes? (abortion bans, gay marriage restrictions, etc)
-
I don't care whether or not "In god we trust" is on money, and I don't care about "under god" being in the pledge.
No, the government should not fund disciminatory organizations (of any kind). I haven't heard of any actually, so I'm a little surprised you mention them. But then, I don't pay attention to the government all that much. :D
As for the things that you put under your etc list, one could argue that those aren't necessarily religion-based, but I know that arguing about that would be pointless, so I won't.
Those laws I don't really care about either way.
Now, if the government passed a law against a religion, then that'd be different.
-
how bout the boy scouts?
and Kaz define "closet bigot"
-
I don't care whether or not "In god we trust" is on money, and I don't care about "under god" being in the pledge.
many christians say that then when an atheist complains about their presence they get all negative about the atheist.. so you see my issue there
No, the government should not fund disciminatory organizations (of any kind). I haven't heard of any actually, so I'm a little surprised you mention them. But then, I don't pay attention to the government all that much. :D
Boy Scouts of America pops into my head right away (they descriminate against atheists as well as gays)
Now, if the government passed a law against a religion, then that'd be different.
yeah.. it'd be entirely as inappropriate as laws based soley on religion and i'd fight against it
-
and Kaz define "closet bigot"
someone who acts all accepting and outgoing, but when it comes right down to it is hostile to the rights of people not of their group
-
give me an example.
-
Kazan, I'm as atheistic as they come; I don't confuse atheists and agnostics. Has it ever occurred to you that part of freeing yourself from religious thought is to stop viewing every action as a statement of principle? I've been to plenty of church services, especially during the Christmas season, and not once have I doubted my atheism. But you know what? I find them beautiful. They're beautiful because of the music. They're beautiful to me precisely because I don't believe a word of what's being said-- because to me there is something overwhelmingly moving about this absurd need that we have for something that, in my view, does not exist. It gives such a profoundly human feeling, because I see that regardless of the answers we come up with, we're all asking the same questions, we all have the same problems, and we're all very, very small.
So I'm tired of being diplomatic. Because, Kazan, when you draw a line in the sand between good and evil, with religion on one side and atheism on the other, when you declare people who want to appreciate beauty to be "atheists in name only", when you decide that someone's ontological views are indicative of mental deficiency, when you refuse to admit that your mode of thought has not provided you with the final answer to every question, you have made atheism a religion. And I want no part of that, because I believe that atheism gives me the freedom to view the world as a single entity, and not in categories that mean nothing beyond what their inventors have decided they mean.
-
give me an example.
half the christians i know :P
a christian who acts like they are all accepting of other religions and nice to people of other religions, but then turns around and supports laws that are purely sectarian
or a christian who acts like they support religious freedom that scoffs at atheists who want "in god we trust"/"unde god" gone
-
Kazan, I'm as atheistic as they come; I don't confuse atheists and agnostics. Has it ever occurred to you that part of freeing yourself from religious thought is to stop viewing every action as a statement of principle? I've been to plenty of church services, especially during the Christmas season, and not once have I doubted my atheism. But you know what? I find them beautiful. They're beautiful because of the music. They're beautiful to me precisely because I don't believe a word of what's being said-- because to me there is something overwhelmingly moving about this absurd need that we have for something that, in my view, does not exist. It gives such a profoundly human feeling, because I see that regardless of the answers we come up with, we're all asking the same questions, we all have the same problems, and we're all very, very small.
and for the very same reason's they're nothing but offensive to me - exercises in mass delusion and arrogance, and the absurd weakness of humans to not be able to grow up to adult thinking and shed their emotionally comforting fantasies in their childhoods.
So I'm tired of being diplomatic. Because, Kazan, when you draw a line in the sand between good and evil, with religion on one side and atheism on the other, when you declare people who want to appreciate beauty to be "atheists in name only", when you decide that someone's ontological views are indicative of mental deficiency, when you refuse to admit that your mode of thought has not provided you with the final answer to every question, you have made atheism a religion. And I want no part of that, because I believe that atheism gives me the freedom to view the world as a single entity, and not in categories that mean nothing beyond what their inventors have decided they mean.
It's difficult for me to imagine atheists who have not grown as angry with the arrogance of religion as I - but some people have patience greater than mine and have been exposed to less fundies.
I have not made a religion out of atheism, my assertions against the religious are not based upon atheism - they're based upon the lack of evidence for their position combined with the evidence of the effects that their position has one the world
-
You've NEVER met a SINGLE Christian who supported stanch separation of church and state?
I mean you've got to expect a few exeptions, but in general, someone you could live with.
-
You've NEVER met a SINGLE Christian who supported stanch separation of church and state?
i've met ones that claim they do then turn around and scoff at atheists who complain about the pledge, money, the boy scouts, etc
-
Wow, why does every thread that Kazan participates in turn into an argument?
And before I leave this thread, I want to note that Kazan is probably the biggest bigot/opinionated/unaccpeting person I know or have ever had to talk to. And you can quote me on that.
-
MMmmmmmmmmm... Boobies.........
-
Wow, why does every thread that Kazan participates in turn into an argument?
because other people come into my threads and troll
And before I leave this thread, I want to note that Kazan is probably the biggest bigot/opinionated/unaccpeting person I know or have ever had to talk to. And you can quote me on that.
like that
-
so, they get defensive when you seem to go balistic over trivial things?
I can see how you could view them that way, but I can also see how they could view such actions as hostile, even if they are right.
they are trivialities, they are ornamental, symbolic, they are something you need to focus on after the more important social changes have been completed, because fighting against the community symbolism of the faith will only harden there resolve and push the 90% of the population that holds those beliefs onto there side.
what you are doing in this situation is tactically similar to rounding up random people in an enemy camp and shooting them, granted it isn't ethically anywhere near that, but you are attacking harmless symbols, the worse they do is make theocracy in the government seem more traditional than it is, you make them think you hate them (which is accurate) so they will in kind hate you, they will not help you on the more important fights such as gay rights, in fact they will equate separation of faith and government, equality of rights, general freedom, as an attack against there religion and the right to follow it, you're making Sean Hanitty's job easier, and you make my life harder by reinforcing the Atheist stereotype.
-
I'm a Christian, and I support separation of church and state.
In it's original meaning, and intention, as always referenced via the Danbury Baptist letter written by Thomas Jefferson. Not, incidentally, as is often assumed, in any sort of law passed by any representative branch of government, any official policy adopted by anything other than judicial fiat, or anything resembling what it has since been twisted to mean.
Separation of church *from* state. Which is both the original meaning, and intent of the phrase - as well as the "establishment" clause.
1998, Library of Congress information bulletin (http://www.loc.gov/loc/lcib/9806/danbury.html) concerning the FBI's reconstruction of the (in)famous Danbury Baptist Association letter.
Complete treatment found here (http://razorskiss.net/wp/index.php?p=17).
-
bollocks bobboau - symbols aren't meaningless, and they view any attempt to stop their oppression as an attack on their faith no matter how you go about it - they are the abuser and they show the same psychology as a guy who abuses his wife.
PS: 74% of the US population is christian, 16% is atheist/agnostic
---------------
RazorsKiss explain what you mean? Do you mean *completey* seperation of church from state - ie church doesn't interfere with state and vice versa?
-
Very large treatment on the subject found in the link at the bottom.
-
Very large treatment on the subject found in the link at the bottom.
summary please - i'm not going to read a PhD treatise... though I notice you quote Rehnquest which makes my hopes for you drop
-
they view it as an attack on there comunity
-
they view it as an attack on there comunity
no **** sherlock holmes - they are going to do that no matter how you go about it
they're used to getting their way - they're going to resent people who tell them that their way is wrong and that they're violating the rights of other people no matter how it's told to them
it's no different than the abusive husband when his wife stands up to him - the abuser tries to play the victim.
I lost my patience for holding the hands of people who supress my rights a long time ago.
-
Your loss.
Reading's good for you.
Forum dissertations make me ill - so I'm not posting one.
That's what web publishing is for.
Plus, I'm not very concerned about your "hopes", given the subject of the thread. It was a disinformation countering post/link, no more.
The modern conception of the establishment clause bears no resemblance to anything written, or intended by it's founders. The way it's bandied about as a complete 180 degree turnabout these days makes me sick.
As for "suppressing rights" - the same thing can be said for rapists, serial killers, petty thieves, and pimps. Anything which "supresses" the rights of one set, or subset, merely affirms the rights of another set, or subset. The constant harping of atheists that their "right" to do whatever they please supercedes my "right" to not have my family exposed to filth and obscenity really doesn't impress me - because, in essence, they're telling me that their rights supercede mine - the exact same thing they complain about "us" doing.
Rights {EDIT: Pertaining to civil/legal rights. Rights are only unalienable, if, like the Declaration says, they are endowed by their Creator with them. As a caveat, I personally disagree with the definition of "the pursuit of happiness" as an unalienable right. Happiness consists, to paraphrase the Westminster Confession, in the glory of God.} are those guaranteed within the Bill of Rights, and it's amendments. Even those may be amended - but please, if you feel that strongly, get it amended. Don't just change the meaning of words to attempt and end-run around the amendment process.
-
The constant harping of atheists that their "right" to do whatever they please supercedes my "right" to not have my family exposed to filth and obscenity really doesn't impress me - because, in essence, they're telling me that their rights supercede mine - the exact same thing they complain about "us" doing.
now wait a damn minute here - that's absolutely 100% bull****
that's totally unsubstantiable.
No atheist is saying you cannot keep your children from being exposed to "Filth and obscenity" (i assume you mean pornography, cuss words and other things you've been indoctrinated to believe are "bad"). NONE - zero zilch nada. They're saying YOU cannot tell them that THEY cannot look at those themselves.
They're telling you that YOU don't get to use government as a tool to further your religion
-
Rights {EDIT: Pertaining to civil/legal rights. Rights are only unalienable, if, like the Declaration says, they are endowed by their Creator with them. As a caveat, I personally disagree with the definition of "the pursuit of happiness" as an unalienable right. Happiness consists, to paraphrase the Westminster Confession, in the glory of God.} are those guaranteed within the Bill of Rights, and it's amendments. Even those may be amended - but please, if you feel that strongly, get it amended. Don't just change the meaning of words to attempt and end-run around the amendment process.
The Declaration of Independance is not a LEGAL document of the United States government - it is a historical document predating the existance of the government
that makes it totally irrelevant to the secularism of the united states government and it's "creator" reference isn't legally part of our government.
You want a LEGAL document that was part of the United States Government under the Constitution?
"As the Government of the United States of America is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion" -- Article 11, US Treaty With Tripoli 1796
Rights are not limited to only those listed in the bill of rights - try reading the IX and X sometime.
Nobody is changing the meaning of the words - the establishment and free exercise clauses quite clearly mean that government shall not promote or discourage ANY religion. Try looking up the Lemon v. Kurtzman (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lemon_test).
The Court's decision in this case established the "Lemon test", which details the requirements for United States legislation concerning religion. It consists of three prongs:
1. The government's action must have a legitimate secular purpose;
2. The government's action must not have the primary effect of either advancing or inhibiting religion; and
3. The government's action must not result in an "excessive entanglement" with Religion.
If any of these three prongs is violated, the government's action is deemed unconstitutional under the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment to the United States Constitution.
-
now wait a **** minute here - that's absolutely 100% bull****
How... earthy.
that's totally unsubstantiable.
No atheist is saying you cannot keep your children from being exposed to "Filth and obscenity" (i assume you mean pornography, cuss words and other things you've been indoctrinated to believe are "bad").
Public nudity, even partial, is something we are taught is not good for children. "I have a made a covenant with my eyes..."
Public profanity? Strip Clubs with lewd advertisements on huge billboards?
Yes, it happens. and daily. However, I'm not subscribing to any sort of policy that says the rest of society have to live by my rules. I'd just rather they didn't do it publicly. First, most of the behavior that accompanies "popular culture" is hardly doing sterling things to the family cohesion in America, for example. Second, kids know waaaay too much, at way too early an age. My wife, a public school teacher, has to deal with 6 year olds telling other six years olds that they want to have oral sex - in not so innocuous language. She has to deal with classes where only 15% of the children have two parents.
That's the sort of thing that "do whatever you want" moral codes lead you to.
So, go ahead, do what you want. However, there's always consequences, here, or once you die. If you don't believe me, that's your opinion. Unfortunately, it's wrong. Splutter all you want, but I'm just not interested past telling you that, I'm afraid. You're not only belligerent, but you're both profane and crass - not to mention hopelessly cliche'd in your argumentation and your typical insistence that the burden of proof lies on everyone else but yourself.
I wish you well, but I've no wish to waste time arguing with someone with obviously no interest in either learning, or debating in any sort of earnest manner; who, furthermore has repeatedly stated that he has only contempt for religion, or any of its adherents.
Kazan, belief in nothing but yourself leads only to egotism. That is the only logical conclusion of humanism/atheism. I wish you well, but I refuse to waste time arguing with an egotist.
-
atheism is about accepting only what you can plainly know, or more precisely, not accepting what you have no logical reason to, not self worship.
it's a philosophy that cares only about literal truth at the cost of self-importance. that does not make it immune to being twisted to this end, however.
well actually atheism is nothing more a lack in a beleife a divine, it actualy doesn't even discount things like an afterlife.
however I think you were talking more about the general class of people in the US who proudly call themselves such.
-
Public nudity, even partial, is something we are taught is not good for children. "I have a made a covenant with my eyes..."
hahahaahahaha how absurd- you quote bible passages to me as if that were VALID LEGAL GROUNDS - guess what - it's UNCONSTITUTIONAL to legislate the bible!
You are FORCING your RELIGOUS POSITION ONTO OTHERS?! What part of that is diffuclt to understand?
You are forcing other people to adhere to your religion. What you are taught is not neccessarily the truth - if SCIENCE can show that it's harmful - then you have something
Guess what? it doesn't, you have nothing
You can always cover your children's eyes!
Public profanity?
ABSOLUTELY ARBIRARY! yet again trying to force YOUR position onto others - "swear words" are completely and totally ARBITRARY and MEANINGLESS! I guess you're not familiar with this part of the first ammendment called "Free speech"
"**** man!!" is a lot less offensive than "you mother ate dog feces while fornicating with an equine!"
Strip Clubs with lewd advertisements on huge billboards?
oh waaah... breats in a bikini! oh gnoes!!
Yes, it happens. and daily. However, I'm not subscribing to any sort of policy that says the rest of society have to live by my rules.
yes you are - you are in favor of forcing them, by law, to follow your religion
I'd just rather they didn't do it publicly.
and I'd rather you not pray in public as I find it an offensive excercise of arrogance that I don't want my children (when I have them) exposed to - you don't see me trying to pass laws against it
First, most of the behavior that accompanies "popular culture" is hardly doing sterling things to the family cohesion in America, for example.
not going to get any argument from me there... but you will get an interesting stastic pointed out
divorce rate of a demographic in the united states is directly proportional to how deeply religious they are - fundamentalist christians have the highest divorce rate, atheists the lowest (Source: The Fundamentals of Extremism, in turn citing academic works)
Second, kids know waaaay too much, at way too early an age. My wife, a public school teacher, has to deal with 6 year olds telling other six years olds that they want to have oral sex - in not so innocuous language. She has to deal with classes where only 15% of the children have two parents.
You're not going to get argument from me there either - however a woman going topless in public has nothing to do this this. The law about having to cover up breasts MAKES them more of a sexual object. If you don't treat them as a sexual object then the problem disapears
That's the sort of thing that "do whatever you want" moral codes lead you to.
most of those children are, statistically speaking, the children of religious people. most secular moralities are not "do whatever you want" - don't attempt to mischaracterize them with a straw man. almost all secular moralities also consider it inappropriate to sexualize a child.
However, there's always consequences, here, or once you die.
when I die i'm dead... no evidence of anything beyond that
Unfortunately, it's wrong.
PROVIDE ONE SCRAP OF EVIDENCE TO SUPPORT YOUR POSITION
come on... do it? come on... evidence? lemme see it?
oh right.. you don't have it, just like every other christian on the planet - you have NO EVIDENCE
Splutter all you want, but I'm just not interested past telling you that, I'm afraid.
you're the one sputtering in arrogance and ignorance and a steaming pile of logical fallacies i'm afraid
You're not only belligerent, but you're both profane and crass - not to mention hopelessly cliche'd in your argumentation and your typical insistence that the burden of proof lies on everyone else but yourself.
haha argumentum ad hominem, Shifting the BOP
You assert that god exists, therefore the burdeon of proof is on you to provide evidence of such
I assert that, in the lack of evidence for god, that it is irrational and dangerous to believe in one - making the BOP on me be supporting the assertion that it's "irrational" (it is, per definition of irrational), and dangerous (already done too - see inquisition, crusades, etc)
and hell yes i'm beligerent - i'm going to be belligerent to anyone who is A THREAT TO MY FREEDOM
I wish you well, but I've no wish to waste time arguing with someone with obviously no interest in either learning, or debating in any sort of earnest manner;
the day you have something to teach me would be an impressive day indeed - i've argued with the likes of you for more than 8 years.. i haven't heard an original argument from the mouth of a religious person since the first 6 months of debating.
You have no wish to "waste time arguing" because you know you don't have an argument that could hold a brick let alone water.
who, furthermore has repeatedly stated that he has only contempt for religion, or any of its adherents.
yes, i have contempt for anyone who is self-deluded, as you should too
Kazan, belief in nothing but yourself leads only to egotism. That is the only logical conclusion of humanism/atheism.
non sequitur
PS there is a difference between "lack of belief" and "Belief in nothing"
I wish you well, but I refuse to waste time arguing with an egotist.
argumentum ad hominem
You cannot even make a logically valid argument for why you refuse to argue - no wonder you refuse to actually argue something!
you're just another christianist bigot!
-
atheism is about accepting only what you can plainly know, or more precisely, not accepting what you have no logical reason to, not self worship.
BINGO!!!!!!!
it's a philosophy that cares only about literal truth at the cost of self-importance. that does not make it immune to being twisted to this end, however.
double bingo!
well actually atheism is nothing more a lack in a beleife a divine, it actualy doesn't even discount things like an afterlife.
strictly speaking.. no it doesn't preclude an aftelife... colloquially speaking... yes it does
-
Razor's entire last post was one big red herring too boot! he totally sidestepped the issue of the Declaration of Independence not being a legal document under the United States Constitution (since he tried to cite it to support his twisted definition of rights) and he totally ignored Lemon vs Kurtzman.
he couldn't even change the subject to a red herring without making a bunch of logical fallacies!
[edit]
He also invited me to visit his site to debate.
no going to happen
We'll debate on neutral terroritory - i'm not going to where he can hide behind the ban hammer when I start calling him on his logical fallacies.
[edit2]
i'm going to bed for the night
-
BOOBIES!
(http://8oob.myreg.org/Lorna_Morgan_Boob_Babe.jpg)
(http://outerspace.ig.com.br/imgs_os/news/2006/sinbabe_3.jpg)
I propose that we immediately turn this thread into "Hot girls # whatever the number is now".
All those in favor?
-
:yes:
-
He also invited me to visit his site to debate.
no going to happen
We'll debate on neutral terroritory - i'm not going to where he can hide behind the ban hammer when I start calling him on his logical fallacies.
Wow, and here I thought private messages were private.
Feel free to link to the debate. It's a publicly accessible blog (http://razorskiss.net/wp/).
I already told you. I'm not interested in a forum pissing contest to determine who yelled in the loudest caps.
If you want to debate me, visit my site. Forums are, and always have been, teh suck for "debates" of any kind.
Use something suited to the format. I'll even give you a user account to post *articles* with, if you're so concerned about being banned. Like I told you in the private message - where are these "I'm gonna get banned!" insecurities coming from?
Also, please leave private messages private, if it isn't too much trouble.
-
finally :) back on topic :nod:
-
strictly speaking.. no it doesn't preclude an aftelife... colloquially speaking... yes it does
I was making an extremely technical point of note there, my next line basically explained exactly what you say here.
-
now here is the point were things get interesting.
let us assume that there is a group of people who practice a religion, let's call it 'Carpelianism', were to see another person's naked wrist is mortally sinful and they will be doomed to an eternity of filling out paperwork in the ethereal department of bureaucracy if they allow themselves to see other people's wrists.
now, would it not be a violation of there religious rights to force them to see your wrist?
we'll get to the practicality of this in a sec, assuming them seeing your wrist required you to go out of your way.
alright, practically speaking, such people would basically need to, cloister themselves away from the rest of te world, they would need to set up communities like the Amish, or the morman polygimist sects have.
but they are perfectly within there rights to do this, right? to make themselves a community were they can safely walk down the street without inadvertently damning themselves eternal forms and fileings. everyone who founds the city agrees to this way of life, and anyone can leave when ever they want.
but unfortunately for these people, the nearest town is full of asshole children who like to go through there town wrists abare. they do this intentionally, soly for the purpose of inflicting pain on these people, who they consider 'weird'.
this isn't right is it? those asshole kids are violating the Carpelian's rights of religion. they specifically separated themselves from everyone else so they wouldn't have to put up with this crap, so what are they supposed to do?
-
do you have a better word for a person who legislates their believes in violation of the rights of non-believers?
I do.
FRIST
Bastard's bull**** reasons for banning internet gambling just cost me my $500/month side income.
-
I wish you well, but I refuse to waste time arguing with an egotist.
argumentum ad hominem
It's only ad hominem if he's not making a valid point. And I think I can get about 75% of the folks here in this thread, if not more, to agree that it's a valid point.
-
and Kaz define "closet bigot"
someone who acts all accepting and outgoing, but when it comes right down to it is hostile to the rights of people not of their group
Congrats Kaz, you just perfectly described yourself :D
-
Kazan, belief in nothing but yourself leads only to egotism. That is the only logical conclusion of humanism/atheism. I wish you well, but I refuse to waste time arguing with an egotist.
I'd content that statement to be rather insulting; can you back it up?
Perhaps I should elaborate from a position of raised Protestant, turned agnostic, turned aetheist. Aetheism is not 'self worship'; aetheism is the belief that there is no need for a supernatural or supreme diety acting as invisible puppeteer. Aetheism is the decision that belief systems like Christianity have no base in rationality (fair enough - faith based systems, after all) and, more relevantly, that they are constructs invented and used by particular groups of people as a method of asserting their particular set of moral convictions (God invented by man, in effect).
Aetheism, then, doesn't entail belief in oneself. That'd be a rather odd concept, in fact; I am my God? Very odd. It entails a lack of belief in anything that would be worshipped and by extension being of the opinion that the workings and nature of the universe can be understood by, well, learning & investigation (theism doesn't bar rational investigation, of course, but it does limit it by setting unproveable preconceptions).
Now, I'll skip nimbly onto the subject of morality per se. Religion (again, aetheistic perspective) sets morals as a method of codifying the society in which that religion was formed. Sometimes these are common sense within evolved / societal group dynamics (like not stealing or killing other members of the group), sometimes reflection of formed bigotry or bias. Said religious morals frequently also reflect now antiquated views of social, gender, etc groups, views which society mostly now knows 'better than' thanks to the ever increasing development of rational investigation and learning.
Anyways, in my book, there is a societal basis for why religions 'hide' nudity. I would guess it is at least partially down to sexual competition and the resultant 'protective' urges of men; sexual competition is all about men competing for (to be picked by) a woman. Once the man 'wins' into a monogamous (well, for the female - humans are naturally mildly polygamous, as any hunter-gatherer society shows - this is also why we have sexual dimorphism) relationship, I would imagine that the prohibitions on nudity (excluding where it's just down to common sense, i.e. bloody cold) emerged as a way of claiming pseudo-ownership of their partner. In terms of 'not exposing the kids', I believe it's simply because children of that age don't have the rationing capacity to make sensible, safe decisions regarding sex and so a 'don't show, don't tell' method is adopted to stop them, well, shagging (and various other sexual activities). However, I believe it's highly debatable whether that approach does any good - I suspect education is key, as children will invariably exposed in some way in anything beyond a repressive, highly censored society, and it only takes one voice in the playground.
However, I would like to note that 'filth and obscenity' is a personal definition, and can be applied to (for example) loud street preachers. Swearing, for example, can be completely innofensive (and is) to many people but extremely offensive to people; legislation on these types of things needs to be minimal, not maximal, as society acts as a regulation upon behaviour anyways. It's worth noting, in this area, that aethism (or more appropriately, freedom of speech and secular respect) does not 'force' anything upon people beyond the right to choose.
-
So how is your belief that your actions will promote the survival of the human species any more valid than their belief that there is a higher being, plane of existence, or other system at work that humans cannot understand?
because I can SHOW (quite easily) that religion is harmful
let's think
mmm... crusades... inquisition... half the wars in history.... religious terrorism (like abortion clinic bombings)... insertion of their goddamn bull**** into government aka theocracy.. GENITAL MUTILATION ... and a million other things!
You're serious here? You're not joking here?
Becoause this proves nothing. It only proves that there allways have been and always will be stupid people. Nothing more or nothing less.
Of course, you firmly belive that this is 100% accurate, undenyable proof. Which is not even in the slightest...
How is my accusation any more insulting than your own? And if it is not more insulting than your own accusations, why do you get offended when I do it, but seem to consider it completely acceptable for you to do it to others?
Your accusation is INCORRECT - that's how it's far more insulting.
Because when I say something it tends to be something I can back up with EVIDENCE ... let's see "Christian bigotry"... hmm
Anti-gay legislation? check
anti-atheist fervor? check
christianist lawmaking? check
seriously... it's OBVIOUS - it's staring your right in the face, just open your eyes!
Well, I can back up with evidence that a lot of atheists are biggots.. let'ss see:
Abortion legislation? check
anti-religious fervor? check
atheistic lawmaking? check
Uuu... OPEN YOUR EYES MAN!!!!
why should I like a gruop of people who are responsible for the mutilation of my ****ing genitals?
why should I like a group of people who continuously start wars over their ****ing BASELESS beliefs?
why should I like a group of people as BLINDLY ARROGANT as the religious?
You assert that your god exist and operate your entire lives off that assertion - including making decisions that affect other people - AND YOU CANNOT PROVIDE ONE SCRAP OF EVIDENCE TO SUPPORT YOUR ASSERTION!
You're absolutely right - I don't like christians, I am EXTREMELY angry with them.
Let's summarize:
1. By your own words you're EXTREEMY ANGRY at christians (and religious people in general). Thus your objectivity in this case very questionalbe.
2. Religion doesn't require the type of evidence you obviously think it does. That however, doesn't make religious people stupid, arrogant biggots.
You yourself would like to make decisions that affect other people, based on your own prejudice and thoughts, so that would make you equally bad.
3. Your hatered for religion stems from your genitals...aparently.
that's one of those things that christians have a difficult time with in my expirience - realizing that simply believing something doesn't make it true.
The same applies for all people. You beliving religion being evil doesn't make it true....
You think "in god we trust" should get off the money?
You think "under god" should back out of the pledge?
Re-printing all the money would be a real waste jsut to satisfy someones whim.
Religious people like the reference of God on money and in the pledge.
Atheists don't want it and would like it removed.
So by removing it, wouldn't you end up favoring one group over another and forcing their views on the other group? Isn't that equally bad as what you accuse "religious people" of doing?
And b.t.w. - separation of church and State has nothing to do with the mention of a God on a peace of paper...
-
Kazan, belief in nothing but yourself leads only to egotism. That is the only logical conclusion of humanism/atheism. I wish you well, but I refuse to waste time arguing with an egotist.
I'd content that statement to be rather insulting; can you back it up?
A really large number of Atheists I met do consider themselves better than belivers..
I have atheist friends who are quite nice chaps, but you can't escape the feeling that they think religious people are somehow further down the evolutionary chain. Like you're some kind of retard and they are enlightened.
Luckily I choose my friends carefully, so these two never insulted me or looked at from on high, nor have they ever called me a "closet biggot".
Of course, there are also belivers that think they are better than other people. So you don't have to be religious to act like a elitis f***, as much as Kaz would like it to be that way.
-
Well, I can back up with evidence that a lot of atheists are biggots.. let'ss see:
Abortion legislation? check
anti-religious fervor? check
atheistic lawmaking? check
Quick reply to this specific point; you're talking bollocks. I shall expand;
Firstly, abortion legislation is not anti-religious. It is not aetheistic, either. In fact, it has nothing to do with religion and everything to do with medicine and personal freedom.
Secondly, what anti-religious fervour? Where? Don't mistake secular laws - the protection of all beliefs - as being anti-religious. The only thing anti-religious about them is that they are designed to ensure one religion, one belief, is not given hegemony over all the people within a country.
Thirdly, secular lawmaking, as I said above, has nothing to do with aetheism. For both 2 and 3 - and probably 1 in fact - you're actually suggesting that your definition an unbigoted state would be a religious theocracy based around your particular opinions.
Kazan, belief in nothing but yourself leads only to egotism. That is the only logical conclusion of humanism/atheism. I wish you well, but I refuse to waste time arguing with an egotist.
I'd content that statement to be rather insulting; can you back it up?
A really large number of Atheists I met do consider themselves better than belivers..
I have atheist friends who are quite nice chaps, but you can't escape the feeling that they think religious people are somehow further down the evolutionary chain. Like you're some kind of retard and they are enlightened.
Luckily I choose my friends carefully, so these two never insulted me or looked at from on high, nor have they ever called me a "closet biggot".
Of course, there are also belivers that think they are better than other people. So you don't have to be religious to act like a elitis f***, as much as Kaz would like it to be that way.
So the logical conclusion of aetheism is not egotism - my point exactly. Egotism is part of human nature, not created by choice of belief.
-
Kazan, belief in nothing but yourself leads only to egotism. That is the only logical conclusion of humanism/atheism. I wish you well, but I refuse to waste time arguing with an egotist.
I'd content that statement to be rather insulting; can you back it up?
So the logical conclusion of aetheism is not egotism - my point exactly. Egotism is part of human nature, not created by choice of belief.
Atheism, since it does not believe that there is any higher order of thinking being than man, is merely another form of humanism, but with a negative (a-theism) instead of positive title.
It is a very, very, small step from humanism to egotism. Kazan made it quite readily - and I could give you an entire column of links the length of this page of atheists I would classify in the same category. It's not uncommon, nor is it rare, to find a belligerent, egotistical, and even obnoxious atheist.
It comes with the territory. Who can tell you you are wrong to do so? Noone. Which is the point of atheism, isn't it? Only humans matter, because only humans exist. So, only human opinions matter as to behavior. Opinions change, thus, morals can change - and are thus relative.
So, in essence, there's nothing anyone can tell an obnoxious atheist, especially once who has convinced himself that a Christian is his enemy, that he is wrong to feel that way. By his lights, and he may even be completely correct in assuming so, seeing as he denies God's existence, and we are, by definition, followers of that God who has said that He will judge the earth and all it's people.
He just doesn't know it yet. Regardless - I may have been sweeping - I freely admit. But, it was for emphasis. Keep in mind, however, that "I'm offended" claims don't hold much water with me. If drawing atttention to the inherent logical conclusion of atheism is offensive, so be it. Kazan called me a Christianist bigot. Did I even bother to mention that's offensive? :D
Kazan - he's not worth bothering to argue with, because all he does is spout the Infidels.org (http://infidels.org) party line.
-
It comes with the territory. Who can tell you you are wrong to do so? Noone. Which is the point of atheism, isn't it? Only humans matter, because only humans exist. So, only human opinions matter as to behavior. Opinions change, thus, morals can change - and are thus relative.
Oh how fortunate we are to have RazorsKiss moral tutelage to point us down the shining path, to show us the way...
Give me a ****ing break.
Relative morals? Why don't you go back in time a bit and ask your buddies the Crusaders what their morals were when they were trying to take over the map, or the Inquisition that drove every wealthy Jew away from the Spain's side of the continent, just so they'd take over the estates in the name of "God".
Your entire belief system is nothing more than a big business conceived to take money from idiots that need to feel in control of their own destiny. I'll take an obnoxious atheist to burn with in hell any day then submit my mind even for a second to what can only be described as lunacy on any level of involvment.
-
Come to Canada...its already legal to bear your breasts. At least in Ontario. Funny thing is...once the law was enacted you saw maybe one or two people and then that was it. But still...its freedom. You see them a little bit more on the beach but typically not.
-
those asshole kids are violating the Carpelian's rights of religion.
no, they're not - the right to religious freedom doesn't extend to not seeing people not of their religion - all rights end where another person's rights begin
-
Religious people like the reference of God on money and in the pledge.
yeah - they like FORCING themselves on others
Atheists don't want it and would like it removed.
imagine that - atheists don't like having their rights violated
So by removing it, wouldn't you end up favoring one group over another and forcing their views on the other group?
No, we're enforcing the constitution - it's favoring NO GROUP - if it were to be replaced with "god is bull****" that would be favoring atheists, and equally unconstitutional.
Isn't that equally bad as what you accuse "religious people" of doing?
no, because you have a faulty understanding of the definition of "favoring"
And b.t.w. - separation of church and State has nothing to do with the mention of a God on a peace of paper...
wrong - Lemon v Kurtzman
-
Hey razorkiss - i'm still waiting for one IOTA of evidence to support your assertion that god exists
until you can provide that, you have no grounds upon which to make any other assertion
-
Atheism, since it does not believe that there is any higher order of thinking being than man, is merely another form of humanism, but with a negative (a-theism) instead of positive title.
It is a very, very, small step from humanism to egotism. Kazan made it quite readily - and I could give you an entire column of links the length of this page of atheists I would classify in the same category. It's not uncommon, nor is it rare, to find a belligerent, egotistical, and even obnoxious atheist.
It is a very, very small step from being human to being egotistic.
It comes with the territory. Who can tell you you are wrong to do so? Noone. Which is the point of atheism, isn't it? Only humans matter, because only humans exist. So, only human opinions matter as to behavior. Opinions change, thus, morals can change - and are thus relative.
So, in essence, there's nothing anyone can tell an obnoxious atheist, especially once who has convinced himself that a Christian is his enemy, that he is wrong to feel that way. By his lights, and he may even be completely correct in assuming so, seeing as he denies God's existence, and we are, by definition, followers of that God who has said that He will judge the earth and all it's people.
He just doesn't know it yet. Regardless - I may have been sweeping - I freely admit. But, it was for emphasis. Keep in mind, however, that "I'm offended" claims don't hold much water with me. If drawing atttention to the inherent logical conclusion of atheism is offensive, so be it. Kazan called me a Christianist bigot. Did I even bother to mention that's offensive? :D
Kazan - he's not worth bothering to argue with, because all he does is spout the Infidels.org (http://infidels.org) party line.
I have frequently argued with KAzan because I find his view rather intolerant and, yes, insulting. However, to make such a blase set of assumptions about the content and nature of aetheistic belief, and then use that to create this rather incorrect judgement that aetheism always entails egotism, is simply wrong and I find insulting. Do you not notice that presumption of 'inherent logical conclusion' is itself a highly egotistic one? That in making this you are making a number of huge assumptions and presenting them as unbridled truth, as if the nature of the presenter means we will accept them?
Now, I'll note a particular mistake you make; that aetheisms' point is 'only humans matter'. That's simply wrong. Aetheism states (or not so much states, as it's not a codificated religion but an opinion) that there is no need for a supernatural theology to explain the world. That is all. It does not say 'do what you want' or 'morals are relative'; these 2 are factors that are defined by group dynamics, and we have seen their codification within religion change just as much as any secular opinions. Hell, just look at (for example) the likes of the Catholic concept of Limbo as a very recent example of the religion changing in respect to group dynamics (or, for another term, social changes).
Remember, that the secular human/historical view of 'Gods law' is that this is created by man to enforce the social and cultural order of the time. You can personally believe these laws/morals are divinely created, but from a human - secular, species - they are no more special or worthy of protection than any other culturally agreed law.
In fact, there's a converse argument that aetheism, by encouraging understanding of the natural world and the notion that human life is a singular event, encourages preservation; life is short, so make it worthwhile for yourself and others (for example). There's no aetheistic counterpart to the hard-core Christian, for example, who believes if the world goes to pot then God will step in and fix it. Now, I'm not going to step in and say people who are aetheist, or Christian, etc are inherently better, though - because every person is human, and when you ascribe faults to a belief you make a mistake; they should be ascribed to being human.
I'll note one final thing; 'obnoxious atheist'. Obnoxious. That is, an obnoxious person who happens to be aetheist. Just like when you get self-aggrandising, bigoted, obnoxious Christians. That's humanity for you - differing.
EDIT; one observation - I note that you're not aetheist. This, combined with the quoted, leads me to form the conclusion that you simply don't understand what aetheism is, or what it entails in terms of psychology and worldview. Am I an egotist? I've never been told so. Am I immoral? Nope. You conclude I must be, because I don't share your belief. Isn't it rather egotistic to presume you know that when you don't understand what I believe - or more accurately what my opinion is?
-
the assertion that my positions are egotistic is somewhat missleading as well - i consider christians self-deluding, i don't consider them incapable of rational thought - i consider them unwilling to do so.
I consider christians who force their position on others to be bad people, i don't consider them incapable of being better.
most of my anger is the result of frustration with the way many christians treat atheists - and any christian who supports equal rights should know that my anger is NOT directed at them.
-
many religions require a person put themselves into a particular type of environment, your assertion that people don't have the right to decide what sort of community they live in, or more specifically that other people have the right to come in and disrupt there lives because they want to does not strike me as supporting people's rights to live there lives the way they want. I mean it's almost like saying I have a right to rape steal and murder because other peoples rights to live safely don't extend to not being raped robed and killed by me.
people have a right to live in peace, to protection from other people's overbearing since of richeousness, you have a right not to worry about your kids getting prostalatised to and harassed when your not around, you have a right not to be constantly bombarded with idiotic Christians who think there better than you because they believe in a magical invisible man in the sky, they do not have the right to make your life a living hell because they think it's for your own good. you are making an argument that it's perfectly alright for gays to be hounded by zealots, that I can burn a cross near a black family just so long as I don't do it on there property (like for instance in the street in front of there house). now as much as I am in the beleife that your property is your castle I don't quite think people have the right to utterly destroy other people because they believe differently.
-
i never said they didn't have the right to cloister themselves - if they buy up a bunch of private land and make their own cloister - they can do that - but if they live in a normal city - IE with public land - then they don't have a right to say people cannot be different then them
also, I didn't say it wasn't RUDE to go out of your way to offend them - IE going out of your way to trick a kosher jew into eating something non-kosher would be extremely rude.
-
but they'll still have to pay taxes and everything, for which they will receive no services in exchange.
and intentionally going out and slipping a jew some ham is a good example, you are causing them increasable amounts of harm, (assuming they find out) imagine how much emotional and phycological trauma would be inflicted on someone if you have convinced them that they are going to burn in hell for all eternity, yes I know it's a silly concept, but you have actually managed to convinced them that this is there fate, they actually believe this. you don't have the right to inflict damage on another person (physical or emotional) just because you feel like it.
-
Hey razorkiss - i'm still waiting for one IOTA of evidence to support your assertion that god exists
until you can provide that, you have no grounds upon which to make any other assertion
well the whole point is you believe. proof doesn't come into it.
I have no interest in religion but even I appreciate that.
-
There's a reason they call it faith, after all, and my position has always been that people are free to believe what they want so long as it's not forced upon anyone else.
Except for scientologists.
:D
-
Religious people like the reference of God on money and in the pledge.
yeah - they like FORCING themselves on others
Forcing them? By a mere mention of the word?
Then if I'm standing next to say nad I say "God", I am forcing my religion onto you?
Atheists don't want it and would like it removed.
imagine that - atheists don't like having their rights violated
Again - WTF???
So by removing it, wouldn't you end up favoring one group over another and forcing their views on the other group?
No, we're enforcing the constitution - it's favoring NO GROUP - if it were to be replaced with "god is bull****" that would be favoring atheists, and equally unconstitutional.
Group A wants X
Group B wants no X
There are only to states.. X or no X, there is no "neutral". Whichever you choose you cna be seen as favoring someone.
Isn't that equally bad as what you accuse "religious people" of doing?
no, because you have a faulty understanding of the definition of "favoring"
[/quoteg
Look who's talking...
And b.t.w. - separation of church and State has nothing to do with the mention of a God on a peace of paper...
wrong - Lemon v Kurtzman
I have no idea what that is (I assume some trial, but sinse teh US justice systems stinks it's not worth much anyway)
Separation of Church and State means that the Church has no political or military power - it doesn't make or enforce laws.
Having the word "God" written on a money bill does not violate anyones rights, especially since it has historical and practical reasons.
I guess you would probalby like to erase it form the Declaration if Independance too?
-
if you write a law that, for example, prohibits gay marage, based on your religion, and it is passed and goes into effect, and the government enforces that law, and it's all based of your religion, then you are forcing your religion onto others, because others don't see anything wrong with it, and the only two arguments that can ever really be put up against allowing gay maraige is "it's just wrong", sort of like because I say so it's totally arbitrary and almost totally based on religion, and essentially "God said so" which is totaly based on religion.
-
also that **** about X or noX, no, noX is nutral because the opposite of x is -x, in the case of god on the money -x would be: "in no god we trust". a statement affirming the beileife in no god, to say nothing is just that, haveing the government not involved. the national moto should be changed back to what it was for the first (more than) 150 years; "E pluribus unum"-"Out of many, one"
-
"Razor's entire last post was one big red herring too boot! he totally sidestepped the issue of the Declaration of Independence not being a legal document under the United States Constitution."
"The Danbury Baptist letter written by Thomas Jefferson."
Maybe it's just me, but is their some hypocrisy here or what?
-
the legal status of the declaration of independence is irrelevant because it in no way helps theocracy, it only helps people who want to establish that America has a tradition of religion, and that the original reasoning behind separation of church and state was developed from a religious point of view (that the relationship between God and a man was something the government had no right to interfere with, this same principal works just as good for atheists as it does for Christians)
-
This made me think of something kinda funny.
Really religous people say money is the root of all evil and it says in god we trust on money :lol:
-
Dammit, get your quote right. It's not "Money is the root of all evil." it's "The love of money is the root of all evil." :p
Render unto Caeser what is Caeser's.
-
if you write a law that, for example, prohibits gay marage, based on your religion, and it is passed and goes into effect, and the government enforces that law, and it's all based of your religion, then you are forcing your religion onto others, because others don't see anything wrong with it, and the only two arguments that can ever really be put up against allowing gay maraige is "it's just wrong", sort of like because I say so it's totally arbitrary and almost totally based on religion, and essentially "God said so" which is totaly based on religion.
Who said that person X being against gay marriage is based on his religion (or lack therof)?
So if a religious person thinks something, it MUST be becouse of his religion?
-
Bob says. And he's right.
There is no other reason to be against gay marriage other than ones that stem from religion. That was the entire point Bob was making. He didn't say that it applies to everything a religious person say but it certainly does apply to being against gay marriage.
Namen one reason to be against gay marriage that doesn't stem from being religious.
-
TrashMan is against it because it's YUCKY!
-
Roanoke+Aldo_14
Irrelevant! All things that exist can be supported with evidence. Logic rejects faith fundamentally and all beliefs based thereon
one must have evidence of anything they believe in to be able to claim it a rational belief. And all beliefs which they wish to base decisions that affect society off of should be rational.
Christian Apologetics is the art of playing hide-the-salami with the burdeon of proof, while making millions of logical fallacies.
--------------------------------------------------
TrashMan
you seriously have difficulty understanding that money is a government document and the constitution mandates religious neutrality
bob was right with his X vs -X vs NULL explaination
X="In God We Trust"
-X="In No God We Trust"
NULL=""
X or -X favors one group or the other, NULL favors neither - your assertion "there are only two positions" is false, it ignores NULL
Fix the rest of your post your quote tags are messed up
Dec. of Ind. is a HISTORICAL DOCUMENT not a LEGAL DOCUMENT)
gawd... ****ing straw man argumens from lack of understanding
and try looking up Lemon vs Kurtzman - i only linked it earlier in the thread, it's only the namesake of the "lemon test"
There is NO secular argument against gay marriage- there are only religion-based and bigotry-based (really.. both the same thing) arguments against it
-----
Bob
"E pluribus unum" is still legally the national motto i believe - in god we trust was just put onto the money to intentionally offend atheists - specifically the atheist communist bloc
Actually the Dec. of Ind. if it were a legal document under the US Const. would help the theocrats because of it's reference to "Creator". OF course they don't understand the law in the first place, which is why they don't understand the Dec of Ind is not a legal document under the US Const.
----------------------
Deepblue
The danbury baptist letter has been covered many times - he was cherry picking thomas jefferson's statements AND misinterpreting them - T.J. was extremely hostile to christianity
-
if you write a law that, for example, prohibits gay marage, based on your religion, and it is passed and goes into effect, and the government enforces that law, and it's all based of your religion, then you are forcing your religion onto others, because others don't see anything wrong with it, and the only two arguments that can ever really be put up against allowing gay maraige is "it's just wrong", sort of like because I say so it's totally arbitrary and almost totally based on religion, and essentially "God said so" which is totaly based on religion.
Who said that person X being against gay marriage is based on his religion (or lack therof)?
So if a religious person thinks something, it MUST be becouse of his religion?
Can you provide a rational reason for being against it?
@Kaz; one of the fundamental tenets of religious belief is the faith aspect; people who are truly religious (should) acknowledge and accept that their belief system is based upon faith in the existence of something unprovable, and that the 'value' of their belief comes from that faith. If you wish to debate over religious belief, surely it's simply polite to recognise that aspect and show basic tolerance and respect for it whilst challenging it? Even if only for the simple tenet of 'know they enemy'?
-
Bob says. And he's right.
There is no other reason to be against gay marriage other than ones that stem from religion. That was the entire point Bob was making. He didn't say that it applies to everything a religious person say but it certainly does apply to being against gay marriage.
Namen one reason to be against gay marriage that doesn't stem from being religious.
Frankly, do I even need to have a rational reason to not want something?
I consider it a sickness, that's rational enough. Religion has nothing to do with it.
Irrelevant! All things that exist can be supported with evidence. Logic rejects faith fundamentally and all beliefs based thereon
one must have evidence of anything they believe in to be able to claim it a rational belief. And all beliefs which they wish to base decisions that affect society off of should be rational.
Christian Apologetics is the art of playing hide-the-salami with the burdeon of proof, while making millions of logical fallacies.
I asked you this before. Please, give me an example of what you would accept as evidence for God's existance.
Secondly, what good would that evidence do?
It certanly wouldn't make better belivers. The apostols had all the evidence you could possibly want and still tehy doubted. That's man's nature - you'll ALLWAYS try to find another explanation for something.
Thirdly, irratioal belief is when you belive in something the evidence speaks against. Beliving in something you can't prove or disprove isn't irrational or illogical, since there is a pretty good possibitly it might be true.
Even science doesn't deal in absolutes - so you're not really 100% of anything - you're 95% or 97% or 70% sure in most things in your life, wether you acknowledge that or not.
-
Bob says. And he's right.
There is no other reason to be against gay marriage other than ones that stem from religion. That was the entire point Bob was making. He didn't say that it applies to everything a religious person say but it certainly does apply to being against gay marriage.
Namen one reason to be against gay marriage that doesn't stem from being religious.
Frankly, do I even need to have a rational reason to not want something?
If you want to make it a law, yes!
I consider it a sickness, that's rational enough. Religion has nothing to do with it.
I consider christianity a sickness (I put it there because I know you are one, calm down, I'm not trying to flame you). Is that a rational reason to put something under law? Of course not!
Irrelevant! All things that exist can be supported with evidence. Logic rejects faith fundamentally and all beliefs based thereon
one must have evidence of anything they believe in to be able to claim it a rational belief. And all beliefs which they wish to base decisions that affect society off of should be rational.
Christian Apologetics is the art of playing hide-the-salami with the burdeon of proof, while making millions of logical fallacies.
I asked you this before. Please, give me an example of what you would accept as evidence for God's existance.
He wouldn't accept any evidence because there aren't any, if there were, god wouldn't be a supernatural entity and would become a natural entity.
Secondly, what good would that evidence do?
It certanly wouldn't make better belivers. The apostols had all the evidence you could possibly want and still tehy doubted. That's man's nature - you'll ALLWAYS try to find another explanation for something.
Erm... No. Read above.
Thirdly, irratioal belief is when you belive in something the evidence speaks against. Beliving in something you can't prove or disprove isn't irrational or illogical, since there is a pretty good possibitly it might be true.
I don't want to discuss this but if something cannot be proven or disproven, that doesn't mean there is a good probability of it being true! It's basic logic!
Even science doesn't deal in absolutes - so you're not really 100% of anything - you're 95% or 97% or 70% sure in most things in your life, wether you acknowledge that or not.
No idea what your point on this one is.
-
Frankly, do I even need to have a rational reason to not want something?
I consider it a sickness, that's rational enough. Religion has nothing to do with it.
No, that's not rational enough. I can consider steak to be a dairy product, but my new application of the term has no bearing on the series of characteristics denoted by the commonly accepted definition. You can't just make an affirmation and deem it rational. By making that affirmation you have effectively claimed that you can logically substantiate it. You're going to find that this is a very basic principle in just about every discourse community in the world, except maybe Dadaists and psychiatric patients.
-
so you are using argument #2, "cause I say so", why do you say so, and can we just skip ahead to the actual reason, not another meaningless statement like "I think it's a sickness" why? "because it's harmful" how is it harmful? "it just is"
you have a general dislike of homosexuality, it's obviously based on you being a Christian and nothing more. anything else you add is stuff you cherrypicked to make yourself feel better about it.
why don't you allow gay people to live there life they way they want to?
-
Aldo:
It's exactly that tenant that makes the entire thing a load of horse**** and completely unacceptable to try to force other people to conform to. it's exactly that principle that makes religion the most arrogant of arrogances
---------
TrashMan
Frankly, do I even need to have a rational reason to not want something?
to make it a law you sure as ****ing hell do
I consider it a sickness, that's rational enough.
and ever decent doctor on the planet would call you out on that - because you're dead ****ing wrong, and downright bigoted
look up the Xq28 mutation sometime
Please, give me an example of what you would accept as evidence for God's existance.
evidence of god's existance, DUH - some piece of evidence that supports the existance of a diety! It's not that difficult of a concept, you know, scientific evidence.
Secondly, what good would that evidence do?
it would render your claims RATIONAL
The apostols had all the evidence you could possibly want and still tehy doubted.
no they didn't - nothing they had constituted scientific evidence - even less since it's only CLAIMS about what they had written town in a book
A book does not constitute evidence
Thirdly, irratioal belief is when you belive in something the evidence speaks against.
wrong - it's anytime you believe something which you have no rational justification for
Even science doesn't deal in absolutes - so you're not really 100% of anything - you're 95% or 97% or 70% sure in most things in your life, wether you acknowledge that or not.
nothing I have said requires science to deal in absolutes
----
Ghostavo, Ford and Bob: BRAVO!
-
Frankly, do I even need to have a rational reason to not want something?
No one is saying you need a rational reason not to be a homosexual yourself. But if you want to pass a law limiting the freedoms of homosexuals then, yes. You do.
Otherwise the leader of any country could pass a law saying that anyone not wearing their underwear on the outside of their trousers on the 3rd of every month would be shot.
And if you ignore religious reasons banning homosexual marriage makes about as much sense.
I consider it a sickness, that's rational enough. Religion has nothing to do with it.
Why? What measurable harm does it do? Apart from causing them problems with christians. What's the pathology of this sickness? Where is the proof in reputable medical journals that it is a sickness?
There is no medical evidence. There is no measurable harm. You simply call it a sickness because you believe that there must be something wrong with people to be homosexual because you believe it's wrong. And you believe it's wrong because the Bible tells you it's wrong. So we're back to the root cause being religion again.
-
Trashman is the kind of person who, 100 years ago, would have been believing claims like "if a pregnant woman were to vote she would miscarry, and a nursing mother's milk would run dry"
(i love history textbooks!)
-
Frankly, do I even need to have a rational reason to not want something?
I consider it a sickness, that's rational enough. Religion has nothing to do with it.
No, that's not rational enough. I can consider steak to be a dairy product, but my new application of the term has no bearing on the series of characteristics denoted by the commonly accepted definition. You can't just make an affirmation and deem it rational. By making that affirmation you have effectively claimed that you can logically substantiate it. You're going to find that this is a very basic principle in just about every discourse community in the world, except maybe Dadaists and psychiatric patients.
Is having a sixth finger harmfull? Hardly. But it is a genetic malformation.
Is that skin condition where you loose your pigment deadly? Nope, the one who has it will live hapily till he dies of old age. But it's still a sickenss..
Another thing, rational does not equal truth.
100 years ago it would be rational to belive in the setup of the universe as explained by the science. But here comes Einstein with his theory of relativity and rocks the boat. and suddenly everything you had "rock solid" proof, everything that was rational suddenly isn't anymore.
Can you tell me that all of you belive in right now is the truth? Can you tell me that another scientist won't appear and rock science again?
and just for hte record, homosexuality was indeed considered a sickness, but it was removed from the list. We can debate as to why, but there's enough circumstancial evidence for me to belive it is a sickness.
It's a perfectly plausable theory, with the probability factor high enough for me to belive in it.
to make it a law you sure as ****ing hell do
But to vote for it I don't.. I can vote for whatever I want to for whatever reason. Simply becouse I "feel like it"
FYI - I couldn't care less about gay marriage, one way or another (as long as it's not church marriage)
and ever decent doctor on the planet would call you out on that - because you're dead ****ing wrong, and downright bigoted
Do you even have another word in your vocabulary? When it comes to giving away insults, you're the most generous man I've ever met :D
And don't forget that they won't tell that it's definately isn't. however if they tel lyou they think it is they'll prolyl losoe their job becosue of the outside pressure...
And I asked for an EXAMPLE of evidence of Gods existacne you would accept. You still didn't give me one.
Regardless, this discussion is pointless.
You are too consumed by your hatered for religion to even talk to without insults, and we both know that neither side will yield, so what's the point?
-
Bob says. And he's right.
There is no other reason to be against gay marriage other than ones that stem from religion. That was the entire point Bob was making. He didn't say that it applies to everything a religious person say but it certainly does apply to being against gay marriage.
Namen one reason to be against gay marriage that doesn't stem from being religious.
Frankly, do I even need to have a rational reason to not want something?
I consider it a sickness, that's rational enough. Religion has nothing to do with it.
That's wholly irrational, actually, because you have no rational basis for it whatsoever.
-
Trashman is the kind of person who, 100 years ago, would have been believing claims like "if a pregnant woman were to vote she would miscarry, and a nursing mother's milk would run dry"
(i love history textbooks!)
And I love ad hominem. Don't you?
Pot calling the kettle black. Crediblity rapidly approaching zero.
-
Is having a sixth finger harmfull? Hardly. But it is a genetic malformation.
Is that skin condition where you loose your pigment deadly? Nope, the one who has it will live hapily till he dies of old age. But it's still a sickenss..
By including harmless conditions together with homosexuality, all you're doing is defeating your own argument (whatever that may be). Unless, of course, you're promoting some kind of genetic purity movement.
Another thing, rational does not equal truth.
100 years ago it would be rational to belive in the setup of the universe as explained by the science. But here comes Einstein with his theory of relativity and rocks the boat. and suddenly everything you had "rock solid" proof, everything that was rational suddenly isn't anymore.
Can you tell me that all of you belive in right now is the truth? Can you tell me that another scientist won't appear and rock science again?
Is being openminded really a problem? Assuming that you're going to be completely right the first time, every time, is sheer arrogance and will only lead to counterproductive close-minded thinking.
and just for hte record, homosexuality was indeed considered a sickness, but it was removed from the list. We can debate as to why, but there's enough circumstancial evidence for me to belive it is a sickness.
It's a perfectly plausable theory, with the probability factor high enough for me to belive in it.
What does 'sickness' mean to you? Anything that deviates from the median? You've listed at least one condition as a 'sickness' that I can see being a gift to someone who does fine work with their hands. (Eg playing the piano, to use an example from Gattaca)
-
Is having a sixth finger harmfull? Hardly. But it is a genetic malformation.
Is that skin condition where you loose your pigment deadly? Nope, the one who has it will live hapily till he dies of old age. But it's still a sickenss..
Another thing, rational does not equal truth.
100 years ago it would be rational to belive in the setup of the universe as explained by the science. But here comes Einstein with his theory of relativity and rocks the boat. and suddenly everything you had "rock solid" proof, everything that was rational suddenly isn't anymore.
Can you tell me that all of you belive in right now is the truth? Can you tell me that another scientist won't appear and rock science again?
and just for hte record, homosexuality was indeed considered a sickness, but it was removed from the list. We can debate as to why, but there's enough circumstancial evidence for me to belive it is a sickness.
Your argument has zero to do with my point, except at the end, where you come right back to square one by concluding that your being convinced-- based on evidence you have yet to cite-- is, in and of itself, an adequate argument.
-
Is having a sixth finger harmfull? Hardly. But it is a genetic malformation.
Is that skin condition where you loose your pigment deadly? Nope, the one who has it will live hapily till he dies of old age. But it's still a sickenss..
you know what your right we need to clean the world of the sickness of black people too, there different therefor it must be bad.
heh... yes anything that isn't you is detracting from perfection because you are jesus himself aren't you you little perfict person you.
rational is better than stupid, which is what the alternative is, you know all those laws you know nothing about that you said were burned with einstien, well it turns out they are not wrong, they are just not right for certan situations, newtons laws are still tought today, because they are still right and accurate so long as you aren't moveing near the speed of light, wich not much on the surface of the planet is.
rational is thought out, with a reason, everything else is just purely random and has no meaning, and you can live your life by it if you want but you are going to have to kill me before you subject me to a law based on it.
I can tell you right now what is known in science is known to a very high degree of certainty, that certainty is not 100%, but to the degree we can measure it is known and will never change. I can also tell you one day some scientist will come along and give a more accurate explanation that improves our understanding further, but at the levels of detail we know now, there will not a significant difference.
if you don't want people to consider you an idiot, then you should at least try to make it seem like you are capable of reasoning.
-
i sence that kaz is due for another name change :D
-
Well as long as you "sence" it.
-
Ahhhhahaha! Ahh, that was a cheap shot but I can't help it-- that was funny.
-
You know what I havent had in a while? Big League Chew.
-
Ahhhhahaha! Ahh, that was a cheap shot but I can't help it-- that was funny.
I know I feel much better.
-
You know what I havent had in a while? Big League Chew.
Kinky.
-
Is having a sixth finger harmfull? Hardly. But it is a genetic malformation.
Is that skin condition where you loose your pigment deadly? Nope, the one who has it will live hapily till he dies of old age. But it's still a sickenss..
By including harmless conditions together with homosexuality, all you're doing is defeating your own argument (whatever that may be). Unless, of course, you're promoting some kind of genetic purity movement.
Nope.
My argument is that it is a condition that is not something you chose or want and that you would like to be born without it.
Homosexuality, just like a second head or sixth finger, is something that humanity should strive to get rid off via medical treatment.
Another thing, rational does not equal truth.
100 years ago it would be rational to belive in the setup of the universe as explained by the science. But here comes Einstein with his theory of relativity and rocks the boat. and suddenly everything you had "rock solid" proof, everything that was rational suddenly isn't anymore.
Can you tell me that all of you belive in right now is the truth? Can you tell me that another scientist won't appear and rock science again?
Is being openminded really a problem? Assuming that you're going to be completely right the first time, every time, is sheer arrogance and will only lead to counterproductive close-minded thinking.
Exactly! That's why I'm not stating my theories as absolutes. I'm very well aware that I might be wrong.
Real close-mindedness is when you don't even want to consider that you might be wrong, and I'm not the one who's been doing it in this thread.
and just for hte record, homosexuality was indeed considered a sickness, but it was removed from the list. We can debate as to why, but there's enough circumstancial evidence for me to belive it is a sickness.
It's a perfectly plausable theory, with the probability factor high enough for me to belive in it.
What does 'sickness' mean to you? Anything that deviates from the median? You've listed at least one condition as a 'sickness' that I can see being a gift to someone who does fine work with their hands. (Eg playing the piano, to use an example from Gattaca)
[/quote]
Would you wnat to be born with a sixth finger?
If there was a medical way to "fix" the gene that caused that, woudl you take it?
By Ford:
Your argument has zero to do with my point, except at the end, where you come right back to square one by concluding that your being convinced-- based on evidence you have yet to cite-- is, in and of itself, an adequate argument.
Convinced of what?
you know what your right we need to clean the world of the sickness of black people too, there different therefor it must be bad.
That sentance is wrong on so manny accounts I don't even need to comment on it...
Signing off.....
-
My argument is
We've already established that your argument is stupid through the deduction of facts set against it.
The discussion ended on the previous page, when you wrote;
Frankly, do I even need to have a rational reason to not want something?
We know the answer to that one. You don't seem to.
-
Is having a sixth finger harmfull? Hardly. But it is a genetic malformation.
Is that skin condition where you loose your pigment deadly? Nope, the one who has it will live hapily till he dies of old age. But it's still a sickenss..
By including harmless conditions together with homosexuality, all you're doing is defeating your own argument (whatever that may be). Unless, of course, you're promoting some kind of genetic purity movement.
Nope.
My argument is that it is a condition that is not something you chose or want and that you would like to be born without it.
Homosexuality, just like a second head or sixth finger, is something that humanity should strive to get rid off via medical treatment.
Why should 'you' not choose or want it? Because you individually happen to be against it without being to provide any form of logical reason, only poor analogies that can be extended to provide justification for other things like sectarianism, racism, etc?
-
Homosexuality, just like a second head or sixth finger, is something that humanity should strive to get rid off via medical treatment.
A first for me on HLP; I stand utterly disgusted by that statement.
-
Homosexuality, just like a second head or sixth finger, is something that humanity should strive to get rid off via medical treatment.
Actually I wouldn't mind having a second head and an eleventh finger (seeing as I have a sixth, seven, eighth, ninth and tenth fingers already :D).
That way I would have twice the thinking power and more manual dexterity.
Also you state that humanity should strive to get rid of homosexuality? Why? because you think it's wrong? Because it is against your religious beliefs? You state it is a sickness?? Why, because medical journals used to say it was?? That doesn't make any sense whatsoever!
That line of thinking is as almost as bad as Hitler gassing homosexuals during WWII
-
you know if it worked properly and wasn't just a waist of flesh, I would like a sixth finger, having a second set of arms would just rock, and a set of working wings would just be awesome.
-
Homosexuality, just like a second head or sixth finger, is something that humanity should strive to get rid off via medical treatment.
A first for me on HLP; I stand utterly disgusted by that statement.
What, did you never see Liberator? He was worse - a shockingly intolerant bible-thumper types who wanted to 'cure' homosexuality, etc (who seemingly was one of the most miserable people in the world with absolutely no self-confidence or sense of self worth - y'know the type, deprecated by an approach to religion that tells them they are worthless because they once ate a bee by accident or something and thus are sinners).
Well, maybe not worse in opinion but a bit worse in expression.
-
Yeah I remember Liberator, he was that ugly mother****er who couldn't get women right?
Didn't know his opinions were equal to this kind of ****.
-
What, did you never see Liberator? He was worse - a shockingly intolerant bible-thumper types who wanted to 'cure' homosexuality, etc
Hmmm, rings a bell, but I don't quite remember ever reading his ramblings.
Still, TM's statement just reeks of - forgive the horrible cliche - Nazi-esque intolerance. Honestly, it's downright stunning how misguided some people are. Here I was thinking that religion was about bringing all peoples together in peace and harmony for the betterance of mankind. How wrong I was.
-
TrashMan:
actually, you are the one refusing you could be wrong - every time someone asks you to JUSTIFY your assertions about homosexuality, you just repeat them - you have NO REASON - just hatred
I do leave room for me to be proven wrong - do not confuse your incapability to prove me wrong with me not listening.
Homosexuality is not a "disease", it is a difference - you are merely preaching hate
and the analogy to blacks isn't very far off base
TrashMan you argument - on both god and homosexuality - is "I assert X, therefore X"
------------
Aldo: but of course... don't you know "X, therefore X"!
------------
Wobble: he doesn't know himself, so how can he answer our demands for justification of his homophobia
PS: they've found that homophobia is linked to repressed homosexual urges
------------
BlackDove
Liberator couldn't get women because no self-respecting woman would touch that misogynist
what was funny about Liberator - his choice of name when he's the biggest theofascist i've ever personally spoken to
------------
Mefustae
Here I was thinking that religion was about bringing all peoples together in peace and harmony for the betterance of mankind.
sorry mef... i had to laugh at the naivete of that statement, please forgive me
-
This arguement,.....................Chuckle :lol:
-
Mefustae
Here I was thinking that religion was about bringing all peoples together in peace and harmony for the betterance of mankind.
sorry mef... i had to laugh at the naivete of that statement, please forgive me
What can I say, i'm an optimist.
Edit: Ooooh! Liberator! Now I remember that wonky bastard. Damn, that kid was messed up something bad.
-
BlackDove
Liberator couldn't get women because no self-respecting woman would touch that misogynist
what was funny about Liberator - his choice of name when he's the biggest theofascist i've ever personally spoken to
Yeah, that sounds about right.
I never gave a **** though so I don't quite remember.
-
Actually I wouldn't mind having a second head and an eleventh finger
i'm personally annoyed that I don't have 14 fingers. That way I could have learned to count in base 16 from an early age rather than always having to deal with hexidecimal as an intellectual problem cause I only really started using it in my late 20s.
-
Actually I wouldn't mind having a second head and an eleventh finger
i'm personally annoyed that I don't have 14 fingers. That way I could have learned to count in base 16 from an early age rather than always having to deal with hexidecimal as an intellectual problem cause I only really started using it in my late 20s.
You should've chopped off 6 toes - problem sorted :)
-
lol
you could have also used four toes as the second digit place :D
-
PS: they've found that homophobia is linked to repressed homosexual urges
Not true. "They" undertook one study in 1996 (Adams, Wright & Lohr) that tested homophobic vs non homophobic men when exposed to sexual stimuli and found greater arousal in homophobic men than non homophobic men when exposed to male-male sexual stimuli (gay porn basically). But it was considerably less than the groups arousal for the hetero and lesbian stimuli, and the non-homophobic men became aroused as well. There are a lot of possible reasons given in the discussion section as well. (hell, read it yourself (http://www.oogachaga.com/downloads/homophobia_and_homosexual_arousal.pdf).
But, there have been a lot of other studies that promote other viewpoints, and don't find any evidence of homosexual tendencies in homophobic men (Meier et al, 2006, Parrott Adams & Zeichner 2001 etc. etc.)
-
You should've chopped off 6 toes - problem sorted :)
Only if my intention was to knock out the classroom when I took my socks off to start counting.
-
yes... i know the complete analysis... but it suggests that homophobic men are more aroused by homosexual stimuli than hetereomales
it's quite possibly just a nervous response, or a response to exposure to "taboo" material, etc - but after that first sentance I said the rest is speculation
-
You should've chopped off 6 toes - problem sorted :)
Only if my intention was to knock out the classroom when I took my socks off to start counting.
You wouldn' have to worry about the smelly bits of much between your toes with no toes for it to go between, though.....
-
Ah, I have been away for a little bit and you guys are talking about boobies again??!!
:P
-
I wish. We've got 5 posts of jubblies and 132 posts of incoherent, religious-themed babbling. :rolleyes:
Edit: Oh yeah, and welcome back and soforth[/HollowNiceties]
-
Ah, I have been away for a little bit and you guys are talking about boobies again??!!
:P
Welcome back WF! :)
And what was about boobies is now about, homophobia and homonegavitism ::)
-
Ah, I have been away for a little bit and you guys are talking about boobies again??!!
:P
not yet, but if you post pictures of yourself we could be doing so really quick ;7 :nod: :lol: :P ;)
-
Ah, I have been away for a little bit and you guys are talking about boobies again??!!
:P
not yet, but if you post pictures of yourself we could be doing so really quick ;7 :nod: :lol: :P ;)
Tut tut. What would your wife say?!
-
I have a couple of pictures taken recently, at the park. No nudity, just some regular happy pictures :) I might put one or two up later :D
-
I have a couple of pictures taken recently, at the park. No nudity, just some regular happy pictures :) I might put one or two up later :D
Now you're getting us all excited!
(eek?)
-
:rolleyes: A typical reply to a females picture taking revelation on a forum.............
:yes2: ;7 :yes: I agree :D
-
Tut tut. What would your wife say?!
absolutely nothing, she doesn't mind if i look so long as i don't touch :D
she's bi and she looks at the girls too anyway! :D
-
No nudity, just some regular happy pictures :)
lol if you posted a picture of yourself topless you'd be owing a lot of silly virgin nerds keyboards :P :D
-
Starting with you of course.
-
no.... i live with my fiancee.... we sleep in the same bed
put 2+2 togeather
i just like teasing Fragaria :D i'm an incorrigible flirt (harmless flirt)
-
*Shoves image of Kazan doing "it" into a small box, locks the box, puts that box into a larger box, chain links that box shut, stuffs that box in a treasure chest, padlocks the treasure chest + welds it shut, throws it into a spaceship, and launches the spaceship into the sun.*
*Immediately chokes down all sorts of jokes he could make.*
-
no.... i live with my fiancee.... we sleep in the same bed
put 2+2 togeather
i just like teasing Fragaria :D i'm an incorrigible flirt (harmless flirt)
I see your wife was looking over your shoulder as you typed that.
Impressive.
What? That was the result of 2+2.
-
2+2=sex
-
If that's what you're into....
-
:doubt: that would be 2x2 (2 pairs of people + 2 sets of genitalia) not 2+2 (2 tits + 2 sets of genitalia = sex)
-
So are you saying you object to the fine art of the menag a'...quatro?
-
I was thinking one pair of people plus another pair of people equals 2+2. Get your crazy symbolic systems outta my face!
-
you're the one that is changing the smybols :D "put 2+2 togeather" is an expression! :D
less nerd arguments. more boobs!
fragaria you're our only hope.. save this thread!
-
Oh, only now are you guys following my lead and posting boobies :p
-
It would be absolutely epic if Kazan was banned for linking to that article.
-
it would be epic if the admins got banned for idiotic rules
-
You probably didn't need to edit it out; I didn't actually think they would care about that.
-
i asked goober... he said he'd consider it a violation of the rules.. absolutely assinine... ZOMG a LINK! omg!!!
i've sent thunder an email challenging that rule.. it's stupid
seriously i can see a rule against inlining the images - that removes choice from people about whether or not they want to look - I can also see enforcing a warning rule (IE warn "NSFW" before linking to content) - but a total linking ban is stupid
it's just assinine
-----------
oh.. Wikipedia breast
-
Ok, here's a picture of me taken at sunset :D
(http://www.sectorgame.com/wildfragaria/SSL20503.JPG)
-
white pants :D taking some risks there :P
i always laugh when I see chicks in white pants.... what if something spills :D
-
It's not white, silly. It's sandy and they are khakis.
-
ah.. it's just the picture then :D
when I was a freshmen in college.. well just before - during freshmen orientation this one chick I was hanging out with during orientation (Jada) had on white pants and they ere such a white white and not a really "pants" material you could see her dark-colored thong through them if you had a sharp eye for detail :D
[edit]brainfarts are wonderful!
-
And here I thought that this thread was un-salvageable...
Well done all! :p
-
Topless to homosexuality, to pictures?
I love this forum. Can't say anything about anything vaguely religion related without 6 pages of yelling at each other :P
-
I love this forum. Can't say anything about anything vaguely religion related without 6 pages of yelling at each other :P
well if the religious weren't just so damned irrational! :lol: 8)
-
Yeah, uh, Kazan, that's not a joke just because you put a smiley in front of it. Allow me to demonstrate:
Genocide in Rwanda! :lol: 8)
-
Lol, I actually cracked up at that one...:lol:
And here come the flames agian...:D
-
ford i was trying to keep it from starting the conversation again..an as a use of irony
-
Ahhh....where to even begin?
Here I think that one can have a civil discussion...guess I was wrong. The frequencywith which you use insults tells really a lot about a man.
Good heaven is someone finds a way to "fix" the homosexual condition (or something similar, maby a commmon cold or the sixth finger). Good heaven if one makes that available to the public and encourages (not forces) it's use.
Yes, he's certanly worst than the biggest natzi's. I mean - how does he DARE!!!!
Interesting to note that I didn't use not one insult during the course of this whole thread, nor do I hate gay people. That clearly shows just how tolerant the lot of you are :doubt:
Another interesting note - my two atheist friends have just commented this thread with these words: "why do you even bother talking to these people?"
--------------
@Wild Fragaria - Nice pic :yes:
-
homosexuality isn't a condition! how many ****ing times do we have to tell you that - it used to be considered one - MORE THAN 30 YEARS AGO!
having a foreskin is currently considered a medical condition in need of rectification as well... that's clearly wrong
homosexuality got delisted Because IT'S NOT A DISEASE! it's just how some people are
it's not your business to tell them they need a "cure" and it's not your business to act like there is any such thing - there isn't!
-
Ahhh....where to even begin?
Here I think that one can have a civil discussion...guess I was wrong. The frequencywith which you use insults tells really a lot about a man.
Good heaven is someone finds a way to "fix" the homosexual condition (or something similar, maby a commmon cold or the sixth finger). Good heaven if one makes that available to the public and encourages (not forces) it's use.
Yes, he's certanly worst than the biggest natzi's. I mean - how does he DARE!!!!
Interesting to note that I didn't use not one insult during the course of this whole thread, nor do I hate gay people. That clearly shows just how tolerant the lot of you are :doubt:
Another interesting note - my two atheist friends have just commented this thread with these words: "why do you even bother talking to these people?"
--------------
@Wild Fragaria - Nice pic :yes:
Agreed, it is pretty pointless.
If homosexuality is a condition, and all people should detest it, and get rid of it, how is that not saying that homosexuality is bad, cos it's homosexuality? How is that not hating a group?
I say religion is bad for (reason (better than "cos it's wrong")). Therefore, it should be shunned, and removed from society? Do I hate religious people now?
[stuff you can skip]
So how is your belief that your actions will promote the survival of the human species any more valid than their belief that there is a higher being, plane of existence, or other system at work that humans cannot understand?
because I can SHOW (quite easily) that religion is harmful
let's think
mmm... crusades... inquisition... half the wars in history.... religious terrorism (like abortion clinic bombings)... insertion of their goddamn bull**** into government aka theocracy.. GENITAL MUTILATION ... and a million other things!
You're serious here? You're not joking here?
Becoause this proves nothing. It only proves that there allways have been and always will be stupid people. Nothing more or nothing less.
Of course, you firmly belive that this is 100% accurate, undenyable proof. Which is not even in the slightest...
How is my accusation any more insulting than your own? And if it is not more insulting than your own accusations, why do you get offended when I do it, but seem to consider it completely acceptable for you to do it to others?
Your accusation is INCORRECT - that's how it's far more insulting.
Because when I say something it tends to be something I can back up with EVIDENCE ... let's see "Christian bigotry"... hmm
Anti-gay legislation? check
anti-atheist fervor? check
christianist lawmaking? check
seriously... it's OBVIOUS - it's staring your right in the face, just open your eyes!
Well, I can back up with evidence that a lot of atheists are biggots.. let'ss see:
Abortion legislation? check
anti-religious fervor? check
atheistic lawmaking? check
Uuu... OPEN YOUR EYES MAN!!!!
why should I like a gruop of people who are responsible for the mutilation of my ****ing genitals?
why should I like a group of people who continuously start wars over their ****ing BASELESS beliefs?
why should I like a group of people as BLINDLY ARROGANT as the religious?
You assert that your god exist and operate your entire lives off that assertion - including making decisions that affect other people - AND YOU CANNOT PROVIDE ONE SCRAP OF EVIDENCE TO SUPPORT YOUR ASSERTION!
You're absolutely right - I don't like christians, I am EXTREMELY angry with them.
Let's summarize:
1. By your own words you're EXTREEMY ANGRY at christians (and religious people in general). Thus your objectivity in this case very questionalbe.
2. Religion doesn't require the type of evidence you obviously think it does. That however, doesn't make religious people stupid, arrogant biggots.
You yourself would like to make decisions that affect other people, based on your own prejudice and thoughts, so that would make you equally bad.
Why look... you just called him a stupid, arrogant bigot... Subtle, subtle :D
3. Your hatered for religion stems from your genitals...aparently.
Looks like an insult to me.
that's one of those things that christians have a difficult time with in my expirience - realizing that simply believing something doesn't make it true.
The same applies for all people. You beliving religion being evil doesn't make it true....
You think "in god we trust" should get off the money?
You think "under god" should back out of the pledge?
Re-printing all the money would be a real waste jsut to satisfy someones whim.
Religious people like the reference of God on money and in the pledge.
Atheists don't want it and would like it removed.
So by removing it, wouldn't you end up favoring one group over another and forcing their views on the other group? Isn't that equally bad as what you accuse "religious people" of doing?
And b.t.w. - separation of church and State has nothing to do with the mention of a God on a peace of paper...
Totally random selection of looking at a random page.
[/stuff you can skip]
I don't need to swear to insult someone. I can call you a pile of ****, or, I can say that something is not a pile of ****, and compare you to what your idea of it is. Pretty easy, and simple.
:lol: easier to disprove than prove something.
-
Ok, here's a picture of me taken at sunset :D
(http://www.sectorgame.com/wildfragaria/SSL20503.JPG)
/*lusts*/
-
Ahhh....where to even begin?
Here I think that one can have a civil discussion...guess I was wrong. The frequencywith which you use insults tells really a lot about a man.
Good heaven is someone finds a way to "fix" the homosexual condition (or something similar, maby a commmon cold or the sixth finger). Good heaven if one makes that available to the public and encourages (not forces) it's use.
Yes, he's certanly worst than the biggest natzi's. I mean - how does he DARE!!!!
Interesting to note that I didn't use not one insult during the course of this whole thread, nor do I hate gay people. That clearly shows just how tolerant the lot of you are :doubt:
Another interesting note - my two atheist friends have just commented this thread with these words: "why do you even bother talking to these people?"
One insult? you said homosexuals were 'ill' without any form of rational reasoning; that's like saying we need to fix Jews, or black people, or all the other historical oppressed and suppressed minorities. The allegory with a common cold (or indeed a 6th finger) is simply ludicrous, something which only serves to reinforce your prejudice when you provide - and are unwilling or unable to provide* - no basis in rationality or logic to back it up.
*which I guess shows some of the rewards of the animal museum, because the old homophobic recourse of stating 'it's against nature' can be comprehensively shown to be bollocks
What if someone makes a cure for hetereosexuality? Do you object to if one makes that available to the public and encourages (not forces) it's use?
As an admittedly Godwin's Law*aside, the Nazis shared your view that homosexuality was a defect that had to be 'cured' ("We must exterminate these people root and branch... the homosexual must be eliminated."); they just had more 'conviction' and decided to go the whole hog with putting people in concentration camps when they were unable to force people into conformity. Perhaps you would like electroshock therapy centres, maybe where the 'patient' has their eyes held open by calipers while watching hardcore porn 24 hours a day? Much cheaper than all this drug malarky, after all - use the money for actual real medical diseases that people can say exist.
*http://worldofstuart.excellentcontent.com/ffi/ffi3.htm
-
I admitt, desease and sickness are a really bad choice of words (especialyl due to many negative conotations associated with these words)..and they don't fit either.(Desease is something you contract for instance..)
Condition is the most suitable word.
Now, homosexuality was removed from the list, not becoause all those doctors were sure it doesn't belong there, but becouse they weren't sure it does. There's still much we don't know and indeed, further study is required into the matter, so it's safer and more jsut to remove it from the list.
However, so far nothing can be proven either way.
The allegory with a common cold (or indeed a 6th finger) is simply ludicrous, something which only serves to reinforce your prejudice when you provide - and are unwilling or unable to provide* - no basis in rationality or logic to back it up.
Long-term I don't belive it's good for humanity, neither from a genetic nor from a moral standpoint.
Before you jump on me like a mad monkey, prove me wrong...
What if someone makes a cure for hetereosexuality? Do you object to if one makes that available to the public and encourages (not forces) it's use?
It stands to reason that there probably is a way to alter genes in that effect yes. If someone wants to take that therapy I'm not gonan stop him. His choice.
But your analogy is incorrect as heterosexuality clearly isn't a genetic fluke or malformation or condition.
As an admittedly Godwin's Law*aside, the Nazis shared your view that homosexuality was a defect that had to be 'cured' ("We must exterminate these people root and branch... the homosexual must be eliminated."); they just had more 'conviction' and decided to go the whole hog with putting people in concentration camps when they were unable to force people into conformity. Perhaps you would like electroshock therapy centres, maybe where the 'patient' has their eyes held open by calipers while watching hardcore porn 24 hours a day? Much cheaper than all this drug malarky, after all - use the money for actual real medical diseases that people can say exist.
Comparing me with a Natzi coause I don't share your view? Cute...
Wardens and tortures in Noth Koran prisions probably look like angels compared to you... Happy with this comparison?
----------
NOTE - you don't even have to bother to reply to this post, as I won't be reading this thread anymore.
I've lost too much time on this allready, especially considered I have several mod project that need finishing...
-
any law or cultural practice that forces people to act against there nature is not good for the species, because it causes potentially harmful traits to remain in the gene pool longer.
if homosexuality is bad for the species, then you should be even more in favor of homosexual rights, because if homo sexuality is bad for humanity, then it will be bred out of us a lot faster if individuals with this supposedly survival/reproductive inhibiting trait are permitted to express it and thus incur the survival/reproductive evolutionary hit on there genome. I have long speculated that the higher occurance of homosexuality in humans may have been due to the many homophobic cultures that forced gays to act straight, including taking a wife(/husband) and having kids, as opposed to taking a same sex partner and having no kids as they otherwise would have. however, it's more likely a far more deep seated phenomenon, as the two most closely related animals have totally different sexual habits than each other, but which we seem to have tendencies for both.
and he is comparing you to Nazis not because you don't share his view, but because you do share the view that homosexuality is a desiese needing a solution, that gays need to be cured, this was a Nazi position, it was the biggest group they went after next to Jews.
-
I admitt, desease and sickness are a really bad choice of words (especialyl due to many negative conotations associated with these words)..and they don't fit either.(Desease is something you contract for instance..)
Condition is the most suitable word.
Now, homosexuality was removed from the list, not becoause all those doctors were sure it doesn't belong there, but becouse they weren't sure it does. There's still much we don't know and indeed, further study is required into the matter, so it's safer and more jsut to remove it from the list.
However, so far nothing can be proven either way.
And in spite of that you jump on the "gays are ev1l!!!" wagon, why?
The allegory with a common cold (or indeed a 6th finger) is simply ludicrous, something which only serves to reinforce your prejudice when you provide - and are unwilling or unable to provide* - no basis in rationality or logic to back it up.
Long-term I don't belive it's good for humanity, neither from a genetic nor from a moral standpoint.
Before you jump on me like a mad monkey, prove me wrong...
This has got to be the mother of all non-sensical arguments. I won't even enter the "moral standpoint" argument, but to argue of all things that being gay is bad for humanity from a genetic standpoint has to to be the most idiotic argument ever made. Seriously! How can you say that prefering a partner from the same gender for sex, which makes it impossible to have a child (without using some weird funky technology which I'm not aware of, even in vitro needs sperm), is bad for the race's genetic makeup?
What if someone makes a cure for hetereosexuality? Do you object to if one makes that available to the public and encourages (not forces) it's use?
It stands to reason that there probably is a way to alter genes in that effect yes. If someone wants to take that therapy I'm not gonan stop him. His choice.
But your analogy is incorrect as heterosexuality clearly isn't a genetic fluke or malformation or condition.
And being gay is genetic? Is it malformation? Or a condition? It's a ****ing choice gender preference. For you to see how much sense this does to me, imagine me writing that all people who don't like blue above all other colours have a genetic error, or have a mental condition. Yes, that's how much sense that argument makes.
Gay being bad from a genetic standpoint, that's something I've never heard...
-
I admitt, desease and sickness are a really bad choice of words (especialyl due to many negative conotations associated with these words)..and they don't fit either.(Desease is something you contract for instance..)
Condition is the most suitable word.
Now, homosexuality was removed from the list, not becoause all those doctors were sure it doesn't belong there, but becouse they weren't sure it does. There's still much we don't know and indeed, further study is required into the matter, so it's safer and more jsut to remove it from the list.
However, so far nothing can be proven either way.
Ah, this is is one of those 'Trashman knows better than every learned authority' things, isn't it? And then when it becomes obvious you have not basis in fact or rationality, it's then 'nothing can be proven' and 'oh, they thought this, because it suits my purpose'. not because, by any chance, homosexuality fits none of the characteristics of a disease.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=PubMed&list_uids=7393019&dopt=Abstract
Core disease is defined as a verifiable, self-conscious sensation of dysfunction and/or distress that is felt to be limitless, menacing and aid-requiring.
Hmm... menacing? Nope. Aid requiring? Nope.
In contrast, conditioned diseases are states labeled as diseases by virtue of consensus on prevalent sociocultural and medical values.
Ahh! your position!
The allegory with a common cold (or indeed a 6th finger) is simply ludicrous, something which only serves to reinforce your prejudice when you provide - and are unwilling or unable to provide* - no basis in rationality or logic to back it up.
Long-term I don't belive it's good for humanity, neither from a genetic nor from a moral standpoint.
Before you jump on me like a mad monkey, prove me wrong...
Firstly, as for 'moral standpoint' - **** off. That's prejudice and bigotry, pure and simple, and you have no basis for it.
Secondly, if it was genetically negative it would not exist; simple natural selection.
What if someone makes a cure for hetereosexuality? Do you object to if one makes that available to the public and encourages (not forces) it's use?
It stands to reason that there probably is a way to alter genes in that effect yes. If someone wants to take that therapy I'm not gonan stop him. His choice.
But your analogy is incorrect as heterosexuality clearly isn't a genetic fluke or malformation or condition.
Neither is homosexuality, in spite of your desire to label it as such.
As an admittedly Godwin's Law*aside, the Nazis shared your view that homosexuality was a defect that had to be 'cured' ("We must exterminate these people root and branch... the homosexual must be eliminated."); they just had more 'conviction' and decided to go the whole hog with putting people in concentration camps when they were unable to force people into conformity. Perhaps you would like electroshock therapy centres, maybe where the 'patient' has their eyes held open by calipers while watching hardcore porn 24 hours a day? Much cheaper than all this drug malarky, after all - use the money for actual real medical diseases that people can say exist.
Comparing me with a Natzi coause I don't share your view? Cute...
Wardens and tortures in Noth Koran prisions probably look like angels compared to you... Happy with this comparison?
Wow, that is remarkably idiotic. I merely provided a historical parallel to your attitude; one which matched it exactly.
Now, perhaps rather than inventing ludicrous - and truly laughable - attempts at insults (I presume, because it's a really **** arguement to make), you should think about why the Nazis held that attitude, and how their stated reasons coincide with your own stated 'against' reasons involving (and I'm shocked to realise this is the case) genetic purity and social morality.
----------
NOTE - you don't even have to bother to reply to this post, as I won't be reading this thread anymore.
I've lost too much time on this allready, especially considered I have several mod project that need finishing...
Ah, so you realise you have no comeback and are just exposing your baseless prejudice.