|
Read the rules in the OP before posting, please.In order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a re-read to refresh your memory! The vast majority of you are contributing in a healthy way, keep it up! NOTE: When providing a source, explain why you feel it is relevant and what purpose it adds to the discussion if it's not obvious. Also take note that unsubstantiated tweets/posts meant only to rekindle old arguments can result in a mod action. |
Canada13407 Posts
On May 24 2017 03:50 Mohdoo wrote:Show nested quote +On May 24 2017 03:47 ZeromuS wrote:On May 24 2017 03:44 Mohdoo wrote:On May 24 2017 03:42 xDaunt wrote:On May 24 2017 03:19 Mohdoo wrote:On May 24 2017 02:07 Danglars wrote:
I won't go all prosecutorial here. If you think all religious belief is a ridiculous idea, what you've said here follows and is really the only possible conclusion. I think religious belief lacks intrinsic merit other than societal cohesion, which is the reason it was used to begin with. It is the reason religious belief is particularly prominent in rural communities. It is an artifact of rural life. But that's besides the point. My critique was that people don't allow themselves to filter their beliefs reasonably. There are people who believe homosexual sex in itself is a sin and that it is reasonable to try to prevent it from happening. That is what I am critiquing, the idea that as soon as that penis goes into a consenting dude, instead of a consenting woman, a morally bad thing has taken place. What was humorous to me is how people won't even take a moment to be like "Wait, why would that actually be bad? Why would people have thought this was bad around the time the bible was written? Well, relative to what we knew then, and what we know now, I can understand how they would feel that way. But it has no modern relevance and is can be clearly shown that homosexual sex does not harm society."There are many instances where people are capable of this kind of thought, and many people use this kind of thought with issues unrelated to homosexuality. But the core idea that homosexual sex for the sake of sex is different from heterosexual sex for the sake of sex are morally distinct is an example of poor, incomplete thought. Many Biblical rules (such as the sodomy rules) were created to promote fertility and population growth rates. And beyond that, these rules do help instill a certain civic virtue within society itself. While I don't think that anyone is going to argue that a single incidence of buggering is going to torpedo us, I wouldn't go so far as to say that there's no modern relevance. Right, and I get that. It was important that people be multiplying for lots of reasons. However, a gay dude banging his hubby 100 times a week will never impact anyone, other than the dudes banging. Not society, not any individual. Are you saying there are instances where homosexual sex harms society? To be fair, sex addiction is a very serious thing and it does ruin people's lives and productivity. It does likely have some impact on greater society on a macro level - regardless of sexual orientation. Ok, so if i changed 100 (jesus christ you guys, why isn't it obvious when I am joking!?!?!?) to 3, I think my original post is well defended. Ignoring the horrors of sexual addiction, 2 dudes casually, without too much of a care whether they bang or not, since they are demonstrably not addicted to sex, decide to do some dirty (and by that I mean safe, consensual, intercourse, not sex in a dirty environment where contagions may be present), there are no negative impacts to society.
I was making a stupid joke.
I'm sorry if this wasn't clear to you or anyone else in this thread.
I don't think we really need to discuss what consenting adults choose to do in their bedrooms.
|
On May 24 2017 03:19 Mohdoo wrote:Show nested quote +On May 24 2017 02:07 Danglars wrote:
I won't go all prosecutorial here. If you think all religious belief is a ridiculous idea, what you've said here follows and is really the only possible conclusion. I think religious belief lacks intrinsic merit other than societal cohesion, which is the reason it was used to begin with. It is the reason religious belief is particularly prominent in rural communities. It is an artifact of rural life. But that's besides the point. My critique was that people don't allow themselves to filter their beliefs reasonably. There are people who believe homosexual sex in itself is a sin and that it is reasonable to try to prevent it from happening. That is what I am critiquing, the idea that as soon as that penis goes into a consenting dude, instead of a consenting woman, a morally bad thing has taken place. What was humorous to me is how people won't even take a moment to be like "Wait, why would that actually be bad? Why would people have thought this was bad around the time the bible was written? Well, relative to what we knew then, and what we know now, I can understand how they would feel that way. But it has no modern relevance and is can be clearly shown that homosexual sex does not harm society." There are many instances where people are capable of this kind of thought, and many people use this kind of thought with issues unrelated to homosexuality. But the core idea that homosexual sex for the sake of sex is different from heterosexual sex for the sake of sex are morally distinct is an example of poor, incomplete thought.
I know most of what you allege is easy to argue if you assume religion is a polite fiction to bind societies together. But if you instead actually believe it was established by a supreme being that didn't spend the last thousand years discovering new moral truths, none of that follows. And frankly it isn't reasonable from that premise to change beliefs on majority opinion shifting. Now, a deep and nuanced debate was hashed out in times past on how to get along in a secular society where Christians would still believe an act was sinful, but that anti-sodomy laws arent proper for broad civil society. Then we shifted to how marriage laws are a matter for the courts and not the legislatures.
I can think of no better ground for understanding the topics at play than the opinion and dissents in the Obergefell decision ... I wager any full and fair reading would improve the rank ignorance contained in focusing on how "homosexual sex does not harm society." We shortcutted a huge experiment in whether or not a radical departure from tradition in marriage laws actually is good or bad for society in the long term. And, yes, homosexual sex would still be ongoing in this time. So we're crossing the cords of who determines what is morally right, and how a free society can come to compromises in law for secular society, all in service of a blind view that what Mohdoo thinks is sufficient evidence and insufficient reasoning ought to be adopted.
|
On May 24 2017 04:07 ZeromuS wrote:Show nested quote +On May 24 2017 03:50 Mohdoo wrote:On May 24 2017 03:47 ZeromuS wrote:On May 24 2017 03:44 Mohdoo wrote:On May 24 2017 03:42 xDaunt wrote:On May 24 2017 03:19 Mohdoo wrote:On May 24 2017 02:07 Danglars wrote:
I won't go all prosecutorial here. If you think all religious belief is a ridiculous idea, what you've said here follows and is really the only possible conclusion. I think religious belief lacks intrinsic merit other than societal cohesion, which is the reason it was used to begin with. It is the reason religious belief is particularly prominent in rural communities. It is an artifact of rural life. But that's besides the point. My critique was that people don't allow themselves to filter their beliefs reasonably. There are people who believe homosexual sex in itself is a sin and that it is reasonable to try to prevent it from happening. That is what I am critiquing, the idea that as soon as that penis goes into a consenting dude, instead of a consenting woman, a morally bad thing has taken place. What was humorous to me is how people won't even take a moment to be like "Wait, why would that actually be bad? Why would people have thought this was bad around the time the bible was written? Well, relative to what we knew then, and what we know now, I can understand how they would feel that way. But it has no modern relevance and is can be clearly shown that homosexual sex does not harm society."There are many instances where people are capable of this kind of thought, and many people use this kind of thought with issues unrelated to homosexuality. But the core idea that homosexual sex for the sake of sex is different from heterosexual sex for the sake of sex are morally distinct is an example of poor, incomplete thought. Many Biblical rules (such as the sodomy rules) were created to promote fertility and population growth rates. And beyond that, these rules do help instill a certain civic virtue within society itself. While I don't think that anyone is going to argue that a single incidence of buggering is going to torpedo us, I wouldn't go so far as to say that there's no modern relevance. Right, and I get that. It was important that people be multiplying for lots of reasons. However, a gay dude banging his hubby 100 times a week will never impact anyone, other than the dudes banging. Not society, not any individual. Are you saying there are instances where homosexual sex harms society? To be fair, sex addiction is a very serious thing and it does ruin people's lives and productivity. It does likely have some impact on greater society on a macro level - regardless of sexual orientation. Ok, so if i changed 100 (jesus christ you guys, why isn't it obvious when I am joking!?!?!?) to 3, I think my original post is well defended. Ignoring the horrors of sexual addiction, 2 dudes casually, without too much of a care whether they bang or not, since they are demonstrably not addicted to sex, decide to do some dirty (and by that I mean safe, consensual, intercourse, not sex in a dirty environment where contagions may be present), there are no negative impacts to society. I was making a stupid joke. I'm sorry if this wasn't clear to you or anyone else in this thread. I don't think we really need to discuss what consenting adults choose to do in their bedrooms.
Well we should - not in the sense that I would like to regulate it in any way, but in the sense that as long as there are people who are willing to limit that we should talk about how it shouldn't be done. I also find that everytime someone says something like that, I can easily test how committed they are to the concept by pointing out that in most of Europe, it is illegal to have a consensual sex between two adult siblings (which I find outrageous).
|
Canada13407 Posts
On May 24 2017 04:10 opisska wrote:Show nested quote +On May 24 2017 04:07 ZeromuS wrote:On May 24 2017 03:50 Mohdoo wrote:On May 24 2017 03:47 ZeromuS wrote:On May 24 2017 03:44 Mohdoo wrote:On May 24 2017 03:42 xDaunt wrote:On May 24 2017 03:19 Mohdoo wrote:On May 24 2017 02:07 Danglars wrote:
I won't go all prosecutorial here. If you think all religious belief is a ridiculous idea, what you've said here follows and is really the only possible conclusion. I think religious belief lacks intrinsic merit other than societal cohesion, which is the reason it was used to begin with. It is the reason religious belief is particularly prominent in rural communities. It is an artifact of rural life. But that's besides the point. My critique was that people don't allow themselves to filter their beliefs reasonably. There are people who believe homosexual sex in itself is a sin and that it is reasonable to try to prevent it from happening. That is what I am critiquing, the idea that as soon as that penis goes into a consenting dude, instead of a consenting woman, a morally bad thing has taken place. What was humorous to me is how people won't even take a moment to be like "Wait, why would that actually be bad? Why would people have thought this was bad around the time the bible was written? Well, relative to what we knew then, and what we know now, I can understand how they would feel that way. But it has no modern relevance and is can be clearly shown that homosexual sex does not harm society."There are many instances where people are capable of this kind of thought, and many people use this kind of thought with issues unrelated to homosexuality. But the core idea that homosexual sex for the sake of sex is different from heterosexual sex for the sake of sex are morally distinct is an example of poor, incomplete thought. Many Biblical rules (such as the sodomy rules) were created to promote fertility and population growth rates. And beyond that, these rules do help instill a certain civic virtue within society itself. While I don't think that anyone is going to argue that a single incidence of buggering is going to torpedo us, I wouldn't go so far as to say that there's no modern relevance. Right, and I get that. It was important that people be multiplying for lots of reasons. However, a gay dude banging his hubby 100 times a week will never impact anyone, other than the dudes banging. Not society, not any individual. Are you saying there are instances where homosexual sex harms society? To be fair, sex addiction is a very serious thing and it does ruin people's lives and productivity. It does likely have some impact on greater society on a macro level - regardless of sexual orientation. Ok, so if i changed 100 (jesus christ you guys, why isn't it obvious when I am joking!?!?!?) to 3, I think my original post is well defended. Ignoring the horrors of sexual addiction, 2 dudes casually, without too much of a care whether they bang or not, since they are demonstrably not addicted to sex, decide to do some dirty (and by that I mean safe, consensual, intercourse, not sex in a dirty environment where contagions may be present), there are no negative impacts to society. I was making a stupid joke. I'm sorry if this wasn't clear to you or anyone else in this thread. I don't think we really need to discuss what consenting adults choose to do in their bedrooms. Well we should - not in the sense that I would like to regulate it in any way, but in the sense that as long as there are people who are willing to limit that we should talk about how it shouldn't be done. I also find that everytime someone says something like that, I can easily test how committed they are to the concept by pointing out that in most of Europe, it is illegal to have a consensual sex between two adult siblings (which I find outrageous).
I think the point there is trying to limit the progeny of siblings having heterosexual sex because there are a lot of health problems associated with your parents being siblings.
From a moral standpoint I actually don't care what anyone does so long as it doesn't hurt other people and everyone involved understands what they are getting into.
My issue with siblings is that if they do have a kid - the kid could suffer from their decisions and thats where I get into an internal moral dilemma. I mean, I want to say that parents shouldn't put children into knowingly dangerous or poor situations, but I also know that there are many counterexamples that I would accept as being more okay (for example medical history in family and having a kid who might end up with a deadly disease with a super low chance).
But I digress, my point was please don't take my comment about sex addiction literally in the conversation.
|
On May 24 2017 04:09 Danglars wrote:Show nested quote +On May 24 2017 03:19 Mohdoo wrote:On May 24 2017 02:07 Danglars wrote:
I won't go all prosecutorial here. If you think all religious belief is a ridiculous idea, what you've said here follows and is really the only possible conclusion. I think religious belief lacks intrinsic merit other than societal cohesion, which is the reason it was used to begin with. It is the reason religious belief is particularly prominent in rural communities. It is an artifact of rural life. But that's besides the point. My critique was that people don't allow themselves to filter their beliefs reasonably. There are people who believe homosexual sex in itself is a sin and that it is reasonable to try to prevent it from happening. That is what I am critiquing, the idea that as soon as that penis goes into a consenting dude, instead of a consenting woman, a morally bad thing has taken place. What was humorous to me is how people won't even take a moment to be like "Wait, why would that actually be bad? Why would people have thought this was bad around the time the bible was written? Well, relative to what we knew then, and what we know now, I can understand how they would feel that way. But it has no modern relevance and is can be clearly shown that homosexual sex does not harm society." There are many instances where people are capable of this kind of thought, and many people use this kind of thought with issues unrelated to homosexuality. But the core idea that homosexual sex for the sake of sex is different from heterosexual sex for the sake of sex are morally distinct is an example of poor, incomplete thought. I know most of what you allege is easy to argue if you assume religion is a polite fiction to bind societies together. But if you instead actually believe it was established by a supreme being that didn't spend the last thousand years discovering new moral truths, none of that follows. And frankly it isn't reasonable from that premise to change beliefs on majority opinion shifting. Now, a deep and nuanced debate was hashed out in times past on how to get along in a secular society where Christians would still believe an act was sinful, but that anti-sodomy laws arent proper for broad civil society. Then we shifted to how marriage laws are a matter for the courts and not the legislatures. I can think of no better ground for understanding the topics at play than the opinion and dissents in the Obergefell decision ... I wager any full and fair reading would improve the rank ignorance contained in focusing on how "homosexual sex does not harm society." We shortcutted a huge experiment in whether or not a radical departure from tradition in marriage laws actually is good or bad for society in the long term. And, yes, homosexual sex would still be ongoing in this time. So we're crossing the cords of who determines what is morally right, and how a free society can come to compromises in law for secular society, all in service of a blind view that what Mohdoo thinks is sufficient evidence and insufficient reasoning ought to be adopted.
Correction: The marriage laws were shifted by the legislature of several states. The issues of gay marriage arose when other states decided to deny those married couples rights that they enjoyed their previous state. The landmark case that started this all, Obergefell v. Kasich, was a challenge to a law that was passed to invalidate gay marriages from other states, sometimes after the death of one of the parties.
You claim the courts changed the law, but in reality legislatures of two states created a show down that could only be resolved by the court. It is legally untenable to have one state invaliding the marriages of another state, regardless if they are gay or straight couples. But if you think states should be able to invalidate marriages, I guess you can hold that belief.
So your argument that the court made their decision independent of the legislature is false. The legislature set up the case to have the court make the decision for them. Which as a couple Supreme court justices have pointed out, is how the conservative wing likes to use to Supreme court today.
|
On May 24 2017 04:19 ZeromuS wrote:Show nested quote +On May 24 2017 04:10 opisska wrote:On May 24 2017 04:07 ZeromuS wrote:On May 24 2017 03:50 Mohdoo wrote:On May 24 2017 03:47 ZeromuS wrote:On May 24 2017 03:44 Mohdoo wrote:On May 24 2017 03:42 xDaunt wrote:On May 24 2017 03:19 Mohdoo wrote:On May 24 2017 02:07 Danglars wrote:
I won't go all prosecutorial here. If you think all religious belief is a ridiculous idea, what you've said here follows and is really the only possible conclusion. I think religious belief lacks intrinsic merit other than societal cohesion, which is the reason it was used to begin with. It is the reason religious belief is particularly prominent in rural communities. It is an artifact of rural life. But that's besides the point. My critique was that people don't allow themselves to filter their beliefs reasonably. There are people who believe homosexual sex in itself is a sin and that it is reasonable to try to prevent it from happening. That is what I am critiquing, the idea that as soon as that penis goes into a consenting dude, instead of a consenting woman, a morally bad thing has taken place. What was humorous to me is how people won't even take a moment to be like "Wait, why would that actually be bad? Why would people have thought this was bad around the time the bible was written? Well, relative to what we knew then, and what we know now, I can understand how they would feel that way. But it has no modern relevance and is can be clearly shown that homosexual sex does not harm society."There are many instances where people are capable of this kind of thought, and many people use this kind of thought with issues unrelated to homosexuality. But the core idea that homosexual sex for the sake of sex is different from heterosexual sex for the sake of sex are morally distinct is an example of poor, incomplete thought. Many Biblical rules (such as the sodomy rules) were created to promote fertility and population growth rates. And beyond that, these rules do help instill a certain civic virtue within society itself. While I don't think that anyone is going to argue that a single incidence of buggering is going to torpedo us, I wouldn't go so far as to say that there's no modern relevance. Right, and I get that. It was important that people be multiplying for lots of reasons. However, a gay dude banging his hubby 100 times a week will never impact anyone, other than the dudes banging. Not society, not any individual. Are you saying there are instances where homosexual sex harms society? To be fair, sex addiction is a very serious thing and it does ruin people's lives and productivity. It does likely have some impact on greater society on a macro level - regardless of sexual orientation. Ok, so if i changed 100 (jesus christ you guys, why isn't it obvious when I am joking!?!?!?) to 3, I think my original post is well defended. Ignoring the horrors of sexual addiction, 2 dudes casually, without too much of a care whether they bang or not, since they are demonstrably not addicted to sex, decide to do some dirty (and by that I mean safe, consensual, intercourse, not sex in a dirty environment where contagions may be present), there are no negative impacts to society. I was making a stupid joke. I'm sorry if this wasn't clear to you or anyone else in this thread. I don't think we really need to discuss what consenting adults choose to do in their bedrooms. Well we should - not in the sense that I would like to regulate it in any way, but in the sense that as long as there are people who are willing to limit that we should talk about how it shouldn't be done. I also find that everytime someone says something like that, I can easily test how committed they are to the concept by pointing out that in most of Europe, it is illegal to have a consensual sex between two adult siblings (which I find outrageous). I think the point there is trying to limit the progeny of siblings having heterosexual sex because there are a lot of health problems associated with your parents being siblings. From a moral standpoint I actually don't care what anyone does so long as it doesn't hurt other people and everyone involved understands what they are getting into. My issue with siblings is that if they do have a kid - the kid could suffer from their decisions and thats where I get into an internal moral dilemma. I mean, I want to say that parents shouldn't put children into knowingly dangerous or poor situations, but I also know that there are many counterexamples that I would accept as being more okay (for example medical history in family and having a kid who might end up with a deadly disease with a super low chance). But I digress, my point was please don't take my comment about sex addiction literally in the conversation.
I would just like to point out that despite common belief, the evidence for the dangers of sibling procreation is very limited, mainly due to the stigma associated with it and thus extremely limited data (not to mention active experiments). There are people with serious conditions that have much larger chance of inheritance who have children freely, so this "eugenics" argument doesn't really work. I just wanted to leave this here so that the misconception of "there is a genetics issue" doesn't get reinforced. I don't think we need to discuss it here in depth, but I think it's a perfect example how the "we have no business of telling people who they have sex with" opinion may not be really held by those who claim to do so. If you ever want to go even further, there was an interesting discussion on TL some time ago about bestiality (what a nice purposefully chosen word, by the way), where some people agreed that if we kill animals for food, we might as well have sex with them and it's not really worse in any way.
|
On May 16, a story was posted on the Fox News website on the investigation into the 2016 murder of DNC Staffer Seth Rich. The article was not initially subjected to the high degree of editorial scrutiny we require for all our reporting. Upon appropriate review, the article was found not to meet those standards and has since been removed.
We will continue to investigate this story and will provide updates as warranted.
Source
TLDR: Fox printed some made up bullshit to take attention away from Trump's Saturday Night Massacre . Kind of like how when Flynn got shitcanned their main news story was about a "Russian sub sighted near US in international waters!!!".
|
|
|
On May 24 2017 04:22 Plansix wrote:Show nested quote +On May 24 2017 04:09 Danglars wrote:On May 24 2017 03:19 Mohdoo wrote:On May 24 2017 02:07 Danglars wrote:
I won't go all prosecutorial here. If you think all religious belief is a ridiculous idea, what you've said here follows and is really the only possible conclusion. I think religious belief lacks intrinsic merit other than societal cohesion, which is the reason it was used to begin with. It is the reason religious belief is particularly prominent in rural communities. It is an artifact of rural life. But that's besides the point. My critique was that people don't allow themselves to filter their beliefs reasonably. There are people who believe homosexual sex in itself is a sin and that it is reasonable to try to prevent it from happening. That is what I am critiquing, the idea that as soon as that penis goes into a consenting dude, instead of a consenting woman, a morally bad thing has taken place. What was humorous to me is how people won't even take a moment to be like "Wait, why would that actually be bad? Why would people have thought this was bad around the time the bible was written? Well, relative to what we knew then, and what we know now, I can understand how they would feel that way. But it has no modern relevance and is can be clearly shown that homosexual sex does not harm society." There are many instances where people are capable of this kind of thought, and many people use this kind of thought with issues unrelated to homosexuality. But the core idea that homosexual sex for the sake of sex is different from heterosexual sex for the sake of sex are morally distinct is an example of poor, incomplete thought. I know most of what you allege is easy to argue if you assume religion is a polite fiction to bind societies together. But if you instead actually believe it was established by a supreme being that didn't spend the last thousand years discovering new moral truths, none of that follows. And frankly it isn't reasonable from that premise to change beliefs on majority opinion shifting. Now, a deep and nuanced debate was hashed out in times past on how to get along in a secular society where Christians would still believe an act was sinful, but that anti-sodomy laws arent proper for broad civil society. Then we shifted to how marriage laws are a matter for the courts and not the legislatures. I can think of no better ground for understanding the topics at play than the opinion and dissents in the Obergefell decision ... I wager any full and fair reading would improve the rank ignorance contained in focusing on how "homosexual sex does not harm society." We shortcutted a huge experiment in whether or not a radical departure from tradition in marriage laws actually is good or bad for society in the long term. And, yes, homosexual sex would still be ongoing in this time. So we're crossing the cords of who determines what is morally right, and how a free society can come to compromises in law for secular society, all in service of a blind view that what Mohdoo thinks is sufficient evidence and insufficient reasoning ought to be adopted. Correction: The marriage laws were shifted by the legislature of several states. The issues of gay marriage arose when other states decided to deny those married couples rights that they enjoyed their previous state. The landmark case that started this all, Obergefell v. Kasich, was a challenge to a law that was passed to invalidate gay marriages from other states, sometimes after the death of one of the parties. You claim the courts changed the law, but in reality legislatures of two states created a show down that could only be resolved by the court. It is legally untenable to have one state invaliding the marriages of another state, regardless if they are gay or straight couples. But if you think states should be able to invalidate marriages, I guess you can hold that belief. So your argument that the court made their decision independent of the legislature is false. The legislature set up the case to have the court make the decision for them. Which as a couple Supreme court justices have pointed out, is how the conservative wing likes to use to Supreme court today.
The decision had very little to do with how different states treat marriage and everything to do with why states couldn't write these laws on constitutional grounds. That's why dissents mentioned how it was a strike against the American experiment in self-governance.
|
On May 24 2017 05:14 Danglars wrote:Show nested quote +On May 24 2017 04:22 Plansix wrote:On May 24 2017 04:09 Danglars wrote:On May 24 2017 03:19 Mohdoo wrote:On May 24 2017 02:07 Danglars wrote:
I won't go all prosecutorial here. If you think all religious belief is a ridiculous idea, what you've said here follows and is really the only possible conclusion. I think religious belief lacks intrinsic merit other than societal cohesion, which is the reason it was used to begin with. It is the reason religious belief is particularly prominent in rural communities. It is an artifact of rural life. But that's besides the point. My critique was that people don't allow themselves to filter their beliefs reasonably. There are people who believe homosexual sex in itself is a sin and that it is reasonable to try to prevent it from happening. That is what I am critiquing, the idea that as soon as that penis goes into a consenting dude, instead of a consenting woman, a morally bad thing has taken place. What was humorous to me is how people won't even take a moment to be like "Wait, why would that actually be bad? Why would people have thought this was bad around the time the bible was written? Well, relative to what we knew then, and what we know now, I can understand how they would feel that way. But it has no modern relevance and is can be clearly shown that homosexual sex does not harm society." There are many instances where people are capable of this kind of thought, and many people use this kind of thought with issues unrelated to homosexuality. But the core idea that homosexual sex for the sake of sex is different from heterosexual sex for the sake of sex are morally distinct is an example of poor, incomplete thought. I know most of what you allege is easy to argue if you assume religion is a polite fiction to bind societies together. But if you instead actually believe it was established by a supreme being that didn't spend the last thousand years discovering new moral truths, none of that follows. And frankly it isn't reasonable from that premise to change beliefs on majority opinion shifting. Now, a deep and nuanced debate was hashed out in times past on how to get along in a secular society where Christians would still believe an act was sinful, but that anti-sodomy laws arent proper for broad civil society. Then we shifted to how marriage laws are a matter for the courts and not the legislatures. I can think of no better ground for understanding the topics at play than the opinion and dissents in the Obergefell decision ... I wager any full and fair reading would improve the rank ignorance contained in focusing on how "homosexual sex does not harm society." We shortcutted a huge experiment in whether or not a radical departure from tradition in marriage laws actually is good or bad for society in the long term. And, yes, homosexual sex would still be ongoing in this time. So we're crossing the cords of who determines what is morally right, and how a free society can come to compromises in law for secular society, all in service of a blind view that what Mohdoo thinks is sufficient evidence and insufficient reasoning ought to be adopted. Correction: The marriage laws were shifted by the legislature of several states. The issues of gay marriage arose when other states decided to deny those married couples rights that they enjoyed their previous state. The landmark case that started this all, Obergefell v. Kasich, was a challenge to a law that was passed to invalidate gay marriages from other states, sometimes after the death of one of the parties. You claim the courts changed the law, but in reality legislatures of two states created a show down that could only be resolved by the court. It is legally untenable to have one state invaliding the marriages of another state, regardless if they are gay or straight couples. But if you think states should be able to invalidate marriages, I guess you can hold that belief. So your argument that the court made their decision independent of the legislature is false. The legislature set up the case to have the court make the decision for them. Which as a couple Supreme court justices have pointed out, is how the conservative wing likes to use to Supreme court today. The decision had very little to do with how different states treat marriage and everything to do with why states couldn't write these laws on constitutional grounds. That's why dissents mentioned how it was a strike against the American experiment in self-governance.
Once one state legalized gay marriage, the toothpaste was out of the tube. Since marriage licenses are equally recognized by all 50 states, there is no legal basis to deny gay couples those the same rights if their license was issued in another state. It is impossible to expect MA to respect NC marriage licenses without question or challenge and then NC to turn around treat MA differently.
|
On May 24 2017 04:09 Danglars wrote:Show nested quote +On May 24 2017 03:19 Mohdoo wrote:On May 24 2017 02:07 Danglars wrote:
I won't go all prosecutorial here. If you think all religious belief is a ridiculous idea, what you've said here follows and is really the only possible conclusion. I think religious belief lacks intrinsic merit other than societal cohesion, which is the reason it was used to begin with. It is the reason religious belief is particularly prominent in rural communities. It is an artifact of rural life. But that's besides the point. My critique was that people don't allow themselves to filter their beliefs reasonably. There are people who believe homosexual sex in itself is a sin and that it is reasonable to try to prevent it from happening. That is what I am critiquing, the idea that as soon as that penis goes into a consenting dude, instead of a consenting woman, a morally bad thing has taken place. What was humorous to me is how people won't even take a moment to be like "Wait, why would that actually be bad? Why would people have thought this was bad around the time the bible was written? Well, relative to what we knew then, and what we know now, I can understand how they would feel that way. But it has no modern relevance and is can be clearly shown that homosexual sex does not harm society." There are many instances where people are capable of this kind of thought, and many people use this kind of thought with issues unrelated to homosexuality. But the core idea that homosexual sex for the sake of sex is different from heterosexual sex for the sake of sex are morally distinct is an example of poor, incomplete thought. I know most of what you allege is easy to argue if you assume religion is a polite fiction to bind societies together. But if you instead actually believe it was established by a supreme being that didn't spend the last thousand years discovering new moral truths, none of that follows. And frankly it isn't reasonable from that premise to change beliefs on majority opinion shifting. Now, a deep and nuanced debate was hashed out in times past on how to get along in a secular society where Christians would still believe an act was sinful, but that anti-sodomy laws arent proper for broad civil society. Then we shifted to how marriage laws are a matter for the courts and not the legislatures. I can think of no better ground for understanding the topics at play than the opinion and dissents in the Obergefell decision ... I wager any full and fair reading would improve the rank ignorance contained in focusing on how "homosexual sex does not harm society." We shortcutted a huge experiment in whether or not a radical departure from tradition in marriage laws actually is good or bad for society in the long term. And, yes, homosexual sex would still be ongoing in this time. So we're crossing the cords of who determines what is morally right, and how a free society can come to compromises in law for secular society, all in service of a blind view that what Mohdoo thinks is sufficient evidence and insufficient reasoning ought to be adopted.
Can you clarify what you are saying here? It feels like we are drifting really far away from what I originally asked you: Why is homosexual sex unethical?
|
|
|
Attacking 'leaks' seems to keep the HannityHeads in line. But everyone gets that the leaks that are hurting Trump are coming from within his Whitehouse, right? To be close enough to the President to accurately hear his words and have memos of the words requires that you are at most one or two job ranks down from Chief of Staff. This isn't the Deep State attacking Trump, this is career Republicans within the Whitehouse who are going to the press.
|
On May 23 2017 22:47 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On May 23 2017 11:35 biology]major wrote:
I hope sooner or later people will be able to overcome the pc labels and just use the terms radical islamism. It is time to just be honest and truthful rather than using vague terminology to avoid harming a minority group's feelings. I see this trend changing now, ever since trump it is actually being used more commonly. Just saw fareed zakaria say radical islamism/jihadism lol Islam is as central to ISIS as being white dudes is to the Nazis but nobody insists that every time we talk about the Nazis we call them white Europeans and allude that their being white Europeans is possibly what caused it. And nor should they, most of the Nazis' victims were white Europeans and most of the people who ended up destroying the Nazi regime were white Europeans. Tarring both sides with the same brush would be dumb and spit on the memory of those who died resisting. This is the same. The majority of the people fighting radical Islam are Muslims. The majority of the victims of radical Islam are Muslims.
this is the dumbest thing you have posted on this board kwark. We call those people white supremacists/nationalists, we have an accurate label in that situation, and it includes the term "white". That ideology does not have an accepted "moderate" view really, so there is no need to include the word "radical" white supremacist. Now whenever we have people strapping bombs on themselves/children, burning/drowning people in cages, and bombing soft targets to inspire fear with a explicitly stated motive relating to islam, you think it's accurate to call that "an act of terror" rather than an act by a radical/extreme islamist?
|
On May 24 2017 05:22 Plansix wrote:Show nested quote +On May 24 2017 05:14 Danglars wrote:On May 24 2017 04:22 Plansix wrote:On May 24 2017 04:09 Danglars wrote:On May 24 2017 03:19 Mohdoo wrote:On May 24 2017 02:07 Danglars wrote:
I won't go all prosecutorial here. If you think all religious belief is a ridiculous idea, what you've said here follows and is really the only possible conclusion. I think religious belief lacks intrinsic merit other than societal cohesion, which is the reason it was used to begin with. It is the reason religious belief is particularly prominent in rural communities. It is an artifact of rural life. But that's besides the point. My critique was that people don't allow themselves to filter their beliefs reasonably. There are people who believe homosexual sex in itself is a sin and that it is reasonable to try to prevent it from happening. That is what I am critiquing, the idea that as soon as that penis goes into a consenting dude, instead of a consenting woman, a morally bad thing has taken place. What was humorous to me is how people won't even take a moment to be like "Wait, why would that actually be bad? Why would people have thought this was bad around the time the bible was written? Well, relative to what we knew then, and what we know now, I can understand how they would feel that way. But it has no modern relevance and is can be clearly shown that homosexual sex does not harm society." There are many instances where people are capable of this kind of thought, and many people use this kind of thought with issues unrelated to homosexuality. But the core idea that homosexual sex for the sake of sex is different from heterosexual sex for the sake of sex are morally distinct is an example of poor, incomplete thought. I know most of what you allege is easy to argue if you assume religion is a polite fiction to bind societies together. But if you instead actually believe it was established by a supreme being that didn't spend the last thousand years discovering new moral truths, none of that follows. And frankly it isn't reasonable from that premise to change beliefs on majority opinion shifting. Now, a deep and nuanced debate was hashed out in times past on how to get along in a secular society where Christians would still believe an act was sinful, but that anti-sodomy laws arent proper for broad civil society. Then we shifted to how marriage laws are a matter for the courts and not the legislatures. I can think of no better ground for understanding the topics at play than the opinion and dissents in the Obergefell decision ... I wager any full and fair reading would improve the rank ignorance contained in focusing on how "homosexual sex does not harm society." We shortcutted a huge experiment in whether or not a radical departure from tradition in marriage laws actually is good or bad for society in the long term. And, yes, homosexual sex would still be ongoing in this time. So we're crossing the cords of who determines what is morally right, and how a free society can come to compromises in law for secular society, all in service of a blind view that what Mohdoo thinks is sufficient evidence and insufficient reasoning ought to be adopted. Correction: The marriage laws were shifted by the legislature of several states. The issues of gay marriage arose when other states decided to deny those married couples rights that they enjoyed their previous state. The landmark case that started this all, Obergefell v. Kasich, was a challenge to a law that was passed to invalidate gay marriages from other states, sometimes after the death of one of the parties. You claim the courts changed the law, but in reality legislatures of two states created a show down that could only be resolved by the court. It is legally untenable to have one state invaliding the marriages of another state, regardless if they are gay or straight couples. But if you think states should be able to invalidate marriages, I guess you can hold that belief. So your argument that the court made their decision independent of the legislature is false. The legislature set up the case to have the court make the decision for them. Which as a couple Supreme court justices have pointed out, is how the conservative wing likes to use to Supreme court today. The decision had very little to do with how different states treat marriage and everything to do with why states couldn't write these laws on constitutional grounds. That's why dissents mentioned how it was a strike against the American experiment in self-governance. Once one state legalized gay marriage, the toothpaste was out of the tube. Since marriage licenses are equally recognized by all 50 states, there is no legal basis to deny gay couples those the same rights if their license was issued in another state. It is impossible to expect MA to respect NC marriage licenses without question or challenge and then NC to turn around treat MA differently.
Absolutely not. A more narrow ruling would preserve Ohio's constitutional right to issue marriage certificates according to their laws while accepting that marriages legally performed elsewhere are valid for purposes of death benefits and others. The toothpaste analogy is misused here.
|
On May 24 2017 06:05 biology]major wrote:Show nested quote +On May 23 2017 22:47 KwarK wrote:On May 23 2017 11:35 biology]major wrote:
I hope sooner or later people will be able to overcome the pc labels and just use the terms radical islamism. It is time to just be honest and truthful rather than using vague terminology to avoid harming a minority group's feelings. I see this trend changing now, ever since trump it is actually being used more commonly. Just saw fareed zakaria say radical islamism/jihadism lol Islam is as central to ISIS as being white dudes is to the Nazis but nobody insists that every time we talk about the Nazis we call them white Europeans and allude that their being white Europeans is possibly what caused it. And nor should they, most of the Nazis' victims were white Europeans and most of the people who ended up destroying the Nazi regime were white Europeans. Tarring both sides with the same brush would be dumb and spit on the memory of those who died resisting. This is the same. The majority of the people fighting radical Islam are Muslims. The majority of the victims of radical Islam are Muslims. this is the dumbest thing you have posted on this board kwark. We call those people white supremacists/nationalists, we have an accurate label in that situation, and it includes the term "white". That ideology does not have an accepted "moderate" view really, so there is no need to include the word "radical" white supremacist. Now whenever we have people strapping bombs on themselves/children, burning/drowning people in cages, and bombing soft targets to inspire fear with a explicitly stated motive relating to islam, you think it's accurate to call that "an act of terror" rather than an act by a radical/extreme islamist?
What if I told you “radical Islam” was a shitty label and people should find a better one?
You know there is a difference between Islamic and Islamist, right? They are two different terms to describe different things. One is general term for all things dealing with Islam, the other is specifically political and has more to do with a nation and political acts within it. Even that description I provided is pretty lacking.
This is the problem with your request. You think you are accurate, but you’re just ignorant of the real context for the words you are using. Even though people in this thread have attempted to tell you over and over why what you want isn’t a good idea and is an inaccurate way to talk about Islamic terrorism. You have this base emotional need for people to talk about it in terms that please you and force people to address it the way YOU see fit and you simply ignore all the reasons why what you want is bad.
|
On May 24 2017 06:19 Plansix wrote:Show nested quote +On May 24 2017 06:05 biology]major wrote:On May 23 2017 22:47 KwarK wrote:On May 23 2017 11:35 biology]major wrote:
I hope sooner or later people will be able to overcome the pc labels and just use the terms radical islamism. It is time to just be honest and truthful rather than using vague terminology to avoid harming a minority group's feelings. I see this trend changing now, ever since trump it is actually being used more commonly. Just saw fareed zakaria say radical islamism/jihadism lol Islam is as central to ISIS as being white dudes is to the Nazis but nobody insists that every time we talk about the Nazis we call them white Europeans and allude that their being white Europeans is possibly what caused it. And nor should they, most of the Nazis' victims were white Europeans and most of the people who ended up destroying the Nazi regime were white Europeans. Tarring both sides with the same brush would be dumb and spit on the memory of those who died resisting. This is the same. The majority of the people fighting radical Islam are Muslims. The majority of the victims of radical Islam are Muslims. this is the dumbest thing you have posted on this board kwark. We call those people white supremacists/nationalists, we have an accurate label in that situation, and it includes the term "white". That ideology does not have an accepted "moderate" view really, so there is no need to include the word "radical" white supremacist. Now whenever we have people strapping bombs on themselves/children, burning/drowning people in cages, and bombing soft targets to inspire fear with a explicitly stated motive relating to islam, you think it's accurate to call that "an act of terror" rather than an act by a radical/extreme islamist? What if I told you “radical Islam” was a shitty label and people should find a better one? You know there is a difference between Islamic and Islamist, right? They are two different terms to describe different things. One is general term for all things dealing with Islam, the other is specifically political and has more to do with a nation and political acts within it. Even that description I provided is pretty lacking. This is the problem with your request. You think you are accurate, but you’re just ignorant of the real context for the words you are using. Even though people in this thread have attempted to tell you over and over why what you want isn’t a good idea and is an inaccurate way to talk about Islamic terrorism. You have this base emotional need for people to talk about it in terms that please you and force people to address it the way YOU see fit and you simply ignore all the reasons why what you want is bad.
find whatever word you want, just make sure it references islam in someway, since that is a critical component of their ideology. I don't care if it's extreme/radical/perverse/moronic ISLAM
|
United States43970 Posts
On May 24 2017 06:05 biology]major wrote:Show nested quote +On May 23 2017 22:47 KwarK wrote:On May 23 2017 11:35 biology]major wrote:
I hope sooner or later people will be able to overcome the pc labels and just use the terms radical islamism. It is time to just be honest and truthful rather than using vague terminology to avoid harming a minority group's feelings. I see this trend changing now, ever since trump it is actually being used more commonly. Just saw fareed zakaria say radical islamism/jihadism lol Islam is as central to ISIS as being white dudes is to the Nazis but nobody insists that every time we talk about the Nazis we call them white Europeans and allude that their being white Europeans is possibly what caused it. And nor should they, most of the Nazis' victims were white Europeans and most of the people who ended up destroying the Nazi regime were white Europeans. Tarring both sides with the same brush would be dumb and spit on the memory of those who died resisting. This is the same. The majority of the people fighting radical Islam are Muslims. The majority of the victims of radical Islam are Muslims. this is the dumbest thing you have posted on this board kwark. We call those people white supremacists/nationalists, we have an accurate label in that situation, and it includes the term "white". That ideology does not have an accepted "moderate" view really, so there is no need to include the word "radical" white supremacist. Now whenever we have people strapping bombs on themselves/children, burning/drowning people in cages, and bombing soft targets to inspire fear with a explicitly stated motive relating to islam, you think it's accurate to call that "an act of terror" rather than an act by a radical/extreme islamist?
Trump is the moderate "acceptable" wing of white nationalism and people do take care to specify that extreme nationalists are not the same as Trump and his ilk.
Not entirely sure why you're putting words in my mouth about what I would call things, especially given you can't keep your own idea straight. The name you're suggesting I would use was in the format "an act of" while the name you used was "an act by". Are you open to the possibility that an act of terror could be committed by an extreme Islamist? Cause I am. You've created this weird world where I only describe acts and you only describe perpetrators and it has to be one or the other with no possibility that both could be used.
ISIS are Muslim terrorists. I'm fine with that, just as Nazis were white supremacists, the IRA were Catholic terrorists and so forth, it's a factual label. But they're no more compelled to do the shit they do by Islam than I am compelled to fire up the gas chambers by the colour of my skin. They do what they do because they're angry, stupid zealots with no control over the world and a lot of hatred for everyone they blame for the shit they don't like. And as long as the people they're killing are mostly Muslims and the people fighting to stop them are mostly Muslims I don't see any reason to piss on the graves of those people.
|
On May 24 2017 06:22 biology]major wrote:Show nested quote +On May 24 2017 06:19 Plansix wrote:On May 24 2017 06:05 biology]major wrote:On May 23 2017 22:47 KwarK wrote:On May 23 2017 11:35 biology]major wrote:
I hope sooner or later people will be able to overcome the pc labels and just use the terms radical islamism. It is time to just be honest and truthful rather than using vague terminology to avoid harming a minority group's feelings. I see this trend changing now, ever since trump it is actually being used more commonly. Just saw fareed zakaria say radical islamism/jihadism lol Islam is as central to ISIS as being white dudes is to the Nazis but nobody insists that every time we talk about the Nazis we call them white Europeans and allude that their being white Europeans is possibly what caused it. And nor should they, most of the Nazis' victims were white Europeans and most of the people who ended up destroying the Nazi regime were white Europeans. Tarring both sides with the same brush would be dumb and spit on the memory of those who died resisting. This is the same. The majority of the people fighting radical Islam are Muslims. The majority of the victims of radical Islam are Muslims. this is the dumbest thing you have posted on this board kwark. We call those people white supremacists/nationalists, we have an accurate label in that situation, and it includes the term "white". That ideology does not have an accepted "moderate" view really, so there is no need to include the word "radical" white supremacist. Now whenever we have people strapping bombs on themselves/children, burning/drowning people in cages, and bombing soft targets to inspire fear with a explicitly stated motive relating to islam, you think it's accurate to call that "an act of terror" rather than an act by a radical/extreme islamist? What if I told you “radical Islam” was a shitty label and people should find a better one? You know there is a difference between Islamic and Islamist, right? They are two different terms to describe different things. One is general term for all things dealing with Islam, the other is specifically political and has more to do with a nation and political acts within it. Even that description I provided is pretty lacking. This is the problem with your request. You think you are accurate, but you’re just ignorant of the real context for the words you are using. Even though people in this thread have attempted to tell you over and over why what you want isn’t a good idea and is an inaccurate way to talk about Islamic terrorism. You have this base emotional need for people to talk about it in terms that please you and force people to address it the way YOU see fit and you simply ignore all the reasons why what you want is bad. find whatever word you want, just make sure it references islam in someway, since that is a critical component of their ideology. I don't care if it's extreme/radical/perverse/moronic ISLAM
People have said Islamic terrorist. The terrorist was Islamic and the people who took credit claim to be an Islamic group. What you are asking for has already happened.
|
On May 24 2017 05:25 Mohdoo wrote:Show nested quote +On May 24 2017 04:09 Danglars wrote:On May 24 2017 03:19 Mohdoo wrote:On May 24 2017 02:07 Danglars wrote:
I won't go all prosecutorial here. If you think all religious belief is a ridiculous idea, what you've said here follows and is really the only possible conclusion. I think religious belief lacks intrinsic merit other than societal cohesion, which is the reason it was used to begin with. It is the reason religious belief is particularly prominent in rural communities. It is an artifact of rural life. But that's besides the point. My critique was that people don't allow themselves to filter their beliefs reasonably. There are people who believe homosexual sex in itself is a sin and that it is reasonable to try to prevent it from happening. That is what I am critiquing, the idea that as soon as that penis goes into a consenting dude, instead of a consenting woman, a morally bad thing has taken place. What was humorous to me is how people won't even take a moment to be like "Wait, why would that actually be bad? Why would people have thought this was bad around the time the bible was written? Well, relative to what we knew then, and what we know now, I can understand how they would feel that way. But it has no modern relevance and is can be clearly shown that homosexual sex does not harm society." There are many instances where people are capable of this kind of thought, and many people use this kind of thought with issues unrelated to homosexuality. But the core idea that homosexual sex for the sake of sex is different from heterosexual sex for the sake of sex are morally distinct is an example of poor, incomplete thought. I know most of what you allege is easy to argue if you assume religion is a polite fiction to bind societies together. But if you instead actually believe it was established by a supreme being that didn't spend the last thousand years discovering new moral truths, none of that follows. And frankly it isn't reasonable from that premise to change beliefs on majority opinion shifting. Now, a deep and nuanced debate was hashed out in times past on how to get along in a secular society where Christians would still believe an act was sinful, but that anti-sodomy laws arent proper for broad civil society. Then we shifted to how marriage laws are a matter for the courts and not the legislatures. I can think of no better ground for understanding the topics at play than the opinion and dissents in the Obergefell decision ... I wager any full and fair reading would improve the rank ignorance contained in focusing on how "homosexual sex does not harm society." We shortcutted a huge experiment in whether or not a radical departure from tradition in marriage laws actually is good or bad for society in the long term. And, yes, homosexual sex would still be ongoing in this time. So we're crossing the cords of who determines what is morally right, and how a free society can come to compromises in law for secular society, all in service of a blind view that what Mohdoo thinks is sufficient evidence and insufficient reasoning ought to be adopted. Can you clarify what you are saying here? It feels like we are drifting really far away from what I originally asked you: Why is homosexual sex unethical?
The same thing I originally said. It's marriage, laws, and society that my opposition rests. If two men or two women want to have sex in their own bedroom, I'm not favoring a law that outlaws it and I'm not discounting that my religion calls it a sin (and as previously outlined, for no patently ridiculous reason).
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
