|
On May 11 2011 15:51 ILIVEFORAIUR wrote:Show nested quote +On May 11 2011 15:40 wwer wrote:On May 11 2011 15:18 ILIVEFORAIUR wrote:On May 11 2011 15:11 wwer wrote:On May 11 2011 14:57 Disquiet wrote:On May 11 2011 13:59 Ftz wrote:I will say I personally think engaging in homosexual acts is a sin, but no more sin than lying, or stealing, etc. I don't think you should be punished by law for it though. This is your standard Religious argument here: 1) (Things the christian faith considers) sins are immoral. 2) (The christian faith considers) homosexual acts (as) sins.3) Therefore, homosexuality is immoral. Here is popularized viewpoint that a majority of atheists, and I'm guessing the majority of TL supports. 1) Actions are immoral because they are intrinsically immoral, lets say they produce overall negative utility (pain, suffering, misery etc) 2) Homosexuality doesn't "hurt" anyone.3) Homosexuality is not immoral. TLDR: We(TL) or at least I, fundamentally disagree with homosexuality being "wrong", and challenge anyone to use logical, non-religious reasoning to show that it is. edit: I have a question for you: how does this relate to the topic? If religious people base their morality ONLY on scriptures it is impossible to "argue" with them. And they will just take a relativist position. Homosexuality is a genetic or mental defect (you can argue about which, I don't care) Care to support the claim that Homosexuality is a defect? On May 11 2011 14:57 Disquiet wrote:
but its ultimately harmless. Rejecting gays is like rejecting someone with a birth mark, a small genetic defect that might be unsightly but it doesn't really affect anyone. So in a sense I do think homosexuality is "wrong", I think the world would be better without homosexuals.
What makes you think this is true? This person is taking the Kantian position. Formula of the Universal Laws, taken from wikipedia but the essence is there "Always act according to that maxim whose universality as a law you can at the same time will" and is the "only condition under which a will can never come into conflict with itself [....]" No he isn't, all his position was "I think the world would be better without homosexuals." An argument could be made that Kantian ethics support that position, but he could have any number of other justifications, or none at all. Nothing he said indicated why he thinks the world would be better without homosexuals. On May 11 2011 15:18 ILIVEFORAIUR wrote:
Clearly, it could not be that everyone was homosexual and society could continue to function. This is false fyi. Can you give a reason as to why it is false? It is impossible for a strictly homosexual species to continue existing after it's first procreation cycle.
Not any more
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Female_sperm#Same-sex_marriage
|
It has nothing to do w/ accepting or not accepting the idea of same sex couples. It has to do whether or not you are a nosy bastard.
When I see a gay couple kissing, its pretty awkward, but I have no qualms of them choosing to do what they want to do. You can't enforce a rule
Even if you're a hardcore Christian/Muslim/Religious nut who's repulsed by the idea of homosexuality, everyone has the right to do w.e they want, so long as it doesn't affect them. Unless a gay couple is running into your bedroom to have analsex all over your bed, I don't see the problem. (oddly enough the extremely Christian are considered "right wing" and all about "small gov't", I guess its only small, until gay/lesbian couples are involved)
Plus, some of the stuff straight couples do in their bedroom puts to shame the stuff gay and lesbian couples do.
|
On May 11 2011 16:27 TechniQ.UK wrote:
Even though I am a Christian, a rather traditional Christian at that. This bill horrifies me and it is radically unchristian.
By the same logic those who have sex outside of marriage should also be put to death in that country.
Which of course will never happen because really this is a question of homophobia, not religion or God.
Yes because killing homosexuals is really un-christian...
"And if a man lie with mankind, as with womankind, both of them have committed abomination: they shall surely be put to death; their blood shall be upon them."
Leviticus snap.
You shouldn't bother with defending christianity as long as that piece of saw-esque literature i still a part of it. I think there is a certain respectable honesty in admitting mistakes.
I also think there is a sense of spinelessness when you blindly try to wash away all blame for a problem your religion of choice caused. Nothing Uganda is doing is against christianity and to deny that christian homopobia is fuelling this is outright ignorant.
Perhaps you truly don't know any better. Perhaps you spit on the graves of homosexuals in Uganda by being more occupied with freeing your religion of blame. Your religion is responsible for this and to deny this is sick.
|
On May 11 2011 17:09 zalz wrote:Show nested quote +On May 11 2011 16:27 TechniQ.UK wrote:
Even though I am a Christian, a rather traditional Christian at that. This bill horrifies me and it is radically unchristian.
By the same logic those who have sex outside of marriage should also be put to death in that country.
Which of course will never happen because really this is a question of homophobia, not religion or God.
Yes because killing homosexuals is really un-christian... "And if a man lie with mankind, as with womankind, both of them have committed abomination: they shall surely be put to death; their blood shall be upon them." Leviticus snap. You shouldn't bother with defending christianity as long as that piece of saw-esque literature i still a part of it. I think there is a certain respectable honesty in admitting mistakes. I also think there is a sense of spinelessness when you blindly try to wash away all blame for a problem your religion of choice caused. Nothing Uganda is doing is against christianity and to deny that christian homopobia is fuelling this is outright ignorant. Perhaps you truly don't know any better. Perhaps you spit on the graves of homosexuals in Uganda by being more occupied with freeing your religion of blame. Your religion is responsible for this and to deny this is sick.
You sound like a pretty hostile dude to be honest. So he's... what all now? a spineless, sick, homosexual-grave-spitter who's engaged in an outright ignorant denial of Christian homophobia? Did I cover all the salient points there?
|
On May 11 2011 17:26 HULKAMANIA wrote:Show nested quote +On May 11 2011 17:09 zalz wrote:On May 11 2011 16:27 TechniQ.UK wrote:
Even though I am a Christian, a rather traditional Christian at that. This bill horrifies me and it is radically unchristian.
By the same logic those who have sex outside of marriage should also be put to death in that country.
Which of course will never happen because really this is a question of homophobia, not religion or God.
Yes because killing homosexuals is really un-christian... "And if a man lie with mankind, as with womankind, both of them have committed abomination: they shall surely be put to death; their blood shall be upon them." Leviticus snap. You shouldn't bother with defending christianity as long as that piece of saw-esque literature i still a part of it. I think there is a certain respectable honesty in admitting mistakes. I also think there is a sense of spinelessness when you blindly try to wash away all blame for a problem your religion of choice caused. Nothing Uganda is doing is against christianity and to deny that christian homopobia is fuelling this is outright ignorant. Perhaps you truly don't know any better. Perhaps you spit on the graves of homosexuals in Uganda by being more occupied with freeing your religion of blame. Your religion is responsible for this and to deny this is sick. You sound like a pretty hostile dude to be honest. So he's... what all now? a spineless, sick, homosexual-grave-spitter who's engaged in an outright ignorant denial of Christian homophobia? Did I cover all the salient points there?
His argument is all that matters. If it is sound, regardless of churlish phrasing, it falls to his opponents to attempt a counter. If it is not sound, no amount of polite couching will change this. Tone matters little, if at all.
|
On May 11 2011 17:35 Draconizard wrote:Show nested quote +On May 11 2011 17:26 HULKAMANIA wrote:On May 11 2011 17:09 zalz wrote:On May 11 2011 16:27 TechniQ.UK wrote:
Even though I am a Christian, a rather traditional Christian at that. This bill horrifies me and it is radically unchristian.
By the same logic those who have sex outside of marriage should also be put to death in that country.
Which of course will never happen because really this is a question of homophobia, not religion or God.
Yes because killing homosexuals is really un-christian... "And if a man lie with mankind, as with womankind, both of them have committed abomination: they shall surely be put to death; their blood shall be upon them." Leviticus snap. You shouldn't bother with defending christianity as long as that piece of saw-esque literature i still a part of it. I think there is a certain respectable honesty in admitting mistakes. I also think there is a sense of spinelessness when you blindly try to wash away all blame for a problem your religion of choice caused. Nothing Uganda is doing is against christianity and to deny that christian homopobia is fuelling this is outright ignorant. Perhaps you truly don't know any better. Perhaps you spit on the graves of homosexuals in Uganda by being more occupied with freeing your religion of blame. Your religion is responsible for this and to deny this is sick. You sound like a pretty hostile dude to be honest. So he's... what all now? a spineless, sick, homosexual-grave-spitter who's engaged in an outright ignorant denial of Christian homophobia? Did I cover all the salient points there? His argument is all that matters. If it is sound, regardless of churlish phrasing, it falls to his opponents to attempt a counter. If it is not sound, no amount of polite couching will change this. Tone matters little, if at all.
I dunno. Is there nothing to be said for polite disagreement? Is there nothing to be said for decent conversation? I mean I think it's actually very difficult to have a dialogue with someone who treats you with open contempt. So what you're doing in practice by treating your opponent as if he or she was a scumbag is expressing that you don't want to hear what they're saying, that you really just want to browbeat someone.
Tone matters a great deal.
|
On May 10 2011 14:23 tdt wrote:Show nested quote +On May 10 2011 13:00 hmunkey wrote:On May 10 2011 12:54 Redunzl wrote:
How about you stay away from Uganda if you don't like this.
Who are you to tell a sovereign nation how to legislate. Because certain things fall under the blanket of human rights. they are not rules that sovereign states can break, they are unalienable rights of all human beings. Murdering gay people is one of those. so is killing civilians involved in peaceful protesting. So is racial genocide. If you don't understand this concept, you should probably consider reading some Wikipedia entries before posting. There is nothing universal/unalienable about it, many countries never signed the universal declaration of human rights not to mention all rights are psychological constructs nothing universal/unalienable about them. I bet you $1000 if you were raised in Saudi Arabia you'd think it was cool to kill gays. So it's largly indoctrination pro or con.
What's the point of even posting about the fact that where you are born has direct influence on what opinions you have? That has nothing to do with whether or not this is a human rights atrocity. If there is nothing inherently a part of you that tells you that this is wrong, and you only think that westerners think this because of cultural norms and preconceptions, then it may be time to reexamine your system of morality.
Whether or not a document declaring universal human rights was ever signed by Uganda has absolutely NOTHING to do with whether or not this bill is wrong. It is this kind of thinking on the part of people in the First World that allows genocide to happen. Meanwhile, as we sit around and have a conversation on our computers about whether or not Uganda actually signed a human rights document, and whether or not right and wrong are "real" or if they are just abstract psychological constructs (which for all we know, is absolutely everything, a fact which lends NO insight into how we should proceed to lead our lives), there are individuals who are about to be executed for nothing more than their sexual orientation.
"I bet you $1000 if you were raised in Saudi Arabia you'd think it was cool to kill gays."
And I bet you if you were raised in Nazi Germany you would think that the Holocaust was a cool plan. But does this hypothetical, even for a moment, actually make you reconsider whether or not it's morally acceptable? If your answer is "Well I would only think that because I'm raised in a society that thinks that..." then you need to seriously ask yourself whether you identify your sense of morality with your nationality, or with your humanity.
|
On May 11 2011 17:40 HULKAMANIA wrote:Show nested quote +On May 11 2011 17:35 Draconizard wrote:On May 11 2011 17:26 HULKAMANIA wrote:On May 11 2011 17:09 zalz wrote:On May 11 2011 16:27 TechniQ.UK wrote:
Even though I am a Christian, a rather traditional Christian at that. This bill horrifies me and it is radically unchristian.
By the same logic those who have sex outside of marriage should also be put to death in that country.
Which of course will never happen because really this is a question of homophobia, not religion or God.
Yes because killing homosexuals is really un-christian... "And if a man lie with mankind, as with womankind, both of them have committed abomination: they shall surely be put to death; their blood shall be upon them." Leviticus snap. You shouldn't bother with defending christianity as long as that piece of saw-esque literature i still a part of it. I think there is a certain respectable honesty in admitting mistakes. I also think there is a sense of spinelessness when you blindly try to wash away all blame for a problem your religion of choice caused. Nothing Uganda is doing is against christianity and to deny that christian homopobia is fuelling this is outright ignorant. Perhaps you truly don't know any better. Perhaps you spit on the graves of homosexuals in Uganda by being more occupied with freeing your religion of blame. Your religion is responsible for this and to deny this is sick. You sound like a pretty hostile dude to be honest. So he's... what all now? a spineless, sick, homosexual-grave-spitter who's engaged in an outright ignorant denial of Christian homophobia? Did I cover all the salient points there? His argument is all that matters. If it is sound, regardless of churlish phrasing, it falls to his opponents to attempt a counter. If it is not sound, no amount of polite couching will change this. Tone matters little, if at all. I dunno. Is there nothing to be said for polite disagreement? Is there nothing to be said for decent conversation? I mean I think it's actually very difficult to have a dialogue with someone who treats you with open contempt. So what you're doing in practice by treating your opponent as if he or she was a scumbag is expressing that you don't want to hear what they're saying, that you really just want to browbeat someone. Tone matters a great deal.
And you still avoid talking about the issue or his points entirely...
Thanks a lot for being the manners police and nothing else, this conversation really needed it...?
|
On May 11 2011 17:40 HULKAMANIA wrote:Show nested quote +On May 11 2011 17:35 Draconizard wrote:On May 11 2011 17:26 HULKAMANIA wrote:On May 11 2011 17:09 zalz wrote:On May 11 2011 16:27 TechniQ.UK wrote:
Even though I am a Christian, a rather traditional Christian at that. This bill horrifies me and it is radically unchristian.
By the same logic those who have sex outside of marriage should also be put to death in that country.
Which of course will never happen because really this is a question of homophobia, not religion or God.
Yes because killing homosexuals is really un-christian... "And if a man lie with mankind, as with womankind, both of them have committed abomination: they shall surely be put to death; their blood shall be upon them." Leviticus snap. You shouldn't bother with defending christianity as long as that piece of saw-esque literature i still a part of it. I think there is a certain respectable honesty in admitting mistakes. I also think there is a sense of spinelessness when you blindly try to wash away all blame for a problem your religion of choice caused. Nothing Uganda is doing is against christianity and to deny that christian homopobia is fuelling this is outright ignorant. Perhaps you truly don't know any better. Perhaps you spit on the graves of homosexuals in Uganda by being more occupied with freeing your religion of blame. Your religion is responsible for this and to deny this is sick. You sound like a pretty hostile dude to be honest. So he's... what all now? a spineless, sick, homosexual-grave-spitter who's engaged in an outright ignorant denial of Christian homophobia? Did I cover all the salient points there? His argument is all that matters. If it is sound, regardless of churlish phrasing, it falls to his opponents to attempt a counter. If it is not sound, no amount of polite couching will change this. Tone matters little, if at all. I dunno. Is there nothing to be said for polite disagreement? Is there nothing to be said for decent conversation? I mean I think it's actually very difficult to have a dialogue with someone who treats you with open contempt. So what you're doing in practice by treating your opponent as if he or she was a scumbag is expressing that you don't want to hear what they're saying, that you really just want to browbeat someone. Tone matters a great deal.
When dealing with one who engages in such behavior, is it not thus all the more satisfying to impale him (the active "hers" of this forum can be counted on one hand) upon the cold point of logic and watch as he flounders about, impotent in his rage? I am unconvinced of the virtues of so-called polite conversation; more often than not, the contempt is still there, a putrescent core festering beneath a newly burnished surface. Why not, for expediency's sake, have it just sit in the open? Rather than striving toward civility, we should endeavor toward goals such as soundness or clarity. It would be nice to have them all, I suppose, but if I were to sacrifice one, it would most certainly be the former.
|
This truly is horrible, totalbiscuit ade me aware of this a few hours ago but signing this too!
|
On May 11 2011 17:58 Draconizard wrote:Show nested quote +On May 11 2011 17:40 HULKAMANIA wrote:On May 11 2011 17:35 Draconizard wrote:On May 11 2011 17:26 HULKAMANIA wrote:On May 11 2011 17:09 zalz wrote:On May 11 2011 16:27 TechniQ.UK wrote:
Even though I am a Christian, a rather traditional Christian at that. This bill horrifies me and it is radically unchristian.
By the same logic those who have sex outside of marriage should also be put to death in that country.
Which of course will never happen because really this is a question of homophobia, not religion or God.
Yes because killing homosexuals is really un-christian... "And if a man lie with mankind, as with womankind, both of them have committed abomination: they shall surely be put to death; their blood shall be upon them." Leviticus snap. You shouldn't bother with defending christianity as long as that piece of saw-esque literature i still a part of it. I think there is a certain respectable honesty in admitting mistakes. I also think there is a sense of spinelessness when you blindly try to wash away all blame for a problem your religion of choice caused. Nothing Uganda is doing is against christianity and to deny that christian homopobia is fuelling this is outright ignorant. Perhaps you truly don't know any better. Perhaps you spit on the graves of homosexuals in Uganda by being more occupied with freeing your religion of blame. Your religion is responsible for this and to deny this is sick. You sound like a pretty hostile dude to be honest. So he's... what all now? a spineless, sick, homosexual-grave-spitter who's engaged in an outright ignorant denial of Christian homophobia? Did I cover all the salient points there? His argument is all that matters. If it is sound, regardless of churlish phrasing, it falls to his opponents to attempt a counter. If it is not sound, no amount of polite couching will change this. Tone matters little, if at all. I dunno. Is there nothing to be said for polite disagreement? Is there nothing to be said for decent conversation? I mean I think it's actually very difficult to have a dialogue with someone who treats you with open contempt. So what you're doing in practice by treating your opponent as if he or she was a scumbag is expressing that you don't want to hear what they're saying, that you really just want to browbeat someone. Tone matters a great deal. When dealing with one who engages in such behavior, is it not thus all the more satisfying to impale him (the active "hers" of this forum can be counted on one hand) upon the cold point of logic and watch as he flounders about, impotent in his rage? I am unconvinced of the virtues of so-called polite conversation; more often than not, the contempt is still there, a putrescent core festering beneath a newly burnished surface. Why not, for expediency's sake, have it just sit in the open? Rather than striving toward civility, we should endeavor toward goals such as soundness or clarity. It would be nice to have them all, I suppose, but if I were to sacrifice one, it would most certainly be the former.
If contempt for the individual with whom you disagree is a given, then you're right, tone is of little importance. It's been my experience, though, that nothing much ever comes of arguments where one person just sets out to bash the other. I mean I suppose if your goal in the first place is to derive satisfaction from impaling your opponent with your pointy logic powers, then bashing is a good way to get your jollies. If that's the case, then bash on, my friend, bash on!
|
On May 11 2011 18:15 HULKAMANIA wrote:Show nested quote +On May 11 2011 17:58 Draconizard wrote:On May 11 2011 17:40 HULKAMANIA wrote:On May 11 2011 17:35 Draconizard wrote:On May 11 2011 17:26 HULKAMANIA wrote:On May 11 2011 17:09 zalz wrote:On May 11 2011 16:27 TechniQ.UK wrote:
Even though I am a Christian, a rather traditional Christian at that. This bill horrifies me and it is radically unchristian.
By the same logic those who have sex outside of marriage should also be put to death in that country.
Which of course will never happen because really this is a question of homophobia, not religion or God.
Yes because killing homosexuals is really un-christian... "And if a man lie with mankind, as with womankind, both of them have committed abomination: they shall surely be put to death; their blood shall be upon them." Leviticus snap. You shouldn't bother with defending christianity as long as that piece of saw-esque literature i still a part of it. I think there is a certain respectable honesty in admitting mistakes. I also think there is a sense of spinelessness when you blindly try to wash away all blame for a problem your religion of choice caused. Nothing Uganda is doing is against christianity and to deny that christian homopobia is fuelling this is outright ignorant. Perhaps you truly don't know any better. Perhaps you spit on the graves of homosexuals in Uganda by being more occupied with freeing your religion of blame. Your religion is responsible for this and to deny this is sick. You sound like a pretty hostile dude to be honest. So he's... what all now? a spineless, sick, homosexual-grave-spitter who's engaged in an outright ignorant denial of Christian homophobia? Did I cover all the salient points there? His argument is all that matters. If it is sound, regardless of churlish phrasing, it falls to his opponents to attempt a counter. If it is not sound, no amount of polite couching will change this. Tone matters little, if at all. I dunno. Is there nothing to be said for polite disagreement? Is there nothing to be said for decent conversation? I mean I think it's actually very difficult to have a dialogue with someone who treats you with open contempt. So what you're doing in practice by treating your opponent as if he or she was a scumbag is expressing that you don't want to hear what they're saying, that you really just want to browbeat someone. Tone matters a great deal. When dealing with one who engages in such behavior, is it not thus all the more satisfying to impale him (the active "hers" of this forum can be counted on one hand) upon the cold point of logic and watch as he flounders about, impotent in his rage? I am unconvinced of the virtues of so-called polite conversation; more often than not, the contempt is still there, a putrescent core festering beneath a newly burnished surface. Why not, for expediency's sake, have it just sit in the open? Rather than striving toward civility, we should endeavor toward goals such as soundness or clarity. It would be nice to have them all, I suppose, but if I were to sacrifice one, it would most certainly be the former. If contempt for the individual with whom you disagree is a given, then you're right, tone is of little importance. It's been my experience, though, that nothing much ever comes of arguments where one person just sets out to bash the other. I mean I suppose if your goal in the first place is to derive satisfaction from impaling your opponent with your pointy logic powers, then bashing is a good way to get your jollies. If that's the case, then bash on, my friend, bash on!
I did not set out to only bash, my post has plenty of solid points.
It is true however that i have little regard for people who's first response at such inhumanity is to rush to defend their religion. If a person cares more about how their religion is perceived and about white-washing it's horrible parts then the lives of other human beings, then such a person barely registers as a human being on my radar.
I also find it somewhat hypocritical to call for polite debate when the opposing side in this case is pro-execution of minorities. It's disturbing to see a person demand to be treated politely whilst their entire point is based around executing homosexuals.
I can engage in polite discussion on plenty of subjects but when it's something like this i don't find the need to sugar coat things. This isn't a tax bracket change it's the lives of innocent people that are being put on the line. And regardless of how i may "bash" my opponents, none of my posts are soley that. I provide arguments, points, all the things for a healthy discussion. At times my loathing for people who trivialize the lives of human beings might shine through but consider it my handicap to not be able to be polite when surrounded by the hatefull, murderous and apologists.
|
On May 11 2011 18:42 zalz wrote:Show nested quote +On May 11 2011 18:15 HULKAMANIA wrote:On May 11 2011 17:58 Draconizard wrote:On May 11 2011 17:40 HULKAMANIA wrote:On May 11 2011 17:35 Draconizard wrote:On May 11 2011 17:26 HULKAMANIA wrote:On May 11 2011 17:09 zalz wrote:On May 11 2011 16:27 TechniQ.UK wrote:
Even though I am a Christian, a rather traditional Christian at that. This bill horrifies me and it is radically unchristian.
By the same logic those who have sex outside of marriage should also be put to death in that country.
Which of course will never happen because really this is a question of homophobia, not religion or God.
Yes because killing homosexuals is really un-christian... "And if a man lie with mankind, as with womankind, both of them have committed abomination: they shall surely be put to death; their blood shall be upon them." Leviticus snap. You shouldn't bother with defending christianity as long as that piece of saw-esque literature i still a part of it. I think there is a certain respectable honesty in admitting mistakes. I also think there is a sense of spinelessness when you blindly try to wash away all blame for a problem your religion of choice caused. Nothing Uganda is doing is against christianity and to deny that christian homopobia is fuelling this is outright ignorant. Perhaps you truly don't know any better. Perhaps you spit on the graves of homosexuals in Uganda by being more occupied with freeing your religion of blame. Your religion is responsible for this and to deny this is sick. You sound like a pretty hostile dude to be honest. So he's... what all now? a spineless, sick, homosexual-grave-spitter who's engaged in an outright ignorant denial of Christian homophobia? Did I cover all the salient points there? His argument is all that matters. If it is sound, regardless of churlish phrasing, it falls to his opponents to attempt a counter. If it is not sound, no amount of polite couching will change this. Tone matters little, if at all. I dunno. Is there nothing to be said for polite disagreement? Is there nothing to be said for decent conversation? I mean I think it's actually very difficult to have a dialogue with someone who treats you with open contempt. So what you're doing in practice by treating your opponent as if he or she was a scumbag is expressing that you don't want to hear what they're saying, that you really just want to browbeat someone. Tone matters a great deal. When dealing with one who engages in such behavior, is it not thus all the more satisfying to impale him (the active "hers" of this forum can be counted on one hand) upon the cold point of logic and watch as he flounders about, impotent in his rage? I am unconvinced of the virtues of so-called polite conversation; more often than not, the contempt is still there, a putrescent core festering beneath a newly burnished surface. Why not, for expediency's sake, have it just sit in the open? Rather than striving toward civility, we should endeavor toward goals such as soundness or clarity. It would be nice to have them all, I suppose, but if I were to sacrifice one, it would most certainly be the former. If contempt for the individual with whom you disagree is a given, then you're right, tone is of little importance. It's been my experience, though, that nothing much ever comes of arguments where one person just sets out to bash the other. I mean I suppose if your goal in the first place is to derive satisfaction from impaling your opponent with your pointy logic powers, then bashing is a good way to get your jollies. If that's the case, then bash on, my friend, bash on! I did not set out to only bash, my post has plenty of solid points. It is true however that i have little regard for people who's first response at such inhumanity is to rush to defend their religion. If a person cares more about how their religion is perceived and about white-washing it's horrible parts then the lives of other human beings, then such a person barely registers as a human being on my radar.
That's fine. I'll just chime in that I think the habit of personally deciding who registers as a human being and who registers as a barely-human based on how well you approve of their worldview is at the heart of the sort of travesty of policy that necessitated this thread in the first place.
I also find it somewhat hypocritical to call for polite debate when the opposing side in this case is pro-execution of minorities. It's disturbing to see a person demand to be treated politely whilst their entire point is based around executing homosexuals.
The person you opposed yourself to is not "pro-execution" of minorities or homosexuals. The bill, by his own admission, horrified him. He did not "demand" to be treated politely, either. I was the one that suggested your obvious contempt for Mr. TechniQ.UK was a problem.
|
On May 11 2011 18:42 zalz wrote:Show nested quote +On May 11 2011 18:15 HULKAMANIA wrote:On May 11 2011 17:58 Draconizard wrote:On May 11 2011 17:40 HULKAMANIA wrote:On May 11 2011 17:35 Draconizard wrote:On May 11 2011 17:26 HULKAMANIA wrote:On May 11 2011 17:09 zalz wrote:On May 11 2011 16:27 TechniQ.UK wrote:
Even though I am a Christian, a rather traditional Christian at that. This bill horrifies me and it is radically unchristian.
By the same logic those who have sex outside of marriage should also be put to death in that country.
Which of course will never happen because really this is a question of homophobia, not religion or God.
Yes because killing homosexuals is really un-christian... "And if a man lie with mankind, as with womankind, both of them have committed abomination: they shall surely be put to death; their blood shall be upon them." Leviticus snap. You shouldn't bother with defending christianity as long as that piece of saw-esque literature i still a part of it. I think there is a certain respectable honesty in admitting mistakes. I also think there is a sense of spinelessness when you blindly try to wash away all blame for a problem your religion of choice caused. Nothing Uganda is doing is against christianity and to deny that christian homopobia is fuelling this is outright ignorant. Perhaps you truly don't know any better. Perhaps you spit on the graves of homosexuals in Uganda by being more occupied with freeing your religion of blame. Your religion is responsible for this and to deny this is sick. You sound like a pretty hostile dude to be honest. So he's... what all now? a spineless, sick, homosexual-grave-spitter who's engaged in an outright ignorant denial of Christian homophobia? Did I cover all the salient points there? His argument is all that matters. If it is sound, regardless of churlish phrasing, it falls to his opponents to attempt a counter. If it is not sound, no amount of polite couching will change this. Tone matters little, if at all. I dunno. Is there nothing to be said for polite disagreement? Is there nothing to be said for decent conversation? I mean I think it's actually very difficult to have a dialogue with someone who treats you with open contempt. So what you're doing in practice by treating your opponent as if he or she was a scumbag is expressing that you don't want to hear what they're saying, that you really just want to browbeat someone. Tone matters a great deal. When dealing with one who engages in such behavior, is it not thus all the more satisfying to impale him (the active "hers" of this forum can be counted on one hand) upon the cold point of logic and watch as he flounders about, impotent in his rage? I am unconvinced of the virtues of so-called polite conversation; more often than not, the contempt is still there, a putrescent core festering beneath a newly burnished surface. Why not, for expediency's sake, have it just sit in the open? Rather than striving toward civility, we should endeavor toward goals such as soundness or clarity. It would be nice to have them all, I suppose, but if I were to sacrifice one, it would most certainly be the former. If contempt for the individual with whom you disagree is a given, then you're right, tone is of little importance. It's been my experience, though, that nothing much ever comes of arguments where one person just sets out to bash the other. I mean I suppose if your goal in the first place is to derive satisfaction from impaling your opponent with your pointy logic powers, then bashing is a good way to get your jollies. If that's the case, then bash on, my friend, bash on! I did not set out to only bash, my post has plenty of solid points. It is true however that i have little regard for people who's first response at such inhumanity is to rush to defend their religion. If a person cares more about how their religion is perceived and about white-washing it's horrible parts then the lives of other human beings, then such a person barely registers as a human being on my radar. I also find it somewhat hypocritical to call for polite debate when the opposing side in this case is pro-execution of minorities. It's disturbing to see a person demand to be treated politely whilst their entire point is based around executing homosexuals. I can engage in polite discussion on plenty of subjects but when it's something like this i don't find the need to sugar coat things. This isn't a tax bracket change it's the lives of innocent people that are being put on the line. And regardless of how i may "bash" my opponents, none of my posts are soley that. I provide arguments, points, all the things for a healthy discussion. At times my loathing for people who trivialize the lives of human beings might shine through but consider it my handicap to not be able to be polite when surrounded by the hatefull, murderous and apologists.
I have yet to hear of a gay person murdered with Lectivus 18:22/20:13 quoted as the motive.
(People can interpret the same message differently : http://www.religioustolerance.org/hom_bibh3.htm)
edit: the link doesnt seem to work for some reason, but its important to realise that such a bill would never be sanctioned by any church. Religious christians may frown on homosexuality but they would never actively advocate murder.
|
That's fine. I'll just chime in that I think the habit of personally deciding who registers as a human being and who registers as a barely-human based on how well you approve of their worldview is at the heart of the sort of travesty of policy that necessitated this thread in the first place
And ill respond that this eternal "everyone has a point" mentality is at the heart of the bystanders that let these horrible things happen.
I dissaprove of certain worldviews and i do so harshly at the more extreme worldviews. I believe when faced with a sickening concept it should be treated as such. If i hear a person advocate nazism i would condem them with both solid criticism and criticism of their person. You can call a bad idea a bad idea, there is nothing wrong with that.
The person you opposed yourself to is not "pro-execution" of minorities or homosexuals. The bill, by his own admission, horrified him. He did not "demand" to be treated politely, either. I was the one that suggested your obvious contempt for Mr. TechniQ.UK was a problem.
True, but this person did proceed to try and remove his religion from the blame whilst it carries much of the blame. I was outraged at that for 2 reasons:
1) Religion has everything to do with it. To pretend that it's not is dishonest.
2) His post was aimed at defending his religion, i would assume a "true" christian would soley be occupied with the suffering of the victims of this law rather then instantly fighting a PR war. As if the church's PR is of equall concern as the lives of innocent people.
Yes in ancient hebrew i am sure that abomination translates into "nice person" and killing translates into "be nice to him".
We know what leviticus says, it calls for the murder of all homosexuals. Just because you don't like what it says doesn't mean you get to change it.
edit: the link doesnt seem to work for some reason, but its important to realise that such a bill would never be sanctioned by any church. Religious christians may frown on homosexuality but they would never actively advocate murder.
Who suddenly made you king of the christians? The only requirment to be a christian is to be call yourself a christian.
The bible advocates peace and war. It is a book filled with contradictions wich can be used to justify anything (except abolishing slavery, it loves slavery). Followers can read and take from it what they like because that's what it is, it's a pick and choose book. Reading and embracing the entire bible from start to finish is only really possible if you have a serious case of doublethink.
Religious christians may frown on homosexuality but they would never actively advocate murder.
Ooh well that's good to hear. I am sure this will let all homosexuals in Uganda sleep safe at night.
Are we living in the same world? Christians are pushing this law foreward as we speak. You don't get to wave a magic wand and by divine decree claim these people aren't christian. They are just as much christian as you and their biblical reading is just as legit as yours.
Saying these people aren't christians is about as acceptable a view as saying the USSR wasn't communists. You use a good things glue, bad things rubber, approach. If this was such a violation of christianity i would have assumed the vatican to have spoken out at this point. Seems rather quiet though.
|
On May 11 2011 19:54 zalz wrote:Show nested quote +That's fine. I'll just chime in that I think the habit of personally deciding who registers as a human being and who registers as a barely-human based on how well you approve of their worldview is at the heart of the sort of travesty of policy that necessitated this thread in the first place And ill respond that this eternal "everyone has a point" mentality is at the heart of the bystanders that let these horrible things happen. I dissaprove of certain worldviews and i do so harshly at the more extreme worldviews. I believe when faced with a sickening concept it should be treated as such. If i hear a person advocate nazism i would condem them with both solid criticism and criticism of their person. You can call a bad idea a bad idea, there is nothing wrong with that.
I never suggested that he had a point. I only suggested that you conceiving of him as "barely human" is suspect. You can take that to imply that I think people deserve to be treated with a modicum of decency regardless of whether or not they have a point. That's a fair assessment of my position.
Show nested quote +The person you opposed yourself to is not "pro-execution" of minorities or homosexuals. The bill, by his own admission, horrified him. He did not "demand" to be treated politely, either. I was the one that suggested your obvious contempt for Mr. TechniQ.UK was a problem. True, but this person did proceed to try and remove his religion from the blame whilst it carries much of the blame. I was outraged at that for 2 reasons: 1) Religion has everything to do with it. To pretend that it's not is dishonest. 2) His post was aimed at defending his religion, i would assume a "true" christian would soley be occupied with the suffering of the victims of this law rather then instantly fighting a PR war. As if the church's PR is of equall concern as the lives of innocent people.
Given your presuppositions, you have every right to hate religion. I just wanted to point out that you were accusing TechniQ of being pro-execution, which he explicitly wasn't and that you were calling him a hypocrite for demanding polite treatment, which he certainly didn't.
I originally said that your contempt for TechniQ was problematic, and you accused him of being pro-execution and demanding and barely human. Then I said that thinking of people as subhuman is a dangerous practice, whereupon you accused me of arguing that everyone has a point. These are non sequiturs, which are possibly yet another pitfall of automatically disdaining those with whom you're in disagreement.
|
|
|
I never suggested that he had a point. I only suggested that you conceiving of him as "barely human" is suspect. You can take that to imply that I think people deserve to be treated with a modicum of decency regardless of whether or not they have a point. That's a fair assessment of my position.
I wich case you were wrong in your assumption.
Given your presuppositions, you have every right to hate religion. I just wanted to point out that you were accusing TechniQ of being pro-execution, which he explicitly wasn't and that you were calling him a hypocrite for demanding polite treatment, which he certainly didn't.
That wasn't to him in particular but to the people on the opposite side of my view, as i stated. He wasn't opposite to my view since he was also anti-execution but wich is why i pointed out i posted to him because of his post on how religion wasn't involved.
I didn't call him pro-execution at all wich would be silly because he literally said he wasn't.
I originally said that your contempt for TechniQ was problematic, and you accused him of being pro-execution and demanding and barely human. Then I said that thinking of people as subhuman is a dangerous practice, whereupon you accused me of arguing that everyone has a point. These are non sequiturs, which are possibly yet another pitfall of automatically disdaining those with whom you're in disagreement.
You pile on the assumptions and miss-reading of my posts wich leads you further and further astray from what i actually said. I can't really say anything at this point because no matter what i say, you will only drift further and further away from what i actually said.
Go back and read what i actually said and stop miss-reading half and assuming the other half. I would preffer it if i did not have to spend more posts dealing with semantics.
|
On May 11 2011 20:57 zalz wrote:Show nested quote +I never suggested that he had a point. I only suggested that you conceiving of him as "barely human" is suspect. You can take that to imply that I think people deserve to be treated with a modicum of decency regardless of whether or not they have a point. That's a fair assessment of my position. I wich case you were wrong in your assumption. Show nested quote +Given your presuppositions, you have every right to hate religion. I just wanted to point out that you were accusing TechniQ of being pro-execution, which he explicitly wasn't and that you were calling him a hypocrite for demanding polite treatment, which he certainly didn't. That wasn't to him in particular but to the people on the opposite side of my view, as i stated. He wasn't opposite to my view since he was also anti-execution but wich is why i pointed out i posted to him because of his post on how religion wasn't involved. I didn't call him pro-execution at all wich would be silly because he literally said he wasn't. Show nested quote +I originally said that your contempt for TechniQ was problematic, and you accused him of being pro-execution and demanding and barely human. Then I said that thinking of people as subhuman is a dangerous practice, whereupon you accused me of arguing that everyone has a point. These are non sequiturs, which are possibly yet another pitfall of automatically disdaining those with whom you're in disagreement. You pile on the assumptions and miss-reading of my posts wich leads you further and further astray from what i actually said. I can't really say anything at this point because no matter what i say, you will only drift further and further away from what i actually said. Go back and read what i actually said and stop miss-reading half and assuming the other half. I would preffer it if i did not have to spend more posts dealing with semantics.
I haven't conducted a statistically significant survey yet, but I think this is where every forum discussion terminates: "you don't understand my posts. read them again."
|
United Arab Emirates1141 Posts
On May 11 2011 17:09 zalz wrote:Show nested quote +On May 11 2011 16:27 TechniQ.UK wrote:
Even though I am a Christian, a rather traditional Christian at that. This bill horrifies me and it is radically unchristian.
By the same logic those who have sex outside of marriage should also be put to death in that country.
Which of course will never happen because really this is a question of homophobia, not religion or God.
Yes because killing homosexuals is really un-christian... "And if a man lie with mankind, as with womankind, both of them have committed abomination: they shall surely be put to death; their blood shall be upon them." Leviticus snap. You shouldn't bother with defending christianity as long as that piece of saw-esque literature i still a part of it. I think there is a certain respectable honesty in admitting mistakes. I also think there is a sense of spinelessness when you blindly try to wash away all blame for a problem your religion of choice caused. Nothing Uganda is doing is against christianity and to deny that christian homopobia is fuelling this is outright ignorant. Perhaps you truly don't know any better. Perhaps you spit on the graves of homosexuals in Uganda by being more occupied with freeing your religion of blame. Your religion is responsible for this and to deny this is sick.
How is Christianity responsible for anti-gay bills?? I'm a conservative Christian and the bible is the Word of God. Yet I don't hate gays and not only that, but I love gay people. Gay people are also made in the image of God and are therefore loved by God and by Christians (the Sons of God). Who am I to pass judgement and condemn another made in the image of God? I am no better as a fellow sinner. What about levitical law? I should be dead by now!!!! (remember the one about rebellious children? I should be stoned to death by now). But I'm still alive - WOW. Does that mean the bible is null? By no means! What then is the purpose of the law? It is to show us the ultimate consequence of sin and the holiness of God. It is our tutor and it teaches us what Sin is. So then - will a Man who sleeps with another Man die? Yes. God will judge him on the last day and he will be punished for his sin. Did God eat his words? No. Did he ask us to deal out justice? No - "for Vengeance is mine", says the LORD.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
