|
|
|
Valiant Dancer
Forum Goalie
USA
4826 Posts |
 Posted - 02/07/2006 : 13:03:29 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally spewed forth from the festering hate-hole of Bill scott
quote:
Originally posted by marfknox
We can because nothing is stopping us. Again, in morality were absolute, something would be stopping us! There would be consequences for breaking the laws. But there aren't.
(bill) Or maybe not just yet. Justice delayed is still justice.
You are assuming that justice needs to be done here.
quote:
Jason Barker wrote: Why do ALL of your posts get around to homosexuality eventually?
Mark: Because he's obsessed by his own distaste for gay male sex.
(bill) even if that was the case so what? Who cares? Because "whatever I want, which includes applying more own personal moral system to my own behavior and judgments of others." So you can judge me all you want, I don't operate by your morals but rather my own. That way I can justify whatever the hell I want to. See moral relativism is fun.
How quickly you abandon your morals in order to bash others. Not judging you, of course, I'm just saying. 
quote:
Notice that his info profile includes very little information, but under marital status, he didn't just put “married”, he put “married to a woman”.
(bill) And what next after homo marriage? Are you married to a
A. Man
B. Women
C. Farm animal
D. domestic animal
Please check one
Remember, no bigot homophobic remarks here. I don't share your morals but rather mine which are "whatever I want, which includes applying more own personal moral system to my own behavior and judgments of others."
As marriage is a contract between consenting adults and animals cannot legally give consent or execute contracts, the only possibility is polygamy. And seeing since it was acceptable during Biblical times, you should have no problem with it. Wouldn't bug me in the least. Well, except for that whole rewriting computer code to handle multiple spouses. And let's not limit it to one man and multiple wives. To be fair, we should include one woman with multiple husbands.
quote:
Mark: Are you just blind to reality? Most gay men do not engage in “unbridled, unrestricted, sleeping around with anyone and everyone”. I have two gay friends. One has less than averaged one sexual partner a year since he turned 18 and most of his partners have been boyfriends, not mere sex partners. Oh, and did I mention that he ALWAYS uses condoms? The other gay guy friend has been in a serious relationship for years and he's not even 30 yet –
(bill) You base the sexual pattern of gay america off of 2 personal friends? I have two friends as well who both married their high school sweetheart and have known no other. One now lives in LA. I guess I could say that all hetros in the LA metropolitan area are monogamous...
Since there is no contract which has the intimation of permanency that marriage entails for same sex couples, it does have a detrimental effect on longevity. But not more than heterosexual couples. I actually believe there are studies bearing this out |
Cthulhu/Asmodeus when you're tired of voting for the lesser of two evils
Brother Cutlass of Reasoned Discussion |
 |
|
|
marfknox
SFN Die Hard
USA
3739 Posts |
Posted - 02/07/2006 : 13:11:23 [Permalink]
|
Bill wrote: So random mutations have never resulted in an ill effect that might bring the species down?
Random mutations occur in individuals. They have the potential to take an individual out of the gene pool, thus, the answer to your question is, No, random mutations have never brought a species down – at least not in the short term – because if an ill effect occurs, it doesn't survive long enough to spread to the entire species.
That said, some mutations that were advantages in one environment eventually become a detriment. For example, the panda is a specialized species that has evolved to very specific bamboo eating habits. This was a clear advantage when bamboo was taking over a large part of the Asian environment, and that is why the panda flourished. However, now that the bamboo is going away, the panda, too, is at a disadvantage and may go extinct because of the very traits that once kept it surviving.
You asked if homosexuality is bringing the species “up or down”, and I guess you meant is it helping or hurting humans survive. Are you saying that – like panda's eating bamboo – that homosexuality once was an advantage for humans, but today it is a disadvantage? (It had to be an advantage at one point or it would not have survived so long.) I'd definitely say that homosexuality is helping humans survive. The majority of homosexuals engaging in reckless sexual behavior are only hurting themselves and each other; they are hardly a threat to the existence of humankind – my goodness, look at the number of humans on the planet and how quickly we've flourished compared with other animals! If anything, our overpopulating is a detriment to our long-term survival. Homosexuals who are not running around screwing everything that moves (most of them) are living productive lives and often giving back to society by adopting or fostering unwanted orphans (many HIV positive kids in America are adopted by sympathetic gay couples, for example), helping their relatives care for their children, being teachers, doctors, social workers, and many other useful trades and services. Can you please explain to me how the self-destructive behavior or a reckless minority is bringing down the entire human race, over 6 billion strong?
|
"Too much certainty and clarity could lead to cruel intolerance" -Karen Armstrong
Check out my art store: http://www.marfknox.etsy.com
|
|
|
|
marfknox
SFN Die Hard
USA
3739 Posts |
Posted - 02/07/2006 : 13:12:41 [Permalink]
|
Bill wrote: Does the international community have the right to step in and force their morals and code of ethics on a sovereign nation who is not breaking their own moral code or "current laws?
If morality is relative, everybody and every group has the right to do whatever the hell they want. Now whether they will succeed in their efforts, well, that depends on if circumstances are in their favor. Some people will fight battles they can't win because to them, tolerating a system they find repulsive makes life not worth living. Other people are more practical – they only fight the battles they think they can win and hope the tide will change in their favor. It's really a personal (or in the case of big group's, a social) philosophical decision. There are no hard and fast rules on this because it is all relative to specific context.
Again, Bill, you keep asking us questions, and we give all different kinds of answers, which really only proves over and over that morality really is relative. If it were absolute, we'd all be agreeing on some basic principles. But we're not. Again, I ask you to identify an example of an absolute moral law, and then tell us how you know that law is part of the absolute code and proof of how you know that.
Bill wrote: One more time. I did not say you can't do this. I just said when you do do this it always ends in circular logic.
The hell it does. Bill, I'm not making any claims, so your logic is inappropriate. When I say gay marriage should be legal, that is shorthand (and more powerful phrasing, politically) for: I like gay people and therefore want them to have the same rights as everyone else, and I think my opinion should be the law and social norms because it would overall make people happier and society more secure. I think happy people and a secure society is a good think and I think most people would agree with me about that, so let's do it! Now if I stated it more like an opinion for the sake of clarity, politically the statement might be confusing or just sound plain weak, so instead I use moral language: words like “should”, “right” and “wrong”. And I'm not being deceptive since moral absolutists do not have a semantic monopoly on those words.
Do you get what I'm saying? I'm not saying we should make gay marriage legal because of some moral absolute that I claim exists. I'm just saying I'd personally like to live in a world where gay marriage is legal and I think most people already do or can be persuaded to agree with me on that point. There is no circular logic.
Bill contradicts himself:
I did not say you can't do this. (applying my own moral system to the judgement of the behavior of others.)
so in reality nobody can say ANYTHING is moral or unmoral and if they did the person who was told he was immoral only has to say "not according to my moral code" so in reality this just leads to moral relativism.
Doublespeak! So which is it, Bill, can I judge others based on my own moral system, or can't I? Of course the answer is that I can, and I do, and so does everyone else, including you, all the time. In the end, the winner is the people who can enforce their moral codes either through law or simply social norms. And that pretty much means getting most people in you local community to agree with you.
Bill wrote: even if that was the case so what? Who cares?
Again you make the beautiful mistake that moral relativists aren't passionate about our own moral systems. Who cares? I care, Bill. I personally feel very strongly that homosexual behavior should be accepted by our society. I don't think my feelings are backed by anything absolute – I just like how things turn out when gay people are accepted. So I will call those who disagree with me “bigots”, I will mock them publicly, I will rigorously question the basis for their disagreement to expose any internal in |
"Too much certainty and clarity could lead to cruel intolerance" -Karen Armstrong
Check out my art store: http://www.marfknox.etsy.com
|
|
|
|
marfknox
SFN Die Hard
USA
3739 Posts |
Posted - 02/07/2006 : 13:15:27 [Permalink]
|
Bill wrote: You base the sexual pattern of gay america off of 2 personal friends?
Did I say that? Hmmm… no, I didn't. Actually, I mentioned heavy involvement with gay communities in one city and two separate campuses too. I've also mentioned stats, as have others here. However, that's not the point. YOU wrote that “homos…(insert all kinds of reckless sexual behavior.)” Then you wrote “some heterosexuals… (also do this)”. The indication was that homosexuals are all or mostly sexual deviants. This is not the case, so the testimony about my two friends was to point out that YOUR generalized claim about homosexuals was false. You were trying to ascribe the behavior of some homosexuals on to all or most of them. It you didn't mean to do that, your phrasing still implied it.
Bill wrote: In all of it's glory... (referring to San Fran as the bathhouse capital of the world.)
Actually, Bill, it is not at all in its glory. The bathhouse scene has gone the way of most underground homosexual male sex cultures that flourish 20-30 years ago: it has been reduced and cleaned up to promote safe sex. That's because it is now socially acceptable for gays to be out and to express their sexuality in healthy, love-based relationships. And more and more of them are doing so all the time. But I suppose you'd like us to go back to socially alienating and legally prosecuting gays, thus thrusting them back into either deviant underground cultures or a personal hell of fear, loneliness, and repression. How nice of you.
Bill wrote: Why aren't you involved in the nambla rights movment? Or the farmers for fun parade?
Short answer: Because it is not in my personal moral system to do so.
Long answer: Because sex with children and animals does not involve a mutually willing relationship, and both often involve physical and psychological harm that can be measured. I oppose all acts that force destructive behavior on parties that cannot consent, and neither children nor animals can consent. Apparently you are unable to see the very pronounced differences even though it has been pointed out to you repeatedly. (Basically I just explained the basis for my own personal system in regards to homosexuality, pedophilia and bestiality.)
What's your moral system based on, Bill? Mine's generally based on human joy (being good) balanced with human suffering (being bad). Of course it gets rather complicated since most things cause a little joy and suffering, so I tend to deal with issues on a case by case basis. But basically it comes down to me hating to suffer, hating to watch other people suffer, loving to feel joy, and loving to watch other people feel joy. It's a pretty straight-forward basis, and totally makes sense with my naturalistic outlook that I'm a social animal. What's your basis?
Bill wrote: So because society held the position that homo sex was illegal and immoral this caused the gays to become reckless in their sex?
You ever read The Bell Curve and then criticism of it? Lots of people have claimed that black and other minorities are inferior by pointing to their overall behavior in society and then saying “See!” We can still do this in America with African Americans – they populate more than their proportion in prisons for violent crimes. Does this mean black people are naturally more prone to violence? Of course nobody educated makes that claim today because now we have all this evidence that shows that social instability causes deviant behavior. Hell, we see this on a personal level all the time: The teacher thinks Joe is stupid and badly behaved, and so the teacher doesn't challenge Joe or give him any responsibilities, and might even berate him in class worse than other students. As a result, Joe gets worse, not better. So what do you think happens to someone who, as a late teen or young adult, realized that they have a homosexual orientation, and also realizes |
"Too much certainty and clarity could lead to cruel intolerance" -Karen Armstrong
Check out my art store: http://www.marfknox.etsy.com
|
|
|
|
Siberia
SFN Addict
Brazil
2322 Posts |
Posted - 02/07/2006 : 14:41:40 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Valiant Dancer
Since there is no contract which has the intimation of permanency that marriage entails for same sex couples, it does have a detrimental effect on longevity. But not more than heterosexual couples. I actually believe there are studies bearing this out, but longevity in relationships devoid of such a contract are not uncommon within the GBLT arena either. My wife has an aunt who has been with her same sex partner for over 35 years. There are also ample examples of homosexual couples who are monogamous.
So do I. Same sex partners, male and all their horrible anal sex, monogamous and together for over 40 years. They're my mother's friend - one's almost 80 and the other above 60. Whereas none of my aunts managed to keep a stable heterosexual marriage. Go figure. |
"Why are you afraid of something you're not even sure exists?"
- The Kovenant, Via Negativa
"People who don't like their beliefs being laughed at shouldn't have such funny beliefs."
-- unknown
|
|
|
|
Bill scott
SFN Addict
USA
2103 Posts |
Posted - 02/07/2006 : 15:10:30 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Valiant Dancer
quote:
Originally spewed forth from the festering hate-hole of Bill scott
quote:
Originally posted by marfknox
We can because nothing is stopping us. Again, in morality were absolute, something would be stopping us! There would be consequences for breaking the laws. But there aren't.
(bill) Or maybe not just yet. Justice delayed is still justice.
You are assuming that justice needs to be done here.
quote:
Jason Barker wrote: Why do ALL of your posts get around to homosexuality eventually?
Mark: Because he's obsessed by his own distaste for gay male sex.
(bill) even if that was the case so what? Who cares? Because "whatever I want, which includes applying more own personal moral system to my own behavior and judgments of others." So you can judge me all you want, I don't operate by your morals but rather my own. That way I can justify whatever the hell I want to. See moral relativism is fun.
How quickly you abandon your morals in order to bash others. Not judging you, of course, I'm just saying.
quote:
Notice that his info profile includes very little information, but under marital status, he didn't just put “married”, he put “married to a woman”.
(bill) And what next after homo marriage? Are you married to a
A. Man
B. Women
C. Farm animal
D. domestic animal
Please check one
Remember, no bigot homophobic remarks here. I don't share your morals but rather mine which are "whatever I want, which includes applying more own personal moral system to my own behavior and judgments of others."
As marriage is a contract between consenting adults and animals cannot legally give consent or execute contracts, the only possibility is polygamy. And seeing since it was acceptable during Biblical times, you should have no problem with it. Wouldn't bug me in the least. Well, except for that whole rewriting computer code to handle multiple spouses. And let's not limit it to one man and multiple wives. To be fair, we should include one woman with multiple husbands.
quote:
Mark: Are you just blind to reality? Most gay men do not engage in “unbridled, unrestricted, sleeping around with anyone and everyone”. I have two gay friends. One has less than averaged one sexual partner a year since he turned 18 and most of his partners have been boyfriends, not mere sex partners. Oh, and did I mention that he ALWAYS uses condoms? The other gay guy friend has been in a serious relationship for years and he's not even 30 yet –
(bill) You base the sexual pattern of gay america off of 2 personal friends? I have two friends as well who both married their high school sweetheart and have known no other. One now lives in LA. I guess I could say that all hetros in the LA metropolitan area are monogamous...
Since there is no contract which has the intimation of permanency that marriage e |
"Lets get one thing clear, Bill. Science does make some assumptions." -perrodetokio-
"In the end as skeptics we must realize that there is no real knowledge, there is only what is most reasonable to believe." -Coelacanth-
The fact that humans do science is what causes errors in science. -Dave W.-
|
|
|
|
Dude
SFN Die Hard
USA
6891 Posts |
Posted - 02/07/2006 : 16:20:33 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Vomited forth from the hate filled festering pie-hole of the bigot Bill:
And so how does "society" decide morality? Do they have a vote? When it appears the society might be changing do they hold another vote? Does it take a simple majority or 2/3 to repeal a morality? Who calls the vote? I am very interested in this process of how the value becomes a moral and then back again.
Yeah, we get together and hold a vote. But only intelligent and rational people are invited, which is why you are unaware of the process. No bigots allowed.
|
Ignorance is preferable to error; and he is less remote from the truth who believes nothing, than he who believes what is wrong.
-- Thomas Jefferson
"god :: the last refuge of a man with no answers and no argument." - G. Carlin
Hope, n.
The handmaiden of desperation; the opiate of despair; the illegible signpost on the road to perdition. ~~ da filth |
|
|
|
|
Dude
SFN Die Hard
USA
6891 Posts |
Posted - 02/07/2006 : 16:23:56 [Permalink]
|
quote:
(bill) Standard SFN game #278 "whine" Call the target a bigot homophobe for calling homo sex immoral. Then call him hate filled and intolerant SOB. If he try's to explain that he does not hate homo just thinks the lifestyle is immoral then call him more names and lecture him on his attempt to explain that he does not hate by calling him hate filled again. And add in homophobic bigot some more if you think it would add to the effect. If this does not make him feel bad use hate filled and bigot 3 or 4 more times. Whatever you don't stop. If you call him a hate filled bigot 25 times by default that will mean he is.
No, bill, your language, tone, and the context in which you use your hate-phrases is what makes you a homophobic bigot.
|
Ignorance is preferable to error; and he is less remote from the truth who believes nothing, than he who believes what is wrong.
-- Thomas Jefferson
"god :: the last refuge of a man with no answers and no argument." - G. Carlin
Hope, n.
The handmaiden of desperation; the opiate of despair; the illegible signpost on the road to perdition. ~~ da filth |
|
|
|
|
HalfMooner
Dingaling
Philippines
15831 Posts |
Posted - 02/07/2006 : 16:55:25 [Permalink]
|
Bill asserted: quote:
(bill) Standard SFN game #278 "whine" Call the target a bigot homophobe for calling homo sex immoral. Then call him hate filled and intolerant SOB. If he try's to explain that he does not hate homo just thinks the lifestyle is immoral then call him more names and lecture him on his attempt to explain that he does not hate by calling him hate filled again. And add in homophobic bigot some more if you think it would add to the effect. If this does not make him feel bad use hate filled and bigot 3 or 4 more times. Whatever you don't stop. If you call him a hate filled bigot 25 times by default that will mean he is.
If someone continuously spews hurtful, mean-spirited and bigoted epithets like "fag" and "homo," most people are sooner rather than later going to conclude that person is a bigot. If it walks like a bigot, and quacks like a bigot, it's defined itself as a bigot.
Can't you even see that, Bill? How can you possibly say, with a straight face, that you are not a bigot? You're not fooling anyone, except possibly yourself.
Be honest to yourself: Just embrace your dark side, Bill, and be done with it.
|
“Biology is just physics that has begun to smell bad.” —HalfMooner
Here's a link to Moonscape News, and one to its Archive. |
|
|
|
Dr. Mabuse
Septic Fiend
Sweden
9697 Posts |
Posted - 02/07/2006 : 17:15:41 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Bill scott
Mark: I've also been pretty deeply involved in the gay rights movement in Columbus, OH in the past, as well as on two campuses,
(bill) Why aren't you involved in the nambla rights movment? Or the farmers for fun parade? They need protection as well.
What the fuck's the matter with you Bill?
What part of gay-rights-does-not-equal-paedophilia don't you understand?
We have told you many times now why there is a huge difference between the two. Aren't you reading? |
Dr. Mabuse - "When the going gets tough, the tough get Duct-tape..."
Dr. Mabuse whisper.mp3
"Equivocation is not just a job, for a creationist it's a way of life..." Dr. Mabuse
Support American Troops in Iraq:
Send them unarmed civilians for target practice..
Collateralmurder. |
|
|
|
marfknox
SFN Die Hard
USA
3739 Posts |
Posted - 02/07/2006 : 17:55:03 [Permalink]
|
Bill wrote: Mark: I've also been pretty deeply involved in the gay rights movement in Columbus, OH in the past, as well as on two campuses,
(bill) Why aren't you involved in the nambla rights movment? Or the farmers for fun parade? They need protection as well.
For one, my name isn't Mark. See my profile. For another, you already asked this exact question and I answered it in my post previous to this post. Pay attention.
|
"Too much certainty and clarity could lead to cruel intolerance" -Karen Armstrong
Check out my art store: http://www.marfknox.etsy.com
|
|
|
|
marfknox
SFN Die Hard
USA
3739 Posts |
Posted - 02/07/2006 : 17:59:58 [Permalink]
|
Bill wrote: Standard SFN game #278 "whine" Call the target a bigot homophobe for calling homo sex immoral. Then call him hate filled and intolerant SOB.
I called you a bigot, but I also explained why I use that label. It wasn't simple name calling or an ad hominin attack, like, say, calling you a big turkey-butt. I also never called you hate-filled. I think you yourself would admit to being intolerant to gay sex, just as I would admit to being intolerant of pedophilia. I also don't think I've whined. So please don't attribute to all of us SFNers what one or two may have done. Stick to trying to convince us of your arguments.
|
"Too much certainty and clarity could lead to cruel intolerance" -Karen Armstrong
Check out my art store: http://www.marfknox.etsy.com
|
|
|
|
H. Humbert
SFN Die Hard
USA
4574 Posts |
Posted - 02/07/2006 : 18:00:43 [Permalink]
|
Bill doesn't hate anyone, his god does. So Bill just loves a homo-hatin' god. I admit, it's a fine distinction.
|
"A man is his own easiest dupe, for what he wishes to be true he generally believes to be true." --Demosthenes
"The first principle is that you must not fool yourself - and you are the easiest person to fool." --Richard P. Feynman
"Face facts with dignity." --found inside a fortune cookie |
|
|
|
marfknox
SFN Die Hard
USA
3739 Posts |
Posted - 02/07/2006 : 18:02:18 [Permalink]
|
Bill wrote: Or maybe not just yet. Justice delayed is still justice.
Oh, are you Hindu? As I have said, Christianity is a religion supported by moral relativism. Moral rules change over time in the stories of the Bible (polygamy being one example) and moral rules of Christians themselves have changed over time too. Also, nowhere in Christian dogma does it state than people are punished in proportion to how much they sinned. Instead it states that all people are hopeless sinners, and all can only be saved through faith in Christ.
|
"Too much certainty and clarity could lead to cruel intolerance" -Karen Armstrong
Check out my art store: http://www.marfknox.etsy.com
|
|
|
|
marfknox
SFN Die Hard
USA
3739 Posts |
Posted - 02/07/2006 : 18:04:28 [Permalink]
|
Bill wrote: (bill) OK OK because of his two friends and your aunt I will say that homo are very loyal to each other. / OK I will admit their has never been a gay man who did cocaine.
Bill, nobody here has claimed that gays never are recklessly promiscuous or sometimes use cocaine. I think everyone here would agree that some gays do that stuff. We are giving examples of gays that don't do that because YOU have implied that ALL or MOST gays are deviant in that way. That is why we keep asking you to back up your claims. We don't want you to sarcastically say that no gays use cocaine or are recklessly promiscuous. We want you to either: admit that most don't do that stuff OR back up your claim that most do with some actual evidence.
|
"Too much certainty and clarity could lead to cruel intolerance" -Karen Armstrong
Check out my art store: http://www.marfknox.etsy.com
|
|
|
 |
|
|
|
Topic Locked
