DeSantis isn't running in 2024.

Author: TheUnderdog

Posts

Total: 81
#61
Sidewalker
Sidewalker's avatar
Debates: 8
Posts: 3,517
3
2
5
Sidewalker's avatar
Sidewalker
3
2
5
-->
@HistoryBuff
There is alot to say and teach about gay people without ever mentioning sex.
Wrong. The word gay is inseparable from gay sex.
what? that is insane. Maybe you can't think of a gay man without thinking about having sex with him, but that's all you. Most of us don't do that. 
That's not what he does, you are missing his point completely. 

The problem is he can't think of  the children without thinking about having sex with them.   If you go back a few months,  Best.Korea was an active pedophile arguing that he was doing nothing wrong for having sex with children.   I think he had a lot of gay sex in prison, but he didn't like it, he prefers children.

#62
Best.Korea
Best.Korea's avatar
Debates: 414
Posts: 12,563
4
6
10
Best.Korea's avatar
Best.Korea
4
6
10
-->
@Sidewalker
Gross.
#63
Sidewalker
Sidewalker's avatar
Debates: 8
Posts: 3,517
3
2
5
Sidewalker's avatar
Sidewalker
3
2
5
-->
@Best.Korea
Gross.
Yes, it is.
#64
Best.Korea
Best.Korea's avatar
Debates: 414
Posts: 12,563
4
6
10
Best.Korea's avatar
Best.Korea
4
6
10
-->
@Sidewalker
We were talking about how being gay is gross. Now you are trying to change the topic. Great.
#65
Double_R
Double_R's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 5,871
3
2
5
Double_R's avatar
Double_R
3
2
5
-->
@Best.Korea
Doesnt mean that we should teach kids to be gay.
Sexual attraction is a physiological reaction. It's not a choice and it's certainly not something that can be taught. The idea that kids can be taught to be gay is biologically incoherent nonsense.

Irrelevant to the idea that being gay is wrong.
Can you provide a single argument to support the notion that being gay is wrong? Preferably something other than "because God says so"...

#66
Best.Korea
Best.Korea's avatar
Debates: 414
Posts: 12,563
4
6
10
Best.Korea's avatar
Best.Korea
4
6
10
-->
@Double_R
I already beaten your friends. I dont see why you volunteer to be my next punching bag.


It's not a choice
Taking dick in the ass is a choice, dummy.


Can you provide a single argument to support the notion that being gay is wrong?
Yes. Gays decrease birth rates, increase suicides and mental illnesses in every country that makes a mistake and accepts them. There is no society that benefited from accepting gays. Plus, that leads to the justification of the entire alphabet, not just gays.

Plus, I dont need to support the notion that being gay is wrong, because my opinion remains valid for the reason that "wrong" is always an opinion, not a fact. So either gay is wrong, either nothing is. So if you say that morality is a matter of an opinion, then gay is wrong. If you say it is not a matter of an opinion, then please explain why gay isnt wrong without using an opinion.


Preferably something other than "because God says so"...
Man who doesnt listen to God, listens to devil. You are literally satan's male girlfriend.
#67
Double_R
Double_R's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 5,871
3
2
5
Double_R's avatar
Double_R
3
2
5
-->
@Best.Korea
Sexual attraction is a physiological reaction. It's not a choice 
Taking dick in the ass is a choice, dummy.
Do you understand the difference between a feeling and an action?

Can you provide a single argument to support the notion that being gay is wrong?
Yes. Gays decrease birth rates, increase suicides and mental illnesses in every country that makes a mistake and accepts them. There is no society that benefited from accepting gays. 
There is nothing morally wrong about decreased birthrates.

Correlation is not causation. There is nothing inherent about being gay that causes someone to commit suicide. What does objectively cause suicide rates to increase is when individuals live in a society that does not accept them for who they are. 

It never ceases to amaze me listening to right wingers ostracize the gay community and then point to things like increased suicide rates among them as justification why. If you actually cared about that you would stop being the asshole who makes these people feel like they should.

Plus, I dont need to support the notion that being gay is wrong, because my opinion remains valid for the reason that "wrong" is always an opinion, not a fact. So either gay is wrong, either nothing is. So if you say that morality is a matter of an opinion, then gay is wrong. If you say it is not a matter of an opinion, then please explain why gay isnt wrong without using an opinion.
So eating peanut butter is morally wrong, and you can't tell me I'm wrong because that's my opinion which can't be wrong.

Great argument there.

All morality is ultimately subjective because morality can only be assessed by comparing thoughts or actions against a moral standard, which will always be subjectively chosen.

But once that standard is chosen and accepted, whether something is moral compared to that standard is objective.

My standard for morality is combination of reducing harm and increasing fairness. That which comports with those two ideals is moral. That which conflicts with them is morally wrong.

What is your moral standard for which being gay conflicts?

I already beaten your friends. I dont see why you volunteer to be my next punching bag.
Dunning-Kruger at its best.
#68
Best.Korea
Best.Korea's avatar
Debates: 414
Posts: 12,563
4
6
10
Best.Korea's avatar
Best.Korea
4
6
10
-->
@Double_R
Correlation is not causation. 
Wrong. Repeated correlation is a causation when cause cannot be related to anything else.


Do you understand the difference between a feeling and an action?
Lets see. Which one of those is taking dick in the ass?


What does objectively cause suicide rates to increase is when individuals live in a society that does not accept them for who they are.
Wrong. Societies that accept gays have high suicide rate. Societies that punish homosexuality have low suicide rate. Do you get it now dummy? Accepting gays causes suicides, because homosexuality is a disease that spreads when accepted.


So eating peanut butter is morally wrong, and you can't tell me I'm wrong because that's my opinion which can't be wrong.
Yes. Plus, that is not an argument, so I assume you concede. Unless you have objective morality which says that eating peanut butter is not wrong? Well, do you have it, dummy?


All morality is ultimately subjective because morality can only be assessed by comparing thoughts or actions against a moral standard, which will always be subjectively chosen.
Now you are just repeating what I said, so I assume you concede that your morality is subjective. Therefore if my opinion is that gay is wrong, then that opinion is as good as every other moral opinion. Therefore, gay is wrong and there is no reason for me to stop hating gays.


But once that standard is chosen and accepted, whether something is moral compared to that standard is objective.
So if my standard is that gay is wrong, then thats objective? Well, you sure like hurting yourself here. Subjective standard compared to something only makes the comparison objective, not the standard.


My standard for morality is combination of reducing harm and increasing fairness.
Let me fix it for you so that you can understand.
Your opinion for morality is combination of reducing harm and increasing fairness. 
Its just your opinion. No one has to agree with you, dummy. No one has to accept your stupid standard.


What is your moral standard for which being gay conflicts?
That being gay is wrong, obviously.

I dont even know why you bother. Its not like there is a reward for you to come here volunteering to be my punching bag. Like, go find yourself a wife, have children. There is no need to torture yourself like this.
#69
HistoryBuff
HistoryBuff's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 4,222
3
3
3
HistoryBuff's avatar
HistoryBuff
3
3
3
-->
@Sidewalker
Jesus, I knew he was a complete bigot and an asshole, but a pedophile, bigot asshole.... And one who has the nerve to try about how bad it is for being punished for abusing children. 

It isn't surprising he thinks that torturing children is ok. that's how he likes to spend his free time. 
#70
Double_R
Double_R's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 5,871
3
2
5
Double_R's avatar
Double_R
3
2
5
-->
@Best.Korea
Wrong. Repeated correlation is a causation when cause cannot be related to anything else.
No, that's not how logic works.

Causation has to be demonstrated. Repeated results can at best demonstrate a casual connection between two things, that doesn't tell us which is actually causing the other or whether there is another factor at play causing it.

Your argument is essentially that gay people commit suicide at a higher rate, therefore being gay causes suicide. You're completely disregarding the fact that gay people are largely ostracized within our society and that ostracized groups are far more likely to commit suicide. So you have a clear candidate for a casual connection you are just ignoring.

Do you understand the difference between a feeling and an action?
Lets see. Which one of those is taking dick in the ass?
That would be an action genius.

Do you have an actual thought on the subject of whether one can choose to feel differently towards sex, or does just pretending to be childishly stupid qualify to you as an argument?

Wrong. Societies that accept gays have high suicide rate. Societies that punish homosexuality have low suicide rate. Do you get it now dummy? Accepting gays causes suicides, because homosexuality is a disease that spreads when accepted.
Provide the data.

But once that standard is chosen and accepted, whether something is moral compared to that standard is objective.
So if my standard is that gay is wrong, then thats objective? Well, you sure like hurting yourself here. Subjective standard compared to something only makes the comparison objective, not the standard.
Yes, that's literally what I just explained.

Your opinion for morality is combination of reducing harm and increasing fairness. 
Its just your opinion. No one has to agree with you, dummy. No one has to accept your stupid standard.
So you think fairness and the minimization of harm is a stupid standard for morality. Ok. I'm very interested in what you think the standard for morality should be. Go on...

*Grabbing my popcorn*

What is your moral standard for which being gay conflicts?
That being gay is wrong, obviously.

I dont even know why you bother.
lol I'm sure many people reading this nonsense don't either.

So being gay is wrong according to your standard of morality because your standard for morality is that being gay is wrong.

And you thought of this all by yourself?

Please Google "tautology".

#71
Best.Korea
Best.Korea's avatar
Debates: 414
Posts: 12,563
4
6
10
Best.Korea's avatar
Best.Korea
4
6
10
-->
@Double_R
Causation has to be demonstrated.
You cannot demonstrate causation without repeated correlation.


Repeated results can at best demonstrate a casual connection between two things
Repeated results demonstrate causation, yes.


that doesn't tell us which is actually causing the other
Actually, it does. When we stop punishing gays, suicide rates increase shortly after.


or whether there is another factor at play causing it.
There is no other factor.


Your argument is essentially that gay people commit suicide at a higher rate, therefore being gay causes suicide.
No, omg.... I didnt say that being gay causes suicides(it does, but I didnt say it).

I said that "not punishing gays" causes suicides.

Do you understand what "not punishing" means?

It means  that countries that "accept gays and dont punish them" have more suicides.
Now tell us what you dont understand about this sentence.


"gay people are largely ostracized within our society and that ostracized groups are far more likely to commit suicide"
So why does Afghanistan have less suicides than USA? It is because accepting homosexuality causes more suicides. All the countries that accept homosexuality have more suicides than countries who dont accept it. Get it?

Accepting homosexuality = more suicides

Punishing homosexuality = less suicides


That would be an action genius. Do you have an actual thought on the subject of whether one can choose to feel differently towards sex, or does just pretending to be childishly stupid qualify to you as an argument?
I already told you my thought. Choosing to express homosexuality needs to be punished. Simple, really. I dont see how you missed that.


Provide the data.
Just google top 10 countries by suicide. None of those top 10 suicide countries punish homosexuality.


So you think fairness and the minimization of harm is a stupid standard for morality.
Yes. It is stupid.


So being gay is wrong according to your standard of morality because your standard for morality is that being gay is wrong.
I literally never that. Therefore, you are refuting something I never even said. How very silly of you. Its like you couldnt come up with an argument, so you had to lie about what I said. Literally the most pathetic lie I have ever seen.

It seems that you misunderstood your own question.
You asked:
"What is your moral standard for which being gay conflicts?"
So you asked about what is my moral standard.
I answered: "That being gay is wrong".

It is obvious that the standard "gay being wrong" conflicts with "being gay".

However, you lied and claimed that I said: "Gay being wrong conflicts with being gay because being gay conflicts with gay being wrong".

The bolded part is what you added and then pretended that I said so. Literally, why would you expose yourself as such a liar?

Lets look at your moral system:
Minimization of harm conflicts with increase of harm, and that is the system which you think you are following (you are not really following it).

In the same way, gay being wrong conflicts with being gay.

So please, I know that you prefer to use double standards,
(like when you say that pedophilia is wrong but homosexuality isnt, despite these both being harmful)

but could you at least stop lying to yourself? You know that you are inconsistent and that your logic doesnt make any sense, so the best thing you can do is try fix yourself so that you are more honest.
#72
Greyparrot
Greyparrot's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 28,019
3
4
10
Greyparrot's avatar
Greyparrot
3
4
10
-->
@Best.Korea
Suicides are a measure of a deficiency of Darwinian fitness.

Since most morality is based on Darwinian fitness, it's no surprise why so many countries punish unfit people and try to re-purpose them because those societies depend on the fitness of individuals for the survival of their culture and society in a universe of scarce resources and competition.
#73
Best.Korea
Best.Korea's avatar
Debates: 414
Posts: 12,563
4
6
10
Best.Korea's avatar
Best.Korea
4
6
10
-->
@Greyparrot
The problem with LGBT is:
They are trying to make unfit into fit.

Homosexual behavior doesnt fit in society. When you force society to accept it, it just becomes worse and worse for that society.
#74
Double_R
Double_R's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 5,871
3
2
5
Double_R's avatar
Double_R
3
2
5
-->
@Best.Korea
Your argument is essentially that gay people commit suicide at a higher rate, therefore being gay causes suicide.
No, omg.... I didnt say that being gay causes suicides(it does, but I didnt say it).

I said that "not punishing gays" causes suicides.
First of all, I didn't say that's what you said, I specifically pointed out that this is what your argument amounts to (to which you are agreeing). That's what "essentially" means. Please look it up if this is not your first language.

More importantly, "not punishing gays" is not an action, it's literally the opposite of an action, so you cannot attribute that as a cause for anything. This is logic 101.

So why does Afghanistan have less suicides than USA? It is because accepting homosexuality causes more suicides. All the countries that accept homosexuality have more suicides than countries who dont accept it. Get it?
I get that you don't have the slightest clue how to demonstrate causation, and as a result are the walking poster child example of a correlation causation fallacy.

Suicide rates and what contributes to them is a massively complex topic on the scale you're talking about. The idea that you can point to any one factor and pretend that explains the entire issue is breathtakingly absurd. Please explain how you excluded every other possible factor that may be contributing to whatever statistic you are alleging to be the case. I'll wait.

So you think fairness and the minimization of harm is a stupid standard for morality.
Yes. It is stupid.
And yet you have no alternative to offer.

Just out of curiosity, which of these ideas is stupid? That we should be fair to each other, or that we should not harm one another?

It seems that you misunderstood your own question.
You asked:
"What is your moral standard for which being gay conflicts?"
So you asked about what is my moral standard.
I answered: "That being gay is wrong".

It is obvious that the standard "gay being wrong" conflicts with "being gay".

However, you lied and claimed that I said: "Gay being wrong conflicts with being gay because being gay conflicts with gay being wrong".
In all seriousness, you can't really be this stupid.

"Being gay is wrong" is not a moral standard. You are assessing one being gay as wrong, Im asking you how you got to that point. So when you say that your standard is "being gay is wrong" you are in fact saying "it's wrong because it's wrong". That's logic 101.

This is called a tautology, which you clearly never googled so I'll educate you; a tautology is a statement that is self-affirming due to its own construct. Think of "it is what it is". The reason we point them out is to point out that the speaker (in this case, you) are saying something pretending to have meaning but is entirely meaningless.

I don't care that you think being gay is wrong, I care why. Do you have an answer? Yes or no?


#75
Best.Korea
Best.Korea's avatar
Debates: 414
Posts: 12,563
4
6
10
Best.Korea's avatar
Best.Korea
4
6
10
-->
@Double_R
I specifically pointed out that this is what your argument amounts to
Wrong. I already explained to you my argument multiple times. I dont know why you feel the need to lie again.


More importantly, "not punishing gays" is not an action, it's literally the opposite of an action, so you cannot attribute that as a cause for anything
Your logic is: "not an action = cant cause anything".
Wrong. Lack of punishment for gays causes an increase in suicides. Therefore, now we have seen that a lack of action indeed causes something.
Of course, you assume that "no action = nothing happens" which is a very stupid viewpoint, since the lack of your action causes other things to make action. Therefore, when we make no action against homosexuals, it causes them to spread and infect our society.


I get that you don't have the slightest clue how to demonstrate causation, and as a result are the walking poster child example of a correlation causation fallacy. Suicide rates and what contributes to them is a massively complex topic on the scale you're talking about. The idea that you can point to any one factor and pretend that explains the entire issue is breathtakingly absurd. Please explain how you excluded every other possible factor that may be contributing to whatever statistic you are alleging to be the case. I'll wait.
I am sorry, what? You want me to demonstrate how accepting homosexuality causes suicides? Literally look at any country that accepts homosexuality. Is it a coincidence that countries who dont punish homosexuality have much higher suicide rates than countries who do? Is it the truth that some society benefited from accepting homosexuality? No. There is no coincidence there. Homosexuality leads to other types of delusions and infects society. Its not just being gay. The entire alphabet comes with being gay. Its a slippery slope at its finest.


And yet you have no alternative to offer.
I have plenty of alternatives to offer. Gay being wrong is just one of them.


Just out of curiosity, which of these ideas is stupid? That we should be fair to each other, or that we should not harm one another?
Both are stupid as separate ideas, but when you combine them then they are really stupid.
For example, being fair implies false idea of equality between men and women. Thats why the societies that want to be fair often give women too much rights.
Not harming each other is bad too, since most people misunderstand it. For example, gays are harming our society. So if you were consistent with your standard, you would oppose to gays. The funny thing about your standard is that you decide what is harm, which is circular reasoning. And since you obviously arent very smart, your standard has to suffer.


"Being gay is wrong" is not a moral standard. You are assessing one being gay as wrong, Im asking you how you got to that point.
"We should not harm each other" is not a moral standard. You are assessing harm as something we should not do.

Look, I understand that you have a very low IQ, therefore you cannot understand that "moral standard" is just an opinion that you decided to call "moral standard". You can never justify your moral standard, since it would require infinite reasoning as every reason requires a reason for being a reason.


So when you say that your standard is "being gay is wrong" you are in fact saying "it's wrong because it's wrong"
So when you say that your standard is "we should not harm each other" you are in fact saying "we should not harm each other because we should not harm each other".

Isnt it funny how you beat yourself up with your own arguments?


I don't care that you think being gay is wrong, I care why. Do you have an answer? Yes or no?
I dont even need a reason to have a standard. All moral standards can only be one of these: 1) Circular, 2) having infinite reasons, as every reason requires a reason to be a reason, and so to infinity, 3) not having a reason.

So since 3) and 1) dont satisfy you, and since 2) is impossible to achieve, what follows is that your own logic doesnt make any sense when applied to your own moral standard.

Isnt logic fun?
#76
Double_R
Double_R's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 5,871
3
2
5
Double_R's avatar
Double_R
3
2
5
-->
@Best.Korea
Your logic is: "not an action = cant cause anything".
Wrong.
Ok, let's try a very basic lesson in logic.

Your argument is that "not punishing gays results in higher suicide rates". So let's strip this of it's basic contents to examine the logic of it;

X = punishing gays
Y = increased suicides

Your logic is therefore: Not X results in Y

The problem here is that anything other than "punishing gays" fits into not X. Kittens are not X, therefore kittens cause higher suicide rates. Kareoke is not X, therefore kareoke causes increased suicide rates.

The reason for this error is because you do not understand the difference between "if you fail to do X, Y will result" and "not X is fundamentally the cause for Y"

This does not rule out the argument that punishing the gays decreases suicide rates, but what this shows is that when I assessed the argument you were making as boiling down to "being gay leads to higher suicides" I was absolutely right and remarkably you call me a liar while admitting that you do in fact believe this. The absurdity of your posts couldn't be more blatant.

You want me to demonstrate how accepting homosexuality causes suicides? Literally look at any country that accepts homosexuality. Is it a coincidence that countries who dont punish homosexuality have much higher suicide rates than countries who do?
It could very well be. Or it could also be the case that there are a multitude of factors, like development for example, that tie many of these results together and you are just cherry picking the ones that suit your  worldview. And since you're the one making the claim, YES, you need to demonstrate how it's not any of those. This is another example of how basic logic and critical thinking works, it's called the burden of proof. Look it up.

Both are stupid as separate ideas, but when you combine them then they are really stupid.
For example, being fair implies false idea of equality between men and women. Thats why the societies that want to be fair often give women too much rights.
Serious question; why is it wrong to give women "too much rights"?

Not harming each other is bad too, since most people misunderstand it. For example, gays are harming our society. 
What's wrong with gays harming our society?

So when you say that your standard is "we should not harm each other" you are in fact saying "we should not harm each other because we should not harm each other".
Yes, because when we talk about a moral standard we are talking about the basic concepts that morality is founded upon.

If harm is the standard morality is based on, then when we talk about moral issues we are talking about the harm as a general subject. Why is it wrong to steal? Because it's harmful to the person whose things were stolen. Why is it wrong to hit someone? Because it's harmful to the person who got hit.

Basic concepts can form a basis for morality because they can be applied to any moral discussion.

Explain how "being gay" applies to the question of whether it's wrong to steal, or to hit someone.

#77
Best.Korea
Best.Korea's avatar
Debates: 414
Posts: 12,563
4
6
10
Best.Korea's avatar
Best.Korea
4
6
10
-->
@Double_R
X = punishing gays
Y = increased suicides
Ok, you are starting to get it. Good job.


Your logic is therefore: Not X results in Y
Good job, you are doing well.


The problem here is that anything other than "punishing gays" fits into not X.
Okay, you are starting to be stupid again. Just when I hoped I was making some progress with you....

What you are saying is not a problem, since it does not deny that "not X = Y".


Kittens are not X, therefore kittens cause higher suicide rates. Kareoke is not X, therefore kareoke causes increased suicide rates.
Okay, so your fallacy of choice is a strawman fallacy.

You are refuting an argument no one ever made, and your refutation does not refute that "not punishing gays = increased suicides".

You are saying that
"kittens are not punishing gays = an increase in suicide rates."

Even if we assume that what you say is true, it still stands that "not punishing gays = increased suicides" and that "Not X results in Y".

However, what you obviously fail to understand is that "not punishing gays =/= kittens".

"Not punishing gays" describes the entire world that accepts gays. It doesnt describe kittens alone. So yes, the entire world that accepts gays is at fault. The entire world that doesnt punish gays is causing suicides, as it stands and does nothing while homosexuality spreads.

So no, you dont get to blame this on kittens when its your fault too.


The reason for this error is because you do not understand the difference between "if you fail to do X, Y will result" and "not X is fundamentally the cause for Y"
You say its an error, then you went on to contradict yourself and say:
This does not rule out the argument that punishing the gays decreases suicide rates
Okay, seriously, if you are going to admit that you failed to refute an argument, you could have just said so at the start. No need to blame your failure on kittens.


but what this shows is that when I assessed the argument you were making as boiling down to "being gay leads to higher suicides" I was absolutely right and remarkably you call me a liar while admitting that you do in fact believe this
No. I already explained to you. You are ranting here like an angry teenage girl, instead of using actual arguments for your case.

You lied and said: "You are only saying that being gay causes suicides".

I am clearly saying much more than that, since  I also said:

"Not punishing gays = more suicides".

Therefore, please stop using those blatant lies. You are embarassing yourself.


that tie many of these results together and you are just cherry picking the ones that suit your  worldview
How could I possibly cherry pick every country on Earth?

And didnt you cherry pick when you said that hate causes suicides? There is no way for you to actually prove that. Like, you have to prove that something else didnt cause those suicides, which you cannot prove since you cant isolate elements to make a case. How very embarrasing for you.


And since you're the one making the claim, YES, you need to demonstrate how it's not any of those.
Thats easy. Its not a coincidence because it happens every time. Coincidence isnt so consistent.

You know what else isnt consistent? Your claim that hate causes suicides.


Serious question; why is it wrong to give women "too much rights"?
Women are stupid. In most cases women dont have the intelligence necessary to lead a functional life, so allowing them to make important decisions is equal  to wishing very bad things to happen.


What's wrong with gays harming our society?
I thought you opposed to harm? Guess you changed your mind.


Yes, because when we talk about a moral standard we are talking about the basic concepts that morality is founded upon.
Yes??? So it is circular reasoning! Nice.
I didnt expect that you will admit that your moral standard is based on circular reasoning.


If harm is the standard morality is based on, then when we talk about moral issues we are talking about the harm as a general subject. Why is it wrong to steal? Because it's harmful to the person whose things were stolen. Why is it wrong to hit someone? Because it's harmful to the person who got hit.
Except if harm is the standard for morality, we cannot explain why harm is wrong.
Also, you are using a standard "harm = wrong".
This equation doesnt need to be accepted by anyone. It is just your equation that you decided to follow.
Well, you are not really following it, since you literally support things that cause harm. But lets pretend that you are following it.


Basic concepts can form a basis for morality because they can be applied to any moral discussion.
Except to the moral discussion about them. "Harm = wrong" does not explain why "harm = wrong", or why "harm = wrong" > "harm = right". It just leads us in circles.


Explain how "being gay" applies to the question of whether it's wrong to steal, or to hit someone.
I never claimed it does? You really like refuting arguments no one ever made. Strawman fallacy, yet again lol.

First you said: "moral standard = basic concepts that morality is founded upon".

Then you assumed(!) that I agree with your equation.

I, of course, dont agree with such stupidity.
Moral standard is just a set of opinions about whats right and wrong.

You can have moral standard without basic concepts.
There is no reason for us to think that
"basic concepts > lack of basic concepts".
In fact, I dont need to limit myself to just one opinion about everything.

Then you assumed(!) that I must have only one moral standard.

I dont see why would I be limited to just one moral standard. I can do so, but doesnt mean I will do so.

Then you assumed(!) that I must have one moral standard that applies to everything in the world.

I have lots of opinions about lots of things. I dont need one opinion about everything.

Your assumption "one opinion > lots of opinions" is just your assumption, of course.

As long as my opinions dont contradict each other, they are just as consistent as your one opinion.

So, what we have here is a bunch of assumptions and fallacies made by you. How very fun! Its almost like you are trying very hard to justify your homosexuality, despite that your own standard of harm condemns your homosexuality to a disorder.
#78
Double_R
Double_R's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 5,871
3
2
5
Double_R's avatar
Double_R
3
2
5
-->
@Best.Korea
Okay, so your fallacy of choice is a strawman fallacy.
It wasn't a strawman, it's called reductio ad absurdum (latin for reduced to absurdity). I would explain to you what that is but you clearly do not have the bandwidth to understand this. Please google it and educate yourself, then read my argument again so you can finally understand why not doing something cannot be the cause for something else.

How could I possibly cherry pick every country on Earth?
You have yet to prove your claim so this statement is meaningless. If you're going to keep claiming all of the countries that punish gays have lower suicide rates, provide the data.

You are the one making this claim so the burden is in you to prove it.

Except to the moral discussion about them. "Harm = wrong" does not explain why "harm = wrong", or why "harm = wrong" > "harm = right". It just leads us in circles.
I explained this in detail already, why is this so difficult for you?

It doesn't lead us in circles. The argument isn't nor was it ever that the standard for morality must be justified. If you were paying attention, I already explained that the standard itself is the starting point so it will always be subjective.

You can have moral standard without basic concepts.
No, you can't. Without basic concepts at the core of your morality you don't have a moral standard, all you have are a set of moral pronouncements with no basis and no way to resolve any question about morality not included in said pronouncements.
#79
Best.Korea
Best.Korea's avatar
Debates: 414
Posts: 12,563
4
6
10
Best.Korea's avatar
Best.Korea
4
6
10
-->
@Double_R
It wasn't a strawman, it's called reductio ad absurdum
So its not just strawman, but also an appeal to emotions! You are arguing from your feelings, because you couldnt refute my argument.

It still stands that "not punishing gays = increase in suicides".


so you can finally understand why not doing something cannot be the cause for something else
I have proven over and over that "not punishing gays = increase in suicides".

Truth hurts you, because you cannot disprove it.


 If you're going to keep claiming all of the countries that punish gays have lower suicide rates, provide the data.
Judging by your intelligence, which seems to be rather low, every data that you disagree with you will call correlation. Every data that you agree with you will call causation. Which does prove your inconsistency.


It doesn't lead us in circles.
And I hope that now you will explain to us why it doesnt lead us in circles.


The argument isn't nor was it ever that the standard for morality must be justified.
So people are supposed to accept it without justification, which is the same as going in circles saying its good because its good.


If you were paying attention, I already explained that the standard itself is the starting point so it will always be subjective.
So your moral standard is just your opinion that you chose to have.


Without basic concepts at the core of your morality you don't have a moral standard
Wrong. Again, moral standard =/= basic concepts.


all you have are a set of moral pronouncements with no basis
no basis =/= no moral standard

moral standard = set of opinions about right and wrong

no way to resolve any question about morality not included in said pronouncements.
No way to resolve questions about morality not included in said pronouncements =/= no moral standard.

After all, if new question arises, I can always have an opinion about it and include it in my moral standard if I feel like it.

If I dont feel like it, then I dont need to even think about it.

I dont see why you feel the need to repeat same refuted arguments from one comment ago. I expected more from you.
#80
Double_R
Double_R's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 5,871
3
2
5
Double_R's avatar
Double_R
3
2
5
-->
@Best.Korea
It wasn't a strawman, it's called reductio ad absurdum
So its not just strawman, but also an appeal to emotions!
Did you even bother to Google reductio ad absurdum? No, of course you didn't.

I have proven over and over that "not punishing gays = increase in suicides".
No, you've claimed it over and over again. You haven't once provided any data to back it up. You've also demonstrated that you don't even know how to prove it because you don't understand how to demonstrate a casual connection in the first place.

No way to resolve questions about morality not included in said pronouncements =/= no moral standard.
Genius, that's literally the entire point of a moral standard.

You can't be this stupid.
#81
Best.Korea
Best.Korea's avatar
Debates: 414
Posts: 12,563
4
6
10
Best.Korea's avatar
Best.Korea
4
6
10
-->
@Double_R
Genius, that's literally the entire point of a moral standard.
I am afraid thats just your opinion about the point of a moral standard.

I guess you are one of those who dont know that opinion =/= fact.



Did you even bother to Google reductio ad absurdum? No, of course you didn't.
I dont need to google it. You literally admitted that you cant refute "not punishing gays = increase in suicides" after you tried blaming it on kittens in an attempt to shake responsibility from yourself.

Do you want an example of reductio ad absurdum?

A man sees a child drowning. He decides not to save the child. The child drowns.
When asked "Why didnt you save the child?", man answered "There was a kitten there who also didnt do anything to save that child, so its not my fault.".

This is your case. You too tried blaming your failures on kittens!