Total posts: 3,192
Posted in:
-->
@ethang5
And the subject of this discussion is how "cynical" my thinking is? I thought it was about what the president ought to have done during this "panic," particularly his response to sanctuary governors, and the hypothetical situation where you were president. Your allegation of "cynicism" is nothing more than a tone argument, which is an inept derailment tactic.The one where you show how cynicism has wrecked your thinking.
You will supply the explanation, showing the relevance. Observe.
Exactly: I had to supply the explanation. But you have yet to demonstrate its relevance. I entertained the point in order to express my perspective of legal marriage--in retrospect, that was a mistake on my part.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@ethang5
What case? Your analogy had little relevance, much less an explanation. But yes, marriage under common law (legal marriage) is very much like prostitution in that each party is leveraging the other in order secure resources under a binding commercial contract. I do not argue against long-term relationships, or marriage in and of itself, but the State's incarnation of "marriage" is akin to that of a pimp, and those who participate are their hos.Thank you. I believe I can rest my case.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@ethang5
Is there a moral law that says I should make the same discrimination as it does? That is life, we are all affected by the majority and by chance.
That's not "life"; that's a conscious decision. Withholding the assistance of federal officers to make a point to politicians and their base, possibly at the expense of non-complicit parties, especially during a media orchestrated panic, is petty.
It is a disincentive to unpatriotic behavior.
No, it doesn't. At best, you can argue that it addresses the governors' undermining the "chain of command" but it has nothing to do with patriotism.
It teaches that negative behavior will bring about negative consequences.
No it would teach the lesson, "Don't mess with Trump." In order to teach the lesson of which you speak, the consequences have to result from a direct action. It would be like my stating that I wouldn't help my son with his homework because he didn't listen to me when I told him not to play with fire.
Your view here is very cynical
Skeptical is more apropos.
akin to calling marriage, prostitution.
Legal marriage is prostitution.
You think it's to exploit panic, but that is because to you, everything is politics.
Your point is political; hence your mention of the optics, i.e. "And none of them will notice that Trump has not thrown it back in their faces." Why would any of that matter if the point is to hypothetically teach them that actions have consequences?
It's to clearly demonstrate the connection between their behavior and the consequence.
No it isn't. It's merely to reciprocate reactionary behavior.
Yes, I notice that even though Trump is behaving opposite to a way you are calling petty, you still call call him petty.
He isn't behaving petty in this situation (that would be counterintuitive especially given our discussion.) But has he exhibited behavior that as a composite would inform the characterization, "petty"? Yes.
I disagree. For this would not be just flexing or posturing. It is much more important than that.
The importance you are arguing is letting these "sanctuary" governors "know how you feel," rather than providing solutions. The image of democratic government alleges a system of public servants, not a group of lords functioning within the auspices of their king--allegedly. What would be the long term reverberations if one public servant purposefully withheld resources--as you suggested--from another public servant in a time of "crisis"?
All civilisations so far have declined and died.
That is not the least bit true.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@fauxlaw
Fair enough.As this may ultimately be a debate topic, I'm not into firing all my guns into space, so to speak.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@ethang5
Governors saying a president is not welcome and sanctuary cities degrade cohesion and national unity. It makes a country weaker and less able to meet challenges. Telling them "no" would also show that there are real world consequences to voters for electing morons.
And what of non-voters, and those who voted against these governors? Does the current situation make the same discrimination as you do? That is not a solution--neither a long-term nor short-term one. It's a reaction that exploits a panic.
Of course I would not withhold federal funds so that people die, but I would make those Governors rethink the value of federal officers, and certainly knock them down a peg or two off their self-righteous high horse.
Should he seek their kowtow/obeisance or their cooperation?
In my estimation, that would make for an excellent president, and a stronger nation.
I disagree. It makes for a petty president--not that Trump isn't petty. There are times to flex, and there are times to dust off your shoulders. This isn't the time for the former.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@fauxlaw
Which one is that?
Individualism.
I know of several.
May you provide a name and description to these several?
And I do not argue that healthcare is a right.
I know.
There are rights, and there are privileges.
I understand the conclusion you're attempting to draw, but health care isn't a privilege either. That would imply that there's no exchange. It would become a privilege if it were made available to a select few. As long as both patient and physician mutually agree on the terms of service, then entitlements can justifiably be established.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@secularmerlin
@fauxlaw
@fauxlaw:
Because, if healthcare is not a right, why should it be free?
"Should be free" depends on the provider. But health care is not a right. It's a good/service. In order for health care to be a right, one would have to train and educate physicians and nurses and conscript them to service, compelling them under a legal framework. The question isn't really "who's entitled?" but "who's indebted?" particularly to a collective finance scheme.
Morality? Which one? There are as many expressions of morality among humans than there are climates.
But there's only one consistent moral framework.
@secularmerlin:
I still argue that all rights are merely popularly held opinions about what we are entitled to.
All legal rights dictated by a democracy? Yes. Legal rights dictated by a dictator? No. Normative arguments posited within a moral framework? No.
I would like to. It just doesn't seem that there are. There are rights that many people agree ought to be self evident and inalienable.Rights are abstract concepts. Without humans to grant them they would not exist. As such they are neither self evident nor inalienable.
That is the meaning of neither the term "self-evident" nor the term "inalienable." Self-evident means to establish or accept a proposition's "truth" without the need for proof. This is particularly functional for abstract concepts. "Inalienable" means unable to be transferred, and this too is particularly functional for abstract concepts. Here's an abstract concept that is self-evident: "Everyone has self-interest." Good luck rebutting it. There are self-evident and inalienable rights, e.g. the right to one's person, and they're not trivial because it involves human thought and validation. I challenge anyone to name a single of aspect of existence that doesn't human thought and validation.
Also, "seem" is not an argument.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@ethang5
If I were President Trump, I would send no federal resources to those states, or to cities calling themselves sanctuary cities. If the chief executive of the federal government is not welcome in your state, why should federal officers be there?
And that would make you a poor president--not that the lot of them merit much credit or respect with which to start. Whenever one presumes responsibility for a person, a group, let alone the masses, it isn't prudent to dwell on gripes and nuisances. Focus on solutions rather than one's emotions.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Barney
The deaths in custody suggest far more deaths outside of custody. And while I hate to use the appeal of focusing on children, when the innocence of the unborn get leveraged, it becomes necessary to point out other innocents (yes, I do disagree with calling children criminals).
I do not agree with referring to children as criminals when they have not committed any crime. I will, however, concede this point to you since detention is not the appropriate response. An argument for border control can still be made, but detaining individuals for that which is no worse than "trespassing" is excessive.
Admittedly I've been under the impression being pro-life was about being pro-life, and/or anti-death.
"Pro-life" is a sensationalist moniker, much like "pro-choice."
Granted, I have pointed out the crazy ones who just say they're pro-life to oppress women, but again, I hope they're a minority (about like the man-haters who call themselves feminists, in direct opposition to the very term they're stealing).
Once again, how are their alleged personal feelings about women relevant? I would imagine that some portion of these aborted or would-be aborted unborn children are female, so if they are "oppressing" one female to save the life of another female, is that really oppression against women?
Sorry for the trouble.For the abortions caused by politicians through educational policies against knowledge of those methods:
- https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3194801/
- https://www.npr.org/sections/health-shots/2017/06/05/530922642/in-texas-abstinence-only-programs-may-contribute-to-teen-pregnancies
- https://thinkprogress.org/teen-pregnancies-highest-in-states-with-abstinence-only-policies-8aa0deeebb41/
And direct opposition to use of birth control to prevent abortions (realized this was not in that particular debate, my bad):
This is a sophistic argument. You allegedly render abortion as an inevitable phenomena with a direct causal link to the ineffectiveness of abstinence programs. The only thing your studies demonstrated was that abstinence programs weren't effective in getting teens to practice abstinence, not that abstinence wasn't effective. And children shouldn't be learning about sex in school, anyway--least of all, public school. Abortion is argued to be a choice; the pro-choice movement incorporated into it. The efficacy of the programs these politicians push has yet to reflect their "preference for abortions."
Just going to copy/paste a paragraph I've written before on this (key thing at the end, harm to existing children): "The price tag on a hospital birth is roughly $12,638.31 [21].
Once again, how is she being "forced" to assume this cost? Couldn't the parents have done a simple search, find out the average cost of delivering babies, and take that into consideration before deciding to risk pregnancy when having sex? Isn't the cost burden in part a refelction of either the parent's unwillingness to serious consider their prospects?
For going through with a pregnancy they will be paid far less for equal work the rest of their lives [22].
There's a motherhood penalty, and it's justifiable. If you want to argue that point more in depth, I'd be game.
Of course it’s also their children whose lives are damaged, as was reported in the Journal of Pediatrics: 'existing children of women denied abortions had lower mean child development scores and were more likely to live below the Federal Poverty Level' [23]."
Cum hoc ergo propter hoc.
They do not occur in the event of an abortion (or birth control).
Yes, because dead children have no demands--other than disposal.
I would hope that pro-life people want the children born whom otherwise would not have been to get "food, clothing, shelter, etc." rather than just being born and left to fend for themselves.
If the child subsists, then the child is actively trying to prevent its own death. Its sustenance is still its parents'/guardians' responsibility.
Again, attempts at getting people to just be abstinent actually leads to more abortions.
None of your studies demonstrates that. This argument is premised on a non sequitur that's informed only by the platitude that abortions are inevitable.
You can did through the UN's report yourself for the answer. I'll point out the highlights which appeal to me: “Countries with restrictive abortion policies have much higher unsafe abortion rates. The average unsafe abortion rate was more than four times greater in countries with restrictive abortion policies” and “Countries with restrictive abortion policies have much higher levels of maternal mortality. The average maternal mortality ratio was three times greater in countries with restrictive abortion policies”. Thus, grievous harm is inflicted by making it illegal to include death, and there is no benefit gained for all this harm wantonly inflicted.
I extend my previous argument.
Irrelevant to the suggestion of home births.
No, in fact, it's not. Your argument is in part premised on the cost of delivery as reason for abortions. One way to mitigate those cost is to have a home birth. You argue that the death rate is doubled; and then I rebut your argument by asking you the death rate of abortion. It's quite relevant.
Correct. Since not everyone knows where to buy an illegal guns, it still makes them harder for known bad people to acquire.
Explain.
I'll concede that time for a background check is a cost. Still, the trade-off is lives saved;
This has not been proven.
Where is burden of proof met? When it is suggested that 30% of unlicensed guns enter an informal gun market across state lines? Or the "available evidence supports" gun policy aimed at preventing youth access to guns? You should really pay attention to the language of your reports. Like many of these reports that tout effective gun control policy, they merely refer to unsubstantiated correlations, not causation. And you need only read their references to discover that fact.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Barney
I have not read up on the shootings you're referencing. Link?
I've not read up on them either. I assumed from your statements that you were referring to deaths at the hands of vigilante patrols at the border. Was my assumption wrong? Were you referring to deaths while being held in custody?
And by all means blame the parents. It does not change the reality of harm to other peoples children, which to my understanding is what pro-lifers are concerned about with abortions (save for the ones who are in it out of a hatred for women, which I genuinely hope are a minority).
It's not about preventing all harm to all children at all times. It's about holding parents responsible for their obligation to their children. Pro-lifers believe that engaging in sexual contact merits serious consideration, and as a byproduct of said consideration, one is entrusted to handle the consequences in a morally and socially acceptable fashion. The result of abortion is the termination of an unborn child who's guilty of nothing more than the fact that it was conceived, all to preserve the discretion of those who elected to have sex.
Now before this is brought up, I do know that there are those who'd still argue that the mother should carry her pregnancy in the advent of a rape, but I presume that many if not all would make a concession if she went on ahead an ended it.
And "hatred" of women is irrelevant.
Pro-life politicians have a bad habit of preferring abortions to those methods (links are available in the previously cited debate).
I looked them over. I couldn't find the link where pro-life politicians preferred abortions in lieu of the alternatives I mentioned. Can you cite the exact link?
And rough guess as to what percentage of vocal pro-lifers are not opposed to it existing?
I was being facetious. Planned Parenthood does not counsel safe sex; it's a haven for abortion counseling.
Firstly because as precious as the unborn may be, newborns should never be worth less. So it's ethical to give newborns a warm welcome into our shared community, rather than metaphorically spitting on them (technically just forcing their parents toward poverty, which then sets said child on a path to a worse life, while damaging the lives of any siblings they may have... and yes, research has proven this, feel free to ask for a link).
Once again, what culpability do the parents bear? How are any of them "forced" into poverty? Were they not capable of gauging the prospects of raising a child before they risked having one by electing to have sex? Why are you analyzing this as if this were something "happening to them" as opposed to something "happening because of them"? The parents that is... And because a society is holding responsible, as it ought to do as it concerns moral action, the cost should deferred to them?
Secondly because it is pro-life people demanding those expenses come into existence.
No. Those expenses are a byproduct of raising children as a result of that which they demand (food, clothing, shelter, etc.)
Thirdly because said cost would be extremely minor when shared. Given that pro-life people like to have more children, the overall average cost to them might even be decreased (in turn raising the quality of life for their own children).
The relative weight of the cost is irrelevant. The issue is the deference of cost to anyone other than the parents. And if you're going to argue that they can't afford raising children, then perhaps it's more prudent to counsel abstinence in light of one's impending poverty, rather than subsidizing their indiscretions by promoting "getting rid of it."
The ideas are not mutually exclusive. However trying to prevent abortions with penalties has been proven to result in unsafe abortions (as seen in countries with repressive reproductive laws).
How many of those women in said countries with "repressive" reproductive laws live in functioning family environments where they can facilitate the raising of children, rather than disposing of them? And yeah, there are women who'd mutilate themselves rather than carry a pregnancy to term, but let's remind ourselves: the women are doing that to themselves, no one else. When she carries out, an abortion, the unborn child is not doing it to itself.
And home births more than double the death rate, so should be something to which any pro-lifer is opposed.
What is the death rate of an abortion?
Harder access to guns for the immoral people with a history of violence and gun abuse;
Except, these regulations affect legal access, not illegal access.
much like your suggestion of raising the cost of abortions to make them harder to attain
It's not the same. You're increasing the cost to law abiding citizens, who by an overwhelming majority do not use their weapon to harm others.
Of course you can insist my previous source on this did not meet its' BoP, and I can't make you agree with it.
I need not insist it. There has yet to be any demonstration that stringent regulations result in fewer deaths. My agreement is irrelevant.
As per heart disease and such... I can only hope pro-lifers are opposed, and follow suit by encouraging each other to eat well.
I would hope so, too. I would also hope that there would be no push for invasive and mandatory blood tests before one consumes or sells a burger.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Barney
As pointed out earlier, children are included in the border deaths. One pro-lifer defended those deaths on the basis of them being criminals.
What culpability do the parents of those children bear, risking fatal injury from those who'd shoot them? And are you conflating the notion of border control with shooting children?
Regarding the voluntary sex angle: pro-life opposition to birth control continues to both result in more abortions, and increase government spending (thus increased taxes).
Are condoms, abstinence, and withdrawal before insemination restricted? Not to mention, Planned Parenthood, an organization which boasts counseling on safe sex, receives federal funding.
I specifically referenced the cost of having a child, as an expense which should logically be covered if abortions were illegal.
Why "should" that cost be incurred by anyone other than the parent(s)? That would be like my saying, "I want to murder my son. If you don't let me, you have to bear the costs of raising him."
I'm talking about making birth less unaffordable, thus disincentivizing abortion.
Perhaps, the best way to provide disincentives to abortion is to increase the cost of getting an abortion? If you want to cheapen medical services, there's a plethora of approaches including removing patents, the FDA, the AMA, and government organizations in general. And home births are quite inexpensive.
Guns make killing easy, much like the common argument from pro-lifers regarding legal abortions (and in some cases birth control). Granted I am not saying they should endorse universal gun bans, merely occasional mild inconveniences of closed loopholes in existing laws to save lives.
This operates only under the assumption that these regulations would make an immoral demographic less immoral. 120,000,000 adults are possessors of legal firearms sans a universal background check. Around 14,000 per year include fatal injury, most of which consists of suicides. Car accidents, heart disease, and diabetes kill more people annually. And those who'd argue that more stringent regulations would result in fewer instances of violence have yet to meet their burden of proof.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Barney
So awhile back I committed some Red Herrings in abortion debate. I'm curious if anyone on the other side would like to defend what I take to be hypocrisy. I do not assume any one pro-life person to believe in each of the following; it's rather a starting point for potential discussion.
- I'm curious how beliefs in stripping women of their rights for the benefit of strangers (AKA "the unborn"), line up with investing in a border wall and a general anti-immigrant stance? After-all people who die trying to cross the border could live if given residence in the homes of citizens at the expense and against the wishes of said citizens.
- Stances against universal health care, which would raise the quality of life for any children forced to be born against the wishes of the mother, and likely make less women want abortions when there's not the up front cost of around $12,000 to give birth in a hospital.
- Gun access at the expense of life. Just universal background checks is estimated to be able to prevent over 1000 murders per year.
I'll bite. I'll play devil's advocate:
1. The unborn child is not a stranger. It is its mother's progeny. Furthermore, the issue with the border is centered around the notion of illegal entrance, not entrance in and of itself. It's the difference between jumping a gate, and being invited and having the gate open, with which having voluntary sex would align more.
2. Universal health care does not raise the quality of life. It merely defers the immediate expenses into a public debt scheme. Universal health care at best makes health services more accessible, it does not however make the quality of care better. Not to mention, organizations like Planned Parenthood have pushed for abortions to not only be considered a non-elective medical service, but also a service covered by public health insurance. How would that make fewer women want abortions?
3. Guns don't kill people; people kill people--as well as fatal diseases, rabid animals, accidental work place injuries, car accidents, etc.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@zedvictor4
Oddly, for such a wordsmith,
My being a "wordsmith" just like my being "clever" is irrelevant.
you appear to also have a basic misunderstanding of the word belief.
My description of belief:
What is the basis of belief if not the acknowledgement of something that is true?
And a Google search of the term belief:
an acceptance that a statement is true or that something exists.
Which part have I misunderstood?
Let's dial it back once again: if you're not denying the existence of a God, then what exactly is it that you do not believe? Even if you are claiming that God is in some quantum state where his existence can neither be proven true or false, that, at best, should make you an "agnostic" not an atheist. In that context, the fundamental basis of your disbelief is your disbelief. It has nothing to do with proof.
"Came down" is simply a well used phrase... Check your bible.
My assumption is all but confirmed. You're seeking a demonstration of "words" you've read.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Alec
Because the bible has various contradictions in it. Only non-all knowing people contradict themselves.
What contradictions?
Since knowledge is power, he can't be all powerful either. If I know how to solve 2+2, I also have the power to solve such an equation.
Having power and exercising it are two different matters. I have the power to kill, thieve, and rape, but I don't.
If God was all loving, the typical christian wouldn't be going to hell.
Which Christians have gone to hell?
Created:
Posted in:
Why?I think if God exists, he can't meet all the 4 As(All present, all powerful, all knowing, all loving).
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@zedvictor4
You have a basic misunderstanding of atheism.The atheist cannot deny something that cannot be denied.The atheist simply does not believe.
What is the basis of belief if not the acknowledgement of something that is true? Or better yet, what is it that the atheist does not believe in the context where he or she cannot deny the existence of God(s)? By "not believing" you're either denying the conclusion of the belief, or you're ignoring it--i.e. refusal to acknowledge.
And if gods are not physical then they are an assumption.
Never insinuated that God wasn't physical. I intended to gauge your criteria, which amounts to materialist dogma. And the reason is that your concept and standard of physicality are fundamentally based on elements you would consider "assumptions." For example, when you touch something, how are you to know that there's a difference between the sensation of touching something and touching air? Your thoughts rationalize your experience. They give structure to your immeasurable sensation. What about shapes? If an iron sphere and an iron tetrahedron consisted of the same mass, volume, and chemical composition, how would you physically distinguish them? Every physical standard would inform you that they're identical in every way, but your eyes would inform something different.
What about numbers? Numbers aren't found in nature. They don't have physical characteristics, yet they serve as the fundamental basis to every physical science of which you can think. Wouldn't math be an assumption? And if math were an assumption, wouldn't physical laws, which are defined as "mathematically proven," also be "assumptions"?
My point is, even if we were to concede to your standard of physicality, it would undermine your very own argument. Your invoking the concept of assumption, as if to differentiate its significance as it pertains to existence, is logically inconsistent.
And the truism remains just as ever.
It's not a truism. Once again, nonexistence is epistemologically irrational; therefore, it cannot be proven. Existence is epistemologically rational. Therefore, it can be proven. This doesn't merely apply to God(s.) This is a matter of logic.
Be honest...No amount of your clever words will ever prove the existence of a god.
I have proven the existence of a God twice. Whether it meets your criteria is another matter. Hence, I asked, "what do you consider appropriate in the context of proof?" You asked to be shown God. And I can do that. But even then, it would still require a criteria be met in order to substantiate. I'm going to jump out on a limb, and assume that this criteria would require the exhibition of certain characteristics, as described in the Bible, Torah, Qu'ran, etc. right? If that were the case, there would be an irony in that substantiation would be based on... words.
The honest atheist is certain that they cannot disprove the existence of gods and therefore has nothing to prove.
The only thing an atheist has to prove is the claim, "God does not exist." An atheist doesn't have to prove his or her values as it pertains to God. If you're arguing that atheists cannot disprove God, then proof in the context of your disbelief is irrelevant. And that's fine.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@zedvictor4
Show me God.
Physically?
The truism nor the atheist has ever sought to deny the existence of a god.
That's not true at all. It is fundamental to the atheist to deny God(s) whether it be through rejection or the refusal of acknowledgement.
In fact the atheist and the truism emphatically state that the existence of a god cannot be disproved.
Once again, that's because nonexistence is an epistemological absurdity. No one knows, by virtue of the concept of knowledge, that which does not exist. Acknowledging a god in any form renders it existent.
Nor has the truism or the atheist asked that the theist should prove the existence of a god.Nor has the atheist or the truism suggested that the theist should stop believing in a god.
The posited truism has attempted to argue a symmetry that does not apply. Nonexistence is an epistemological absurdity. Existence is not. Therefore, while the nonexistence of God cannot be proven, the existence of God can; hence your truism is not a truism at all.
Therefore the atheist is being honest.All that the atheist asks is for the theist to also be honest and accept the truism.So why can theists not be honest?
Why would a theist accept a truism that's not a truism? I've proven the existence of God using two solid arguments. You instead ask that God be shown to you. And this wouldn't be difficult at all. I could show you God. If I were to show you this entity God, I'm certain that you'd have criteria that must be met in order to substantiate this entity's being God. So you haven't really answered my question: what do you consider appropriate in the context of proof?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@zedvictor4
Yes one admires your cognitive and literary capabilities.
That's not relevant.
Nonetheless your reply was self explanatory. In so much has your reply was only confirmation of what I expressed previously.
That words don't constitute proof? So let's dial it back: what do you, zedvictor, consider appropriate in the context of proof?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@rosends
That is what an atheist "ought" to be, especially if we're going by definition. If one were truly "without a God," they would meet your apt description. Perhaps, I'm in the wrong for conceding the label to the hijack of dogmatic materialists.Then you and I understand the "typical" atheist differently. To my understanding, it is someone who has been given no reason to know that God exists - an absence of belief not a rejection (a weak atheism to some degree). This typical atheist can go through his entire life not thinking about God's existence.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@rosends
I'm not sure what "typical' atheism is.
I'm referring to the "brand" of atheism that is popularly sustained, which is not necessarily restricted by its actual definition.
In one sense, atheism doesn't have to be rooted in logic as it isn't incumbent on one who has not seen proof that God exists to use logic and prove THAT God does not exist.
Actually, yes it is. It is incumbent on anyone who affirms any claim to use logic in support of their claim. The claim, "I have not seen proof that God exists" is entirely different from "God does not exist." The former is subjective, while the latter is ontological. In essence, the latter claim is an affirmation of the claim "God's nonexistence is true." And that claim requires no less substantiation than one that would claim, "God's existence is true." Some atheists have argued that they don't have to "prove a negative." This is erroneous. If one claims a negative, then one would have to prove said negative. The inconsistency in logic manifests only when that failure to prove the negative is argued to inform proof of its inverse--i.e. positive (argumentum ad ignorantiam.)
It is also important to say that "typical theists" (if such a thing exists)
They do.
are rooted in dogmatic belief, not logic.
Agreed.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@rosends
That is, typical atheism isn't rooted in logic; it's rooted in dogmatic materialism."Atheists cannot prove that a God does not exist to any degree that would convince a believer, just as some theists cannot prove that a God does exist in a way which would be considered proof to an atheist, while other theists see God's existence as a function of belief and see no need to attempt a proof"
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@zedvictor4
You are assuming that words alone can prove the existence of a God.
I'm not assuming that words alone can prove the existence of a God. I'm inferring that the logical coherence my words inform prove the existence of God. And you are assuming that words--or in this case an argument--do not suffice in constituting proof. Proof is an argument. Proof can also be material evidence, which I'll assume, is the ends you believe Theists have yet to meet. If that is indeed the case, I need only challenge your metric. And your metric, even for material evidence, is no less a composite of "words" than my proof.
People have been employing this tactic for centuries
Which "tactic" is that?
and it simply doesn't work.
"Work" depends on the standard. If you were to demand that I tell you God's chemical composition, mass, volume, etc., I'd readily submit to you that I couldn't. But then, I'd ask you: could you do the same for the number five? Or a triangle? The color red? Or even your own name? If we were to incorporate your description of existence, then your standard of material evidence per said description wouldn't exist. That means no Mathematics, no Science, no Logic, no words. Without the aforementioned, what's left? Irrationality.
You are not being honest.
Where have I been dishonest? My proofs are logically sound. Take the opportunity to challenge where you deem necessary, even the parts you claim haven't worked or don't work. If you're waiting for a theist to "show you" God, then that has less to do with one's capacity to "prove" God's existence and more to do with your selected description of existence.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@zedvictor4
The above statement is an unequivocal truism
Except it isn't an unequivocal truism--far from it actually. You're merely attempting to argue a symmetry which doesn't apply. The reason atheists cannot prove that God doesn't exist because nonexistence is an epistemological absurdity. In order for one to prove nonexistence, one would require the capacity to observe nonexistence. But if something or someone does not exist, how do you know that they or it does not exist, if they or it in fact does not exist? Some atheists would try to reconcile this dilemma by conflating the descriptions of nonexistence with "imaginary/abstract" rather than absolute nothingness. When that happens, I merely challenge their metrics and standards which fundamentally incorporate the imagination and abstractness they seek to dispel.
Perhaps, it's atheists who should be provoked into honesty. Mainstream atheism has been successful in hijacking intellectual and logical authority, yet persistent logic dispels their primary argument--i.e. God does not exist. And I, a theist, have proven God exists using two logically sound arguments:
1.
All which is perceived must exist.
God is perceived.
Therefore, God exists.
The major premise is irrefutable. The minor premise can be subject to parameters, but those very parameters will subject the metrics of counterarguments.
2.
All material or spiritual beings exist.
God is a spiritual being.
Therefore, God exists.
The major premise is tautological; the minor premise is tautological.
Atheists have yet to demonstrate either the capacity or the inclination to construct a logical proof against God, deciding instead to contradict Bible descriptions, the contradictions of which are undermined by a lack of observational data.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@ethang5
I didn't call Sal a troll here or speak about his threads.As people are beginning to do with his threads. But I hope you notice, this is my thread.
Okay.
What do you think about the OP's question? Do you think religion boards in non-christian societies suffer the same anti-theist troll problems?
I wouldn't know. The internet sort of makes that irrelevant. While I would presume that non-christian societies are more culturally and ethnically homogeneous, and thereby less prone to dispute religion, anyone can connect with virtually anyone and have a discussion on any site that allows for comments.
Created:
Posted in:
Yes, it was. Brown vs. The Board of Education was a means of ingratiating so called "black" students into the "public" public school system--which is pretty much a network of detention centers, and indoctrination camps. In said public school systems, not only are so called "black" children conditioned and exposed to so called "white," predominantly female authorities, but they're fed with false narratives especially about their history. Integration erodes indigenous cultures, and that hasn't bode well for so called "black" demographics in the United States.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Alec
That depends on the service provider. If a college wants to offer free education, then yes, admission and tenure in that college should be free. Now if you're asking, should the government interfere and either force colleges to provide free education, or subsidize the entire cost of a college education, then no--not ever.
Created:
Posted in:
The term, "troll," is far too easy a term to throw around on forums. Typically it is used to refer to statements or behavior one simply dislikes. It in many ways diverts the responsibility one has for one's own emotions, and projects them as "provocation." While I agree that Salixes' threads are both frequent and provocative, as far as I can tell, he hasn't provoked anyone in particular. And there's a simple measure in responding to behavior you dislike: ignore it. Remember, it is you--i.e. everyone who participates--who responds to his threads and statements.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@zedvictor4
I'm just referring to burden of proof.Not burden of proof relative to a specific context or exchange.
You may have not referred to a specific exchange but you were referring to a specific context--i.e. "Theists shifting the burden of proof is just a convenient cop out, in other words a way of avoiding the 'primary' burden of proof." One of my points is that there is no primary burden of proof; there is only a burden of proof manifested from affirmations of any claim.
I propose that the universe is contained within a solid box, therefore the burden of proof rests upon you to prove that it doesn't.Is this a logical progression of reasoning?
No it isn't. I don't dispute that this is logically fallacious reasoning (i.e. argumentum ad ignorantiam.) Conversely, if I were to propose, "the universe is not contained within a solid body" I would neither demand that you prove otherwise to inform my claim, nor shirk my responsibility to substantiate my proposition because you submitted your proposition first.
Or just an easy cop out for me.
The shifting of one's burden is indeed a cop out.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@zedvictor4
If you were prepared to be logical you would admit that the logical progression would be GOD - I WILL PROVE GOD EXISTS rather that GOD - YOU PROVE GOD DOESN'T EXIST.
Incorrect. If Dynasty were arguing from ignorance, you'd have a point. But Dynasty clearly isn't. Dynasty's response to Salixes' ontological claim--i.e. "there is absolutely no evidence whatsoever, not even a single shred, as to the presence of God or any other supernatural being"--is quite apt. Salixes is affirming the claim that no evidence for God exists; therefore, Salixes has the burden to prove that claim. Neither the order nor the proposition of inverse claims--e.g. "there's absolutely evidence that God exists"--mitigates Salixes' onus.
The existence of something without proof, would not be questioned unless it had been proposed.
This is pertinent just as much to affirmations of negative claims.
Theists shifting the burden of proof is just a convenient cop out, in other words a way of avoiding the primary burden of proof.
There are no "primary" burdens of proof. There are only burdens of proof. If I were to assert "God exists," I would have the burden to prove that assertion. If you were to assert "God doesn't exist," you'd have the burden to prove that assertion. The order in which these claims are proposed doesn't matter. And using Salixes' retort, if one has no intention of scouring the universe, searching under every stone or grain of sand, then one must be mindful of one's claims. The absurdity of one's burden reflects the absurdity of one's claim.
This would be a different matter if the typical atheist--at least the ones I've come across in my experience--assumed the position of the skeptic, but they don't. They use the lack of submitting material evidence as information for their arguments of ignorance, which by logical description is a shift in the burden of proof. Thus, by your own description, "a convenient cop out."
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Discipulus_Didicit
I might have misunderstood what you were saying. This quote:I understand what you are saying. They ought not to be as "appealing" because they are diametrically opposed arguments.Seems to imply that I find neither communism nor capitalism appealing [on paper] which is not the case.This quote, however:I've never conflated "inequality" with oppression, bigotry, prejudice, or unfairness.Is something I do mostly agree with.
I was suggesting that one ought not be as appealing as the other since they are diametrically opposed arguments. For the Capitalist or Antisocialist, as you pointed out, it doesn't quite register to argue that it looks good on paper--perhaps pointing out a practical discrepancy--while espousing Capitalist principles. In that case, they're neither capitalists, antisocialists, or even communists; they're "pragmatists."
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Discipulus_Didicit
Did you not put forth that even hardcore anti-socialists would agree that Communism "looks good on paper" while simultaneously arguing that it's "stupid"? Was this not made in the context of this thread's subject: "Cap [Capitalism] vs. Comm [Communism] Random Thoughts"? Where did I misinterpret you?That is 100% not my point. I have no idea how you got that out of what I said.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Dr.Franklin
Be specific: of which argument do you want evidence?evidence?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Dr.Franklin
confucscism is not a religion, it's a philosphical idea
Confuscianism is both a religion and philosophy. But that doesn't really address the point I made. And I make this point, as some what of a warning: many adherents to the aforementioned religions are being coaxed into worshiping pagan gods. I had an extended discussion about the matter in another thread, particularly on Catholicism and its pagan rituals. You need not look at my profile to discover my "religion" and "retaliate."
By the way, my profile is a lie up to the point of absurdity.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Dr.Franklin
They haven't. Worship of said Gods is merely disguised namely through Catholicism, Wicca, Satanism, Hinduism, Buddhism, etc. The statue of Peter in the Vatican is actually the Roman God, Jupiter (a.k.a. Zeus.)Roman,pagan, and greek gods all fell, which one is still here
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Discipulus_Didicit
I understand your point. They both ought not to be as "appealing" because they are diametrically opposed arguments. One system (capitalism) facilitates negative rights (freedoms) while the other enforces positive rights (entitlements.) Communism to me as well has never been appealing even on paper. I've never conflated "inequality" with oppression, bigotry, prejudice, or unfairness.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Salixes
Enjoy the rest of your day, sir.Metaphors aside, feel free to address my rebuttal:Okay then, here we go.Anyone can drive a car; it takes discipline to maintain a functioning vehicle.When said car frequently breaks down, it is.Let's examine both rebuttals, shall we?Here we can see two classic examples of introducing a strawman.It would be an absolute timewaster and an undisciplined twit (who can't earn enough money or discipline himself to schedule regular servicing) who would maintain his own car. And for that matter, who owns a car that frequently breaks down.In any case, if one's car were to break down, one would call for roadside assistance and catch an Uber.So, you are completely wrong on every score there.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Salixes
When said car frequently breaks down, it is.Owning a car isn't about dismantling it and examining every piece and writing a thesis on how every part should or shouldn't fit together.
I dare you to take it for a drive.Go on, get involved, try it.
Sorry, I don't rabble-rouse.
Unless of course, you happen to be mortally scared of driving.Or worse still, perhaps you simply don't know how to drive at all.
Anyone can drive a car; it takes discipline to maintain a functioning vehicle.
Metaphors aside, feel free to address my rebuttal:
The reason for using analogies is to create a comparison. In the point you illustrated, you were attempting to demonstrate an inconsistency between rejection of homosexuality, for reasons you allege are "unnatural" and the acceptance of Jesus, God, and the talking serpent, which are, as many atheists allege, "supernatural." This is a false equivalence...When Christians refer to the "unnatural," they are referring to the perverse; you, clearly, are using "unnatural" to describe the physically abnormal. Once again, you are arguing against straw men.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@ronjs
The Catholic church doctrine is mostly Ant-Christian as i have said before so i do not defend them and although not all cases of paedophilia happen within Catholicism the vast majority do as indicated hereBut that doesn't mean that God sanctions this kind of behaviour, no more than if i committed some atrocityand blamed it on Salixes.
Catholocism is Paganism, which is disguised as Christianity in order to pervert it. The reason pedophilia seems rampant among the Catholic ranks is that it's not an aberration. The elite are worshipers of the pagan god, Pan--the greek woodland god of pederasty--also known as the roman god, Saturn. [Note that most, if not of all these cases, involve young boys.] It's a "holy rite" for them. Catholicism stems from the Babylonian/Kemetic mysteries, where the high priests engaged in ritualistic sex with young boys. Not to mention, not only do they engage in sexual interaction with children, they engage in ritual sacrifice and blood drinking. Look up Magisterial Privilege, where every new Pope must partake in ritual sacrifice and blood drinking of children. There was a court case in Brussels in February 2013, investigating the Order of the Ninth Circle (a.k.a. Jesuit Order,) the satanic cult to which the pope really belongs, and Pope Ratzinger a.k..a. Pope Benedict XVI was forced to step down because the evidence was so damning. (It's important to note that Pope Ratzinger was the first pope in 600 years to retire.)
And it's not just the Catholic Church; it's in government; it's in the entertainment industry; it's--Luciferianism a.k.a. Paganism--the predominant religion of both the Western and Eastern hemispheres.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Salixes
The reason for using analogies is to illustrate a point not to imply an equivalence.
The reason for using analogies is to create a comparison. In the point you illustrated, you were attempting to demonstrate an inconsistency between rejection of homosexuality, for reasons you allege are "unnatural" and the acceptance of Jesus, God, and the talking serpent, which are, as many atheists allege, "supernatural." This is a false equivalence.
actually address the topic (for once) instead of nitpicking the semantics in order to avoid addressing the topic.
All arguments are semantic. And I did address your point--twice now. You are arguing a false equivalence. The reason semantics--lexical semantics--is important because words--particularly English words--have many descriptions which inform different contexts. If you do no grasp the context in which an argument is made, then your claim of inconsistency is ill-informed. When Christians refer to the "unnatural," they are referring to the perverse; you, clearly, are using "unnatural" to describe the physically abnormal. Once again, you are arguing against straw men.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Salixes
. . . and therefore wrong?Then, how about a man born of virgin birth....who healed lepers and blind people with his hands, walked on water and turned water into wine....and how all the wrong in the world happened because a rib ate an apple because a talking snake told her to?
False equivalence: you're comparing the unnatural, which you implicitly suggest homosexuality is, and that which many atheists refer to as "supernatural." You are arguing against straw men.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@ethang5
Repetition will not make you right.
Never argued that it would.
Morality is between people. If another person "is not there" as in blind, or too young or old, or from an alien society, some people do not feel the moral prohibitions they would if they were in their societies.
You're arguing a moral relativism, the adoption of which reflects your friends' personal values. It isn't that they went against their own values, they knew certain values could be better expressed in certain environments.
Case in point: If I were to go the the Philippines, and have sex with a 12 year-old girl, would that mean I went against my own values because the age of consent here in the United States, by average, is 16? If I were to subscribe to the moral that having sex with underage girls is wrong, why would that be any different being in Phillipines?
Influenced by environment or not, they went against their personal values by going topless.
You haven't substantiated that they went against their personal values; you've only substantiated that their behavior differed in two moral systems.
It is false as it tries to explain a real occurrence.
That does not make it false.
Those were not the only 2 options.
Based on the information, yes they are.
You need the options limited so as to float your "deduction" as correct.
My deduction is either correct or incorrect; my "need" is irrelevant.
No sir. They also could have felt no prohibition against violating their value because they felt away from their culture.
Once again, you are arguing a moral relativism. Moral relativism doesn't necessarily inform a conflict in values.
Moral law is not sourced in, or affected by, the mind of any man. If you ask again, the answer will be the same.
That is not an explanation. That is a claim. Explain your claim.
Plenty. But none are necessary.
Yes, they are necessary. Please provide a few of these examples.
Not to your understanding it's not.
As the sole authority on my own understanding, my "want" is irrelevant.
I suspect you would not be able to admit this if it were true.
As the sole authority on my ability to make admissions, "perhaps."
I don't have to repeat.
No, only explain. And if you refuse to explain, then what would be point?
You either accept the explanation given or don't, but repeating the question hoping for a different explanation will not work with me.
You haven't offered an explanation. You have for the most part made claims. Making claims is fine; but discussion is stagnant when all there is are claims. I'm not "hoping for a different explanation." I'm seeking an explanation, period.
Apt description of what?
Your use of materialism?
Defining reality will not do that. Our realities must be the same for there to be communication and understanding.
There are many perspectives of reality; hence, my seeking a definition. Define it or drop the point.
If you are seeking a definition of reality, you are not sane enough to comprehend the definition.
This makes no sense, not to mention, it's an ad hominem.
Many a criminal has found out to their regret that this is untrue. And I was not giving an example of defence, but an example of suicide by police. You asked.
How is risking death the same as suicidal? Replace the officer with an individual who doesn't extend State Authority, would it still be true?
Their capacity as agents of the law who are also moral agents. It gives them a unique perspective.
Perhaps, but that perspective is irrelevant since you yourself claimed that you're not arguing from a legal context.
I'm not.
Yes, you are. The mention of a district attorney as well as the attempt to qualify my argument based on their agreement informs a legal context.
Professionals trained to distinguish between morality and law, and whose job requires them to be moral,
Substantiate how these professionals are trained to distinguish between morality and law; substantiate how their jobs require them to be moral.
disagree with you.
If your argument is that consensus doesn't inform morality then this argument would undermine your contention. Disagreement is irrelevant, remember?
I did not. You just thought I did.
Exhibit A:
But it's definitely not murder.I don't know of a single DA in any country who agrees with you.
Exhibit B:
what relevance does your citation of a district attorney have in this discussion, let alone in a rebuttal against my argument?Professionals trained to distinguish between morality and law, and whose job requires them to be moral, disagree with you.
You did imply it. Perhaps you did not intend to. But I can only go by what you do.
No, I did not. I won't go back and forth on this.
Objective subjects of knowledge exist before they are in ones mind.
That's insignificant; your capacity to perceive necessitates the rationalizations conceived by your mind. Therefore any knowledge you acquire will be subjected through the filter of your mind. Hence, it's subjective.
Objective morality is not sourced in the minds of men, bit can exist on the minds of men.
Indulge me: where is objective morality sourced?
Who is judging that capacity?
I am, obviously. Who else would judge it if its an internal "contradiction"?
You are wrong. If I agree with you I become wrong too.
How am I wrong?
Its obvious.
Then why the contention?
You are using "logical" in it's broadest sense. That is not what is generally meant by logic when talking about logical arguments. You're defining "logical" so broadly, no argument can be illogical.
No, I'm using it in its correct sense. Just because it has a colloquial usage, as I've already described to zedvictor, doesn't mean it's correct. And yes, no argument can be illogical. Arguments--al arguments--are logical.
I've already told you.
Yes, you've already "told" me, but you haven't "explained."
This argument is going nowhere fast. Either explain your claims, or we can move along and have our respective "nice day." If you require explanation as well, point out which of my statements need explanation, and I will accommodate. At this point, this attrition is only contributing to intellectual regress.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@ethang5
And therein is the false dichotomy. The former and latter are not the only choices. They were going against their values, but felt that because there was no one there who shared their values, the prohibition was not felt. Like a prude who never would go naked, going naked in the woods when she thinks no one will see her.
Once again, nothing in your statements inform one's going against one's own values, but instead inform my deduction that they behaved in a manner influenced by their environment like "a prude who never would go naked, going naked in the woods when she thinks no one will see her." Doing something out of the ordinary doesn't necessarily inform going against one's values, especially if it was of their own volition. So yes, that is the dichotomy presented, which is not false in and of itself. Either they did it of their own will and volition, or they were coerced. And if they weren't coerced, then their actions wouldn't have gone against their values.
Objective means, not sourced in, or influenced by, the mind of any man.
I'm not asking you to define "objective." I'm asking you to explain how the law meets your description of "objective."
No. You asked for different standards. I gave them.
And now I request that you give examples. Are there any examples to cite?
Perhaps you don't want to understand.
My "want" is irrelevant.
Perhaps you are not able to understand.
Perhaps.
But I will not keep repeating simply because you keep asking.
You wouldn't have to repeat if you explained. When I ask questions, I seek explanation--otherwise, there would be no need for me to ask.
No.
So then, would "consideration of material possessions and physical comfort as more important than spiritual values" be an apt description?
I said moral authority justifies the use of power. It is not the use of power.
Moral authority justifies the use of power, the use of power does not justify morality.
Where in my description of your description did I suggest any of that which you've just mentioned? Once again, how is my description different from yours:
You argue that moral authority is the justification to exercise power.
?
How earnest you are doesn't matter. Reality is what we must assume is common to the both of us for there to be communication and understanding. If I have to define reality for you that is enough evidence for me that a definition is not needed.
Your second line makes no sense. I'm asking you to define reality in order to establish communication and understanding. So then how is seeking that communication and understanding "evidence" of their not being needed?
Define reality.
By not dropping the gun when told to do so.
How is that "letting" it happen? If not dropping the gun in your example is "defiance" then not dropping one's gun is far from "letting" something happen.
D.A.'s are moral agents who also know the law.
So are many others. You specifically cited a district attorney presumably for reasons concerning their capacity as an agent of the law. You said you weren't discussing this from a legal context, so once again, what relevance does your citation of a district attorney have in this discussion, let alone in a rebuttal against my argument?
No.
Yes, it does undermine your argument. As soon as you set the rubric to notions of "agreement," you undermined your very own contention.
You implied it.
I did not imply it. That was your impression, which is not the same as an implication.
It is the description of the quality "objective". You asked for it.
Yes, I asked for it. And I'm telling you that description is epistemologically insignificant. Because subjects of knowledge require the use of one's mind.
Internal contradictions are not readily see in oneself.
An alleged generality which does not apply to my capacity as a debater.
Agreeing with you would make me wrong.
How is that? Elaborate.
You're being equivocal with the meaning of logic. It isn't important to my argument.
There's nothing equivocal about my description. Confirm it for yourself, if necessary.
Logic. Morality is objective.
And I await your explanation as to how morality whether it be legal, religious, philosophical, etc. meets the description you offered of "objective."
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@ludofl3x
Only if no one else got state sanctioned "marriage" licenses, which I take as your point about the mistake in aligning the church vocab (marriage) with the state law (licensing the unions). Equality is equal across the board. One could argue having separate drinking fountains, bus routes, etc for blacks should also have "sufficed."
In private establishments and institutions, it certainly would've sufficed. The issue was the contradiction in the scope of so called "public goods" and the "equality" the law promised. The Civil Rights Movement of the early to mid 20th century did more to hamper the "black" demographic. That too was an attempt to ingratiate said black demographic into a public debt scheme that has been perpetuated since the inception of these United States. Third Wave Feminism is the 21st century's vehicle into this debt scheme.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@ludofl3x
If that were the case, Civil Unions would've sufficed, treatment by others notwithstanding.I think it's more like forcing Christians and Catholics to treat them as deserving of equal rights under the law and less about "I'm gay therefore I should be legally allowed to have a ceremony in your private club."
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@ludofl3x
Do you think Christians would have just accepted if the country decided that "married" is now no longer a legal term, but strictly a religious one, and would no longer be on forms as 'marital status' like when you're filling out your tax forms? It seems pretty unlikely considering how many Christians wind themselves up over the apparent prohibition on saying Merry Christmas at your local Macy's. I guess it's just a meaningless word since for tax purposes and medical benefits purposes, marriage and civil unions function the same, but MARRIAGE is only legal as a state sanctioned event. Because of that, all people have a right to it, gay or straight. The flip side would seem to be telling everyone you no longer apply for a state sanctioned MARRIAGE license, but instead a license to unite civilly or something like that. I get the feeling the Christian community would be none too pleased about it, considering how many Christians said things like "it ruins marriage!" somehow. I'd certainly make the same argument for Islam and Judaism, but that's not what was on the table here. I guess I'd support eliminating any secular use of the word marriage for any federal or state purposes provided all rights are exactly the same and people are treated the same, but you probably can guess that if you were, say, filling out an adoption paperwork and had only two boxes to tick, Married or Single, and you were in a civil union, you might think that could affect the decision on allowing you to adopt.
For the most part, I agree. The Church has some culpability especially when it aligned itself with the State and codified its rituals with the threat of force. And in doing so, they have subjected their rituals to referendums because the State with which it is aligned is a "democracy." With that said, it was clear that the homosexual movement was aiming for more than just "civil rights" by using the State as its proxy in forcing Christianity--more so Catholicism--to accept homosexuality. However given that it's Catholicism, I suspect that there's more afoot. But that's a conversation for another thread, so I'll leave it at that.
I've sort of lost the thread as to what we're discussing here, but I think it's probably the other way around, hatred (sanctioned by Jesus in the bible) would inform the harassment. Imean otherwise where's the motivation to harass them come from?
I was seeking your realization that its the other way around. And since its the other way around, it wouldn't really be relevant since my contention examined that which informed the alleged "hatred," not that which hatred informs.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@ludofl3x
My point was in response to your contention that reproductive utility is somehow associated with the sanctioned hatred of homosexuals (even though the bible doesn't make this clear in the verse about them being abominations). I just wanted to point out that this line of logic would make all non-reproductive sex equated with homosexuality, and clearly Christians don't see it that way in general, as evidenced by no one making signs saying "God Hates Hand Jobs" and parading around with them at every funeral you can find, or deciding you can't adopt a baby if you've ever given or received a hand job. The same cannot be said for homosexuality.
When some Christians grab picket signs and protest, it ]almost always happens under a political context--i.e. gay marriage, adoption, etc. When have you ever seen a political movement galvanized because of sodomy? The closest thing I can think of is NAMBLA, which as a group of pederasts was associated with the "Gay movement" in the early 90's.
It was clear that the gay movement was more than just about "civil rights"--otherwise they would've accepted civil unions, which satisfied the premise of their initial contention. They wanted to ingratiate homosexuality not only within the public sphere, but also Christianity itself (the push for gay marriage never once incorporated the idea of gay nikkahs--Islamic equivalent of marriage--and gay nissuins--Judaic equivalent of marriage.
Using picket signs as the benchmark doesn't suffice in this context nor does it inform a "general" Christian view, much less "hatred."
I don't see how that would follow. Can you explain? Let's say my parents hate homosexuals, and they teach ME to hate homosexuals when I'm little. When I ask why, their answer is "Doesn't matter, Jesus said so, it's here in the book, you don't really get to go against it." Now I grow up, I meet a couple of gay people in high school, they seem okay to me, but I don't want to burn in hell for not hating them properly, so I have to! Jesus said so. Do I have any other rational reason to hate homosexuals?Reference point for it being easier? I'm not sure what you mean.
If a Christian's sense of responsibility is heavily influenced, or more so dictated, by religious teaching, then why would it feel "nice" to use Jesus as a fallback rather than take "sole responsibility", given that Jesus is the standard? You're speaking as an outlier so you have a sense of responsibility outside of Christian teachings, but can the same be said for Christians?
If Jesus told you to hate homosexuals under pain of eternal damnation, and you then harassed homosexuals, you can do so without fear of eternal damnation as you're just following orders. If you don't have Jesus's backing to do so, to hate homosexuals and perhaps even harass them, you're off the reservation on your own. And to be clear, i'm not saying all Christians hate or harass gays. I'm saying it's much harder to find a strictly non-religious group that protests gay rights and cares if kids can be adopted by them, or if they can share tax and medical benefit coverage. THere is literally no rational reason for that, it's discrimination, and the people who want to prpoagate it are, I'm sorry, very, very largely Christians who want to impose their biblical values on society at large as far as I can tell.
But does harassment inform the alleged hatred? And if it doesn't, how is it relevant?
Is there any reason that sexual congress let's say the very day after a woman's menstrual cycle ends would NOT be considered useless from a reproductive utility standpoint and therefore sodomy as you laid it out? Particularly in the bible.
I've already said:
I don't believe the description expands to the circumstances you mentioned. But, it would logically follow that if one were to reject sodomy for its lack of reproductive utility, one would, in order to be consistent, reject birth control. So their "sins" would be identical in that context.
You can take your example and fit it into the statement:
I don't believe the description expands to the circumstances you mentioned. But, it would logically follow that if one were to reject sodomy for its lack of reproductive utility, one would, in order to be consistent, reject sexual congress the very day after a woman's menstrual cycle ends. So their "sins" would be identical in that context.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@ludofl3x
I agree that there's a more solid foundation for rejecting homosexuality in juxtaposition to oral insemination, but your initial scrutiny was that it should be deemed the same as homosexuality. Your gauge is that no one's making and carrying signs conveying hate for oral insemination. With that said, let's entertain the credibility of this allegedly direct consequence, under what context does this hate manifest? Isn't it almost always political?I guess it would imply that the bible calls one behavior (laying with a man as with a woman) an abomination but makes no comment specifically on blowing your load in your wife's mouth, and therefore, Christians have more solid biblical foundation for hating gay sex than they do hating oral sex finishers.
I'm a little unclear on what you're asking here, so I'll take my best shot at it. It's nice to have Jesus back them, rather than have to take sole responsibility for their hatred and subsequent attitudes and potential harassment.
To whom are they responsible if not Jesus? My question is, if their sense of self is heavily influenced by the backing of Jesus, wouldn't their taking "sole responsibility" be a reflection of their relationship to Jesus?
For me, for example, if I decided I hated Asian people, and someone asked me why, I'd just have to admit "well, their eyes are weird" or "they seem shifty" or whatever, and the person would be free to judge me as a bigot. If I said "Well Jesus said to," now that same person, in my eyes, if they're judging me is not only bigoted against ME, but against my religion too. It's much easier for me to live with considering Jesus warned that I'd be so persecuted for standing up for his beliefs and all.
My point is, if this was always the case, what is one's reference for comparison?
I don't think I argued all people who hate harass, rather that it seemed to me that most group harassment is in some way informed by hatred, as one of the factors. Can you rephrase the last two questions if I missed them?
No, you argued that those who hate often harass. And, I asked you how you would know this. You responded by asking "What else would drive harassment of a certain group, like gays or Christians?" If you're clarifying now that you mean that harassment is in some way informed by hatred--and I agree that argument can be made with credibility--then what relevance does harassment have, given that the subject of the discussion examines the alleged hate of homosexual, which you just argued isn't necessarily informed by harassment?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@ludofl3x
I'm referencing one or both of the parties not wanting to get pregnant, so they employ birth control. Which seems like it would turn regular old sex into sodomy, because pregnancy is out of the question. Would that also mean that having sex in non-fertile weeks is sodomy, and therefore the same sin that gay people are apparently committing?
I don't believe the description expands to the circumstances you mentioned. But, it would logically follow that if one were to reject sodomy for its lack of reproductive utility, one would, in order to be consistent, reject birth control. So their "sins" would be identical in that context.
That they seem more comfortable with denigrating gay people than they are denigrating those whose wives let them finish in their mouths.
What does their increased comfort implicate? Is it merely a difference in number?
As 'sanctioned by Jesus.'
In other words, Jesus allegedly sanctioning their hate mitigates them. But if their code of conduct, their impressions, their decisions, their feelings, even, are dictated by their adherence to Jesus and his philosophy, why would it then be "nice" to have Jesus "back them," so to speak, as opposed to... what? Doesn't he always back them?
What else would drive harassment of a certain group, like gays or Christians?
You're arguing an unsubstantiated logical biconditional. An argument can be made that harassment incorporates some "hate," but does "hating" someone or something incorporate the manifestation of some harassment? That has yet to be argued sufficiently.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@drafterman
It's not a question of my acceptance. If you want to introduce it into the conversation then by all means do so. My concern is your misrepresenting my arguments as well as the context under which they were made. With that said, the moral value I'd attach to would be in the context of its extending voluntary engagement. As long as its voluntary (without duress) it's "moral."Whether or not you accept it as part of the conversation, do you have an answer for the question?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@ludofl3x
No one is carrying signs at funerals that proclaim "God Hates When You Finish In Your Wife's Mouth," though, we can agree the number of Christians who are proud to say "God Hates F@gs" is apparently far greater than those who condemn finishing in your wife's mouth with equal ferocity, no?
So, does one need to carry a sign to "hate"? And even if we were to entertain your premise that Christians hate "fags" in greater quantity, what would be the relevance of said quantity?
But it's sure nice to have a divine mandate to fall back on, rather than having to say "Oh, I don't WANT to, but what can I do? Jesus said to!"
Maybe, maybe not. How does that qualify their alleged discrimination?
This is how hatred is often manifested. Not always, but often. Same applies to the subsequent examples.
How is it often manifested in harassment? How do you know that it is often manifested in harassment?
So your position is only sodomy is outlawed, and the crux of that is insemination, such that any sexual act wherein male ejaculation is achieved and the semen is NOT issued directly into a vagina with at least the chance of a woman getting pregnant (volition of the participants aside) is all the same and prohibited? It's a genuine question, I just want to understand where you're coming from.
It's not my position, but you're on the right track. I don't know of any modern Christian theocracies--but feel free to correct me--so I can't make mention of any outlaw, but it is condemned by some Christians. Furthermore, you make mention of "volition," what do you mean? Are you referencing circumstances where one of the parties is raped?
Created: