Total posts: 12,563
Posted in:
-->
@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!
Created:
-->
@PREZ-HILTON
There personal choices with their body are none of your business, so long as they are willing to restrict the bodily autonomy of others.
I would disagree with that just a little, since I value people based on all of their actions I am aware of. So yes, all else being equal between the two: not having abortion>having abortion.
Created:
-->
@PREZ-HILTON
What is better a politician who passed pro choice bills and never had abortions or one who has had abortions and whored herself and realizes why that is bad for society and opposes it
The one who opposes to abortions is better, of course.
However, I would prefer "someone who opposes to abortions plus who never had an abortion" over "someone who had an abortion but now opposes to abortions".
Created:
-->
@n8nrgim
how can you possibly think repentance isn't necessary to be saved?
I believe that person, who does lots of good and very little harm, will be saved even if that person failed to repent during his lifetime for the very little harm that he caused.
Created:
What I am talking about, just to be clear, is not about forgiving the terrorists.
My opposition to war in Iraq did not rise from me forgiving the terrorists, but rather from preventing further loss of life.
What I do think is that asking repentance for things like "he called me an idiot" seems pointless, harmful and stupid.
Also, the idea that "someone, who did much more good than harm, will go to hell because he forgot to repent after calling someone an idiot" seems absurd.
Created:
-->
@n8nrgim
just as we are only forgiven if we repent
Where in the Bible does it say that we wont be forgiven if we dont repent?
Of course, repentance is beneficial, but not mandatory for forgiveness.
And forgiving people without having them repent first can be beneficial too.
Created:
"As we forgive those who trespass against us"
It doesnt say "they need to repent first, then we can forgive them".
Created:
I believe hell can only exist for three reasons:
1) to fix people
2) to serve as a place for those outside of heaven
3) to destroy people
I dont think hell is a place where people will be burning eternally, nor does Bible say anywhere that someone will burn eternally.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Kaitlyn
I bet you masturbate to Hitler's speeches.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@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.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@BrotherD.Thomas
WHO WANTS TO BE MUSLIM PARENTS SO THEY CAN CUT OFF THE CLITORIS OF THEIR GIRL CHILDREN BECAUSE OF A BARBARIC RELIGIOUS ISLAMIC TRADITION, RAISE YOUR HANDS?
Those are some of the most disgusting posts you ever made. But yes, female circumcision is common in islam.
Created:
Well, I do believe people can change...
However...
Prostitution + 2 abortions?
Not exactly a good representative of people who oppose to prostitution and abortions.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Double_R
X = punishing gaysY = 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.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@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?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Savant
I would support the ban on porn.
I started watching porn when I was like 7. It didnt harm me, but I would say I wasted lots of time over something that didnt really help me in life. It simply doesnt make a person more happier than a person would be if he didnt watch porn. I would even dare to say it makes person feel worse after some time.
Created:
-->
@n8nrgim
That is a very strong argument. However, are you arguing for total gun ban or just assault rifle ban?
Because the first one would violate US constitution, and the second one would make little to no difference in homicide rates.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@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.
Created:
-->
@TWS1405_2
HA HA HA!!!
Ok, I do feel superior to others.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@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.
Created:
-->
@TheUnderdog
I would say that drag queens in most cases dont look like women. More like some mix of genders.
Created:
-->
@sadolite
They dont even look like women.
Created:
I am white, but I dont feel superior to others.
Created:
-->
@Sidewalker
What?
Created:
My main opposition to circumcision comes from loss of life.
First, some babies die from circumcision.
Second, there is no results that show how universal circumcision has any benefits to life. Countries that have universal circumcision arent any better than countries who dont have it. In terms of health, circumciser countries are usually worse.
Of course, circumcision can damage a penis, which would result in depression for the person.
Not to mention that the amount of pain itself from circumcision is damaging to the brain.
Created:
-->
@Greyparrot
I was talking about Biden lol
Created:
Sounds like there is still light in this world.
Created:
I mean, the guy probably doesnt even remember that.
Created:
-->
@93ham
they are all long time democratic run cities
Population being mostly democrat supporters in those cities. Being a democrat supporter means being more violent.
Created:
Posted in:
If you’re a white liberal writing to Emily, you might use words like “melancholy” or “euphoric”you might trade these terms out for the simpler “sad” or “happy” if you’re corresponding with Lakisha
So they assume Lakisha is stupid?
Created:
-->
@FLRW
Bible specifically instructs to not circumcise, and says that circumcision means nothing to God.
Muslims try to be like prophet mohammad who ordered circumcision for all but somehow forgot to mention that order in Quran.
Some muslims circumcise girls too, but that got banned by law almost everywhere, so I assume there is less of it now.
Created:
@iwantroosevelt
What happens when debt gets too high?
Created:
-->
@FLRW
Taylor Swift has two rules for her men
This is what happens when you give woman a right to opinion: you can expect it to be stupid.
Woman doesnt get to command a man. In fact, just 200 years ago, she wouldnt even get to choose a husband.
Created:
Government spending is a component of GDP
So we should spend more because spending = gaining?
That sounds like flawless logic.
Created:
What happens when debt gets too high?
Created:
I am glad that the blue states havent authorized the spending.
Created:
Biden only increased the debt by 8 trillion. We should let him go more.
Created:
Yeah, lets punish them for refusing to increase the debt. That is a good thing to do and makes logical sense.
By the way, what happens when debt gets too high?
Created:
Posted in:
I cant believe that people got tired of hearing about how we are being oppressed by different opinions, misgendering and white people being rich.
Created:
I dont know why do people feel the need to do this to children. Its obvious that these people have no morality. They are sick.
Created:
-->
@Sidewalker
I think its wrong to tell children that they can castrate themselves or be different gender when they cant. I dont see the point in lying to children like that. Children need to be able to live and grow into functional adults, but woke doesnt allow it. Thats why I hate woke. There is nothing good about homosexuality, suicides or castration.
Created:
-->
@Sidewalker
Its worse by objective standard since woke castrates children and promotes suicides and homosexuality, which is a crime.
Created:
Rainbow ideology says that being different and being accepted reduces crimes. Thats why rainbow countries have so little crime.
Created:
-->
@Sidewalker
We could say at this point that "pedophilia" is a mental illness.
Woke is still worse, since it infects more people.
Created:
We could say at this point that "woke" is a mental illness.
Created:
I am a consequentialist, like the Bible commands me to be.
Also, I prefer life over freedom, so yes I would support universal DNA database.
But you are talking about masses who have an IQ of a cat.
Of course they are going to be inconsistent and have double standards. They dont even have the brain power to process what you said.
Created:
Posted in:
Yeah, facts can trigger people.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@PREZ-HILTON
Your morality level has increased.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@PREZ-HILTON
1. My father abused me2. Ran away with my siblings from the abuse so they would be safe. The cops found me and tore into me about being a bad brother for encouraging them to run away.3. Ended up in a boys home staffed with 300 pound monsters of me who treated us like prisoners.4. Ended up in foster care where me and my siblings experienced more abuse and witnessed several acts of child molestation that thank God I was never a victim of.5. Guardian ad listens, the state, the police and my parents all let me down or outright abused the people I love.
Thats a pretty good abuse story. We can do abuse story battle where voters vote which story is better.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@badger
Well, freedom of opinion will be taken away too once technology develops enough to read minds.
Created: