I think alcoholism is immoral, but i don't hate drunks. Some people have a genetic pre-disposition to alcoholism. Does this mean i'm a bigot for thinking that they should choose to avoid alcohol, despite the fact that it is what makes them alcoholics? Can i hate alcoholic behavior and not hate the alcoholic?
Don't tell me you're trying to equate alcoholism with being gay. You know as well as I do why that's crap.
The fact that you consider a disease "immoral" means you have more issues than just bigotry.
:roll:
I guess you missed my point then. I hate drunkeness, i don't hate drunkards. There's nothing immoral about the condition of being an alcoholic (the disease), but it is still immoral to to engage in alcoholic acts. What about psychopaths who cannot help but kill? is murder excused in thier case because to ask them to deny thier natural urge to kill is unreasonable?
No they are not the same, but the comparason is still valid i think. Certain people cannot help but have addictive tendencies towards alcohol. Yet it is perfectly reasonable to say that you believe those people should not drink excessively. Similarly the gay cannot help but have homosexual feelings, yet i feel it is just as reasonable to still believe that it is immoral for that gay to engage in homosexual activity. No hate or bigotry is implied.
3chordcharlie
Diamond Member
- Mar 30, 2004
- 9,859
- 1
- 81
You've utterly failed to establish that drunkeness in and of itself is immoral, therefore if you're trying to offer a 'slippery slope' problem, you have a lot of work left to do.
I plan on addressing this in another thread. For now, it will suffice to say that yes, I know there is absolute truth. I would argue that acting in contradiction to this truth is unethical, at least once one has discovered it. However, I cannot condemn someone who has not yet found it for acting contrary to it. I could only condemn him if he's not looking for it at that point.
When you were a child, no doubt your mother told you not to do something because it was wrong.
I will consider the following example: your mother probably told you as a child "Don't steal candy from the grocery store." You were a kid and you loved candy - it's an intrinsic part of being a kid. The only way to stop 'sinning' is to not steal the candy from the grocery store. Does this imply that your mother hates you or is an intolerant bigot?
What do I hope to demonstrate by this example? The following points:
1. If someone judges that something is wrong and they don't tell you to avoid the wrong action, then they are aiding and abetting.
2. Telling someone that you think an action is wrong is not the same thing as bigotry.
3. People can abstain from things that you consider 'intrinsic' to who they are.
4. You have a bigoted double standard. I have no doubt you would refrain from calling your own mother a bigot because you happen to agree that stealing is wrong. However, you have no hesitation in calling Pace a bigot - not because he's telling you what he thinks is wrong, but because you happen to disagree with his opinion on the matter. This is evidenced by your resorting to the cheap trick - postulating that "the only reason Pace even believes this nonsense in the first place is because his religion told him to," though I doubt you have any evidence of this fact. You're as intolerant of him as you think he is of gay people. The difference is that you are the only one condemning another person here.
Please show me where I have stated my own moral standards in this thread regarding gay marriage. Just one quote should do.
Man, it looks like I need to take some notes on how to debate from you... This is always a great way to start a strong argument - with a sharp insult!
So any man not having sex with other men becomes magically straight?
What if a straight man is not having sex with women - does that make him gay? Oh, and maybe you too can point out where I mentioned that I think that the actions of gays are immoral. I don't think I said that anywhere, but feel free to waste your time looking for it somewhere.Did I ever once mention my religion in this thread? Did I ask you to type in all caps in lieu of any real argument? It's an interesting tactic, but not very effective on me as I'm obviously too stupid to be intimidated.
Do you know how many people gay people have made uncomfortable in the past? WTF mate?
What are my standards? Oh, that's right - you have absolutely no idea what my standards are because I never told you. You simply assumed that I'm a Bible-thumper because it makes it easy for you to personally attack me instead of actually adressing any of the points I've made in this thread. Another testament to the great American education system. :roll:
Did I say that gays aren't people? No. Did I say I would deny them their relationships? No. Did I say that I would deny them the opportunity to defend our country? No. These are all fabrications that you decided you would attribute to me because you have no grasp of the simple statements I've made in this thread. The one charge that you are correct about is that I would deny gay people their marriage certificates. However, I would also deny straight people, bisexual people, transgender people, and everyone else their marriage certificates.
Did I say that they are not deserving of the same rights? If so, please point it out. This would also be important for substantiating your claim of my bigotry and 'mindless faith.' Your inability to do so will demonstrate which of us is truly bigoted and suffers from mindless faith.
Yes, because man cannot live without screwing like rabbits, just like we can't live without oxygen! I believe I learned that as part of my confined space training... "Your brain will cease to function if the volume fraction of oxygen falls below 0.165 or if you haven't gotten any from your partner in the last 36 hours."Originally posted by: Harvey
Yeah. It's like not judging people because of their need for oxygen, just defending those who would prohibit them from breathing. :roll:Originally posted by: DealMonkey
Remember manowar, CW is not judging these people or their actions as immoral, he's merely defending those who do.
One for each of you.I'm a straight person, but that does not fundamentally define me as a person. My sexuality is a part of me, no doubt, but it does not define me as a person.
This is a poor analogy unless you judge belief in God and going to church on Sunday to be immoral. How about this one: I can deplore the constant thievery by a kleptomaniac without thinking that he is an evil person. Stealing is much more of an integral part of the klepto (as I believe it is a brain malfunction that leads to such behavior) than is having gay sex for the homosexual, which is actually a conscious choice that the gay person makes. So, if General Pace had said "I think stealing is immoral," then made a rule banning kleptos from the military, would you be calling him a bigot?
3chordcharlie
Diamond Member
- Mar 30, 2004
- 9,859
- 1
- 81
Remember that the behavior that Pace thinks is immoral isn't thought to be immoral by everyone. I hope that a majority of the American people disagree with him.
You should keep trying at your analogy scenario. Try something that isn't thought to be immoral by everyone.
You should keep trying at your analogy scenario. Try something that isn't thought to be immoral by everyone.
I grow tired of the lame analogies.
The bottom line here is that the only reason gay sex is "wrong" is because General Pace says so. There is no victim and no one gets hurt as a result (assuming safe sex practices). Stealing, murder, etc. are wrong and it's self-evident why they're wrong. Someone gets hurt as as result.
The only possible factors in determining the "wrongness" of gay sex are (A) his religious beliefs or (B) he simply doesn't like gay people. What else is there? If you can postulate another (sensible) reason why he has come out so strongly against gay sex/gay behavior, please do so.
All of your logical wrangling and the attempts to address the action vs the person are superfluous and it's quite obvious what you're both doing. You hope to avoid Pace being labeled "intolerant" or a "bigot" even though for General Pace, this is a textbook case of bigotry.
I'd like you to define why these things are wrong. Saying that it's self-evident is a cop-out that you've used to preclude any discussion about why things are right or wrong, probably because you've never thought about it (which I gather from the next part of your post).
There are thousands of books on ethics that can help you answer the question of what might be used to determine whether an action is right or wrong without invoking any religious argument or using the 'he simply doesn't like ____ people' "logic." Simply put, something can be wrong even if there is no exterior 'victim.' I would argue that suicide would fall into this category, even if it's for no other reason than it inflicts unthinkable suffering on other people who love you. Similarly, something can be 'right' even if there is an apparent victim. I wouldn't begrudge the starving kid for stealing a piece of bread from Bill Gates, for example. The theories governing ethics are too numerous to mention, but it definitely sounds like something you should look into if you actually care.
You can't make any arguments without resorting to name-calling and cheap insults. You hate General Pace for merely stating his opinion. How are you any better than him?
Deliberately obtuse, are we? I've already specified the reason - there is a victim and harm is done upon them.
You wrote volumes, yet you dodged my question. Give me another reason other than the 2 I've already pointed out.
[/quote]
Calling General Pace a bigot and intolerant is akin to calling the sky blue. It is what it is. When something matches the textbook definition of a word, it is not a cheap insult, it's a proper application of the word. You'd do well to go refresh yourself on the definition of bigot and intolerance. And as you well know, I'm no fan of stupid semantics games, so drop this little charade where you try and point your finger back at me. It's not working. Not even close.
I'm not being deliberately obtuse. In fact, I'm not the one being obtuse at all. I would like you to define why the things you listed are right and wrong.
I didn't dodge anything. I merely pointed out that the field of ethics wouldn't even exist if things were as you say. There are many theories put forth by ethicists for deciding whether an action is right or wrong: moral relativity, moral absolutism, natural law, pure reasoning, and predetermination are but a few.
Fine - you want to define terms? Here we go then. From Merriam-Webster:
intolerant:
1 : unable or unwilling to endure
2 a : unwilling to grant equal freedom of expression especially in religious matters b : unwilling to grant or share social, political, or professional rights : BIGOTED
3 : exhibiting physiological intolerance <lactose intolerant>
bigot
: a person obstinately or intolerantly devoted to his or her own opinions and prejudices; especially : one who regards or treats the members of a group (as a racial or ethnic group) with hatred and intolerance
I assume that your argument is that he is trying to disallow free expression of gayness in the military. You hate him because his opinion differs from yours. Now please explain to me how you are any less intolerant or bigoted than General Pace.
It's nice to know you can talk out of both sides of your mouth without saying anything from either side. First, you talk about the biological necessity for oxygen. Then, you mock those who would experience discomfort because they "haven't gotten any from your partner in the last 36 hours." Then, you acknowledge that your sexuaality is a part of you.Originally posted by: CycloWizard
Yes, because man cannot live without screwing like rabbits, just like we can't live without oxygen! I believe I learned that as part of my confined space training... "Your brain will cease to function if the volume fraction of oxygen falls below 0.165 or if you haven't gotten any from your partner in the last 36 hours."
.
.
My sexuality is a part of me, no doubt, but it does not define me as a person.
The effects of being deprived of oxygen are more severe and occur on a much shorter time scale than happens when one is deprived of sexual release, but the reality of the basic biological drive in most people is just as real. If it isn't in your case, thanks for telling us why we shouldn't define you as a person.
Only if you can tell us that the acts of a theif don't harm anyone and that all thieves steal only from adult who consent to those thefts.
Talk about piss poor analogies! That isn't an analogy; it's a word storm of unadultrated homophobic BIGOTRY wrapped in uninformed, factually unsupportable, self-contradictory nonsense, justified only by your personal belief in some ooga booga deity.
You have nothing but your belief to support your claim that homosexuality is a conscious choice. Prove it, or STFU!
You dare to compare the crime of theft to private sexual relations between consenting adults. Theft is an unlawful taking of property belonging to another. By it's very definition, theft has one or more victims. Where is the victim in consensual, non-violent sex between adults? If you can't name the victim, why is it even any of your business? :roll:
If that's what your so called church teaches you, attending services on Sunday may not be immoral, but acting against others based on what they teach sure is.
You can have your cookies back.
They're icebox cookies, but they're warmer than any place in your frigid heart or spirit.CycloWizard, you pissed me off. I was not debating with you, thus the reason why my reply to you was more seething anger than respect.
The real argument here is whether or not the act of gay sex is in fact immoral. I don't think it is. Why is it immoral? Who gets to decide this? If you think it's immoral, why isn't STRAIGHT sex immoral? I've never heard of a straight sex act being punished in the military... This is strictly a bigoted issue we're dealing with.
Does the act of two men or two women going at it hurt you? Does it hurt the country? Does it make your heterosexual relationship less meaningful?
The whole "gay problem" is in their heads. There IS NO PROBLEM with it. There is nothing wrong with them. They do not hurt anyone.
You know why I'm so angry about the fact that this "debate" even exists? It's because I had a gay friend who got a good beating by a couple fatass bible-jocks who were so afraid of something different, they felt the need to "get rid of it". You know what happened to my godless gay friend? He has brain damage now, and he has trouble learning. So long to his medical schooling. So long to the possibility of him curing some terrible disease. The christians got a slap on the wrist, some restraining orders, and that correctional BS.
Why even bother with the correctional courses? You can't fix stupid. You can't fix worthless.
I'm glad the three of them won't get a shot at whatever the hell sports careers they were going for. Those bastards deserve much more pain, though.
I don't think your opinion of gay sex being immoral is valid. That is why I don't show you any respect. That is why you will not GET my respect.
And that is why you will get less and less respect as time goes on, as people realize you're being selfish, and that YOUR rights are NOT being oppressed.
Hating bigotry, is not bigotry. Much in the same way that hating white supremacists is not bigotry.
Here is an interesting piece of information. We have criminals, such as KKK members, skin-head groups, murderers, rapists etc etc. They're allowed to get into the military now (probably because the smarter of us decide that going to get killed in this war would be stupid). They're also allowed to ::GASP:: get married! So... These people can shoot a gun for the country, they can get married, they can get schooling paid for by the military. But what about gays? What about gays, with spotless records, ambitions to go into medical school and the military to fight for YOUR rights. What do they get? No marriage rights, no military rights. What a ****** slap in the face.
You can call me a jerk or an asshole, but it doesn't matter. Because I would never take your rights away. You can say whatever you like, you can have sex with whoever wants to have sex with you. You can vote however you like, get married, have children, hell you can have a giant cross on your car (if you're a christian) and I won't mind. But don't ever, EVER try to take rights away from other people. Don't you dare support people who are trying to take rights from others, and don't call me a communist for trying to level the playing field for everyone, regardless of who they like to bone or suck off.
The real argument here is whether or not the act of gay sex is in fact immoral. I don't think it is. Why is it immoral? Who gets to decide this? If you think it's immoral, why isn't STRAIGHT sex immoral? I've never heard of a straight sex act being punished in the military... This is strictly a bigoted issue we're dealing with.
Does the act of two men or two women going at it hurt you? Does it hurt the country? Does it make your heterosexual relationship less meaningful?
The whole "gay problem" is in their heads. There IS NO PROBLEM with it. There is nothing wrong with them. They do not hurt anyone.
You know why I'm so angry about the fact that this "debate" even exists? It's because I had a gay friend who got a good beating by a couple fatass bible-jocks who were so afraid of something different, they felt the need to "get rid of it". You know what happened to my godless gay friend? He has brain damage now, and he has trouble learning. So long to his medical schooling. So long to the possibility of him curing some terrible disease. The christians got a slap on the wrist, some restraining orders, and that correctional BS.
Why even bother with the correctional courses? You can't fix stupid. You can't fix worthless.
I'm glad the three of them won't get a shot at whatever the hell sports careers they were going for. Those bastards deserve much more pain, though.
I don't think your opinion of gay sex being immoral is valid. That is why I don't show you any respect. That is why you will not GET my respect.
And that is why you will get less and less respect as time goes on, as people realize you're being selfish, and that YOUR rights are NOT being oppressed.
Hating bigotry, is not bigotry. Much in the same way that hating white supremacists is not bigotry.
Here is an interesting piece of information. We have criminals, such as KKK members, skin-head groups, murderers, rapists etc etc. They're allowed to get into the military now (probably because the smarter of us decide that going to get killed in this war would be stupid). They're also allowed to ::GASP:: get married! So... These people can shoot a gun for the country, they can get married, they can get schooling paid for by the military. But what about gays? What about gays, with spotless records, ambitions to go into medical school and the military to fight for YOUR rights. What do they get? No marriage rights, no military rights. What a ****** slap in the face.
You can call me a jerk or an asshole, but it doesn't matter. Because I would never take your rights away. You can say whatever you like, you can have sex with whoever wants to have sex with you. You can vote however you like, get married, have children, hell you can have a giant cross on your car (if you're a christian) and I won't mind. But don't ever, EVER try to take rights away from other people. Don't you dare support people who are trying to take rights from others, and don't call me a communist for trying to level the playing field for everyone, regardless of who they like to bone or suck off.
The whole "if you hate bigots you are a bigot" argument, as I stated before should have gone out in middle school.. and is an argument that supports the very moral relativism that you complained about earlier. You're arguing in circles.
General Pace is a homophobe... and it is indefinsible. Saying that you don't hate gay people, but only view the primary means by which they are defined as gay wrong and immoral is a total cop out, and is a retreat into semantics in a pathetic attempt to cover a position you KNOW to be wrong.
3chordcharlie
Diamond Member
- Mar 30, 2004
- 9,859
- 1
- 81
Do you think this is a freedom of speech issue?
He's free to say what he said, but it is hypocritical to say that he should be allowed to do so with no consequences to his job, when he is trying to restrict freedom of speech for others because of thier job. And it's the same job!
I can't speak for DealMonkey however I'll use your question as an opportunity to expand on some of my claims earlier. While morals may be unique to each person, a statement such as "murder is wrong" is still valid because the implied meaning is "murder is wrong according to the values of American society." This is important because, as far as I know, it is impossible to explain why murder is wrong in an absolute sense, while it is fairly trivial to explain why it is wrong in American society. It isn't much of a stretch to claim that many of the morals in American society are based off of the goals presented in the preamble of the Constitution.
Murder clearly violates the goal of promoting general welfare and securing liberty. Securing liberty, in this sense, refers to maximizing the liberty of every citizen therefore liberty for one citizen cannot be promoted at the cost of liberty for another. In other words, allowing citizens to steal, rape, murder, etc... violates the goal of securing liberty because it allows people to infringe on the liberties of other people. Therefore, murder is wrong in America because it violates the basic goals of our society.
Such an analogy has already been made for sex outside of marriage. If you need another one, do i hate the pornography addict if i think pornography is immoral?
You are being deliberately obtuse! I just explained for the 2nd time why stealing and murder are wrong. Here's the 3rd: There's a victim and harm is inflicted upon that victim. Get it?
Well, it should be easy for you to list another reason beyond the two I already mentioned. Stop dodging the question, or I'll just assume you agree that General Pace's irrational feelings towards gay people are either (1.) Driven by religion, or (2.) Driven by a totally irrational dislike of gay people.
[/quote]
I don't hate anyone. When did I ever use the word "hate?" Oh yeah, I didn't. Interesting that you're trying the same technique on me that you were defending Pace from earlier.
Does that make you a hypocrite? Yeah, probably, but I know you'll just argue the semantics of hypocrisy and try and twist things around. How's that workin' out for ya?
TRENDING THREADS
-
Discussion Zen 5 Speculation (EPYC Turin and Strix Point/Granite Ridge - Ryzen 9000)- Started by DisEnchantment
- Replies: 25K
-
Discussion Intel Meteor, Arrow, Lunar & Panther Lakes + WCL Discussion Threads
- Started by Tigerick
- Replies: 22K
-
News NVIDIA and Intel to Develop AI Infrastructure and Personal Computing Products- Started by poke01
- Replies: 384
-
Discussion Intel current and future Lakes & Rapids thread- Started by TheF34RChannel
- Replies: 23K
Facebook
Twitter