Gen. Pace is the man!

[CycloWizard]

Originally posted by: ayabe
I don't need to argue that the Romans were moral, I don't judge morality, all of morality is completely subjective, so it's not my call. Were the Romans immoral when judged by the Judeo-Christian standards of today? Yes, probably they were. But in the that same vein, many of the things that Romans did out in the open without any hangups are still being done today, just behind closed doors.

Ah, the old Relativist Fallacy. Many things are right or wrong, whether you perceive them to be so or not (e.g. I cannot murder you simply because my 'morality' would allow it, since this would probably violate your morality). So, we recover to the necessity of ethics - the attempt to achieve an objective morality model.

The fact remains that someone being gay or not doesn't have a positive or negative affect on any of us. It doesn't matter and isn't our business.

Now, does it annoy me sometimes when two guys are on fire in the grocery store carrying little man purses? Sure. But no more so than fat people clogging the isles with their electric carts, or sorority girls dropping f-bombs in the checkout with little kids around or the redneck farting in produce.(I experienced all of these things yesterday at Publix after work). The world is full of things you aren't going to like. You can scowl and rant on a message board, but people are going to be who they want to be and do what they want to do.

Where did I say anything about my personal opinion? I don't think I mentioned it anywhere. Yet you're already typecasting me as a bigot. How... open-minded of you.

For the nature part - we also learn what is right and wrong, it's not an innate ability. A lot of animals are taught their own version of right and wrong. You can train a dog right and wrong.

No, you can't teach an animal right from wrong. You can teach an animal that certain behaviors are rewarded and certain behaviors punished. You can't teach an animal why such a distinction exists.

 

[zinfamous]

Well look-ee here! This thread hasn't climbed out of the pooper where it began...

 

[fskimospy]

Originally posted by: CycloWizard

For the nature part - we also learn what is right and wrong, it's not an innate ability. A lot of animals are taught their own version of right and wrong. You can train a dog right and wrong.

No, you can't teach an animal right from wrong. You can teach an animal that certain behaviors are rewarded and certain behaviors punished. You can't teach an animal why such a distinction exists.

To be fair, there seems to be considerable evidence that you can't teach a human those either. It seems very likely that our basic morality is darwinian/evolutionary in nature. As for the Abrahamic based hatred of homosexuality, I wouldn't even call that morality.

One important part of the definition of morality (in my opinion) is that if given specific conditions, the moral would be put forward by all rational people. I don't think that hatred of homosexuality is rational.

 

[thepd7]

Originally posted by: manowar821
Stupid homophobic bigots.

Go back to bible camp where there aren't any ****** or fags to bother you, pigs.

How exactly does this thread belong in politics and news? At best, this belongs in Off-Topic.

I'm going to enjoy watching all the bigots die off from old age.

Your attitude of tolerance is lovely, and in off topic we have more sense than to have rediculous threads like this.

 

[dahunan]

Originally posted by: thepd7

Originally posted by: manowar821
Stupid homophobic bigots.

Go back to bible camp where there aren't any ****** or fags to bother you, pigs.

How exactly does this thread belong in politics and news? At best, this belongs in Off-Topic.

I'm going to enjoy watching all the bigots die off from old age.

Your attitude of tolerance is lovely, and in off topic we have more sense than to have rediculous threads like this.

I actually thought about posting this in off-topic also just to see how it would go.. reminder I am not the OP

 

[SuperFungus]

Originally posted by: 3chordcharlie

Originally posted by: SuperFungus

Originally posted by: 3chordcharlie

Originally posted by: SuperFungus
how so? Please explain. The difference between the reationship of a brother and a step brother is similarly expressed in the nomenclature for each. Does this relegate one to second class status?

Traditionally? Yes. There is less expectation of a brotherly relationship between step-siblings. This is why step siblings who are close tend to refer to each other as simply 'brother' or 'sister'.

Edit - it is also the reason that generations of disgruntled step-children have said things like 'You are not my mother' to their step-mother.

Hmm, it seems like what you're saying is that step relationships have always been different from typical intra-familial relationships and that the nomenclature reflects this difference and is acceptable. Yet using a similar nomenclature to differentiate between same sex unions and marriages is not acceptable? I don't get what you mean in that last sentence. Are you trying to say that it is the "step" prefix which causes yougsters to lash out? My point is that the "step" designation is not derogatory (at least not necessarily), merely descriptive. A similar designation for same sex unions would be in every way appropriate as far as i can tell.

Think harder.

Start slow, you might hurt yourself.

Do I really deserve this? I was merely suggesting what I thought would be a reasonable solution to the problem, pacify the married and appease the gays, and since you disagree with me (for whatever reason, believe it or not I?d be interested to hear why) you have immediately descended into an ad hominem argument of ?you?re stupid for disagreeing with me?. Your latest post is worthless to this discussion. Thanks anyways i guess.

 

[JEDIYoda]

Originally posted by: dahunan

Originally posted by: tomywishbone
Pace is clearly a military and political genius. With an open-minded free-thinking individual like him in charge in Iraq, I'm sure victory is right around the corner.

Yep.. he is such a genius that he would rather fire arabic interpretors that he perceives as gay than protect his troops and the people of Iraq

He is a fvcking tool... not fit to wear the uniform of this great nation.

I think denying two people who love each other the right to marry is MORE IMMORAL than their relationship

your credentials for making such an assumption are......
military service?? cub scouts doesn`t count...

 

[Whoozyerdaddy]

Originally posted by: International Machine Consortium

Originally posted by: Whoozyerdaddy

Originally posted by: dahunan

Originally posted by: postmortemIA

Originally posted by: Whoozyerdaddy
I understand the reasons or keeping gays out of the military... and I think they are legitimate. But I see nothing inherently immoral about homosexuality. Consenting adults can do what they like.

They can't do something that destabilizes and undermines their country, which this might be the case.

Tell everyone exactly how..

Not your emotional BS.. but logically ..

How homosexuality destabilizes a country

How homosexuality undermines a country .. << Whatever the F that means :laugh:

Is this a Christchinn Country.. Pardner?

Was them Christians killing all the Native Americans

Was them Christians who was murderin them black peoples

Go get em ...

Ohhhh... You had to go there didn't you? It's not enough for the OP to bash gays... now this has to be a gay-bashing, christian-hating thread? FYI... Bah

Nevermind... I'm outta here

Well if it isn't the forum sheriff....

Don't let yer lassooo hitch ya where it hurts! YEEEE HAWWWWWWWWW!

I suppose in your world one bigoted comment justifies another.

 

[imported_gardener]

Originally posted by: CycloWizard
I think this post is pretty representative of the big misunderstanding of the great gay debate. There are certainly people who think that gays are immoral by virtue of being gay. However, the majority of people who are perceived as being 'anti-gay' have no problem with gay people. Instead, they think that homosexual acts are immoral. This is the sentiment that General Pace seems to have been conveying. Unfortunately, in today's society, people have forgotten that people can control whether or not they act on their sexual urges: it's unthinkable that someone (gay or straight) might actually choose to refrain from sex. As a result of this attitude, people fail to recognize that people like Gen. Pace would say the exact same thing about heterosexual acts outside of marriage. Calling something immoral does not make him a bigot or hateful. It means that he has a set of values that affects how he perceives things in the realm of ethics and morality. You are free to disagree with him, but there is no basis in his statements for calling him ignorant or a bigot. In fact, in doing so, you are displaying your own ignorance and intolerance.

Will you, Cyclowizard, claim that homosexual sex acts are immoral? Or will you simply slander gays indirectly, using another's words.

 

[umbrella39]

Originally posted by: postmortemIA
Yeah, man not afraid to speak his mind, evne on high position that he is. Of course, I fully share his opinion.

for the full of morals OP. :roll:

 

[umbrella39]

Originally posted by: JEDIYoda
Brave man and he needs to be more vocal!!!:thumbsup:

I feel I need to cook a new batch for this thread. Seriously, why don't you hate mongers just grow up and ship off to Iraq where you can become a stat.

 

[SuperFungus]

Originally posted by: umbrella39

Originally posted by: JEDIYoda
Brave man and he needs to be more vocal!!!:thumbsup:

I feel I need to cook a new batch for this thread. Seriously, why don't you hate mongers just grow up and ship off to Iraq where you can become a stat.

Why can't we all be as tolerant as you? What a beautiful world it would be.

 

[jjzelinski]

Originally posted by: SuperFungus

Originally posted by: umbrella39

Originally posted by: JEDIYoda
Brave man and he needs to be more vocal!!!:thumbsup:

I feel I need to cook a new batch for this thread. Seriously, why don't you hate mongers just grow up and ship off to Iraq where you can become a stat.

Why can't we all be as tolerant as you? What a beautiful world it would be.

Was that meant to be sarcastic? Yes, god forbid people stop poking their noses into other peoples business and start fixing their own immorality.

 

[SuperFungus]

to clarify, yes that was sarcasm. I think there is nothing tolerant about wishing everyone who disagrees with you dead.
Also, to clarify i have no interest in defending either Jedi's, postmortem's or anyone else's position.

 

[CycloWizard]

Originally posted by: eskimospy
To be fair, there seems to be considerable evidence that you can't teach a human those either. It seems very likely that our basic morality is darwinian/evolutionary in nature. As for the Abrahamic based hatred of homosexuality, I wouldn't even call that morality.

Maybe you can point me in the direction of said evidence, since I've never seen anyone ever make such a claim.

One important part of the definition of morality (in my opinion) is that if given specific conditions, the moral would be put forward by all rational people. I don't think that hatred of homosexuality is rational.

Maybe you can show me where anyone said that they hate homosexuality. I think the irrationality here is the constant strawmen put forth by others and now you in this thread.

 

[CycloWizard]

Originally posted by: gardener
Will you, Cyclowizard, claim that homosexual sex acts are immoral? Or will you simply slander gays indirectly, using another's words.

Will you, gardener, look up the definition of 'slander' and kindly explain to me how my post could be construed as such? Can't I explain someone's words without agreeing with them? Even if I agree with him, it's still not slander. However, you can't obtain my beliefs from the quoted post in any way, as it was simply an explanation of his words.

 

[blackllotus]

Originally posted by: CycloWizard

Originally posted by: ayabe
I don't need to argue that the Romans were moral, I don't judge morality, all of morality is completely subjective, so it's not my call. Were the Romans immoral when judged by the Judeo-Christian standards of today? Yes, probably they were. But in the that same vein, many of the things that Romans did out in the open without any hangups are still being done today, just behind closed doors.

Ah, the old Relativist Fallacy. Many things are right or wrong, whether you perceive them to be so or not (e.g. I cannot murder you simply because my 'morality' would allow it, since this would probably violate your morality). So, we recover to the necessity of ethics - the attempt to achieve an objective morality model.

Its not the relativist fallacy because there are no absolute morals.

 

[ayabe]

Originally posted by: ayabe
I don't need to argue that the Romans were moral, I don't judge morality, all of morality is completely subjective, so it's not my call. Were the Romans immoral when judged by the Judeo-Christian standards of today? Yes, probably they were. But in the that same vein, many of the things that Romans did out in the open without any hangups are still being done today, just behind closed doors.

Originally posted by: CycloWizard
Ah, the old Relativist Fallacy. Many things are right or wrong, whether you perceive them to be so or not (e.g. I cannot murder you simply because my 'morality' would allow it, since this would probably violate your morality). So, we recover to the necessity of ethics - the attempt to achieve an objective morality model.

That doesn't hold water, you can't judge the Romans by the standards of today. I'm sure the Romans would find certain parts of our societal practices to be immoral.

What is moral or immoral depends entirely on the paradigm of the times you live in, there is no higher absolute moral code. Using your murder example, this is instinctual. Most mammals on this planet don't wantonly kill other members of their species, that's a survival instinct. So come up with a better example to prove your point.

The fact remains that someone being gay or not doesn't have a positive or negative affect on any of us. It doesn't matter and isn't our business.

Now, does it annoy me sometimes when two guys are on fire in the grocery store carrying little man purses? Sure. But no more so than fat people clogging the isles with their electric carts, or sorority girls dropping f-bombs in the checkout with little kids around or the redneck farting in produce.(I experienced all of these things yesterday at Publix after work). The world is full of things you aren't going to like. You can scowl and rant on a message board, but people are going to be who they want to be and do what they want to do.

Originally posted by: CycloWizard
Where did I say anything about my personal opinion? I don't think I mentioned it anywhere. Yet you're already typecasting me as a bigot. How... open-minded of you.

I was speaking generally not at you particularly. There are plenty of others in this thread who have already made their thoughts known.

For the nature part - we also learn what is right and wrong, it's not an innate ability. A lot of animals are taught their own version of right and wrong. You can train a dog right and wrong.

Originally posted by: CycloWizard
No, you can't teach an animal right from wrong. You can teach an animal that certain behaviors are rewarded and certain behaviors punished. You can't teach an animal why such a distinction exists.

Yeah, and humans are trained the same way, there are sanctions for negative behavior. That's as clear as day, there is no other higher moral code. It's exactly the same. Human beings can and will be incredibly cruel if the threat of sanctions for negative behavior are not an issue. This is the foundation of society throughout our development. These foundations are ingrained in childhood. If you raise a child in the woods and never punish him for negative behavior he will have a different value set and will not know what the rules are.

This has been proven time and time again over the course of history, different tribes coming into contact with different sets of values which leads to an alternative version of morality and both look negatively upon each other.

 

[WhipperSnapper]

Maybe he's really a closet homosexual. Haven't there been lots of public figures who were closet homosexuals who publically opposed homosexuality? In reality, perhaps Peter Pace would enjoy nothing more than some guy's rock hard peter up his pooper? Perhaps Peter Pace loves getting hit with cum in the face?

Should his new nick name be, "Peter egg-on-face Pace"?

 

[jjzelinski]

Originally posted by: WhipperSnapper

Maybe he's really a closet homosexual. Haven't there been lots of public figures who were closet homosexuals who publically opposed homosexuality? In reality, perhaps Peter Pace would enjoy nothing more than some guy's rock hard peter up his pooper? Perhaps Peter Pace loves getting hit with cum in the face?

Should his new nick name be, "Peter egg-on-face Pace"?

Wouldn't that be a hoot.

De-clseted bigots:

Fire Breathing Evangelical Minister=check
Social Conservative Senator=check
Hoo-rah war junkie= to be determined....

 

[DealMonkey]

Originally posted by: CycloWizard

Originally posted by: DealMonkey
Ahhhhh yes, the last refuge of the bigot! To try and point out that those calling him/her a bigot, are in fact the ones who are ignorant and intolerant!

LOL :laugh:

Care to point out where I've exhibited bigotry, or are you just trolling in lieu of any argument? Or are you trying to make a place for yourself in my sig? 😕

I wasn't referring to you, but your defense of the bigot. Who by the way, everyone can recognize for what he is. A bigot. Your defense of him, on the other hand, was laughable.

 

[CycloWizard]

Originally posted by: blackllotus
Its not the relativist fallacy because there are no absolute morals.

Then do you agree with the following statement?
I can kill you on a whim because my personal moral structure would allow it.

 

[ayabe]

Originally posted by: CycloWizard

Originally posted by: blackllotus
Its not the relativist fallacy because there are no absolute morals.

Then do you agree with the following statement?
I can kill you on a whim because my personal moral structure would allow it.

That doesn't fly in Western Society, but in many parts of the world murder can be justified. In some parts of the world, if a wife cheats on her husband, the man has the moral authority(obligation even) to kill her.

Those people have a different paradigm and the moral code that goes along with it. Yes these same people think that the US is devoid of morals.

It's all a matter of interpretation based on your culture.

 

[CycloWizard]

Originally posted by: ayabe
That doesn't hold water, you can't judge the Romans by the standards of today. I'm sure the Romans would find certain parts of our societal practices to be immoral.

What is moral or immoral depends entirely on the paradigm of the times you live in, there is no higher absolute moral code. Using your murder example, this is instinctual. Most mammals on this planet don't wantonly kill other members of their species, that's a survival instinct. So come up with a better example to prove your point.

What's wrong with that example? My personal moral structure allows wanton killing. If there is no absolute moral code, then how can you tell me that I'm wrong? Simple answer - you can't. You want another example? My personal moral structure allows me to take whatever I want from whomever I please whenever I please. Therefore, you have no personal property rights in my moral code. However, my moral code also indicates that I do have personal property rights, so you cannot take my things from me. Notice a pattern? That's because it's the exact form of the relativist fallacy.

I was speaking generally not at you particularly. There are plenty of others in this thread who have already made their thoughts known.

You quoted me directly and put words in my mouth. There was nothing general at all about what you said. If you're going to call me a bigot, at least have the stones to man up to it.

Yeah, and humans are trained the same way, there are sanctions for negative behavior. That's as clear as day, there is no other higher moral code. It's exactly the same. Human beings can and will be incredibly cruel if the threat of sanctions for negative behavior are not an issue. This is the foundation of society throughout our development. These foundations are ingrained in childhood. If you raise a child in the woods and never punish him for negative behavior he will have a different value set and will not know what the rules are.

You think people cannot know right from wrong because you think there is no such thing as true right and wrong. I've already demonstrated how this position is founded on fallacy. Thus, given that right and wrong do exist, it is only our perception of them that is relative. I don't think it correct to say that we only do things because of the threat of punishment. I know that there are things that I do not do that I could get away with that I would consider wrong, whether it be smoking pot (something that is illegal) or skipping a day of work (not illegal, but still probably wrong).

This has been proven time and time again over the course of history, different tribes coming into contact with different sets of values which leads to an alternative version of morality and both look negatively upon each other.

Maybe you could give some examples then, if it happens all the time. In my study of history, the basis for codes of laws (which I will assume codify a peoples' collective system of morals, perhaps tempered by politics and corruption) are extraordinarily similar. This is obvious from a simple comparison of Hammurabi's Code with our own laws. The only notable exception seems to be slavery, which may indicate that there is nothing absolutely wrong about slavery, though I haven't thought about this enough to really say anything definitive.

 

[imported_gardener]

Have the stones to "man-up" to your personal beliefs, Cyclo.