Subject:
|
Re: Why these news groups were created
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Fri, 24 Sep 2004 15:25:10 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
2113 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Jason Coronado wrote:
| |
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Dave Schuler wrote:
| |
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Jason Coronado wrote:
| |
i actually grew up in a loving environment that taught me that right and
wrong are absolutes and nothing is relative. believing that has kept me
out of trouble many times.
|
Then you’ve been lucky not to have been exposed to reality, since you have
been given such an inadequate set of tools for dealing with it.
|
reality, my good friend, does not always determine what is right and what is
wrong. needless to say my children will know about the “reality” of
homosexuality sooner than i ever did. but to say that, “homosexuality, kids,
is a part of society so that means it is right” is a complete farce.
infidelity, abuse, and neglect are all real things that happen to children,
but they are clearly wrong (or is it only in the eye of the beholder, as
relativism suggests)?
|
Tell me this: Is an action “right” because God says so, or is it “right”
regardless of what God says? If the former, then it’s an arbitrary moral
system. If the latter, then God is subordinate to morality and therefore he’s
not supreme.
Anyway, you’ve encapsulated my ethical philosophy more or less correctly. There
is no evidence to suggest to me that there is any sort of universal “right” and
“wrong” or “good” and “evil.” All we have is preference, when you get down to
it.
| |
| |
If you are in a position to save either one innocent person or a pair of
innocent people from certain death, but you can’t save both the individual
and the pair, what do you do? It seems to me that you must make a choice
based on the relative value of the one versus the two. How do you make
this decision?
|
understood--to say that “nothing” is relative is an exaggeration on my part.
but how does “relative value” apply when someone takes the life of a loved
one? is there an absolute right/wrong there?
|
No. At least, not in a transcendent, truly absolute sense. It may be
absolutely repugnant to me, in that I find it to be utterly foul and
objectionable, but I’m not sufficiently presumptuous to claim that I know what
the absolute right or wrong might be.
| |
apparently the murderer thinks it’s right where you would obviously think
it’s wrong.
|
That is exactly correct! See? Relativism isn’t that hard to understand. The
problem is that many people assume that they see the world from some kind of
objective vantage point, allowing them to judge rightness or wrongness in
absolute terms. Sorry, but the world just doesn’t work that way.
| |
homosexuality used to
be looked at by the masses as wrong based on what the bible says (sodom and
gamorrah). nowadays, it seems to be “right” according to society. where is
the line drawn?
|
There is no line. There is only preference. Christianity used to be condemned
(or, frankly, ignored) by the masses, but society changed. Is this example of
moral relativsm also anathema to you?
| |
when does sexual perversion become wrong?
|
What is sexual perversion? According to what standard?
In my view, sexual pervesion is wrong only when force is exerted against one
unwilling party (or more) by another, or when one party (or more) is not able to
make decisions on its own behalf. Do I pretend that I have hit on a universal,
absolute truth? Certainly not--that would be the height of arrogance!
According to what standard? I strongly object to it on personal, aesthetic
grounds, but again I don’t pretend to have access to the universal absolute
truth on the matter.
| |
i know of people who want to start an organization which promotes
sexual relationships between grown men and boys. is that wrong? if it is,
then there’s your absolute. if it isn’t, then we’ve just allowed our sons to
be looked at as potential sexual subjects to be prayed upon by child
molesters.
|
Once again, I would strongly object to such an organization, assuming that at
least some of the participants are not able to decide on their own behalf.
But do I think that there is some universal, absolute rule declaring “men shalt
not fornicate with boys”? No.
| |
| |
In reality, little that is absolute is accessible to us, which is to say
that even if something is truly absolute, we as humans aren’t generally
qualified to assess it (I am excluding mathematical or Boolean absolutes,
which are different from what we’re discussing). We may choose to enshrine
certain values or customs as “absolute,” but these aren’t “absolute” in any
real sense.
|
if little is absolute, then there goes our whole legal system.
|
Our whole legal system is based on tradition and custom, rather than on absolute
truths of Right and Wrong.
| |
what about
laws? true, some do change, but some will never change, and if they do
(murder, child molestation) it will be to the detriment of society.
|
This is a false formulation: Laws don’t change, and if they do change, then
it’s bad.
And once again you are failing to distinguish between personal or societal
preference and true, universal absolute standards of Right and Wrong. Why is it
so hard for you to accept that society’s laws and values are simply products of
custom and tradition? Why must you appeal to some external agency to provide
validity for a societal value system?
| |
and if values are not absolute, then how do you explain to the child who has
been molested by his/her parent that the parent was just “satisfying a
sexual urge so it’s o.k”?
|
First, I wouldn’t pretend that there’s a benevolent father figure watching out
for all of us. Second, I would make sure to put the child in contact with a
counselor who is qualified to assist in the child’s recovery, rather than
pretending that I am emotionally or intellectually qualified to do so on my own.
Third, if the child asked me why the adult had acted this way, I would say that
the adult suffers from a mental defect causing him or her to act in a way that
good people (as defined by society) do not accept.
How would you handle it? Is it better to say “God will punish the molestor”
when you have no actual evidence that this is the case? When a child is
suffering an emotional trauma, a placebo statement of faith is of little
comfort.
| |
| |
| |
what bothers me is that
not only are homosexuals trying to get the world to accept them, they are
practically shoving their lifestyle down our throats.
|
Again with the mixed metaphors? What is it with homophobes and the need to
use “down my throat” and “thrusting in my face” as such common images when
discussing homosexuality? Your hot, steamy invective really gets my
rhetorical pulse throbbing!
|
uh...can we please stay on topic?
|
Hey, you’re the one evoking the naughty imagery.
| |
| |
No one is preventing you from discussing heterosexual things, whatever those
may be. When I announced the birth of my son, no militant homosexuals
denounced me for proclaiming my heterosexuality. Therefore, there is no
compelling reason to prevent people from discussing homosexual things,
whatever those may be.
|
so what things would homosexuals, lesbians, transvestites, transgenders,
bi-sexuals discuss with regards to lego?
|
Do you object to my post in .people to announce the birth of my son? What did
that have to do with LEGO? In fact, I specifically referred to clone-brands.
Do you propose that announcements regarding one’s life outside of LEGO are
verboten in this forum?
If there had been a lugnet.people.births group, I would have posted there in
deference to the greater specificity of the group. It is no different for
people.lgbt. If someone has something to say that relates to lgbt issues, such
as, for instance, the adoption by a gay couple of a baby, then
lugnet.people.lgbt sounds like a great place to post it.
| |
the very title “LGBT” automatically
let’s readers know that the men have sex with the men, the women have sex
with the women, the bi-sexuals have sex with both, the transvestites love to
dress as the opposite sex, and transgenders (i assume they are included as
well) surgically altered their genitals so they can have sex with...?
|
I’ll ignore your cruel caricature of transgenders and write it off as due to
your ignorance.
| |
i don’t belong to a heterosexual club, i belong to a lego club. why do you
fail to see the irrelevance between sex and lego?
|
Why do you pretend that sex must only exist in the bedroom between consenting,
married adults? If that’s how your life works, then that’s fine for you. But
my value system objects to your need to deny human nature.
| |
| |
Sure it is! And heterosexuality is about sex. Kids are, by definition,
about sex, and in many (but certainly not all) ways sex is about kids.
What’s your point?
|
my point, freud, is that we need to not let children into the realm of
sexuality because then they feel they need to get involved (teen
pregnancies). do you want your son (i assume he is still a child) to
participate in sexual acts?
|
Well, he’s only seven months old, so he hasn’t started dating just yet. As a
parent, it is my job to educate him sufficiently so that he is able to make
informed choices regarding his sexuality when he decidesd that he is able to
make those choices.
| |
educating children is one thing, but openly
discussing the various perversions of sex just confuses children and allows
them to seek experimentation. whatever happened to childhood innocence?
|
Childhood innocence is a post-victorian fiction made popular in the 20th
century. Rather than confusing children, openly discussing the various aspects
of sex provides children with the tools to make informed decisions.
Experimentation is natural and healthy.
| |
i would always love my children no matter what they do, but i would never
accept the deliberate decision to disobey GOD by choosing a lifestyle
contrary to what the bible says. cruelty, my friend, is letting children do
whatever they want so long as it feels right to them no matter the
consequences.
|
Why is that cruel? Because it conflicts with what you inferred from what read
in an ancient book? Oh, come on! Cruelty is forcing a child to reject a
natural part of his identity for the sake of pleasing a mythical father figure.
| |
if you and chris understand that i believe sex is a holy union between a man
and a woman consecrated by GOD through marriage, then you must also
understand my belief that any sexual act apart from that is a choice.
|
I accept that you believe this, but I reject your belief as incorrect and
contrary to reality.
| |
GOD did not create humans with the desire for the same sex.
|
This argument is unconvincing. I see no evidence that god created humans at
all, so any statements contigent upon god’s alleged creation are without value.
| |
if he did, then he wouldn’t say how much he detests it in the bible.
|
What is your evidence, outside of the bible, that god’s will is accurately
recorded in the bible, and that your interpretation of these millennial writings
is accurate? Please, don’t appeal to Stroebel, MacDowell, or Lewis for help
with your apologetics, either.
| |
homosexality is not a
physiological manifestation, but a psychological one.
|
What is your evidence, please? Do you propose that everyone who is homosexual
is homosexual by choice?
Dave!
|
|
Message is in Reply To:
 | | Re: Why these news groups were created
|
| (...) reality, my good friend, does not always determine what is right and what is wrong. needless to say my children will know about the "reality" of homosexuality sooner than i ever did. but to say that, "homosexuality, kids, is a part of society (...) (20 years ago, 24-Sep-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
151 Messages in This Thread:
(Inline display suppressed due to large size. Click Dots below to view.)
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
