Originally posted by The Omega
Ah, definetely. The much abused freedom of speech comes to mind...Ush> What part of it did I not make clear enough? I meant what Bardock said. In Danish SODOMI means human/animal sex.
Capt is right. My point was not just to support the rights of homosexuals, but to show the fallacy in UCFs assuming that giving this group of people the same rights as heterosexuals will lead to "moral decline and the end of civilisatioN" because by allowing one we'll slip down a slope to hell.
He also points to what sociologists call dichotomy: the splitting of a whole (here: humanity) into two non-overlapping parts (here: men and women).By non-overlapping you have the idea, that if MEN are like "this", women must be the "opposite of this". If men like sex, women dislike sex. If women are tender, men are hard etc. etc. etc yadaa yadaa blah.
Or "you are either WITH us or AGAINST us," leaving no room for 60 % agreement but not entirely. Or the whole idea that some traits/feelings are masculine and others are feminine. Show me ONE feeling a man can have that a woman cannot have and vice versa...
Basically the whole subject to this thread can be brought down to the simple argument of absolute truth vs moral relativity.
I find that those who subscribe to moral relativity are the more selfish individuals, seeing as how their underlying agenda adheres to the logic that an individual's own needs are more important than the needs of the society that they live in.
It actually frightens me greatly to see that many societies are headed in this "relativistic" direction. If you think the past 5 years have been rough in this world, things are only going to get worse from here as this warped philosophical life doctrine becomes the dominant one in the coming years.
Originally posted by whobdamandog
Basically the whole subject to this thread can be brought down to the simple argument of absolute truth vs moral relativity.I find that those who subscribe to moral relativity are the more selfish individuals, seeing as how their underlying agenda adheres to the logic that an individual's own needs are more important than the needs of the society that they live in.
It actually frightens me greatly to see that many societies are headed in this "relativistic" direction. If you think the past 5 years have been rough in this world, things are only going to get worse from here as this warped philosophical life doctrine becomes the dominant one in the coming years.
I agree with 99.9% of what you have posted. However, that outside 0.1% refers to my rejection of your 'philosophical life' phrase. If you changed it to 'religious ideology', then you'd be right on the money, dog.
Originally posted by whobdamandog
Basically the whole subject to this thread can be brought down to the simple argument of absolute truth vs moral relativity.
No it can't.
There are Absolutists that would support Omega's view.
Also, there is no argument between "absolute truth vs moral relativity", that is mixing your debates. It is perfectly possible to believe in both, in which case you would think that the fact that morals, in particular, are relative would be an absolute truth.
I know you like to mix the two, but that is just another one of your fallacies.
So you refer to the argument between absolute and relative morals, but why you assume that all absolutists would come down against Omega, which is the necessary pre-requisite for your statement about this being the core of the debate being true, is beyond me.
Oh wait! No it isn't, because as Ya has said, you have confused a broad philisophical stance with a rather specific (and unpleasant) religious one.
Originally posted by whobdamandog
I find that those who subscribe to moral relativity are the more selfish individuals
That's the pot calling the kettle black! You want the whole world to think like you, act like you. It's ridiculously selfish! Society is made up of individuals. Not the other way around.
Originally posted by Darth_Erebus
I don't think ANY form of marriage should be legally recognized. If someone wants to think of themselves as married, or have their religion recognize them as married then fine but there should be no legal benifits from the social contract of marriage. It discriminates against single people.
I can agree with that for the most part. However, there are legal rights that go along with a government recognized marriage. But, I agree with your opinion on taxes.
I am not arguing relative vs. absolute morals.
Man, I am a little tired of the dichotomy posed by some debaters. This constant EITHER-OR. The world is NOT black or white.
I think I am basically arguing against the “Slippery Slope”-fallacy, the idea that allowing certain groups of people their constitutional rights is equal to plunging society into decay and amoral behaviour.
Originally posted by Darth_Erebus
I don't think ANY form of marriage should be legally recognized. If someone wants to think of themselves as married, or have their religion recognize them as married then fine but there should be no legal benifits from the social contract of marriage. It discriminates against single people.
Good point. I actually agree with it to a certain extent. Since, however, we live in a society with a lot of legal contracts to ensure that agreements are recognised by the law. I suppose it’ll be difficult to NOT have marriages legally recognised. It also deals with mutual ownership of houses, kids etc. Of course – if we didn’t need that it would be even better.
Re: Personal liberties vs. moral decline
Originally posted by The Omegaso it's the parents' fault? Ermm, duh. But what's this about “teens” puberty happens when you're 10/11ish.
Lately, in several threads, I’ve encountered the disturbing view, that allowing gay people the same rights as straight people will somehow lead to the demise of civilization and open the doors to the legalisation of paedophilia and sodomy.I think it is due time to discuss why this view is not only wrong but also utterly absurd.
We humans have come a long way since the days of serfdom, slavery, and oppression of women and peasants.
During the 18th century people really started to discuss liberal ideas and the notion of inalienable rights of human rights, with several revolutions in the wake.
Of course the aristocracy protested loudly when male peasants were first allowed to vote and participate in deciding who should lead a country. “This will be the end of civilisation!”
When slavery was abolished the same cries were heard, not to mention the combined head-shaking and opposition when women wanted equal rights.The idea that all humans, no matter their race, hair colour or gender, have certain rights that may NOT be violated is a grand idea. Basically our rights are there to protect us, and they do not hurt other peoples’ rights. It’s taken some time to give every one their rights, and there are places in the world where this still needs to be done… But there is such a thing as progress.
Homosexuality hurts no one. Gay marriages hurt no one. Simple as that. So giving homosexuals the same rights as heterosexuals is not the demise of civilisation, it’s progress.There is an ocean, a solar system diameter, a galactic diameter distance between this and paedophilia and sodomy.
A child has no concept of love the way adults have. Heck, our ability to really see other peoples’ points of view don not even become founded until we reach our teens. There is a reason why we reach puberty. When an adult forces himself on a child he DOES hurt some one. The child’s rights are violated. This is why paedophilia will NEVER be allowed.
The same goes for sodomy.Your views?
Re: Re: Personal liberties vs. moral decline
Originally posted by lord xyz
so it's the parents' fault? Ermm, duh. But what's this about “teens” puberty happens when you're 10/11ish.
I completely fail to see your point. "Parent's fault"? What is?
Do you think a 10-11-year old has the physical and mental capacity to enter into a full adult relationship???
Originally posted by The Omega
I am not arguing relative vs. absolute morals.
Man, I am a little tired of the dichotomy posed by some debaters. This constant EITHER-OR. The world is NOT black or white.
By disagreeing with me you're only further demonstrating the validity of the "dichotomy" which you speak of, seeing as how you are currently taking an "EITHER - OR" stance while presenting your position.
If you truly want to break from the "BLACK OR WHITE", then you will frequently entertain the possibility of views in opposition to your own as being correct. Unfortunately like most Relativists, you will never do this, which demonstrates why the whole philosophy of Relativism is illogical and silly to begin with.
The only other position that I know of presented by Relativist's to break from these dichotomous molds, is the "No one can be certain of anything" argument, which once again, contradicts itself by maintaining the inherent "certainty" involved with one being "uncertain."
It's silly-confusing-twisted logic, which has been proved to be illogical and self refuting multiple times. So again Omega..you're just reiterating the same old tired drivel that's been done countless other times and presented in countless different ways.
I recommend you check out the Prove to me that 2+2 does not equal thread in the philosophy forum. To see another interpretation of this age old argument.
I'm still waiting for a few people in this forum to explain to me how one's ability to "doubt" or be "uncertain" can change an "empirical truth." 😉
Originally posted by whobdamandog
By disagreeing with me you're only further demonstrating the validity of the "dichotomy" which you speak of, seeing as how you are currently taking an "EITHER - OR" stance while presenting your position.If you truly want to break from the "BLACK OR WHITE", then you will frequently entertain the possibility of views in opposition to your own as being correct. Unfortunately like most Relativists, you will never do this, which demonstrates why the whole philosophy of Relativism is illogical and silly to begin with.
The only other position that I know of presented by Relativist's to break from these dichotomous molds, is the "No one can be certain of anything" argument, which once again, contradicts itself by maintaining the inherent "certainty" involved with one being "uncertain."
It's silly-confusing-twisted logic, which has been proved to be illogical and self refuting multiple times. So again Omega..you're just reiterating the same old tired drivel that's been done countless other times and presented in countless different ways.
Its ironic and true.
Originally posted by The Omega
Oh... eh... okay...FIN! (Wonders what the Finnish people have to say about this)...
Don't be ridiculous...you can't use a computer in a sauna.
Also, this Thread Title strikes me as very wrong (now after looking at it for the 50th time) ...I am not willed to think about why...
Originally posted by Bardock42
Don't be ridicolous...you can't use a computer in a sauna.
😆
Originally posted by Bardock42
Also, this Thread Title strikes me as very wrong (now after looking at it for the 50th time) ...I am not willed to think about why...