A rant about my Birther, YEC, Zionist parents.

Сообщение от Hyperspacerebel

Сообщение от Skreeran

Say I wasn't lying. Say I absolutely believed it with all my heart and I taught them the women are evil and that God hates them. From your standpoint, would you find that acceptable?

Find what acceptable? Because if by "that" you mean the choice to teach their children according to their beliefs..... I JUST ANSWERED THAT.

It's still their freedom and their right to teach their children according to their own beliefs.

Come on...put more than a second into reading my tiny posts.Yes, I was just asking how far and to what lengths you extended that.

If you honestly think it's okay morally for me to teach that women are possessed by Satan or the black people should be lynched, on the one condition that I really believe it, then I really don't have any more to say to you. I may not believe in an objective morality, but I do at least think that some things are wrong on a human level, no matter what the person doing them believes.

Сообщение от Hyperspacerebel

If you honestly think it's okay morally for me to teach that women are possessed by Satan or the black people should be lynched, on the one condition that I really believe it, then I really don't have any more to say to you. I may not believe in an objective morality, but I do at least think that some things are wrong on a human level, no matter what the person doing them believes.

Why do you keep switching back and forth?

I think it's morally wrong to lie or teach falsities to your children. But what I think is immoral is irrelevant. It's still their freedom and their right to teach their children according to their own beliefs.

There are two completely different issues here, and you can't just take my affirmation of one and carry it over to the other, especially after I specifically differentiated the two.

Do I think Satanism is immoral? Yes, I do. Do think that a parent the right to teach her child those beliefs? Yes, I do.

Сообщение от Skreeran

And what I'm saying is that I think it's immoral to tell kids "X is an abomination," where X is something you have no control over.

Сообщение от 124027

This post was from a user who has deleted their account.

Сообщение от Hyperspacerebel

And what I'm saying is that I think it's immoral to tell kids "X is an abomination," where X is something you have no control over.
And you parents think that it's immoral to do X.

As I said before, you seem perfectly willing to affirm the freedom to believe your own beliefs, but fail to recognize that others have that same freedom, despite your own beliefs on the matter.

HSR application of theoretical philosophy strikes again?
i.e. the inability to correlate that by choosing not to apply a particular set of moral values you validate the polar opposite.
Laymans terms: Evil triumphs when good men do nothing.
I made less sense of that than I make of most Heidegger passages, and he barely makes any most of the time.

Сообщение от Tartonga

You win the "argue for your opponent's position" award.
Too bad you got the second place.
The very fact that they can arbitrary change shows that morality cannot be based on them.
Why?
Are you done making a fool of yourself? Taking my words and randomly putting other words into them without the least bit of thought makes your argument look extremely stupid?
I'm so hurt, please don't say I'm stupid nor a fool...I beg you.
If those people are in the law making position, and those indeed are their highest moral and ethical principles, then of course those are going to become the law? Contraceptives have been illegal in many, many countries over the years. Homosexuality is still illegal in many. Even sex before marriage is still illegal in places. Why? Moral principles? Why are they not illegal in other places? Moral principles.
By contraceptives you meant abortion, that is illegal in a lot of places (it's considered killing), but I meant using condoms. Where is it illegal to use a condom? An 80% of the countries that consider homosexuality illegal are african countries, on the rest of the world it's legal. Sex before marriage is only illegal on muslim countries mostly and they are 14 in total. So, as you see, they are countries with a big unique religious influence. They consider legal what a divinity supossedly thinks so. Their laws are what their morally beliefs are. However, that was the beginning. If you were born now in a place like that, you won't have an alternative choice for your morality, because it will be based on the laws. If you oppose what the general beliefs are, which are the Law, then game over for you.
So by your argument, rapists are "hurt" even more than gays are? Did you just attack your own argument... again?
So, let me get your point...You say that rapists and gays feel the same in terms of social morality? Also, sodomize is not something only homosexuals couples do.

Сообщение от 124027

This post was from a user who has deleted their account.

Сообщение от Hyperspacerebel

By choosing not to enforce one set of moral values you introduce manufactured (false) controversy forcing people, by human nature, to investigate the alternative.

What am I choosing not to enforce?

Сообщение от Hyperspacerebel

The very fact that they can arbitrary change shows that morality cannot be based on them.
Why?
Because arbitrary morality is a meaningless concept.

By contraceptives you meant abortion
What?
Contraceptive =/= abortion
Condom (what you said) = a contraceptive (what I said)

Their laws are what their morally beliefs are.
Exactly. The people who instituted the laws believed that certain actions were immoral, and thus made them illegal.

So, let me get your point...You say that rapists and gays feel the same in terms of social morality?
I say that opinions have the exact same intrinsic "harming" power, whether they are against gays or rapists or Catholics or Asians.

Сообщение от 124027

This post was from a user who has deleted their account.

Сообщение от Hyperspacerebel

Your own personal views. Let me explain (hopefully) by example:

Two people have views on a particular matter. Both views are mutually exclusive. One, minority view, and one majority view.
The people they are trying to influence are split into three types by human nature. Those that follow the minority view, those that follow the majority view and the moderates who are undecided.

If both sides state their views the moderates will split along similar patterns to the minority/majority split. e.g. if 10% - minority 40% - majority, the moderates will split along similar lines, one in five joining the minority view.

However, if the minority side does not present their views openly and clearly. Choosing instead to generate debate this causes the moderates to treat the two alternatives as equal alternatives. This splits the moderate vote 50/50 giving an overall increase in the minority supporting group, where there should, in reality, not be such a high level of support.
So the moderates are brainless sheep? Really?

There are a couple reasons why a minority would be a minority.
1) It's principles are not clear enough (solution: argue for your position)
2) People are just following others without thinking (solution: argue for your position)
3) People realize your position is untenable (arguing a bad position won't help)

So it stands to reason that debating is good, because it solves two problems, and really can't have an effect on the third.

In other words, by not just simply stating your views and moving on, rather by fostering a rather odd debate for the last few pages, you moved the general opinion of people to associate homosexuals with rapists. Whether intended or not.
What?

Who here associates rapists with gays? Say something.

Сообщение от Squishalot

In other words, by not just simply stating your views and moving on, rather by fostering a rather odd debate for the last few pages, you moved the general opinion of people to associate homosexuals with rapists. Whether intended or not.

If people conclude that homosexuals = rapists as a result of this conversation, then frankly, they're uneducated idiots. The view HSR and I are putting forward is being expressed openly and clearly:

I think it's morally wrong to lie or teach falsities to your children. But what I think is immoral is irrelevant. It's still their freedom and their right to teach their children according to their own beliefs.

You could argue, why doesn't Skreeran simply accept that people should be able to teach their kids their own thing. Otherwise, would that provide ammunition for the minority who think morals should be dictated by the government?

Сообщение от 124027

This post was from a user who has deleted their account.

Сообщение от Hyperspacerebel

So the moderates are brainless sheep? Really?

There are a couple reasons why a minority would be a minority.
1) It's principles are not clear enough (solution: argue for your position)
2) People are just following others without thinking (solution: argue for your position)
3) People realize your position is untenable (arguing a bad position won't help)

So it stands to reason that debating is good, because it solves two problems, and really can't have an effect on the third.

In other words, by not just simply stating your views and moving on, rather by fostering a rather odd debate for the last few pages, you moved the general opinion of people to associate homosexuals with rapists. Whether intended or not.
What?

Who here associates rapists with gays? Say something.

Sheep? No. Humans? Yes. Everyone can be influenced. There's a reason why there are entire schools dealing with the techniques of public speaking.

Debate is good in theory, not always true in reality, unfortunately. I'm not anti debate, I'm just aware of how people react to it. For simplicity sake, go look up the techniques used by the Discovery Institute and their ilk. The people they are trying to influence aren't stupid. But they're influenced nonetheless.

As for who associates rapists with gays. It's all about influence. No matter how subtle. Go look up the Microaggression Project for examples.

You just influenced me into thinking that Discovery Institute in a good source of data.
That's advertising.
Did you get permission?

Yes, I'm pointing out an absurdity.

Сообщение от 124027

This post was from a user who has deleted their account.

Сообщение от Hyperspacerebel

You just influenced me into thinking that Discovery Institute in a good source of data.
That's advertising.
Did you get permission?

Yes, I'm pointing out an absurdity.

Did you misread me? I'm talking about their tactics. Not what they are actually saying.

It's all about influence. No matter how subtle.

This is perfect. I wasn't expecting to pick something you yourself didn't intend. But that makes it even better.

Сообщение от 124027

This post was from a user who has deleted their account.

Сообщение от Hyperspacerebel

Actually, according to you, I just "influenced" you to adhere to a view you already held. Which shows I didn't influence you. Anyway, since you seem want to resort to childish remarks rather than actually researching what I've stated, I should probably leave you time to cool off.

Reductio ad absurdum

The fact that you think the result is childish is more than enough evidence for me.

Сообщение от Squishalot

It took a good few pages of debate before that was stated.

My very first reply to the 'abomination' point:

There's nothing wrong with teaching a moral code - just because their moral code is different to yours doesn't make theirs wrong.

And a page after:

I'm telling you and Skreeran that parents should be entitled to teach their kids any morals that they want, as long as they lie within the law. Why should they teach your morals over their morals?

I've been arguing right from the outset that parents should be able to teach their kids whatever they want. What have you been arguing for 6 pages then?

A rant about my Birther, YEC, Zionist parents.

Ответить