Lighthouse said:
Only because you clearly have no idea what perversion and deviance are. You label things that are not as though they were. It's sad, really. Especially in light of the fact that you call yourself progressive.
Except we've been through that definition game you pulled and basically it was nothing more than glorified semantics.
Still waiting on a good reason as to why sexual perversions per se ought to be forbidden.
Your assumptions make you less and less worthy of attention as this goes on.
And yet you still respond. It's funny how irony works isn't it?
See above, vis a vis, your labeling of the rather mundane as perverted and deviant.
Are you talking about when I referred to my taste in music as deviant? It remains so. What if my music taste happened to be the Norwegian Anti-Christian Black Metal scene that resulted in many church burnings? Would that be deviant?
According to recent [just last month] tests my logic is well above average.
And yet you still pull appeals to incredulity, circular logic and the naturalistic fallacy.
Bottom line, that stuff certainly should not be that easy to access, if it is allowed to exist at all.
Why not? If you accidently stumble on it, just close it. Just like if a popup gets through my filters, I close it. Just like how when a song was not what I expected, I delete it or close the youtube page.
You willingly come to TOL, so I don't want to hear it.
I never said I was outright offended by religious evangelism. It was an example, an attempt to try and get you to understand at how other people may or could be offended by what you and others preach.
Is that it? Is that
all you can muster? Your main argument in this entire 'dialogue' is to claim that homosexuality, fornication, adultery and general sexual perversion is a damage to society so much to the point that it ought to be outright forbidden. I post a link, which effectively demolishes the claim, showing some of the most successful nations in the world according to many criterias - and all you can do is basically /yawn?
That sir, is ridiculous. It does show however that you have no argument.
You wouldn't know the best example if he opened the sky and blew a trumpet outside your window.
Neither would you, for all you've done is ignore the link I gave. It is just another example of your outright dismissal and refusal to explain why.
Okay.
No one should decide. A crime is a crime, period.
This sentence makes no sense. Certainly the only objective sense of morality you can have (as pseudo as it may be) is that interwined with a rejection of sin (which you presumably adhere to from God). I don't see how you can coherently declare crimes as inherent and an aspect of nature themselves.
Still has no relevance that I can see. You would suck as an attorney.
That is because you clearly, and still have no understanding of what the naturalistic fallacy actually is and how you've committed it.
I will repeat myself: Anyway, the point is still the same. It does not matter that homosexuality cannot produce life in and of itself. It says nothing as to whether we should permit it or not
If you can't respond civilly, or in fact
even at all then why is it you expect to be taken seriously? All you have done in this response primarily is to insult me or nitpick over semantics or my spelling. Do you even understand what this conversation is about anymore?
I don't have that kind of time.
Yet you still reply. Ironic. I'll take this as a concession, nonetheless.
Remember those tests I mentioned earlier? My language skills are also well above average.
So what do you think I meant by 'self-declared' and what do you think 'totalitarian' means then, linguistic man?
Maybe you just need to stop making assumptions.
The irony is breathtaking.
Again, is this
all you can muster? I state that you are a totalitarian with far more in common with the Mullahs of Saudi Arabia and Iran as I said. Is this not even slightly disagreeable to you? I mean, I presume you hold Islam in contempt. I presume you would rather the United States assault it and undermine Islam as oppose to tolerate it or endorse it - and yet when I (and I maintain rightly) compare you to a Mullah you have nothing to say?
Really? So now I can't mention that anyone I largely disagree with was right about one thing or another? That's a weak place to stand.
No, it means that any claim you could make about the forefathers being on your side or your ideas being agreeable to them would be bogus.
Seeing as how it is already censored I don't know why you're whining.
Media is censored, and to some shame. But it is not censored to your insistence. I will ask in general, other than pornographic and sexually deviant media what else would you censor? What other forms are too harmful for society?
This is a non-answer. If it depends on who the homosexual couple, or the unmarried couple are then your nonsense claim of them being an inherent offense to society at all times is invalidated.
I just realized yo have yet to ask yourself this question regarding who declared what was perverted and deviant according to your definitions.
'Perversion' and 'deviancy' have real little meaning to me. Religious groups often decree perverted by what they believe to be a sin and society declares it often based on taboos.
Why would they be otherwise?
They're not harmful. I'm just amused to note that although you see pornography as a great issue worthy of an outright ban, you don't see the internet furry groups (with some of their explicit art) as any issue at all.
"Societal" is your problem here. Society dies not define "normal."
Pragmatically, it does. Society and cultures within it (in multicultural societies) are often responsible for believing certain actions and behaviours taboo and abnormal.
Of course, since you're a budding fascist - the government in your instance would decree what is and is not acceptable behaviour, thus enforcing taboos. So I can see why you're hung up on this point.
Again, "socially" is the problem here.
Why so? Do you imagine some external force decreeing what is or is not abnormal?
People are, and should be, free to think whatever they want.
Okay then. So no censoring of anti-religious, anti-christian, anti-theistic literature then.
I know this is what you believe. However, coherently and the only known application of morality is through communual agreement between groups of people on what
ought to be done and what
ought not be done.
An example of a different meaning of progressive.
And, as usual, you're wrong, as all atheists are on this subject.
And no citation or reason provided, as usual.
People caught fornicating should be made to marry. What did I tell you about assumptions.
Okay why should they? Why should an unmarried couple fornicating be told they must tie the knot? You've already conceded that their fornication may not
actually effect you - so why tell them how they must behave?
I never said it made it okay. I am merely pointing out that one cannot be punished for a crime if they are never caught. That is common sense, or at least I thought it was.
You used in the exact same way Sharia Law proponents use it. You don't have a right, and you know as well as I do that it is in itself impossible to be cotton-wooled from the actions of others.
I am merely stating that if they could do such a thing then I would know nothing about it. I am also stating that they are incapable of doing such a thing. I am not suggesting that they should do it.
Excellent!! So what's the problem?
And it is sad that your only definition of fun is sex.
It isn't. What did you tell me about those assumptions, sir?
The irony as usual is flawless.
It has rules against insulting people without cause.
Okay then. Well just arbitrarily calling people 'morons' in parts of a reply is hardly a reasonable cause is it?
