|
Post by captainbryce on Feb 19, 2023 0:23:55 GMT
Whether you are correct or not doesn't matter if you haven't investigated the science yourself, if all you do is repost crap from twitter and assume it's science because someone said so, you are no better than the person you are scolding. Absolutely! I’m glad we are both fully in agreement on this point. If you are going to call out people for not having science, you should be prepared to take your own medicine rather than pounding out a 3 paragraph defensive rant calling everyone else bad actors. We can agree to disagree on that point! There is a lot of garbage that gets paraded as "science" and a lot of real science that is misrepresented by the media. That statement is as true as it is irrelevant! Again, the point of my response wasn’t to educate anyone on the science. I literally had no intention of doing that publicly. Like I said, if inquiring minds want to know - just PM me and we have a serious conversation about the science. But I assure you, that’s NOT what djorno or clusium want. They don’t know or care about empiricism or the scientific method AT ALL, much less rational argumentation. They’re not even capable of it. You are, and I can respect that. But the degree to which you have intellectual curiosity about this topic is something I’m skeptical about. But by all means, tell me the specific claim I made which you’d like to examine in a PM, and I’d be happy to engage further with you.
|
|
|
Post by Sarge on Feb 19, 2023 0:26:04 GMT
Whether you are correct or not doesn't matter if you haven't investigated the science yourself, if all you do is repost crap from twitter and assume it's science because someone said so, you are no better than the person you are scolding. Absolutely! I’m glad we are both fully in agreement on this point. If you are going to call out people for not having science, you should be prepared to take your own medicine rather than pounding out a 3 paragraph defensive rant calling everyone else bad actors. We can agree to disagree on that point! There is a lot of garbage that gets paraded as "science" and a lot of real science that is misrepresented by the media. That statement is as true as it is irrelevant! Again, the point of my response wasn’t to educate anyone on the science. I literally had no intention of doing that publicly. Like I said, if inquiring minds want to know - just PM me and we have a serious conversation about the science. But I assure you, that’s NOT what djorno or clusium want. They don’t know or care about empiricism or the scientific method AT ALL, much less rational argumentation. They’re not even capable of it. You are, and I can respect that. But the degree to which you have intellectual curiosity about this topic is something I’m skeptical about. But by all means, tell me the specific claim I made which you’d like to examine in a PM, and I’d be happy to engage further with you. FYI, I typed an edit to my post but too late, saying I misspoke and the post wasn't meant to be accusatory.
|
|
|
Post by captainbryce on Feb 19, 2023 0:26:22 GMT
People aren’t obligated to do ANYTHING other than what the law requires of them. You can be a complete asshole to everyone you know, and nothing obligates you to be nice to anyone. Racism, sexism, homophobia, transphobia, antisemitism, and every other form of bigotry including hate speech is perfectly legal my friend! The conversation isn’t about “obligation”, it’s about what constitutes “hate”. It has everything to do with obligation. If someone disapproves of whatever populist bullshit is trending on twitter the H word comes out as if it were a trump card and no further conversation is necessary. It drips with entitlement. What does that even mean? What type of entitlement does it dip with? And what does any of that have to do with “obligation” even if it were true? What you just said is almost a word salad!
|
|
|
Post by clusium on Feb 19, 2023 0:28:34 GMT
Whether you are correct or not doesn't matter if you haven't investigated the science yourself, if all you do is repost crap from twitter and assume it's science because someone said so, you are no better than the person you are scolding. Absolutely! I’m glad we are both fully in agreement on this point. If you are going to call out people for not having science, you should be prepared to take your own medicine rather than pounding out a 3 paragraph defensive rant calling everyone else bad actors. We can agree to disagree on that point! There is a lot of garbage that gets paraded as "science" and a lot of real science that is misrepresented by the media. That statement is as true as it is irrelevant! Again, the point of my response wasn’t to educate anyone on the science. I literally had no intention of doing that publicly. Like I said, if inquiring minds want to know - just PM me and we have a serious conversation about the science. But I assure you, that’s NOT what djorno or clusium want. They don’t know or care about empiricism or the scientific method AT ALL, much less rational argumentation. They’re not even capable of it. You are, and I can respect that. But the degree to which you have intellectual curiosity about this topic is something I’m skeptical about. But by all means, tell me the specific claim I made which you’d like to examine in a PM, and I’d be happy to engage further with you. And just what do you know about what I, or djorno want?
|
|
|
Post by Sarge on Feb 19, 2023 0:37:07 GMT
It has everything to do with obligation. If someone disapproves of whatever populist bullshit is trending on twitter the H word comes out as if it were a trump card and no further conversation is necessary. It drips with entitlement. What does that even mean? What type of entitlement does it dip with? And what does any of that have to do with “obligation” even if it were true? What you just said is almost a word salad! This kind of entitlement: the belief that one is inherently deserving of privileges or special treatment.
Specifically, I'm talking about immunity from criticism or disapproval. Reminder, I was referencing your words: "The ideas YOU express about them are also homophobic and hateful. The fact that you happen to be non-violent about it is completely irrelevant!" It implies that disapproval can't be tolerated. If it's still word salad then I don't know how else to phrase it.
|
|
|
Post by clusium on Feb 19, 2023 0:45:41 GMT
Do you not condemn Christianity and the bible? Guess that makes you hateful. Yeah, I do condemn it and yes I hate what Christianity represents because it’s absolutely sick. But here’s the thing genius…UNLIKE sexual orientation, religion actually IS a choice and unlike homosexuals, Christianity has doctrines that promote hate towards others. There are no homosexuals shoving homosexuality down anyone else’s throat. There are no LGBTQ campaigns out there trying to recruit and proselytize to make more LGBTQ people! Christianity on the other hand is about proselytizing and spreading ignorance and hate under the guise of love! Gay people aren’t harming anyone by being gay. Christians on the other hand ARE harming people (and they always have been). It’s not the gay agenda that I’m afraid of because that has no impact on anyone else who isn’t LGBTQ. The Christian agenda on the hand is often about taking people’s rights away, and has a real tangible impact on the lives of non-Christians. I’d be one thing if you motherfuckers simply practiced what you believed in private and kept your hate behind closed doors, generally speaking - you don’t. You indoctrinate entire generations into the same ideology so that you end up with a society of fools who deny science, promote magic, assert moral superiority, and condemn people who just want to be left alone. So yeah, I hate that shit! And that is the CORRECT attitude to have because the only thing necessary for the proposer of evil is for good men to do nothing! Tolerance is complicit. Hating things that are hateful, and refusing to tolerate intolerance doesn’t make you a bigot. On the contrary, it makes you rational and moral. People who are tolerant of hatred and bigotry are part of the problem! Hating a person because of their religion is bigotry. While it may be a choice, it is also something that being born into, much like one's own nationality is both choice or something that one is born into. Christianity is responsible for the vast majority of charity throughout the entire world. Historically, hospitals were started by Christian monks. Did you know that? Even back when you once claimed to be "christian," were you aware of that fact. Hardly sounds like hatred to me. FYI, I realize that people cannot help it if their brains are wired to be attracted to their own gender. Given the history of abuse that they endured, there is no way a person could possibly want to be gay, lesbian, or even bisexual. I happen to be mentally challenged myself, & I can assure you that has caused me a great amount of grief my entire life, & that is over a span of 5 decades. I certainly would not choose being a special needs individual, hence I know that there is no way a person consciously chooses same-sex attraction. One more thing, captainbryce : Are you aware that Christians are persecuted in many parts of the world (in some places, even bordering on genocide)?
|
|
|
Post by captainbryce on Feb 19, 2023 1:06:19 GMT
This kind of entitlement: the belief that one is inherently deserving of privileges or special treatment.
Okay, and who are you claiming has this entitlement? Are you suggesting that I have a sense of entitlement because I think I’m deserving of special privileges? Specifically, I'm talking about immunity from criticism or disapproval. Reminder, I was referencing your words: "The ideas YOU express about them are also homophobic and hateful. The fact that you happen to be non-violent about it is completely irrelevant!" It implies that disapproval can't be tolerated. If it's still word salad then I don't know how else to phrase it. Yeah, I’m still a bit fuzzy on what you’re implying. Are you trying to say that BECAUSE these religious people’s homophobia is non-violent and only based on “disapproval” that THEREFORE we should be tolerant of their homophobia? Correct me if I’m wrong here. And elaborate on the “special privileges” part please.
|
|
|
Post by Isapop on Feb 19, 2023 2:27:41 GMT
And just what do you know about what I, or djorno want? You posted what your church wants of gay people - chastity. I asked you about that and you didn't answer. In case you're interested, I repeat my question: Why? Because they don't make children? There are men who are sexually sterile, and women who can't conceive. They've got an intrinsic disorder of their own. But they're not called to chastity. God let's them marry and have sex without it being a sin. Why single out gay people for chastity?
|
|
|
Post by clusium on Feb 19, 2023 3:18:19 GMT
And just what do you know about what I, or djorno want? You posted what your church wants of gay people - chastity. I asked you about that and you didn't answer. In case you're interested, I repeat my question: Why? Because they don't make children? There are men who are sexually sterile, and women who can't conceive. They've got an intrinsic disorder of their own. But they're not called to chastity. God let's them marry and have sex without it being a sin. Why single out gay people for chastity? Not necessarily. Men & women are called to chastity if they are not married. There are some married couples that do not engage in sex.
|
|
|
Post by Sarge on Feb 19, 2023 4:53:34 GMT
This kind of entitlement: the belief that one is inherently deserving of privileges or special treatment.
Okay, and who are you claiming has this entitlement? Are you suggesting that I have a sense of entitlement because I think I’m deserving of special privileges? Specifically, I'm talking about immunity from criticism or disapproval. Reminder, I was referencing your words: "The ideas YOU express about them are also homophobic and hateful. The fact that you happen to be non-violent about it is completely irrelevant!" It implies that disapproval can't be tolerated. If it's still word salad then I don't know how else to phrase it. Yeah, I’m still a bit fuzzy on what you’re implying. Are you trying to say that BECAUSE these religious people’s homophobia is non-violent and only based on “disapproval” that THEREFORE we should be tolerant of their homophobia? Correct me if I’m wrong here. And elaborate on the “special privileges” part please. If you are just going to ask me to elaborate on everything I post, pass. If your reading comprehension is that poor, we'll be going in circles forever.
|
|
|
Post by captainbryce on Feb 19, 2023 5:13:48 GMT
Okay, and who are you claiming has this entitlement? Are you suggesting that I have a sense of entitlement because I think I’m deserving of special privileges? Yeah, I’m still a bit fuzzy on what you’re implying. Are you trying to say that BECAUSE these religious people’s homophobia is non-violent and only based on “disapproval” that THEREFORE we should be tolerant of their homophobia? Correct me if I’m wrong here. And elaborate on the “special privileges” part please. If you are just going to ask me to elaborate on everything I post, pass. If your reading comprehension is that poor, we'll be going in circles forever. How about a simple yes or no then? Was that a correct characterization of your argument?
|
|
djorno
Sophomore
@djorno
Posts: 322
Likes: 81
|
Post by djorno on Feb 19, 2023 10:03:34 GMT
Do you not condemn Christianity and the bible? Guess that makes you hateful. Yeah, I do condemn it and yes I hate what Christianity represents because it’s absolutely sick. But here’s the thing genius…UNLIKE sexual orientation, religion actually IS a choice and unlike homosexuals, Christianity has doctrines that promote hate towards others. There are no homosexuals shoving homosexuality down anyone else’s throat. There are no LGBTQ campaigns out there trying to recruit and proselytize to make more LGBTQ people! Christianity on the other hand is about proselytizing and spreading ignorance and hate under the guise of love! Gay people aren’t harming anyone by being gay. Christians on the other hand ARE harming people (and they always have been). It’s not the gay agenda that I’m afraid of because that has no impact on anyone else who isn’t LGBTQ. The Christian agenda on the hand is often about taking people’s rights away, and has a real tangible impact on the lives of non-Christians. I’d be one thing if you motherfuckers simply practiced what you believed in private and kept your hate behind closed doors, generally speaking - you don’t. You indoctrinate entire generations into the same ideology so that you end up with a society of fools who deny science, promote magic, assert moral superiority, and condemn people who just want to be left alone. So yeah, I hate that shit! And that is the CORRECT attitude to have because the only thing necessary for the proposer of evil is for good men to do nothing! Tolerance is complicit. Hating things that are hateful, and refusing to tolerate intolerance doesn’t make you a bigot. On the contrary, it makes you rational and moral. People who are tolerant of hatred and bigotry are part of the problem! In other words “It’s OK when we do it!” I believe both are choices. As for You’ve got to be kidding me. Have you been living on a desert island this past decade?
|
|
|
Post by paulslaugh on Feb 19, 2023 10:22:30 GMT
What does that even mean? What type of entitlement does it dip with? And what does any of that have to do with “obligation” even if it were true? What you just said is almost a word salad! This kind of entitlement: the belief that one is inherently deserving of privileges or special treatment.
Specifically, I'm talking about immunity from criticism or disapproval. Reminder, I was referencing your words: "The ideas YOU express about them are also homophobic and hateful. The fact that you happen to be non-violent about it is completely irrelevant!" It implies that disapproval can't be tolerated. If it's still word salad then I don't know how else to phrase it. The is only one argument against normalizing homosexuality and that is the religious edicts against it and we don't do religious laws in the USA. Congress has enough to do without monitoring 1000+ religious denominations in the country to make sure they don't fall into heresy. Men and men and women and women have been having sex with each since the cave man days. You will never stop it, so why are we pretending in the 21st century like it is such a big freaking deal. No one died because two guys had sex or fell in love and got married. Having sex is not a privilege. If it is, then let's ban viagra and stop you boys from fucking around with women who are not your wives so much...you're making a mess of the American family.
|
|
|
Post by amyghost on Feb 19, 2023 11:26:26 GMT
Why in the hell any adult in full possession of their marbles spends any of their time in this world obsessing over the sexual orientations and preferences of other adults (the vast majority of whom they will never know or be in any position to receive or not receive sexual advances from) is one of the great mysteries of the universe. Given the myriad real problems of the world, do they actually have nothing better to expend their intellect on?
|
|
|
Post by paulslaugh on Feb 19, 2023 11:46:26 GMT
Why in the hell any adult in full possession of their marbles spends any of their time in this world obsessing over the sexual orientations and preferences of other adults (the vast majority of whom they will never know or be in any position to receive or not receive sexual advances from) is one of the great mysteries of the universe. Given the myriad real problems of the world, do they actually have nothing better to expend their intellect on? Totally. My guess is it is their own sexuality they are talking about and don't realize it...especially the less aggressive hetero men who are nervous about their less than masculine attributes might mean they are queer. They aren't but the alpha males drum this into their heads.
|
|
|
Post by Isapop on Feb 19, 2023 12:37:51 GMT
You posted what your church wants of gay people - chastity. I asked you about that and you didn't answer. In case you're interested, I repeat my question: Why? Because they don't make children? There are men who are sexually sterile, and women who can't conceive. They've got an intrinsic disorder of their own. But they're not called to chastity. God let's them marry and have sex without it being a sin. Why single out gay people for chastity? Not necessarily. Men & women are called to chastity if they are not married. There are some married couples that do not engage in sex. But you still offer no valid reasoning why the "intrinsic disorder" of being gay necessitates a call to chastity.
|
|
|
Post by clusium on Feb 19, 2023 12:52:56 GMT
Not necessarily. Men & women are called to chastity if they are not married. There are some married couples that do not engage in sex. But you still offer no valid reasoning why the "intrinsic disorder" of being gay necessitates a call to chastity. The purpose of gender is to procreate.
|
|
|
Post by paulslaugh on Feb 19, 2023 13:16:45 GMT
But you still offer no valid reasoning why the "intrinsic disorder" of being gay necessitates a call to chastity. The purpose of gender is to procreate. Then all other sex acts that do not have the intention for conception, is a grave sin. If you use the Pill, it’s a grave sin. Your husband pulls out, it’s a grave sin. He divorces you, you can never experience the joy of sex again, because you’re still married to bastard in God’s eyes, and it’s a grave sin. Touch your clit once, it’s a grave sin.
|
|
|
Post by Isapop on Feb 19, 2023 15:32:20 GMT
But you still offer no valid reasoning why the "intrinsic disorder" of being gay necessitates a call to chastity. The purpose of gender is to procreate. And round in circles we go! Yes, I had already noted your quotation of Catholic doctrine about gays, "They close the sexual act to the gift of life." And I pointed out the church doesn't say that sterile men and women who can't conceive are called to chastity. And neither is any woman past child bearing age. It's only the non-procreating sex between gay couples that the church forbids. Non-procreating sex between others who can't procreate is no problem for the church.I asked you why single out gay people for chastity. Obviously you have no good answer for that. Or, more precisely, the Catholic Church has no good answer.
|
|
|
Post by clusium on Feb 19, 2023 16:16:01 GMT
The purpose of gender is to procreate. And round in circles we go! Yes, I had already noted your quotation of Catholic doctrine about gays, "They close the sexual act to the gift of life." And I pointed out the church doesn't say that sterile men and women who can't conceive are called to chastity. And neither is any woman past child bearing age. It's only the non-procreating sex between gay couples that the church forbids. Non-procreating sex between others who can't procreate is no problem for the church.I asked you why single out gay people for chastity. Obviously you have no good answer for that. Or, more precisely, the Catholic Church has no good answer. I already did give you an answer. The purpose of gender is to procreate. Isapop, are you okay with 2 siblings or even 2 first generation cousins having sexual relations?
|
|