Board index › Topical Discussion › Politics, Philosophy, and Religion

California overturned gay-marriage ban today!

Page 4 of 27 [ 420 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7 ... 27  Next

Previous topic | Next topic

Awesomelyglorious
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 17 Dec 2005
Gender: Male
Posts: 13,157
Location: Omnipresent

16 May 2008, 12:14 am

Kalister1 wrote:
You're arguing semantics in the end. What is consent? What is adult? This is going away from the subject, which is you just care far too much where people stick their dicks.

I was not aware that there was an optimal level of caring where people stick their dicks. Can you show this using a mathematical model?



Awesomelyglorious
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 17 Dec 2005
Gender: Male
Posts: 13,157
Location: Omnipresent

16 May 2008, 12:16 am

Crap, triple posted. Stupid slow internet!



oscuria
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 31 Jan 2008
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,748

16 May 2008, 12:17 am

Awesomelyglorious wrote:
Crap, triple posted. Stupid slow internet!


That was pretty cool. Considering it should have a 30 seconds or so limit between posts.



Kalister1
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 8 Sep 2007
Age: 38
Gender: Male
Posts: 2,443

16 May 2008, 12:17 am

Awesomelyglorious wrote:
Kalister1 wrote:
In this case, morality is being used to cop some condescending attitude on those who don't consent.

Yes, adult is an arbitrary term, though its commonly defined as having the mental capacity to consent, and that is what I refer to when I use the term adult. That is how I am defining it. In this utilitarian society, sex between two males does not hurt anyone, and brings happiness to the two parties. Yes, only people who can consent, as that is what sex is, after that it goes into the realm of rape.

Well, the issue is that the age of consent is not something that we can really know. I suppose we can define what cannot consent to some extent, but the age of consent for many societies is SO dramatically lower than our own that we run into some doubt on the objective nature on our rules.

Really though, the only reason why you dislike oscuria's morality is because you like your own morality. What if I say that your morals suck? Isn't that just as valid as your attack on oscuria?


Yes, my argument was never about the age of consent. That is a gray area in which I stuck to societys norms , and a utilitarian view, for fears that the bible thumper would attack me. Are you ever going to define your own position, or simply keep throwing out questions? So its okay to have sex with 5 year old children in your view?

I don't have any morals. I go by how I feel from day to day. I don't press mine on someone else. However, biology has blessed me with a sense of right and wrong. You can deny it with some postmodernist babble, but almost all of us are blessed with an inherent sense of right and wrong, which guided us in the days of prehistory and has evolved alongside us. We didn't need Jesus to instill it in us, its there from the get go. So where are your morals, sir?

I don't force my morals on anyone. If you want to go into some postmodernist "everything is gray", than good luck! The argument stops here, as you don't put anything into the conversation besides questions that you don't have an answer to. Good luck constructing society with your weak stones. What have you put forth in the conversation besides postmodernist mumbo jumbo?



Last edited by Kalister1 on 16 May 2008, 12:20 am, edited 1 time in total.

Kalister1
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 8 Sep 2007
Age: 38
Gender: Male
Posts: 2,443

16 May 2008, 12:18 am

Awesomelyglorious wrote:
Kalister1 wrote:
You're arguing semantics in the end. What is consent? What is adult? This is going away from the subject, which is you just care far too much where people stick their dicks.

I was not aware that there was an optimal level of caring where people stick their dicks. Can you show this using a mathematical model?


Hey postmodernist! Stop with the arguing over semantics! www.dictionary.com
There is your answers for common definitions.

Math only applies to math, sir. Why should he care so much about where people stick their dicks? He only wants to assert his holier than thou attitude.



oscuria
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 31 Jan 2008
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,748

16 May 2008, 12:22 am

Kalister1 wrote:
Awesomelyglorious wrote:
Kalister1 wrote:
You're arguing semantics in the end. What is consent? What is adult? This is going away from the subject, which is you just care far too much where people stick their dicks.

I was not aware that there was an optimal level of caring where people stick their dicks. Can you show this using a mathematical model?


Hey postmodernist! Stop with the arguing over semantics! www.dictionary.com
There is your answers for common definitions.

Math only applies to math, sir. Why should he care so much about where people stick their dicks? He only wants to assert his holier than thou attitude.


Wow. So you worrying about rape, pedophiles, etc constitute as caring? Really, wow.

You could have worded your rebukes much better instead of appearing like an idiot.



Kalister1
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 8 Sep 2007
Age: 38
Gender: Male
Posts: 2,443

16 May 2008, 12:23 am

oscuria wrote:
Kalister1 wrote:
Awesomelyglorious wrote:
Kalister1 wrote:
You're arguing semantics in the end. What is consent? What is adult? This is going away from the subject, which is you just care far too much where people stick their dicks.

I was not aware that there was an optimal level of caring where people stick their dicks. Can you show this using a mathematical model?


Hey postmodernist! Stop with the arguing over semantics! www.dictionary.com
There is your answers for common definitions.

Math only applies to math, sir. Why should he care so much about where people stick their dicks? He only wants to assert his holier than thou attitude.


Wow. So you worrying about rape, pedophiles, etc constitute as caring? Really, wow.

You could have worded your rebukes much better instead of appearing like an idiot.


I have to word it like an idiot to appeal to one.



oscuria
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 31 Jan 2008
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,748

16 May 2008, 12:26 am

Kalister1 wrote:

I have to word it like an idiot to appeal to one.


Really, now. So because I am against the idea of homosexual marriage means that you have a right to speak to me in such a manner? You apologists really know how to drive a point. I can see converts lining up behind you.



Kalister1
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 8 Sep 2007
Age: 38
Gender: Male
Posts: 2,443

16 May 2008, 12:28 am

oscuria wrote:
Kalister1 wrote:

I have to word it like an idiot to appeal to one.


Really, now. So because I am against the idea of homosexual marriage means that you have a right to speak to me in such a manner? You apologists really know how to drive a point. I can see converts lining up behind you.


And do you have the right to speak about homosexuals in such a manner, condemning them to hell and saying how they should "get their own churches"? What homophobic s**t. You're a piece of crap, condemning people just based on having sex with two consenting adults, which we can all agree (Except awesomeglorious) is something thats agreeable.



oscuria
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 31 Jan 2008
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,748

16 May 2008, 12:30 am

Kalister1 wrote:
And do you have the right to speak about homosexuals in such a manner, condemning them to hell and saying how they should "get their own churches"? What homophobic sh**. You're a piece of crap, condemning people just based on having sex with two consenting adults, which we can all agree (Except awesomeglorious) is something thats agreeable.


:lmao: Now you are proving yourself to be an idiot as I've never posted such things.



Kalister1
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 8 Sep 2007
Age: 38
Gender: Male
Posts: 2,443

16 May 2008, 12:39 am

oscuria wrote:
Kalister1 wrote:
And do you have the right to speak about homosexuals in such a manner, condemning them to hell and saying how they should "get their own churches"? What homophobic sh**. You're a piece of crap, condemning people just based on having sex with two consenting adults, which we can all agree (Except awesomeglorious) is something thats agreeable.


:lmao: Now you are proving yourself to be an idiot as I've never posted such things.


Your right, Slowmutant posted the first one, another god fearing bible thumper. However, you definitely did some great judging in these:

oscuira wrote:
Besides, your beliefs are rubbish to me. I really am not sympathetic to homosexuals getting married.

oscuria wrote:
Goodbye America


Theres more, but I'm not going to dig through it. So I guess homosexuals aren't American. They also can't be married in your religion, which condemns them to hell. Based on your beliefs, aren't they considered immoral, based simply on where they want to stick their penis? :x



Awesomelyglorious
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 17 Dec 2005
Gender: Male
Posts: 13,157
Location: Omnipresent

16 May 2008, 12:41 am

Kalister1 wrote:
Yes, my argument was never about the age of consent. That is a gray area in which I stuck to societys norms , and a utilitarian view, for fears that the bible thumper would attack me. Are you ever going to define your own position, or simply keep throwing out questions? So its okay to have sex with 5 year old children in your view?

I was planning on throwing out questions. Really though, why is it morally wrong to have sex with 5 year old children?

Quote:
I don't have any morals. I go by how I feel from day to day. I don't press mine on someone else. However, biology has blessed me with a sense of right and wrong. You can deny it with some postmodernist babble, but almost all of us are blessed with an inherent sense of right and wrong, which guided us in the days of prehistory and has evolved alongside us. We didn't need Jesus to instill it in us, its there from the get go. So where are your morals, sir?

A sense of right and wrong? Well, how is that different than any other preference? My morals? Who said I cared to have any?
Quote:
I don't force my morals on anyone. If you want to go into some postmodernist "everything is gray", than good luck! The argument stops here, as you don't put anything into the conversation besides questions that you don't have an answer to. Good luck constructing society with your weak stones. What have you put forth in the conversation besides postmodernist mumbo jumbo?

Sure you do. You force your morals or sense of right and wrong, or preferences or whatever the heck you want to define that force as whenever you stop somebody from acting the way they would naturally want to. This can be through creating any law, or any application of personal force for any goal. The issue is not that I don't have answers though, it is that you claim to.

Kalister1 wrote:
Hey postmodernist! Stop with the arguing over semantics! www.dictionary.com
There is your answers for common definitions.

Not really, most of the definitions we are arguing over have objective meaning, and subjective application. The question is the subjective application, not the dictionary meaning.
Quote:
Math only applies to math, sir. Why should he care so much about where people stick their dicks? He only wants to assert his holier than thou attitude.

Math applies to anything where logic can apply. Why not? So? Why is that preference less legitimate than yours?



Kalister1
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 8 Sep 2007
Age: 38
Gender: Male
Posts: 2,443

16 May 2008, 12:43 am

Awesomelyglorious wrote:
Kalister1 wrote:
Yes, my argument was never about the age of consent. That is a gray area in which I stuck to societys norms , and a utilitarian view, for fears that the bible thumper would attack me. Are you ever going to define your own position, or simply keep throwing out questions? So its okay to have sex with 5 year old children in your view?

I was planning on throwing out questions. Really though, why is it morally wrong to have sex with 5 year old children?

Quote:
I don't have any morals. I go by how I feel from day to day. I don't press mine on someone else. However, biology has blessed me with a sense of right and wrong. You can deny it with some postmodernist babble, but almost all of us are blessed with an inherent sense of right and wrong, which guided us in the days of prehistory and has evolved alongside us. We didn't need Jesus to instill it in us, its there from the get go. So where are your morals, sir?

A sense of right and wrong? Well, how is that different than any other preference? My morals? Who said I cared to have any?
Quote:
I don't force my morals on anyone. If you want to go into some postmodernist "everything is gray", than good luck! The argument stops here, as you don't put anything into the conversation besides questions that you don't have an answer to. Good luck constructing society with your weak stones. What have you put forth in the conversation besides postmodernist mumbo jumbo?

Sure you do. You force your morals or sense of right and wrong, or preferences or whatever the heck you want to define that force as whenever you stop somebody from acting the way they would naturally want to. This can be through creating any law, or any application of personal force for any goal. The issue is not that I don't have answers though, it is that you claim to.

Kalister1 wrote:
Hey postmodernist! Stop with the arguing over semantics! www.dictionary.com
There is your answers for common definitions.

Not really, most of the definitions we are arguing over have objective meaning, and subjective application. The question is the subjective application, not the dictionary meaning.
Quote:
Math only applies to math, sir. Why should he care so much about where people stick their dicks? He only wants to assert his holier than thou attitude.

Math applies to anything where logic can apply. Why not? So? Why is that preference less legitimate than yours?


So its okay to have sex with 5 year old children? Its okay to condemn people to hell for having sex between two consenting adults? Thats all fine in your world view? Its okay to have sex with someone comatose ? Rape them?

Oh wait wait, you put forth your opinion in a discussions, just to throw a monkey wrench into everything, and then suddenly retreat. Postmodernist junk. You want to construct your society on that, fine. Also, throw your computer out the window, because we didn't make that wondering whether anything can be KNOWN.



oscuria
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 31 Jan 2008
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,748

16 May 2008, 12:47 am

Kalister1 wrote:
Your right, Slowmutant posted the first one, another god fearing bible thumper. However, you definitely did some great judging in these:

oscuira wrote:
Besides, your beliefs are rubbish to me. I really am not sympathetic to homosexuals getting married.

oscuria wrote:
Goodbye America


Theres more, but I'm not going to dig through it. So I guess homosexuals aren't American. They also can't be married in your religion, which condemns them to hell. Based on your beliefs, aren't they considered immoral, based simply on where they want to stick their penis? :x


Haha, that first part in the post was tongue-in-cheek (I'm not that callous). The second part of it wasn't. Why would I be sympathetic to homosexuals getting married when I'm against homosexual marriage? That's a stretch.

Now you are trying to point out my beliefs, but last time I checked with my self, I never asserted a belief in Hell. I do define homosexual acts as immoral. Why would I deny that as I've said it before. Just as I posted in this thread that it is immoral to go around sleeping with people. That is not the way I want to live and it is not the way we as people should live. So yes, it is immoral.

You are getting a hissy fit because I don't agree with a lascivious lifestyle. That is a bit too much. People today have no belief in restraint and demands and wants and wants and demands.


So yes: Goodbye America.



Awesomelyglorious
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 17 Dec 2005
Gender: Male
Posts: 13,157
Location: Omnipresent

16 May 2008, 12:57 am

Kalister1 wrote:
So its okay to have sex with 5 year old children? Its okay to condemn people to hell for having sex between two consenting adults? Thats all fine in your world view? Its okay to have sex with someone comatose ? Rape them?
Well, the only way it could not be okay is if there were true moral values. Why would true moral values exist? You don't function with them. I can't prove them. I mean, you may not prefer these things exist, but you can't say that they are wrong.
Quote:
Oh wait wait, you put forth your opinion in a discussions, just to throw a monkey wrench into everything, and then suddenly retreat. Postmodernist junk. You want to construct your society on that, fine. Also, throw your computer out the window, because we didn't make that wondering whether anything can be KNOWN.

Me? Retreat? I usually stick in a discussion for awhile. Really though, you can call postmodernism junk, but that hardly refutes it. You can say skepticism is bad epistemology, but that does not mean you have found a system that overcomes it's complaints. Really though Kalister1, stop playing the role of an ape and either accept or refute the new framework. Frankly, if you want to know my positive opinion, I say that all of the previous are preferences and that they should be understood like other preferences are to be understood.



Kalister1
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 8 Sep 2007
Age: 38
Gender: Male
Posts: 2,443

16 May 2008, 1:02 am

Awesomelyglorious wrote:
Kalister1 wrote:
So its okay to have sex with 5 year old children? Its okay to condemn people to hell for having sex between two consenting adults? Thats all fine in your world view? Its okay to have sex with someone comatose ? Rape them?
Well, the only way it could not be okay is if there were true moral values. Why would true moral values exist? You don't function with them. I can't prove them. I mean, you may not prefer these things exist, but you can't say that they are wrong.
Quote:
Oh wait wait, you put forth your opinion in a discussions, just to throw a monkey wrench into everything, and then suddenly retreat. Postmodernist junk. You want to construct your society on that, fine. Also, throw your computer out the window, because we didn't make that wondering whether anything can be KNOWN.

Me? Retreat? I usually stick in a discussion for awhile. Really though, you can call postmodernism junk, but that hardly refutes it. You can say skepticism is bad epistemology, but that does not mean you have found a system that overcomes it's complaints. Really though Kalister1, stop playing the role of an ape and either accept or refute the new framework. Frankly, if you want to know my positive opinion, I say that all of the previous are preferences and that they should be understood like other preferences are to be understood.


So, you're basically putting forth nothing. I'vet found that post modernism puts nothing forth, and is simply linguistic gymnastics. If you want to say that everything is gray, then good luck building anything worthwhile off that. If we all thought in that way though, nothing of value would ever be built.