Tallyman;
If in the Netherlands, the Dutchies' "Laws" will let you do pretty much whatever you wish to do with your weenie. They permit you to put it in any orifice you want - a little girl's vagina, a little boy's mouth, or anus, or in a rabbit, or in a rabbit hole, or anywhere-
just stop by the coffee shop and smoke plenty of dope first.
Get your facts straight mate. You might be just making a genuine mistake, but The Netherlands has quite normal rules regarding age of consent.
Perry;
What can I say? I have already demonstrated in previous threads how the Humanist and Marxist thought evangelists do indeed imbrace supernaturalism. They have no idea how the cosmos got here. Right? It is simply viewed as self-existing, infinite, beyond human comprehension, right?
No Perry, you have not 'demonstrated', you have just said the same thing over and over, and seem to think that this is demonstration. You have proved nothing. Do you need a flashlight or a proctologist to help you realise this?
You state "They have no idea how the cosmos got here. Right?"
Wrong. They have very good ideas on how the cosmos got here. Not proof. But as neither you or I can understand the mathematics used to explain the early development of the Universe, and how a singularity could arise, I suppose it is fair for me to accept your insistance that they are wrong is as ignorant as my insistance that their theories provide an adequate explaination of origins - more accurate than anything provided by theists as a whole at any rate.
So while you can state your opinion again and again that such things embrace supernaturalism, you haven't proved it to me, and to others. Equating a belief in a theory that can be proved, as far as is possible, with experiment, and can be taken back further theoretically, to a belief in a god with no proof is just dumb. There is no correlation in the type or level of belief.
You were also making a comment (in your post that I was replying to) regarding ideological strictures upon freedom of speech, and relating Marxim, Totalitarianism and Humanism together, which is, in my opinion, a bad connection. In defending your comment you start arguing about their link regarding concerning supernaturalism, which is just shifting the discussion for your aims, as if you could defend your statement in the context in which it was made, I am sure you would. Rather than admit you did use bad examples, you switch and bait.
So, having SEEMINGLY responded to my point (when you haven't at all), you say;
Do those descriptions sound familiar? Sure they do boy and girls. Those are the very descriptions that theists use to characterize God and get jumped on all the time for being unscientific!
Now, for his own reasons, Perry is discussing how unfair it is that non-theists believe what they do and how hypocritical they are. He still hasn't addressed the point I made, regarding his lumping together of ideologially dissimilar groups in a way that allowed him to assert guilt by association, when the only association in the context he was addressing at the time was him putting them in a paragraph together.
Note how HE says non-theists view the Universe as "self-existing, infinite, beyond human comprehension", and then HE replies to the view HE stated they have. Watchtowerese AGAIN. State a viewpoint you want to attack, and attack it, it doesn't matter if the viewpoint you state is erroneous or flawed or downright manipulative when compared to the viewpoint of the people you say posses it, as long as you can be seen to defeat the red herring you have concocted.
So the totalitarian thought evangelist takes an unscientific postulate that is beyond anything science or nature has ever demonstrated and then hypocritically claims intellectual authority over any competing worldviews (actually only theism)in a vain attempt to stamp out the competition.
Ah, here he returns to discussing his fear of censorship. This is a wholey artificial fear. Something he has not provided any proof for. As with some homophobes, who seem to think that gay men will force them to dress nicely and will decorate their houses whilst they sleep, or just make them look bad by dancing better than them, and who think gays are pedophiles who like nonsensual sex, Perry draws a picture of the far left that is replete with all the demonisation terminology used by the Watchtower in describing apostates.
Yet, is this far left really trying to censor people? They may attack vociferously people making statements they disagree with. But the conservative element do that as well. They may say, in effect 'You shouldn't even THINK like that'. But that conservatives do the same as well. So, really, here we have someone tilting at windmills, creating a strawman to attack. And being hypocritical.
Do they advocate a consideration of all worldviews in education. Not at all. They simply scream "unscientific" and "discrimination" and no separation between church and state, although there own founders very clearly state that their world view is religious though not a religion. I leave it to you to figure out the difference; as if, could one could be found, it would somehow justify the thought control and communist-like censure of information.So, if it looks totalitarian, smells totalitarian, and acts totalitarian, it must be freedom? I am laughing at the very thought. The arrogance and hypocriticalness of the far left is breathtaking by virtue of its sheer porporations.
Here the world coaleses into the USA, and church means only Christianity.
Here, the fact that evolution is partilaly demonstrable and god is completely unprovable is conveniently ignored.
Here the fact that, depending on the level, different theories of evolution are introduced to the student, but they are all part of the same body of theory, is ignored.
Which religion will be so specially favoured in Perry's schools? Because they DON'T belong to the same body of theory. Or will children be taught about ALL religions? Here we have no discussion of WHAT worldviews Perry wants taught in schools, and whether Branch Davidians would get the same chance as Roman Catholics, or Hindus.
Does Perry want lessons where ALL world religons are taught in a non-biased way? Will that include Moonies and JW's? Who would decide which religions would be excluded?
Is the fact that some people believe they should commit suicide to join the aliens on the comet, or drink cyanide 'cause Jim says so, or hold out in an unwinable battle against the authorities because David says so sufficient reason to exclude their religons? Would Perry let them have their say in schools?
What about the Children of God... they'd LOVE to get into schools, and to avoid Perry's charges of censorship, we'd have to let them in.
What about some fundamental CHristians, who have frozen time in the 18th C? They okay? Or some fundamental Muslims, who superimpose tribal cultural values on Islam and use this to subgegate women?
How do we choose Perry?
And censorship? Oh wow, it's not taught in schools. Is that censorship? Yeah. They don't teach Tantric Sex or Bengali History. That must be censorship too! Or is it selection? What about children attending church with their parents? Have any words been said about these poor children being brain washed?
It is a source of unending amusement to see how the haters of democracy appeal to a sense of liberty. Democracy is all about inalienable rights, which are characteristics that are unable to be passed onto another person. The burden of responsibility is upon you my friend to prove that a characteristic is unable to be passed on to others and thus qualifies as an inalienable right. You have the responsibility my far left evangelist, to prove that homosexuality, beastiality, shit eating, or anything else you want the public to butt out of, is not able to be passed on through socialization.
Haters of democracy? Is that like haters of Jehovah? You know, a meaningless slur used to bolster a weak arguement. Wathtowerese, AGAIN.
And I love the implication that if something is only able to be passed on by socialisation, then it is not an unalienable right.
Perry, religion is passed on by socialisation, so according to YOUR ARGUEMENT, to make religion an unalienable right, you need to prove it is genetic.
(expletive deleted)
I also love the wonderful way you link "homosexuality, beastiality, shit eating" together. I don't even need to say anything about what that seems to show.
I have watched dogs eat the shit of other dogs. Does that mean that because it appears in nature that society should embrace shit eating as an inalienable right?
So Perry, what you gonna do? You gonna pass laws that outlaw shit eating? When it doesn't harm others? When it's someones' way to pursue happiness? Cause I can bet you, there are people who LOVE it. Who's being the totalitarian now Perry? Why is your opinion eating shit is bad relevant to other people?
Does it mean that the non-shit eaters should use their tax dollars to offer benefits to those who eat shit, because a lack of doing so would be discrimination?
Ah, so moving from whether homosexuality is right or wrong, you now talk about tax. Switch and bait. It's a seperate debate. Homosexuality and the use of tax dollars is not a unique linkage. ARGH!
Do we need another "scientific study" to determine if shit eating is genetic or socialized? If a study came out and said that eating shit would generally cause no harm, would that mean that your socialist argument wasn't still full of shit?
Could you try to NOT bolster your arguement with crude insults Perry? Clever ones are fine. And to answer your question, the idea anyone would want to waste time legislating about shit eating is absurd. If some wants to do it, they can, provided they don't make other people eat shit (but isn't that what politicians do??).
Oh, get ready for the grandstanding! Seats, beer, popcorn, chilli-dogs!
You see Abaddon, the whole reason we left the blood thiristy continent of Europe was that people had no say in the lifestyle they enjoyed. So we set up a system of government that realy didn't give a ficus about what the "enlightened" or the "aristocracy" said was appropriate or not. We knew that would only perpetuate the exploiation of the masses.
God, I think I know why Canadians say 'eh' all the time. It's a natural response living so close to Perry!
So, you left Europe as "people had no say in the lifestyle they enjoyed". And now in America, you want to have a say in the lifestyle other people are allowed?
Eh?
Oh, no doubt you will carry on about how censored the poor ickle right wingers are, what with their President being in power in the USA, that this Presidency has been the contunation (after the gap of the nton Adminstration) of an Oligarchy that has persisted since Reagan got into power, and most corporate dollars being controlled by people of right wing politics. Yes, very censored poor little right wingers. Awww. Didums.
But, to me you seem to miss the point that left wingers are just saying "If someone wants to do something, and it's not harmful, then they can", (other than an extremist fringe which you can bring into the conversation if can I bring the extremist right wing into the conversation).
Liberals want to live in a society without any strictures on belief and lifestyple provided that others rights are not infringed by such freedoms. Bad naughty liberals.
You can twist, distort, quote selectively, grandstand, do whatever you like really, and you cannot change this fact, although your right (supported by the left wing) to have those opinions is protected.
Likewise, the appeal to the science community as the final source of right and wrong is just another attempt to take away the voting rights from the public and put that power into the hands of the precious freedom. And make no mistake, your "science" is funded by powerful political and economic organizations. Our founding fathers wanted us to not take our precious freedom lightly. They guaranteed the right to bear arms as a final deterrent to authoritarianism regardless if that threat came from foreigners, an oligarchy, or a philosophical agenda.
Hey-ho, we're discussing whether homosexuality is wrong, and you are grandstanding with fine sounding words containing buzzwords like precious freedom, founding fathers, voting rights.
Seperating church and state so freedom of religion and freedom FROM religion was guaranteed is one of the best features of the US government, and even then it is flawed (swearing the p[resident in on the Bible??? What happens when you have an atheist president or a Muslim president?). You make conspiracy-like "they are out to get us" statements, but ignore that many people agree with the scientists, and the scientists are people with votes too. You even manage to get a mention of guns in. Poster boy!
I also love the way you ignore that according to your logic, if the local people think it's okay, and the local moral code supports it, it would have been okay for that woman in Northern Nigeria to have been stoned to death for adultery if she'd been found guilty.
You ignore that to some people in Nigeria, commiting adultery is as bad as homosexuality, or whatever, is to some people in the West.
So, because some people think adultery is bad in America, what shall we do to adulterers in YOUR brave new world society?
I said;
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"Since it is based soley on the authority of a god that is claimed to exist, but cannot be proved, many people look to a quantifiable determination of right or wrong, as in a court of law, rather than old moral codes that got written down at some point."
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
You replied;
Yes, those nasty old dusty moral codes about family, role of government, honesty, altruism, and right and wrong. They seem rather stupid in light of infallible men of science don't they? Let's see some of the reliableness of some of these men of science.
Very nice. You seem to miss the point I made about determination of harm being a good quantifier of right or wrong. Is that because none of the quotations you give attack this point, so you attack whatever point you can find to make it look like you answered the arguement in an adequate fashion? That's what you tend to do Perry.
I am getting tired of discussing things with you Perry. I love discussing things with people, but you have all the elegance and finesse of that hippo in Fantasia when you try to do your moves. I am glad you convince yourself though, as I bear no ill-will toward you and hope you are happy.
But I get tired of the illogical arguements that are inadequately thought through. I get tired of the same cliched use of loaded language and Watchtoweresque argumentation. I get tired of you ignoring the actual meaning of words when it suits you, or refusing to define what you mean, and I know that this has been said to you before by others. It's a pity, but I can't be arsed playing with someone who doesn't play nice, as there is no satisfaction of finding common ground or learning another viewpoint, just the same old bag of tricks.
Let's just leave it by looking at your last two paragraphs;
Well, I think that it is safe to say that your critique of the democratic process and the touting of the superiorness of state/academic statements concerning the establishment of right and wrong is extremely short sighted and is fraught with dangers to our freedoms.
I said right and wrong were best determined by harm, rather than some moral code that may or may not be relevant, and that may or may not be held by those it was being enforced upon. That is no more "extremely short sighted and is fraught with dangers to our freedoms" than icecream. You have not proved your case.
You have failed miserable to illustrate how that behaviors that can clearly be socialized have no part of the democratic process. You have not defined what an inalienable right is other that just stating "many people" believe it.
You on one hand rail against people having the temerity to support behaviours that may be socialised being part of the democratic process.
And then you support religion being part of the democratic process. Tell me, is the religon or the desire to bear arms socialised or genetic?
Hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha.
Hey, this genetics arguement is best used against religiously motivated bigots who, because of the way they were bought up, need to be shown that homosexuality is probably largely in-born. If it's in-born, what god could find it wrong? This logic has helped a lot of people overcome their bigotry.
To me it means diddly, as I think homosexuality is right because people want to do it and it doesn't harm others. So, your point about socialisation, in addition to shooting yourself in the ass, isn't that relevant if you have a harm-based determination of right and wrong as I do. It's just a better way of approaching some people.
So I'll just ignore that you have ignored the implications of the survey you quoted on the other thread; you assume the 50% that weren't gay are proof that those that were gay were socialised, rather than accepting that 50% are gay, and that 50% are not, and that this may be due to socialisation of those that WEREN'T gay, or of those that WERE gay. So your statement about "behaviors that can clearly be socialized" is yet another of your assertions without basis.
As for my definitions of inalienable rights, I am sorry if you missed my mention of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights as an example. So are you forgetful, or didn't you read my post, or are you grandstanding by saying things about me that cannot be supported by facts.
That's why I don't like 'playing' with you Perry.
It appears that the propaganda of the far left has left you illequipped to deal with logic and a near complete inability to see the contridictons and political nightmare your agenda proposes to lovers of freedom.Don't worry Abaddon, there are many of us who want to preserve the democratic process and will fight to keep voices of all free, even yours.
Er, yeah, tell me all you know about logic and inability to see contradictions. Get back to me about religion being genetic or not (I actually know what the answer maybe and have the rope ready for you).
Perry, you don't present arguements, you make Swiss Cheese, and after a while it gets dull flying through the same old holes. And I am sure I cannot see that any society where right and wrong is based on whether harm is caused would be a 'political nightmare'. And ONCE AGAIN, we see the tired cliched phrases, "lovers of freedom", and the deceitful accusations that the left are against the democratic process.
It's dull. Again, I bear you no ill will, but until you can have a discussion AND play nice, I'll just salute you and leave you be.
