|
|
|
|
| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
Pablo
Never Draws a Blank
|
 Posted: Mon Oct 03, 2011 3:03 pm Post subject: 321 |
 |
|
| Zag wrote: |
| Pablo wrote: |
| I'm married to a hot blond who could pass for my daughter. |
Pics or it didn't happen. 
|
See the post crash picture thread!
_________________
All religions are the same - Guilt....just with different holidays. |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
Quailman
His Postmajesty
|
| Posted: Mon Oct 03, 2011 7:11 pm Post subject: 322 |
|
|
| I looked at the picture thread first, and at the picture before reading the caption. I thought "That looks like a nice couple. A nice-looking young man with a hot wife/girlfriend." Is that his mother, or is that a trophy wife whose closer to your son's age than yours? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Silverfire
Daedalian Member
|
| Posted: Mon Oct 03, 2011 8:59 pm Post subject: 323 |
|
|
| Scurra wrote: |
| My position on this is simple. Since this judgement [that there are unique emotional qualities to the male/female relationship that arise from reproductive sexual intercourse] is being made by people about other people it cannot possibly be made from a position of knowledge and must be made from a position of prejudice (pre-judging.) |
It really needs to be pointed out how ridiculous this is. If conclusions about other people's personal thoughts and emotions must be made from a position of prejudice, am I prejudiced to believe that my blind friend didn't enjoy that silent movie in the same way I did? How about when I judge that an openly socialist senator doesn't value personal liberty as much as Ron Paul? Or when I judge that a guy opposing same-sex 'marriage' is doing so out purely out of prejudice? (Wait a sec...)
That was a cheap shot, but I hope you get the point: it's entirely reasonable to draw conclusions about people's personal feelings, even without having identical experiences. And reasonable people can argue to what degree those feelings can be assessed, rather than reaching for any tenuous reason to accuse their opponents of bigotry. Which I guess brings me to my point about language....
| Zag wrote: |
| It's true that language is important. The Republicans have done a great job at renaming things to give people the opinions that they (the Republicans) want them to have. |
Funny, I was going to jump in to say similar things about liberals.
| Zag wrote: |
| For instance, they've stopped calling it an "Inheritance Tax" and started calling it a "Death Tax." I think that the Democrats should insist on referring to it as a "Good-For-Nothing Layabouts being handed a boatload of money that they didn't earn Tax." |
Well, far be it from me to say that you can't refer to that tax with whatever label you want, but on a completely unrelated topic, my family moved halfway across the country to live with and take care of my dying grandmother. When she no longer needed to live in her house on account of her spirit having left this world, we inherited a fraction of it (after tax of course) which was good since we had sold our previous house in order to move.
Now, if you want to refer to my parents with the slightly incorrect appellation of "Good-For-Nothing Layabouts being handed a boatload of money that they didn't earn," I'm not going to stop you, but you might want to take it up with the other participants in this thread, who were saying something about pre-judgement and bigotry.  |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Mackay
Saviour of Spiders
|
| Posted: Tue Oct 04, 2011 12:13 am Post subject: 324 |
|
|
| Silverfire wrote: |
| It really needs to be pointed out how ridiculous this is. |
And I suppose you're just the man for the job? The person who made the assertion that homosexuals don't actually love one another because anal sex is infinitesimally more risky than PIV - you're the arbiter of ridiculous assertions? Let me get the popcorn.
| Quote: |
| If conclusions about other people's personal thoughts and emotions must be made from a position of prejudice, am I prejudiced to believe that my blind friend didn't enjoy that silent movie in the same way I did? |
This isn't about emotions, this is about sensory input.
| Quote: |
| How about when I judge that an openly socialist senator doesn't value personal liberty as much as Ron Paul? |
Yes, this is prejudiced. Your picking and choosing of which personal liberties you personally value is affecting your opinion of how much either politician "cares" about personal liberties. The argument could be made that Dr Paul's opposition to women's reproductive rights and the rights of homosexuals to marry counteracts his liberal attitude toward the drug war. The argument could be made that redistributing enough wealth to the poor to give them an acceptable quality of life increases their personal liberty a thousandfold, and affects many more lives (and on a far greater scale) than giving tax cuts to the rich - and that Dr Paul's opposition to this means he is opposed to the greatest number of people having the greatest amount of liberty. And so on. Those are clearly biased arguments - but so is yours. Taking it to the level of drawing conclusions about someone's own personal motivations due to your preconceptions makes it prejudice, just as if I were to say "Dr Paul hates women more than a socialist senator". [disclaimer: I probably don't believe that.]
| Quote: |
| Or when I judge that a guy opposing same-sex 'marriage' is doing so out purely out of prejudice? (Wait a sec...) |
This one depends upon his stated reasons/motives. If someone were to say bigoted things, be called out for prejudice, and then be like "yeah yeah, I'm a homophobe and a bigot" in order to (presumably) get me to back down from using such emotionally loaded words - yes, I could certainly be persuaded to agree with them.
| Quote: |
| That was a cheap shot, but I hope you get the point: it's entirely reasonable to draw conclusions about people's personal feelings, even without having identical experiences. |
Sure, when you have sufficient evidence to back up those conclusions. For instance, the appearance of a marriage-style relationship, along with the testimony of those involved, is generally convincing enough for most people to believe that two individuals are in love. If Frank and Jane have been cohabitating and behaving in a way consistent with a married couple for ten years, most people would believe them when they say they love one another as deeply as a legally married couple.
Do you agree with extro's assertion that if this were the case with Frank and John, that we should not take them at their word? Do you feel that "homosexuality might not be evolutionarily advantageous" is a sufficient overruling argument against taking Frank and John at their word?
| Quote: |
| And reasonable people can argue to what degree those feelings can be assessed, rather than reaching for any tenuous reason to accuse their opponents of bigotry. Which I guess brings me to my point about language.... |
I didn't realise that "saying bigoted things" was only a tenuous piece of evidence that someone is a bigot. Would you be OK with me saying that black people are inherently less capable of having a deep marital bond? What if I backed it up with "but they evolved slightly differently and are therefore unequal"? Is that bigotry, or just my opinion? What if that was the basis for my argument against allowing marriage between interracial couples unless they called it something different? Bigoted, or justified?
| Quote: |
| Zag wrote: |
| It's true that language is important. The Republicans have done a great job at renaming things to give people the opinions that they (the Republicans) want them to have. |
Funny, I was going to jump in to say similar things about liberals. |
And the Americans have done a great job at making politics into a hostile, entrenched team sport. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Scurra
Daedalian Member
|
| Posted: Tue Oct 04, 2011 1:02 am Post subject: 325 |
|
|
| Silverfire wrote: |
| Scurra wrote: |
| My position on this is simple. Since this judgement [that there are unique emotional qualities to the male/female relationship that arise from reproductive sexual intercourse] is being made by people about other people it cannot possibly be made from a position of knowledge and must be made from a position of prejudice (pre-judging.) |
It really needs to be pointed out how ridiculous this is. If conclusions about other people's personal thoughts and emotions must be made from a position of prejudice, am I prejudiced to believe that my blind friend didn't enjoy that silent movie in the same way I did? How about when I judge that an openly socialist senator doesn't value personal liberty as much as Ron Paul? Or when I judge that a guy opposing same-sex 'marriage' is doing so out purely out of prejudice? (Wait a sec...) |
Um, I think you are not helping yourself here, even if this was a deliberate cheap shot. You cannot know how anyone else enjoyed a silent movie, let alone a blind person, because you are not anyone else, you are yourself, with your own preferences, beliefs and experiences. Your judgements will be made on that basis. Thus, for instance, to take your second example, you have made a judgement about the meaning of the term "personal liberty" that meets your preferences, beliefs and experience. It happens to be closer to that of Ron Paul than that of an openly socialist senator. That does not mean that Ron Paul is right, it merely means that you are closer to him than to his opponent, and are therefore more likely to consider that he (Ron Paul) values "personal liberty" more, because he is closer to your own position (rather than vice versa.)
My problem with extro's argument that because evolution is based on scientific fact he is not actually taking a judgemental position is that I have yet to be persuaded that the evolutionary argument he is using (to wit that heterosexual reproductive sexual intercourse is inherently superior, because evolution has selected for it) is in fact anything more than just a personal judgement based on his own preferences, beliefs and experience.
That's why I am arguing that although
| Quote: |
| it's entirely reasonable to draw conclusions about people's personal feelings, even without having identical experiences |
it is not reasonable to assume that those conclusions are correct just because they are in accord with your own.
_________________
still Quiz Olympiad champion. Must get a life.
New definitions: COFFEE - someone who is coughed upon
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
extropalopakettle
No offense, but....
|
| Posted: Tue Oct 04, 2011 10:20 am Post subject: 326 |
|
|
| Scurra wrote: |
| My problem with extro's argument that because evolution is based on scientific fact he is not actually taking a judgemental position is that I have yet to be persuaded that the evolutionary argument he is using (to wit that heterosexual reproductive sexual intercourse is inherently superior, because evolution has selected for it) is in fact anything more than just a personal judgement based on his own preferences, beliefs and experience. |
Simple preliminary question: How do you believe all the complex physiology that makes sex pleasurable came to exist? Evolution, or designed by a creator? If the latter, our difference would be a topic for another thread. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Pablo
Never Draws a Blank
|
| Posted: Tue Oct 04, 2011 2:08 pm Post subject: 327 |
|
|
| Quailman wrote: |
| I looked at the picture thread first, and at the picture before reading the caption. I thought "That looks like a nice couple. A nice-looking young man with a hot wife/girlfriend." Is that his mother, or is that a trophy wife whose closer to your son's age than yours? |
The picture is a 31 year old man and his mother. She takes good care of herself. (And I take good care of her) 
_________________
All religions are the same - Guilt....just with different holidays. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Scurra
Daedalian Member
|
| Posted: Tue Oct 04, 2011 11:55 pm Post subject: 328 |
|
|
| extropalopakettle wrote: |
| Simple preliminary question: How do you believe all the complex physiology that makes sex pleasurable came to exist? Evolution, or designed by a creator? If the latter, our difference would be a topic for another thread. |
Well I (Scurra) would say evolution. I don't think I've disputed that. What I have done is gone out of my way to say that I dispute the assertion that heterosexual reproductive sexual intercourse is inherently superior, which I have argued is a moral judgement based on personal opinion. I think I have been fairly consistent in that.
And I am certainly not sure that even in that narrow subset of the infinite variety that is "sex", the factors that make it pleasurable have been understood sufficiently for anyone to be able to make claims about it at all. It is true that there are physical responses within the body which are regarded as being pleasurable (albeit not necessarily universally), but there are other responses for which simple physical explanations seem inadequate. (Note that I am not ruling out the possibility - nay even the likelihood! - that they are merely extremely complex physical responses instead, but I am not at all convinced that this would make any difference.)
_________________
still Quiz Olympiad champion. Must get a life.
New definitions: COFFEE - someone who is coughed upon
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
extro...*
Guest
|
| Posted: Wed Oct 05, 2011 9:23 am Post subject: 329 |
|
|
| Scurra wrote: |
| ... I dispute the assertion that heterosexual reproductive sexual intercourse is inherently superior, which I have argued is a moral judgement based on personal opinion. |
Have you actually argued that, or just asserted it? How could you actually know? What do you base this judgement on? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Pablo
Never Draws a Blank
|
| Posted: Wed Oct 05, 2011 5:31 pm Post subject: 330 |
|
|
| extro...* wrote: |
| Scurra wrote: |
| ... I dispute the assertion that heterosexual reproductive sexual intercourse is inherently superior, which I have argued is a moral judgement based on personal opinion. |
Have you actually argued that, or just asserted it? How could you actually know? What do you base this judgement on? |
Seems to me that if
| Quote: |
| heterosexual reproductive sexual intercourse is inherently superior |
homosexuality would not exist.
Therefore, the existence of homosexuality would then disprove this.
_________________
All religions are the same - Guilt....just with different holidays. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Scurra
Daedalian Member
|
| Posted: Wed Oct 05, 2011 6:35 pm Post subject: 331 |
|
|
| extro...* wrote: |
| Have you actually argued that, or just asserted it? How could you actually know? What do you base this judgement on? |
I'm not the one making the judgement. For instance, it is entirely possible that Dolphin-Horse sex might be the most pleasurable in the entire universe. But I have no way of knowing that, and neither do you or anyone else for that matter (apart, perhaps, from the Dolphin and the Horse, although obviously they would say that, wouldn't they? After all, it's in their interests.)
I have argued my position by reference to a variety of alternate positions - including a subjective argument (that pleasure and bonding can be derived from things other than sex), an observational argument (that people are more likely to endorse other views that resemble their own) and even an evolutionary argument (that practically all species use the same form of reproduction) all of which were intended to illuminate reasons why I differed with you rather than assertions.
_________________
still Quiz Olympiad champion. Must get a life.
New definitions: COFFEE - someone who is coughed upon
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
extro...*
Guest
|
| Posted: Wed Oct 05, 2011 7:14 pm Post subject: 332 |
|
|
| Scurra wrote: |
| I'm not the one making the judgement. |
Regarding the conclusion that heterosexual sex is superior, you are making the judgement that it is a moral judgement based on personal opinion. That's the judgement I'm questioning, and you are making it.
| Scurra wrote: |
| For instance, it is entirely possible that Dolphin-Horse sex might be the most pleasurable in the entire universe. But I have no way of knowing that, and neither do you or anyone else for that matter ... |
In the same sense that it's "entirely possible" that lettuce has sentience equal to or surpassing humans, and in their advanced state of enlightenment they know the futility of attempting to communicate with us, so they don't. On what basis then would you judge someone who chose to kill and eat a human rather than a head of lettuce?
Thank you - now I understand your position. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
bgg1996
BeeGees are awesome!
|
| Posted: Wed Oct 05, 2011 7:53 pm Post subject: 333 |
|
|
| extro...* wrote: |
| In the same sense that it's "entirely possible" that lettuce has sentience equal to or surpassing humans, and in their advanced state of enlightenment they know the futility of attempting to communicate with us, so they don't. On what basis then would you judge someone who chose to kill and eat a human rather than a head of lettuce? |
Lettuce don't have any thought-producing parts. It's completely impossible for them to be sentient.
But we have no idea how pleasuable horse dolphin sex is.
| Quote: |
Seems to me that if
| Quote: |
| heterosexual reproductive sexual intercourse is inherently superior |
homosexuality would not exist.
|
Would you also say that if unbroken arms are inherently superior, broken arms wouldn't exist? That humans would evolve unbreakable arms?
_________________
The one member below 18 |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
extro...*
Guest
|
| Posted: Wed Oct 05, 2011 8:39 pm Post subject: 334 |
|
|
| bgg1996 wrote: |
| extro...* wrote: |
| In the same sense that it's "entirely possible" that lettuce has sentience equal to or surpassing humans, and in their advanced state of enlightenment they know the futility of attempting to communicate with us, so they don't. On what basis then would you judge someone who chose to kill and eat a human rather than a head of lettuce? |
Lettuce don't have any thought-producing parts. It's completely impossible for them to be sentient. |
Sorry, but there is not even a theory about how matter produces sentience. That's just anti-lettuce bigotry. (no, I'm not joking)
| Quote: |
| Quote: |
Seems to me that if heterosexual reproductive sexual intercourse is inherently superior homosexuality would not exist.
|
Would you also say that if unbroken arms are inherently superior, broken arms wouldn't exist? That humans would evolve unbreakable arms? |
Yeah, what he said.
I'm not sure there's a difference between "inherently" inferior (or superior) and just inferior (or superior), but the whole sickle cell anemia example - of a trait that evolution produces, where the trait entails a definite inferior aspect of some function (unless one denies the very concept of 'inferior') - was to highlight that evolution indeed produces such conditions. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Pablo
Never Draws a Blank
|
| Posted: Wed Oct 05, 2011 8:45 pm Post subject: 335 |
|
|
| bgg1996 wrote: |
Would you also say that if unbroken arms are inherently superior, broken arms wouldn't exist? That humans would evolve unbreakable arms? |
No. But then no one would "choose" a broken arm, given the alternative. People do "choose" homosexuality in the sense that heterosexuality is available to them, if they instead chose that. They obviously find "superiority" in homosexuality, or they wouldn't engage in it.
I imagine prisoners choose homosexuality because of limited choices. Outside of prison, some choose it because it is preferable. They find it superior, I guess. No one finds a broken arm superior.
And the part about "evolving unbreakable arms" suggests a lack of understanding of evolution.
_________________
All religions are the same - Guilt....just with different holidays. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Pablo
Never Draws a Blank
|
| Posted: Wed Oct 05, 2011 8:51 pm Post subject: 336 |
|
|
I think extro's comment about the lettuce being able to think was his way of saying that the likelihood of great sex between a horse and a dolphin was zero, for those who didn't get it.....unless it was I who didn't get it. 
_________________
All religions are the same - Guilt....just with different holidays. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Scurra
Daedalian Member
|
| Posted: Wed Oct 05, 2011 10:42 pm Post subject: 337 |
|
|
| extro...* wrote: |
| Scurra wrote: |
| I'm not the one making the judgement. |
Regarding the conclusion that heterosexual sex is superior, you are making the judgement that it is a moral judgement based on personal opinion. That's the judgement I'm questioning, and you are making it. |
Hmmm. And this time I don't understand your point. Unless you are saying that all statements must by necessity be judgements (like my one about how personal opinion means that everyone is a bigot.) Do you think we can dispense with the semantic quibbles?
Here is the core statement which summarises my problem.
| Quote: |
| I hate to bring it up again, but I think the accusation of bigot / homophobe largely revolves around my sincere belief that sex is best between a man and a woman (which I believe follows from sound reasons pertaining to evolution) |
What part of "my sincere belief" and "I believe" are not personal opinions? Because the term "best" is, by definition, comparative. And you have no basis on which to make a comparison except a subjective one.
You are correct that we have no way of knowing the sentience level of lettuce, although for someone who restates evolutionary theory as their baseline I suspect that you are being facetious*. I don't actually understand your point though. We seem to be arguing the same thing (that we cannot know this - either the sentience of lettuce or the quality of dolphin/horse sex), and yet it seems to run counter to the argument your have been making and which I discuss above (which is that we can know that sex is best between men and women.)
*yes, I am being facetious as well. Although I don't know of any anatomical reason why dolphin-horse sex should be completely impossible. Although I admit my biological knowledge is limited.
_________________
still Quiz Olympiad champion. Must get a life.
New definitions: COFFEE - someone who is coughed upon
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
extro...*
Guest
|
| Posted: Wed Oct 05, 2011 10:57 pm Post subject: 338 |
|
|
| Pablo wrote: |
| I think extro's comment about the lettuce being able to think was his way of saying that the likelihood of great sex between a horse and a dolphin was zero, for those who didn't get it.....unless it was I who didn't get it. |
We have no scientific theory whatsoever that suggests the connection between observable physical events and consciousness. (yes, there's much theory behind how human physiology creates behaviors we equate with consciousness, but that's altogether different) Without such a theory, and without having the chance to be a head of lettuce, we can't objectively judge what it's like to be a head of lettuce, as far as what the experience is like and whether there's any level of sentience. It is only bigotry that allows us to dismiss what it is "entirely possible" may be sentient life forms as stuff for salad. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
extro...*
Guest
|
| Posted: Wed Oct 05, 2011 11:33 pm Post subject: 339 |
|
|
| Scurra wrote: |
| extro...* wrote: |
| Scurra wrote: |
| I'm not the one making the judgement. |
Regarding the conclusion that heterosexual sex is superior, you are making the judgement that it is a moral judgement based on personal opinion. That's the judgement I'm questioning, and you are making it. |
Hmmm. And this time I don't understand your point. Unless you are saying that all statements must by necessity be judgements (like my one about how personal opinion means that everyone is a bigot.) Do you think we can dispense with the semantic quibbles? |
I didn't know it was a semantic quibble. I'm asking how you came to the conclusion that my conclusion heterosexual sex is superior is a moral judgement based on personal opinion? What does "moral judgement" mean? I never said or implied anything about it being morally right or wrong. And "based on personal opinion" ... can you name any conclusion that isn't? (so I get a better understanding of how you differentiate personal opinion from ... whatever else)
| Scurra wrote: |
Here is the core statement which summarises my problem.
| Quote: |
| I hate to bring it up again, but I think the accusation of bigot / homophobe largely revolves around my sincere belief that sex is best between a man and a woman (which I believe follows from sound reasons pertaining to evolution) |
What part of "my sincere belief" and "I believe" are not personal opinions? |
Again, in that sense, what isn't a personal opinion?
| Quote: |
| Because the term "best" is, by definition, comparative. And you have no basis on which to make a comparison except a subjective one. |
Are your red blood cells better at carrying oxygen than the red blood cells of someone with sickle cell anemia? Yes. Is that a subjective matter? No. And the difference between subjective and objective does not correlate between what is know directly empirically versus what is known through deduction from empirical knowledge - these are separate distinctions.
| Quote: |
| You are correct that we have no way of knowing the sentience level of lettuce, although for someone who restates evolutionary theory as their baseline I suspect that you are being facetious*. |
I'm not. I'm distinguishing between sentience as in unobservable consciousness (as in, of subjective experiences) versus the observable ability to collect and do complex processing of information (sometimes confused with sentience). The latter evolution certainly has bearing on. The former, lacking any sensible theory for, we can't make such conclusions about.
| Quote: |
| I don't actually understand your point though. We seem to be arguing the same thing (that we cannot know this - either the sentience of lettuce or the quality of dolphin/horse sex), and yet it seems to run counter to the argument your have been making and which I discuss above (which is that we can know that sex is best between men and women.) |
My point is that your definition of bigotry applies as much or more to your judgement that someone who slaughters a human is more guilty of a moral wrong than someone who slaughters a lettuce. You've trivialized the word to the point of meaninglessness. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
bgg1996
BeeGees are awesome!
|
| Posted: Thu Oct 06, 2011 3:57 am Post subject: 340 |
|
|
| extro...* wrote: |
| We have no scientific theory whatsoever that suggests the connection between observable physical events and consciousness. |
Uh huh.
What about drugs? You're saying that no drug affects the mind. At all?
_________________
The one member below 18 |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
extro...*
Guest
|
| Posted: Thu Oct 06, 2011 8:26 am Post subject: 341 |
|
|
| bgg1996 wrote: |
| extro...* wrote: |
| We have no scientific theory whatsoever that suggests the connection between observable physical events and consciousness. |
Uh huh.
What about drugs? You're saying that no drug affects the mind. At all? |
Why would I be saying that at all? Drugs affect observable physical events in the brain and the resulting behaviors produced, yes. We have no scientific theory connecting that with consciousness. We don't, for instance, have any scientific theory that would suggest what kinds of arrangements of matter behaving in what ways would have thoughts, and be aware of those thoughts. We have some basic theory behind how the human brain "processes information" (that's a very high level interpretive description of certain brain behaviors) and produces very complex behaviors like me typing this post, but that doesn't even touch on my actually being aware of my thoughts. Even if we had a theory of how the human brain does that (which we don't), that wouldn't tell us whether other things do it. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Scurra
Daedalian Member
|
| Posted: Thu Oct 06, 2011 10:19 am Post subject: 342 |
|
|
| extro...* wrote: |
| Quote: |
| Because the term "best" is, by definition, comparative. And you have no basis on which to make a comparison except a subjective one. |
Are your red blood cells better at carrying oxygen than the red blood cells of someone with sickle cell anemia? Yes. Is that a subjective matter? No. And the difference between subjective and objective does not correlate between what is know directly empirically versus what is known through deduction from empirical knowledge - these are separate distinctions. |
Ah, I am now (finally!) wondering if we are indeed having a definitional debate - just not about the thing I thought it was about.
Are you using the terms "best" and "superior" not as comparative terms (which is how they would be used in common conversation) but as some evolutionary term meaning "most likely to lead to a successful outcome"?
In which case, yes, on that basis we are clearly not talking about the same thing.
Argument 1: "heterosexual reproductive sexual intercourse is better than other forms of sex because it propagates the species"
Argument 2: "heterosexual reproductive sexual intercourse is better than other forms of sex because it is more pleasurable/leads to stronger bonding/creates intimacy/whatever".
The meaning of the word better in the first argument is clearly very different from that in the second argument. Somewhere I think that the two cases have got a bit confused (cf. the endless problem with the use of the word "theory".)
| Quote: |
| Quote: |
| You are correct that we have no way of knowing the sentience level of lettuce, although for someone who restates evolutionary theory as their baseline I suspect that you are being facetious*. |
I'm not. I'm distinguishing between sentience as in unobservable consciousness (as in, of subjective experiences) versus the observable ability to collect and do complex processing of information (sometimes confused with sentience). The latter evolution certainly has bearing on. The former, lacking any sensible theory for, we can't make such conclusions about. |
I have not disagreed with the possibility that the illusion of sentience may indeed be the result of complex processing of information. However, my position is still that even if we do eventually understand every aspect of this complex processing (and prove that we are all, in fact, merely robots), that does not necessarily invalidate the concept of subjective experience. You appear to believe that there already cannot be subjective experience, because it can all be explained by the complex processing of information (even if we do not yet understand it). Is that a fair presentation of your position?
| Quote: |
| My point is that your definition of bigotry applies as much or more to your judgement that someone who slaughters a human is more guilty of a moral wrong than someone who slaughters a lettuce. You've trivialized the word to the point of meaninglessness. |
But you yourself have said:
| Quote: |
| Without such a theory, and without having the chance to be a head of lettuce, we can't objectively judge what it's like to be a head of lettuce, as far as what the experience is like and whether there's any level of sentience. |
In which case, moral judgements about a head of lettuce have to be taken in a different way, based on different criteria. You are the one who is equating it with the slaughter of a human being. Where have I ever suggested that we cannot judge what it is like to be a human being? I think it's impossible not to, because we all are. What I have been saying is that the mistake we all keep making is to imagine that because an individual experiences the world in one way, that must be the way that everybody else experiences it. And all I was saying was that "bigotry" is the desire to impose that view on other people. So that we are all "bigots" in the broadest sense; I still do not think that that trivialises the word...
[Indeed, to digress a little, I think that it may be worth noting that one of the common comments made about some of those who slaughter other human beings is precisely that they see them as merely heads of lettuce (assuming here that lettuce is not, in fact, sentient!) Clearly this is a subjective interpretation of evidence, so I do not present it as some sort of definitive argument, just as an interesting digression. I would note, however, that in a legal context we tend to treat those who appear to see other human beings as heads of lettuce in a different way to those who see other human beings as, well, human.]
Instead, we do indeed apply a moral judgement based on personal experience - which is that as we can relate to the concept of being human in a way that is very different to relating to being a head of lettuce, it would seem to be entirely reasonable to apply different standards to the slaughter of a human as to the slaughter of a lettuce. Now, if you had used the example of e.g. a pig instead of a lettuce, then I would note that some vegetarians would say that they apply the same standards which is why they do not kill pigs either. And this would probably be partly because they can relate to the concept of being a pig in a way that they cannot relate to being a lettuce.
_________________
still Quiz Olympiad champion. Must get a life.
New definitions: COFFEE - someone who is coughed upon
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
extro...*
Guest
|
| Posted: Thu Oct 06, 2011 12:27 pm Post subject: 343 |
|
|
| Scurra wrote: |
| extro...* wrote: |
| Quote: |
| Because the term "best" is, by definition, comparative. And you have no basis on which to make a comparison except a subjective one. |
Are your red blood cells better at carrying oxygen than the red blood cells of someone with sickle cell anemia? Yes. Is that a subjective matter? No. And the difference between subjective and objective does not correlate between what is know directly empirically versus what is known through deduction from empirical knowledge - these are separate distinctions. |
Ah, I am now (finally!) wondering if we are indeed having a definitional debate - just not about the thing I thought it was about.
Are you using the terms "best" and "superior" not as comparative terms (which is how they would be used in common conversation) but as some evolutionary term meaning "most likely to lead to a successful outcome"?
In which case, yes, on that basis we are clearly not talking about the same thing.
Argument 1: "heterosexual reproductive sexual intercourse is better than other forms of sex because it propagates the species"
Argument 2: "heterosexual reproductive sexual intercourse is better than other forms of sex because it is more pleasurable/leads to stronger bonding/creates intimacy/whatever".
The meaning of the word better in the first argument is clearly very different from that in the second argument. Somewhere I think that the two cases have got a bit confused (cf. the endless problem with the use of the word "theory".) |
I mean it in the latter sense. Better in achieving some purpose. So when I say "my red blood cells are better at carrying oxygen than the red blood cells of someone with sickle cell anemia", am I being a bigot? Is that a subjective comparison?
| Scurra wrote: |
| Quote: |
| Quote: |
| You are correct that we have no way of knowing the sentience level of lettuce, although for someone who restates evolutionary theory as their baseline I suspect that you are being facetious*. |
I'm not. I'm distinguishing between sentience as in unobservable consciousness (as in, of subjective experiences) versus the observable ability to collect and do complex processing of information (sometimes confused with sentience). The latter evolution certainly has bearing on. The former, lacking any sensible theory for, we can't make such conclusions about. |
I have not disagreed with the possibility that the illusion of sentience may indeed be the result of complex processing of information. |
I don't consider it an illusion, and I haven't suggested it's the result of complex information processing, though that may be the case. Again, "information processing" is a subjective judgement, and interpretation. What activity isn't information processing?
| Scurra wrote: |
| However, my position is still that even if we do eventually understand every aspect of this complex processing (and prove that we are all, in fact, merely robots), that does not necessarily invalidate the concept of subjective experience. |
Agreed.
| Scurra wrote: |
| You appear to believe that there already cannot be subjective experience, because it can all be explained by the complex processing of information (even if we do not yet understand it). Is that a fair presentation of your position? |
No. I know subjective experience exists, as I experience it. I'm actually aware of my thoughts (though you can only take my word for that). And I absolutely do not believe it is explained by complex processing of information, as computers can do that, and I have no reason to believe they have subjective experiences.
| Scurra wrote: |
| Quote: |
| My point is that your definition of bigotry applies as much or more to your judgement that someone who slaughters a human is more guilty of a moral wrong than someone who slaughters a lettuce. You've trivialized the word to the point of meaninglessness. |
But you yourself have said:
| Quote: |
| Without such a theory, and without having the chance to be a head of lettuce, we can't objectively judge what it's like to be a head of lettuce, as far as what the experience is like and whether there's any level of sentience. |
In which case, moral judgements about a head of lettuce have to be taken in a different way, based on different criteria. You are the one who is equating it with the slaughter of a human being. |
I'm saying that we have no basis for comparison that we can say one is more sentient than the other, and that only bigotry leads us to treat the cannibal who eats people differently than the person who eats salad.
| Scurra wrote: |
| Where have I ever suggested that we cannot judge what it is like to be a human being? |
I never suggested you did. But you cannot judge what it's like to be a head of lettuce, therefore you shouldn't assume one is more sentient than the other.
| Scurra wrote: |
| [Indeed, to digress a little, I think that it may be worth noting that one of the common comments made about some of those who slaughter other human beings is precisely that they see them as merely heads of lettuce (assuming here that lettuce is not, in fact, sentient!) |
And what of those who slaughter lettuce, assuming that lettuce is not sentient. This is the bigotry I'm talking about.
| Scurra wrote: |
| Instead, we do indeed apply a moral judgement based on personal experience - which is that as we can relate to the concept of being human in a way that is very different to relating to being a head of lettuce, it would seem to be entirely reasonable to apply different standards to the slaughter of a human as to the slaughter of a lettuce. |
In the above, replace 'human' with heterosexual, 'head of lettuce' with homosexual, and 'slaughter' with 'marriage'. It's the same bigotry (is that your point?), and I think it trivializes the word 'bigotry'. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Scurra
Daedalian Member
|
| Posted: Thu Oct 06, 2011 5:37 pm Post subject: 344 |
|
|
| extro...* wrote: |
| I mean it in the latter sense. Better in achieving some purpose. So when I say "my red blood cells are better at carrying oxygen than the red blood cells of someone with sickle cell anemia", am I being a bigot? Is that a subjective comparison? |
I realise I haven't made myself at all clear here. Let me try again.
I think that there are two types of comparison that can be made: objective and subjective
An objective comparison is saying that your red cells are better at carrying oxygen than my sickle-cells.
A subjective comparison would be saying that your red cells are better at carrying oxygen than your white cells are at fighting off infection.
An objective comparison says that heterosexual reproductive sex is better at propagating the species than all other forms of sex.
A subjective comparison says that heterosexual reproductive sex is better at creating bonds than all other forms of sex.
You seem to be saying that the second case is objective, not subjective. Have I still got that wrong?
(I appreciate that the second comparison is not as clearly dramatic as the cells example but I couldn't think of anything in the cells case because I don't know enough about the subject; I am not posting it with the intent of starting a whole new argument, merely to try and illustrate my point!)
I am not disregarding your other point about bigotry - I need to think about it a bit more.
_________________
still Quiz Olympiad champion. Must get a life.
New definitions: COFFEE - someone who is coughed upon
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
extro...*
Guest
|
| Posted: Fri Oct 07, 2011 1:04 pm Post subject: 345 |
|
|
| Scurra wrote: |
| extro...* wrote: |
| I mean it in the latter sense. Better in achieving some purpose. So when I say "my red blood cells are better at carrying oxygen than the red blood cells of someone with sickle cell anemia", am I being a bigot? Is that a subjective comparison? |
I realise I haven't made myself at all clear here. Let me try again.
I think that there are two types of comparison that can be made: objective and subjective
An objective comparison is saying that your red cells are better at carrying oxygen than my sickle-cells.
A subjective comparison would be saying that your red cells are better at carrying oxygen than your white cells are at fighting off infection.
|
I wouldn't call that a subjective comparison. Perhaps "apples and oranges", like "is one apple plus one apple more than, less than or equal to two oranges?". But it's worse. Even with apples and oranges, we're counting, and we could agree to ignore units (apples vs oranges) and just compare numbers. Your second comparison above is like asking if the maximum current produced by a AAA bettery is more or less than the temperature of boiling water. We're not comparing on the same scale, and don't even have two scales with defined units of measure by which we might compare numbers. A scale with defined units of measure would not be required if the scales were the same (like comparing the temperature of boiling water and the temperature of boiling ethanol ... which makes perfect sense regardless of unit of measure).
| Scurra wrote: |
An objective comparison says that heterosexual reproductive sex is better at propagating the species than all other forms of sex.
A subjective comparison says that heterosexual reproductive sex is better at creating bonds than all other forms of sex.
|
Each of these two comparisons compares measures of degrees of something along the same scale, one better or worse at reproduction, the other better or worse at creating bonds.
Though I think I may know what you're getting at. Take the notion that Ethnic Group A is "more intelligent" on average than Ethnic Group B. Say I've demonstrated this by administering intelligence tests. Now, you can say "intelligence is subjective" ... That we could think of what it means differently and design a different test that Ethnic Group B will perform better on. This is true. But eventually we get into another subjective notion: Reasonableness. I could develop an "intelligence test" that shows hummingbirds are "more intelligent" than humans by including ability to hover as a significant part of the test. But that measures a rather contrived and unnatural notion of "intelligence".
So, "better at creating bonds" ... what that means can vary, but I would say that however you define it, unless unreasonably contrived and unnatural, heterosexual sex in all likelihood outdoes homosexual sex (and I'd argue that from evolution).
| Scurra wrote: |
| You seem to be saying that the second case is objective, not subjective. Have I still got that wrong? |
For the second set of comparisons, both are objective comparisons. What exactly "better at creating bonds" means is subjective, but I'd say under any reasonable meaning it remains true.
For the first set of comparisons, the one you called subjective has far more wrong with it than being subjective. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Nsof
Daedalian Member
|
| Posted: Fri Oct 07, 2011 1:15 pm Post subject: 346 |
|
|
@extro
I'm trying to follow your chain of reasoning in order to understand one of the arguments you are making, namely that the term marriage should be reserved for heterosexual couples.
Here are several statements I think you are making (at least that is how i understand your arguments/facts/assumptions).
- evolution by means of natural selection
- natural selection requires reproduction
- reproduction is achieved through sex
- homosexual couples cannot reproduce
- in order to increase chances of sex, nature "made" sex pleasurable
- pleasure between a couple increases their bonding
- more pleasure means more bonding
All of which (somehow) leads to
- the term marriage should be reserved for heterosexual couples
Can you correct,replace and add the missing statements that lead to the conclusion?
_________________
Will sell this place for beer |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Scurra
Daedalian Member
|
| Posted: Fri Oct 07, 2011 1:52 pm Post subject: 347 |
|
|
| extro...* wrote: |
For the second set of comparisons, both are objective comparisons. What exactly "better at creating bonds" means is subjective, but I'd say under any reasonable meaning it remains true.
For the first set of comparisons, the one you called subjective has far more wrong with it than being subjective. |
Yes, I accept that, but you were the one who brought up the whole red blood cells analogy in the first place, so I was trying to stick to something vaguely like that even though I could see that it was hopelessly wrong (I did say as much in my previous post.)
The dispute we are having is over what you appear to accept to be the subjective interpretation of "better at creating bonds". You are saying that under any reasonable meaning it remains true. I am saying that under any reasonable meaning it is indeterminate. (Please note that I am not saying it is false, I am saying it is indeterminate.)
So because I am arguing that it is indeterminate, I am going on to say that giving preference to one type of relationship due to a perceived "betterness" is wrong, whereas simply widening the definition would include all the indeterminate positions without making any judgement about which of them is "better".
I do accept that there are clearly lines to be drawn in terms of what the word "relationship" means in this context, although I think that any relationship in which one member cannot knowingly give consent is probably unacceptable - I am not trying to campaign for the extension of marriage rights to that dolphin-horse couple who are having such great sex.
_________________
still Quiz Olympiad champion. Must get a life.
New definitions: COFFEE - someone who is coughed upon
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
extro...*
Guest
|
| Posted: Fri Oct 07, 2011 2:25 pm Post subject: 348 |
|
|
| Nsof wrote: |
@extro
I'm trying to follow your chain of reasoning in order to understand one of the arguments you are making, namely that the term marriage should be reserved for heterosexual couples.
Here are several statements I think you are making (at least that is how i understand your arguments/facts/assumptions).
- evolution by means of natural selection
- natural selection requires reproduction
- reproduction is achieved through sex
- homosexual couples cannot reproduce
- in order to increase chances of sex, nature "made" sex pleasurable
- pleasure between a couple increases their bonding
- more pleasure means more bonding
All of which (somehow) leads to
- the term marriage should be reserved for heterosexual couples
Can you correct,replace and add the missing statements that lead to the conclusion? |
That isn't exactly my conclusion.
1) Conclusion: The meaning of the word "marriage", like the meaning of any word in the common vernacular, should be left for the people, not government, to decide.
2) A significant percentage (and likely a majority) feel marriage between husband and wife is special enough to warrant keeping the meaning of the word "marriage" as they understand it - husband and wife.
3) The entire argument from evolution is only defending that 2 above is not from bigotry, but is a reasonable belief. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
extro...*
Guest
|
| Posted: Fri Oct 07, 2011 2:36 pm Post subject: 349 |
|
|
| Scurra wrote: |
The dispute we are having is over what you appear to accept to be the subjective interpretation of "better at creating bonds". You are saying that under any reasonable meaning it remains true. I am saying that under any reasonable meaning it is indeterminate. (Please note that I am not saying it is false, I am saying it is indeterminate.)
So because I am arguing that it is indeterminate, I am going on to say that giving preference to one type of relationship due to a perceived "betterness" is wrong, whereas simply widening the definition would include all the indeterminate positions without making any judgement about which of them is "better". |
This whole discussion of "creating bonds", etc. came from the suggestion that sex served other purposes besides reproduction. If you don't accept that, we're done - we consider reproductive ability alone. If you do accept some other purpose, you must agree with there being some degree to which that purpose is achieved. I'm saying any such purpose is achieved through physiology that resulted from evolution, and that if it is achieved through two different physiologies, one for reproductive individuals, and one for non-reproductive, the likelihood that the latter evolved to achieve it to as great an extent as the former is nil.
And I don't know what you mean by "indeterminate" in this context. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Scurra
Daedalian Member
|
| Posted: Fri Oct 07, 2011 3:20 pm Post subject: 350 |
|
|
| extro...* wrote: |
| I'm saying any such purpose is achieved through physiology that resulted from evolution, and that if it is achieved through two different physiologies, one for reproductive individuals, and one for non-reproductive, the likelihood that the latter evolved to achieve it to as great an extent as the former is nil. |
Not at all. There is plenty of "sex" that happens between reproductive individuals that doesn't lead to reproduction and plenty of sex that happens between non-reproductive individuals that (obviously) doesn't lead to reproduction. And it appears that all of these other forms of sex have some pleasurable component to them, or they wouldn't be done... Which then leads to:
| Quote: |
| And I don't know what you mean by "indeterminate" in this context. |
The core of our original dispute, which is the claim that one specific form of sex is "better" than another. My position is that the only form of sex that one can make any sort of judgement about is sex indulged in by oneself. (Urgh, that doesn't sound right! But I think you know what I mean.)
Making a judgement about the quality or otherwise of sex indulged in by other people must be subjective - and, generally that view will have some bias to it, on the reasonable grounds that most people don't want to think that other people are having better sex lives than themselves. 
_________________
still Quiz Olympiad champion. Must get a life.
New definitions: COFFEE - someone who is coughed upon
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
extro...*
Guest
|
| Posted: Fri Oct 07, 2011 4:20 pm Post subject: 351 |
|
|
| Scurra wrote: |
| extro...* wrote: |
| I'm saying any such purpose is achieved through physiology that resulted from evolution, and that if it is achieved through two different physiologies, one for reproductive individuals, and one for non-reproductive, the likelihood that the latter evolved to achieve it to as great an extent as the former is nil. |
Not at all. There is plenty of "sex" that happens between reproductive individuals that doesn't lead to reproduction and plenty of sex that happens between non-reproductive individuals that (obviously) doesn't lead to reproduction. And it appears that all of these other forms of sex have some pleasurable component to them, or they wouldn't be done...
|
I'm not denying some pleasurable components to these other things, and that there are doesn't contradict what I just wrote.
| Scurra wrote: |
Which then leads to:
| Quote: |
| And I don't know what you mean by "indeterminate" in this context. |
The core of our original dispute, which is the claim that one specific form of sex is "better" than another. My position is that the only form of sex that one can make any sort of judgement about is sex indulged in by oneself. |
I understand, and I think that position really just amounts to putting one's fingers in one's ears and refusing to hear anything else.
| Scurra wrote: |
| Making a judgement about the quality or otherwise of sex indulged in by other people must be subjective ... |
Talking about comparison between the degree to which two things can acheive the same purpose is not subjective.
The basis for my conclusion that one acheives it to a greater degree than the other is not subjective.
| Scurra wrote: |
| - and, generally that view will have some bias to it, on the reasonable grounds that most people don't want to think that other people are having better sex lives than themselves. |
I think that explains the resistance to the argument from evolution. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Nsof
Daedalian Member
|
| Posted: Fri Oct 07, 2011 6:53 pm Post subject: 352 |
|
|
| extro...* wrote: |
| 3) The entire argument from evolution is only defending that 2 above is not from bigotry, but is a reasonable belief. |
So the evolutionary argument needs to show or support (=?defend) 2 in which case my question is how do:
- evolution by means of natural selection
- natural selection requires reproduction
- reproduction is achieved through sex
- homosexual couples cannot reproduce
- in order to increase chances of sex, nature "made" sex pleasurable
- pleasure between a couple increases their bonding
- more pleasure means more bonding
Lead to or even support
| extro...* wrote: |
| 2) A significant percentage (and likely a majority) feel marriage between husband and wife is special enough to warrant keeping the meaning of the word "marriage" as they understand it - husband and wife. |
I bolded what i believe your evolutionary argument is trying to make but I may be wrong.
_________________
Will sell this place for beer |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Nsof
Daedalian Member
|
| Posted: Fri Oct 07, 2011 7:06 pm Post subject: 353 |
|
|
Am I missing?
- man and wife can reproduce
- man and man cannot reproduce
- if a couple can reproduce they are special
- the term 'marriage' should be used only for special couples
_________________
Will sell this place for beer |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
extro...*
Guest
|
| Posted: Fri Oct 07, 2011 7:49 pm Post subject: 354 |
|
|
| Nsof wrote: |
Am I missing?
- man and wife can reproduce
- man and man cannot reproduce
- if a couple can reproduce they are special
- the term 'marriage' should be used only for special couples |
Does that make sense to you? Have you actually read much of what I've repeated so often?
I do intend to answer your questions (as painful as it will be to repeat myself yet again), but I first want to clear the air and make sure you genuinely are trying to understand, rather than resist out of some sense of duty to political correctness. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Nsof
Daedalian Member
|
| Posted: Fri Oct 07, 2011 10:29 pm Post subject: 355 |
|
|
political correctness is not why im asking you to explain yourself.
you have engaged in a very long discussion trying to explain your opinions/rational but i have not seen or understood how you arrive by your conclusions. My thought was that if you could summarize the logical steps you took, in a single concise post, it would make it easier to either agree with you or point out the error.
Note that I haven't called you a bigot or anything of the sort although i did say that i disagree with few of your conclusions.
_________________
Will sell this place for beer |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Thok
Oh, foe, the cursed teeth!
|
| Posted: Fri Oct 07, 2011 11:32 pm Post subject: 356 |
|
|
I've mostly concluded that extro doesn't like the idea of a rigorous definition of marriage.
So I'm going to get married tonight. By which I mean play video games and get some sleep. If other people want to call something else marriage, that's fine by me. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Scurra
Daedalian Member
|
| Posted: Sat Oct 08, 2011 12:19 am Post subject: 357 |
|
|
| extro...* wrote: |
| I understand, and I think that position really just amounts to putting one's fingers in one's ears and refusing to hear anything else. |
Aren't you willing to consider that you might be doing the same thing?
For instance:
| Quote: |
Talking about comparison between the degree to which two things can acheive the same purpose is not subjective.
The basis for my conclusion that one acheives it to a greater degree than the other is not subjective. |
I have repeatedly said that I am not disputing that one sort of sex is far better (indeed infinitely better!) than any other at achieving the purpose of reproduction. I accept that this comparison is wholly objective and not subjective because the comparison is between things that have a clear and accepted purpose.
But that's not what I was talking about, and I think the opening part of my previous post made that perfectly clear (and indeed I think you accepted as much.)
So let me ask for clarification again, sorry. Are you saying that sex is only about reproduction? I imagine not since we both seem to agree that there are forms of sex that cannot lead to reproduction, let alone forms that could but don't.
In which case, are all forms of sex about the same purposes? That there is (or could be) some definitive list that defines all the purposes of sex and its outcomes, and could therefore be judged by some dispassionate observer* to be wholly and entirely accurate? In which case, yes, I think you would be correct in saying that such comparisons would indeed be entirely objective and that there may be one form that is "better" than all others.
I just think that such an idea is - to me - self-evident nonsense. I suspect I would have to concede that we have such fundamentally different understandings that to continue this would merely get more and more frustrating for both of us.
*not that there could be any such thing really.
_________________
still Quiz Olympiad champion. Must get a life.
New definitions: COFFEE - someone who is coughed upon
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Antrax
ESL Student
|
| Posted: Wed Oct 12, 2011 3:31 pm Post subject: 358 |
|
|
This seemed fitting:
_________________
After years of disappointment with get rich quick schemes, I know I'm gonna get rich with this scheme. And quick! |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Scurra
Daedalian Member
|
| Posted: Sat May 12, 2012 10:27 am Post subject: 359 |
|
|
Sorry to wake up this particular thread, but I quite enjoyed this post which seems to be doing the rounds at the moment.
TEN REASONS TO BAN GAY MARRIAGE
1. Being gay is not natural and real Americans always reject unnatural things like polyester, tattoos, piercings and air conditioning.
2. Gay marriage will encourage people to be gay in the same way that hanging around tall people will make you tall.
3. Legalizing gay marriage will open the door to all kinds of crazy behavior. People may even wish to marry their pets because a dog has legal standing and can sign a marriage contract.
4. Straight marriage has been around a long time and hasn't changed at all, which is why women are still property, blacks still can't marry whites, and divorce is still illegal.
5. Straight marriage will be less meaningful if gay marriage were allowed and we can't let the sanctity of Britney Spears' 55-hour just-for-fun marriage be destroyed.
6. Straight marriages are valid because they produce children so gay couples, infertile couples, and old people shouldn't be allowed to marry because our population isn't out of control, our orphanages aren't quite full yet, and the world needs more children.
7. Obviously gay parents will raise gay children since of course straight parents only raise straight children.
8. Gay marriage is not supported by religion. In a theocracy like ours, the values of one religion are imposed on the entire country. That's why we have only one religion in America.
9. Children can never succeed without a male and a female role model at home, which is exactly why we as a society expressly forbid single parents to raise children.
10. Gay marriage will change the foundation of society; we could never adapt to new social norms, just like we haven't adapted to cars, the service-sector economy, or longer lifespans.
_________________
still Quiz Olympiad champion. Must get a life.
New definitions: COFFEE - someone who is coughed upon
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Death Mage
Raving Lunatic
|
| Posted: Sat May 12, 2012 11:07 am Post subject: 360 |
|
|
There are those who argue that the sanctity of marriage has already been eroded, due to the high divorce rate, therefore there's no real reason to oppose gay marriage on that grounds. To them I say: You know, you're probably right. So instead of suggesting we ban gay marriage, I propose we ban gay divorce. That's the joke, Ted.
_________________
* These senseless ramblings brought to you by Insanity™. If you just can't figure the dang thing out, it must be Insanity™.
[YOUR AD HERE!] |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You can reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
|
Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2005 phpBB Group
|
|
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Usergroups
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
