Author Topic: Gay "discrimination" hypocrisy  (Read 4967 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline Omega

  • Postgraduate
  • *****
  • Posts: 700
  • Darwins +1/-5
Re: Gay "discrimination" hypocrisy
« Reply #87 on: September 29, 2011, 09:03:03 AM »
just replace word "enslave" into word "marry"  and we can legally throw them to jail.

You don't seem to understand the concept of harming people.
Quote
anyone is free to do anything with anyone else if they both agree on that. opinions of other people does not matter at all.
This is only moral value I have.

I suspect, this is untrue. Your logic seems sarcastic. Are you playing devil's advocate? Are you religious and of the opinion that morality doesn't exist without God?

actually i am fighting for freedom. so that everyone could do with own live whatever he likes .
morality only applies when you interact with others it does not apply to what you do to yourself.
In this discussion i want to eliminate all subjective arguments. and base everything just on logic,  so my responses to subjective claims are sarcastic.

My concept of harming people is, when I do to them what they do not want me to do. Of course certain types of harm are allowed.

Offline jaimehlers

  • Fellow
  • *******
  • Posts: 4623
  • Darwins +511/-12
  • Gender: Male
  • WWGHA Member
Re: Gay "discrimination" hypocrisy
« Reply #88 on: September 29, 2011, 12:51:40 PM »
In my belief, no laws can apply to private life which does not involve other people.
Which, of course, is why you cited the example of a deathmatch between two people to 'explain' why some other person "didn't have the right to interfere".  I shouldn't have to keep pointing out the obvious deficiencies in your arguments and examples like this.

if you agree on that then we can continue on other topics, however if you believe that laws are allowed to regulate private life,  then you basically claim that everyone is property of society so society is slowed to do anything it likes with its members..
Strawman (even if I believed that society could regulate private life, it wouldn't be remotely the same as claiming that everyone was the property of society).  Also, you are the one trying to argue these things, but you keep introducing different ideas which undermine your previous arguments.  I would strongly suggest that you spend a little more effort on sticking with the subject that you're actually discussing, instead of continually introducing tangential things which don't have much to do with anything you've talked about till then.

I personally do not agree to be slave even if that just theoretical slavery. If required I don't mind to fight against that society until it decides to give me freedom.
Of course since I can fight openly due to mismatch of powers only option is "asymmetric warfare".
So...what about all the other slaves that this theoretical society also had?  Would you only fight against it until you got your freedom?

I see your point and fine, I choose to vote for denying gay rights  and do not need any explanation why i do so. If majority decides that gay sex is crime punishable by death then it is completely legal to kill them.
Perhaps legal, but certainly not just.  And using your own argument, it would be perfectly justified for gay people to fight against a society that had decided they could be executed for having gay sex.  You cannot deny this without contradicting yourself.

I think we should also pass law against Jews, and make it illegal to be a Jew or Black. it should not be problem because there are enough of Jew haters to vote for that law. Then we will be able to exterminate them legally.  I think Hitler did exactly that, so Jewish genocide  was perfectly legal thing to do.
A law making it illegal to be black would be pure idiocy, and it is unfortunately typical of your attitude that you didn't even consider just how stupid that argument really was.  I mean, a law making a genetic trait illegal?  How exactly would you enforce such a thing?  And that gets to the real point; the fact that people can pass some law doesn't mean the law is enforceable, or just.  Something can be legal or illegal, but if enough people don't abide by it, it's a dead letter.  That includes creating a group of people who have a strong incentive to resist the law, because that can actually rip a country or society apart.

I see that you base everything on laws and ignore natural rights.
so if there is law which allows you to bomb innocent people it is just fine to do so.
No, I don't base everything on laws and ignore natural rights.  You just assumed that was the case.  So no, a law which allows the murder of innocents is not "just fine".  Laws like that are doomed to fail in the long run anyway, because a society which allows such things is a society which will not survive.

is it limited to sexual pleasure or I am not allowed to get any pleasure from my work?
please prove that If a doctor is getting sexual pleasure on the job, then they aren't doing their job.
I suppose doctor's job is to threat patients and what side effects occur from that job does not matter as long as it is done
Sexual pleasure is a form of euphoria.  Euphoria, by its nature, interferes with the ability to think rationally, which is essential to the job of being a doctor (and most jobs, for that matter).  There is a difference between being satisfied with one's job (which is generally a pleasurable sensation) and being in what amounts to a euphoric haze which can interfere with job performance.  It's the same reason drug use is generally banned on the workplace.

same as above if job is done perfectly, how do you prove that employe is not doing it?  of course if result is unacceptable then it is different story.
If a person is doing their job perfectly, and there's nothing to show that they're out of order, and nobody knows that they have the fetish in the first place (meaning it's totally private) then it's a moot point.  The problem is, you're referring to someone who has a fetish for something getting sexual pleasure out of that fetish while on the job; that's not private, it is noticeable (thus out of order), and it does interfere with their doing their job because at best, their focus is split.

Assuming that firing someone from job is some kind of punishment you are contradicting yourself, because you propose punishment in advance.
I'm not talking about automatically firing someone just because they have a history of something (though, if they had a history of something and concealed it from their employer, that does justify firing them).  I'm talking about taking precautions about someone who's known to have some fetish working with people who could be objects of that fetish.  If they can show that they can do the job professionally without letting their fetish interfere, that's one thing.  But they can't indulge their fetish on the job because it's not professional.

No you did not explained anything. I asked you valid question. how it is possible to hurt people by just using their image in private, because you claim that some people are doing that.
I really do not understand that, and believe that such thing is impossible.
As I have heard other people say on this site, your belief does not make a difference in whether it's possible or impossible.  In any case, I'm talking about explicitly sexual images; in that case, the image has already done harm to someone (like a minor child).  Spreading the image around to other people encourages the ones who did the harm to do so again to produce more images, whether or not they're paid for them.  So someone having such an image may not do direct harm to the person who's image it is, but it indirectly harms them, and it indirectly aids and abets the ones who actually did the harm to continue doing it.  Now, if you're talking about downloading some public picture off the internet that doesn't have explicit sexual conduct...well, whatever I personally think of it, as long as they keep it in private (meaning, in their own private property), I'm not inclined to start any witch-hunts.

You are contradicting with your statements below. about free speech.
piracy does snot fall under criminal justice laws.
If you think I'm contradicting myself, you have to explain why.  And what makes you think that piracy doesn't qualify under criminal justice laws?

You are arguing like christian here.
No, I'm not.  And you can't expect to be taken seriously by just pulling out some statement like "you are arguing like a Christian" without any explanation or justification.

What I said is fact no matter if you know it r not. and I can prove it objectively but I think it is inappropriate to do that in public no less than you can prove evolution.
You cant argue with facts.
What, you think you can just declare that you're right, and that you could prove it but you're not going to because you don't think it's appropriate to do so in public?  That's nothing more than a pathetic attempt at a cop out.  If you can't be bothered to show that something is a fact, and that your interpretation of it is a good one, then no matter what excuses you give for why, you've admitted that you don't have a valid basis for your argument.  If you don't feel it's appropriate to try to prove it in public, then why are you trying to discuss something related to it in public in the first place?

you are contradicting yourself with statment below
The fact that you say something is a contradiction doesn't mean it's a contradiction unless you can show why it is one.

So for some reason it is legally OK to get off on falling twin towers  but not ok to get off on child being raped
thats double standard.
As it's obvious you didn't understand what my reference to freedom of speech was, your attempt to segue it into an accusation about a double standard only proves that you didn't.  And I'm not really interested in elaborating, if you can't understand a plain and simple question about whether you know what freedom of speech is.

I deliberately involve arguments that are psychopathic to eliminate any emotional reasoning.  what you feel can be used to justify your own actions but you cant force your emotions on other people.
Doesn't work that way, because psychopaths are emotional cripples.  Most - the vast majority - of human beings are not emotional cripples, and people can and do use their "emotional reasoning" as you put it.  While you may have a point about setting up your argument without using emotions to try to sway the other side, you don't accomplish that by using arguments which will provoke an emotional reaction, such as trying to argue using a psychopath's reasoning.

I did not made such comparison You decided to present is as contradiction. and I had to defend myself. on this foolish thing. so lets forget it.
You most certainly did make the comparison, otherwise I wouldn't have had to point out the contradiction between the two.  Provided you stop trying to pretend that I'm responsible for it, I'm okay with dropping it.

This is your own opinion and mine is different. You have right to think as you like, as much as I can do same. in any case there is no difference because accidents are not controllable. So you cant blame me if I enjoy that my neighbor got into car accident. and cant forbid me to display that joy in public.
There is no comparison between an accident and something like rape.  Someone can't "accidentally rape" someone else, or "accidentally steal" from them, or "accidentally beat them up".  As far as you taking pleasure in someone else's misfortune, that's schadenfreude.  It doesn't have anything to do with anything except your own feelings.  It won't really affect how the other person reacts or thinks about it.

It is pointless to discuss such things because they are subjective. something that is valuable for my may be harmful for you.
I will try to avoid saying such things in future.
The point is that something like genocide doesn't really benefit anyone.  It is objectively bad for all parties involved.

It is not hypocrisy if I can justify it without contradictions. and I justify that with my egoism.
In fact all my moral values are based on my selfishness. if you base your values on another reason you either loose against me either you are hypocrite.
hypocrisy is when you say "I do not approve something" then you still approve it depending on situation.
The fact that you admit that you're using egotism and selfishness to justify how something isn't okay if it's done to you (saying you don't want to be eaten by cannibals) but is okay if it's done to others (saying that others can be cannibals if they want) doesn't prevent you from being a hypocrite.  It just makes you an honest one.

even if  what you say is true, this strategy proved to be most successful  comparing to other strategies. 
that counts as scientific proof, which you requested.
No, it is not scientific proof, unless the documentary compared all possible strategies to see how successful they were.  I highly doubt that it did.  And, in fact, I showed that this strategy has a big flaw to it.  Something that badly flawed can hardly be described as "most successful".  Just because a lot of people tend to instinctively act on that strategy doesn't make it the best strategy or the most successful one, just the most common one.

as I know it is generally accepted that evolution is working on individual level not on whole species.
Species is just abstract name to identify similar individuals.
You are basing this off of a misunderstanding of how evolution actually works.  Evolutionary changes happen to individuals, but the fact that an individual gets some benefit from acting in a certain way doesn't make it an evolutionary change.

You said "size of a punishment doesn't matter" so I prove that it does matter.
No, what you proved is that it's whether the punishment is perceived as just that matters, not its actual size.  Which is what I said.  Punishments which are too small or too large are not accepted as just and eventually get changed to something that is seen as just.  There are cases where a large punishment can be just (such as dealing with a repeat offender), or a small punishment can be just (someone stealing food because they were starving to death).

I wont argue on details here, maybe serial killer is not good example. Profit must be evaluated on each case separately, but in some cases it is valid choice.
The problem with your argument was not that it involved a serial killer, but that it set up a situation where a criminal had no incentive to cooperate with authorities, because the authorities could not catch him.  There are situations where such a deal can be made, true, but they were not what you used as an example.

this is not optimal choice.
Of course if there is danger for long term loss because of short term profit it should be chosen properly.
But government is doing this job badly. they refuse to bargain with some murderer, but don't have problems to pay millions to pirates encouraging them in that way.
Government may not be especially good with regards to justice, but that is usually because it is a reflection of the common will (when it is not, it is because it does not express the common will in the first place, which is far worse).  What you don't see is that without governments, the job would be done even more poorly than it is already, because the common will would be expressed in an even worse manner than what we have today.

by that logic does cop has right to hurt me if laws allow or even require that?
How you can logically derive your self defense rights? if you have no right to hurt other people there must be some logical justification to gain that right.
in my case  if someone is trying to hurt me he just removes all restrictions.
Cops don't have the right to hurt you unless you resist arrest or act in a way that is threatening to them.  They don't have the right to kill you unless you are presenting a lethal threat to them.  As far as your question about self-defense rights goes, think about it.  It goes back to the difference between the right to do something and the ability to do something that I touched on before.  I don't have the right to hurt or kill other people, and they don't have the right to do so either.  However, they (and I) do have the ability to hurt or kill other people.  If they try to exercise that ability, they are doing something they don't have the right to do, and I have the right to defend myself against them until they are no longer trying to hurt or kill me.

And as far as your claim that all bets are off for someone who tries to hurt you, this is a flawed statement.  Someone punches you, and you break their neck; you are thus guilty of murder because there is no way you can stretch self-defense to cover killing someone when your own life wasn't in danger.  Even if you didn't kill them, if you used excessive force to subdue or defeat them (for example, they were trying to hurt you, but you were able to stop them, then you hurt them while they were subdued), you would still be guilty of a crime.

maybe it is problem with language, but I suppose that argument must be based on something objective or on something we already agree.
You cannot base argument on your own opinion( that does not count as argument)  and demand others to accept it for no objective reason.
if we both accept some subjective point it becomes objective for us.
Not accurate.  I can base an argument on my own opinion and convince people to accept it.  The fact that they accept my argument doesn't mean the basis of that argument becomes objective.  And in either case, they didn't already agree with me, but they changed their minds about it.  So it doesn't have to be based on something objective or prior agreement.

Offline Azdgari

  • Laureate
  • *********
  • Posts: 12209
  • Darwins +267/-31
  • Gender: Male
Re: Gay "discrimination" hypocrisy
« Reply #89 on: September 29, 2011, 12:59:54 PM »
I choose to vote for denying gay rights  and do not need any explanation why i do so. If majority decides that gay sex is crime punishable by death then it is completely legal to kill them.

New sig is new.
The highest moral human authority is copied by our Gandhi neurons through observation.

Offline Omega

  • Postgraduate
  • *****
  • Posts: 700
  • Darwins +1/-5
Re: Gay "discrimination" hypocrisy
« Reply #90 on: September 29, 2011, 03:21:12 PM »
Which, of course, is why you cited the example of a deathmatch between two people to 'explain' why some other person "didn't have the right to interfere".  I shouldn't have to keep pointing out the obvious deficiencies in your arguments and examples like this.
this is because you do not have right to hurt other people. and if you deny someone rights to commit suicide you are hurting that person.
(being hurt means when you desires are not fulfilled for external reasons and what that person desires does not matter.)
if you are deciding what one can desire then you are treating that person as your property.

Quote
Strawman (even if I believed that society could regulate private life, it wouldn't be remotely the same as claiming that everyone was the property of society).  Also, you are the one trying to argue these things, but you keep introducing different ideas which undermine your previous arguments.  I would strongly suggest that you spend a little more effort on sticking with the subject that you're actually discussing, instead of continually introducing tangential things which don't have much to do with anything you've talked about till then.
so please confirm that:
"society has no right to manage personal life" * personal life means actions that do not interfere with other people and shared resources.
if you believe that society have at least minimal right to manage private life that is same as everyone being property of society  there cant be any exceptions.

entire subject of this topic is based on this argument.

Quote
So...what about all the other slaves that this theoretical society also had?  Would you only fight against it until you got your freedom?
i cant expose myself because this war is asymmetric, so there is no other way that request for freedom to everyone so that it will include my.
other slaves can join my fight, fight against me or be caught in crossfire as neutrals.
my goal is end of slavery. so that nobody will belong so society anymore, but society belongs to everyone.


Quote
Perhaps legal, but certainly not just.  And using your own argument, it would be perfectly justified for gay people to fight against a society that had decided they could be executed for having gay sex.  You cannot deny this without contradicting yourself.
we are talking about legality here, I play by your rules because you said that only law matters. there is no requirement for law to be sane or just, as long as you have power to enforce it.

Quote
A law making it illegal to be black would be pure idiocy, and it is unfortunately typical of your attitude that you didn't even consider just how stupid that argument really was.  I mean, a law making a genetic trait illegal?  How exactly would you enforce such a thing?  And that gets to the real point; the fact that people can pass some law doesn't mean the law is enforceable, or just.  Something can be legal or illegal, but if enough people don't abide by it, it's a dead letter.  That includes creating a group of people who have a strong incentive to resist the law, because that can actually rip a country or society apart.
I specifically selected idiotic example to show that you idea about law is wrong.
if people do not abide law then you kill or jail them and problem is solved. Hitler has no problems to enforce his laws.

i want to prove that law not related to justice or morality. and you cant use argument of legality in discussion. because what is legal or legal is not necessary just or right.



Quote
No, I don't base everything on laws and ignore natural rights.  You just assumed that was the case.  So no, a law which allows the murder of innocents is not "just fine".  Laws like that are doomed to fail in the long run anyway, because a society which allows such things is a society which will not survive.
so do not use argument of legality anymore. prove your claims by using other arguments.



Quote
Sexual pleasure is a form of euphoria.  Euphoria, by its nature, interferes with the ability to think rationally, which is essential to the job of being a doctor (and most jobs, for that matter).  There is a difference between being satisfied with one's job (which is generally a pleasurable sensation) and being in what amounts to a euphoric haze which can interfere with job performance.  It's the same reason drug use is generally banned on the workplace.
that is valid but you need to prove that you worker is in state of euphoria.

Quote
If a person is doing their job perfectly, and there's nothing to show that they're out of order, and nobody knows that they have the fetish in the first place (meaning it's totally private) then it's a moot point.  The problem is, you're referring to someone who has a fetish for something getting sexual pleasure out of that fetish while on the job; that's not private, it is noticeable (thus out of order), and it does interfere with their doing their job because at best, their focus is split.
  I am talking about cases when it is not noticeable.

Quote
I'm not talking about automatically firing someone just because they have a history of something (though, if they had a history of something and concealed it from their employer, that does justify firing them).  I'm talking about taking precautions about someone who's known to have some fetish working with people who could be objects of that fetish.  If they can show that they can do the job professionally without letting their fetish interfere, that's one thing.  But they can't indulge their fetish on the job because it's not professional.
we do not talk about specific cases here i am comparing one group with another and it is unjust if straight man does not need to show anything while for example gay need to prove it. when both are susceptible to same problems

Quote
As I have heard other people say on this site, your belief does not make a difference in whether it's possible or impossible.  In any case, I'm talking about explicitly sexual images; in that case, the image has already done harm to someone (like a minor child).  Spreading the image around to other people encourages the ones who did the harm to do so again to produce more images, whether or not they're paid for them.  So someone having such an image may not do direct harm to the person who's image it is, but it indirectly harms them, and it indirectly aids and abets the ones who actually did the harm to continue doing it.  Now, if you're talking about downloading some public picture off the internet that doesn't have explicit sexual conduct...well, whatever I personally think of it, as long as they keep it in private (meaning, in their own private property), I'm not inclined to start any witch-hunts.
So you cant prove it, it is just what you know from common sense and other people?
and it is exactly what I say that just because you believe something it does not men it is true. that's why i as you to prove this seemingly obvious truth. and you are incapable to do that.
you are trying to appeal to my empathy or sense of disgust but there is still no answer to the simple question.
I do not ask about if someone was hurt in process of making these images or about obtaining these images. this is irrelevant to the question.
I ask, how you can cause harm to someone if you have his picture and use it in private.
(by the way you were able to obtain child porn legal about 50 year ago, so i may find a stack of legally obtained images under my grandpas  bed :) )

Quote
You are contradicting with your statements below. about free speech.
piracy does snot fall under criminal justice laws.
If you think I'm contradicting myself, you have to explain why.  And what makes you think that piracy doesn't qualify under criminal justice laws?
there is civil law and criminal law and both have different requirements.
contradiction is here:
 "it just means one committed an additional crime on top of supporting the kind of scum who do such things to begin with.  I'm not talking about monetary support, you know; someone who 'pirates' child pornography is proving there's a market for such things, thus encouraging other people to continue to do it."
VS
"You do know what "freedom of speech" means, I hope?" when i especially asked if it is allowed to support criminals morally.

Quote
No, I'm not.  And you can't expect to be taken seriously by just pulling out some statement like "you are arguing like a Christian" without any explanation or justification.
you are arguing against facts.


Quote
What, you think you can just declare that you're right, and that you could prove it but you're not going to because you don't think it's appropriate to do so in public?  That's nothing more than a pathetic attempt at a cop out.  If you can't be bothered to show that something is a fact, and that your interpretation of it is a good one, then no matter what excuses you give for why, you've admitted that you don't have a valid basis for your argument.  If you don't feel it's appropriate to try to prove it in public, then why are you trying to discuss something related to it in public in the first place?
as we all know possession of this evidence is illegal so i cant give you evidence neither I can tell you how to obtain it without risking on being banned here.
I don't want to break a law even if I do not respect it.
and if you use that fact in your discussion you are just unfair.
well i can give you some hints how to find that evidence but you need to ask that directly in PM.


Quote
The fact that you say something is a contradiction doesn't mean it's a contradiction unless you can show why it is one.

"Just because money didn't change hands doesn't mean anything.  Just because they did not directly meet doesn't mean anything.  The mere fact of getting it is itself an encouragement for the other party to continue."
vs
"You do know what "freedom of speech" means, I hope?"

Quote
As it's obvious you didn't understand what my reference to freedom of speech was, your attempt to segue it into an accusation about a double standard only proves that you didn't.  And I'm not really interested in elaborating, if you can't understand a plain and simple question about whether you know what freedom of speech is.

Your answer was not very clear, but i think you support free speech and praising criminals falls into free speech category.


Quote
Doesn't work that way, because psychopaths are emotional cripples.  Most - the vast majority - of human beings are not emotional cripples, and people can and do use their "emotional reasoning" as you put it.  While you may have a point about setting up your argument without using emotions to try to sway the other side, you don't accomplish that by using arguments which will provoke an emotional reaction, such as trying to argue using a psychopath's reasoning.
your job is to suppress your emotional reaction and argue by using logic. its the whole point of this discussion. if we just follow  our emotions this will end in wars and violence.


Quote
There is no comparison between an accident and something like rape.  Someone can't "accidentally rape" someone else, or "accidentally steal" from them, or "accidentally beat them up".  As far as you taking pleasure in someone else's misfortune, that's schadenfreude.  It doesn't have anything to do with anything except your own feelings.  It won't really affect how the other person reacts or thinks about it.
yes you can't accidentally rape someone but you can be raped accidentally, because rapist chooses victims randomly, so being raped is misfortune.
and everything else is what i wanted to say. it is just my personal feelings.


Quote
The point is that something like genocide doesn't really benefit anyone.  It is objectively bad for all parties involved.
Well, assuming that someone would commit genocide of black people that would be beneficial for me because I see white girls ore sexy than black ones so genocide of blacks will increase numbers of whites.
Jew genocide was mostly useful because it releases lots of Jewish fortune so remaining society had benefited from dropping land prices and free resources that once belonged to Jews.
I do not say that it is all just or right, but if someone looses wallet and you find it it is beneficial for you.


Quote
The fact that you admit that you're using egotism and selfishness to justify how something isn't okay if it's done to you (saying you don't want to be eaten by cannibals) but is okay if it's done to others (saying that others can be cannibals if they want) doesn't prevent you from being a hypocrite.  It just makes you an honest one.
if you exclude selflessness from your moral code you will end being amoral or hypocrite. It just theoretically impossible.

my psychopathic morality came from that fact when I evaluated everything logically I end with no morals at all so i decides to base everything on selfishness. which also includes my empathy and other emotions so that i can justify my actions with my emotions.


Quote
No, it is not scientific proof, unless the documentary compared all possible strategies to see how successful they were.  I highly doubt that it did.  And, in fact, I showed that this strategy has a big flaw to it.  Something that badly flawed can hardly be described as "most successful".  Just because a lot of people tend to instinctively act on that strategy doesn't make it the best strategy or the most successful one, just the most common one.
it was most  evolutionary successful strategy yet invented. if you watch this movie you will find that lots of strategies were submitted and success of then was proportional to how similar to tit for tat they are.

Quote
You are basing this off of a misunderstanding of how evolution actually works.  Evolutionary changes happen to individuals, but the fact that an individual gets some benefit from acting in a certain way doesn't make it an evolutionary change.
Ok assume that we have perfect society with perfect empathy. then some psychopath is born.
he gets lots of help and gives none what provides him big advantage.
It is all i that movie.

Quote
No, what you proved is that it's whether the punishment is perceived as just that matters, not its actual size.  Which is what I said.  Punishments which are too small or too large are not accepted as just and eventually get changed to something that is seen as just.  There are cases where a large punishment can be just (such as dealing with a repeat offender), or a small punishment can be just (someone stealing food because they were starving to death).
still you need some objective criteria to define size of punishment. it makes no sense if punishments are just selected subjectively

Quote
Government may not be especially good with regards to justice, but that is usually because it is a reflection of the common will (when it is not, it is because it does not express the common will in the first place, which is far worse).  What you don't see is that without governments, the job would be done even more poorly than it is already, because the common will would be expressed in an even worse manner than what we have today.
I am for liberal government which only manages common resources and infrastructure while it does not influence lies of specific people.
when government starts acting emotionally it breaks everything.
government is not supposed to express common will it is supposed to enforce contracts that we make to each other.

Quote
Cops don't have the right to hurt you unless you resist arrest or act in a way that is threatening to them.  They don't have the right to kill you unless you are presenting a lethal threat to them.  As far as your question about self-defense rights goes, think about it.  It goes back to the difference between the right to do something and the ability to do something that I touched on before.  I don't have the right to hurt or kill other people, and they don't have the right to do so either.  However, they (and I) do have the ability to hurt or kill other people.  If they try to exercise that ability, they are doing something they don't have the right to do, and I have the right to defend myself against them until they are no longer trying to hurt or kill me.
please don't argue if they have that right, because you may end in place where wearing red shoes is criminal offence punishable by death.
then you have to choose to obey law or to defend yourself against society which invented such law.
again in WW2  Hitler passed laws to arrest and kill Jews so at that time cops were legally killing innocent people  and if you are bystander you can do nothing to help them if you respect the law.

Quote
And as far as your claim that all bets are off for someone who tries to hurt you, this is a flawed statement.  Someone punches you, and you break their neck; you are thus guilty of murder because there is no way you can stretch self-defense to cover killing someone when your own life wasn't in danger.  Even if you didn't kill them, if you used excessive force to subdue or defeat them (for example, they were trying to hurt you, but you were able to stop them, then you hurt them while they were subdued), you would still be guilty of a crime.
as much as I know criminal code, you do not need to respond with adequate force, if you life or property is in danger you can kill attacker. so the best option is to kill in first hit or else you end with problems like in your second example. 


Quote
Not accurate.  I can base an argument on my own opinion and convince people to accept it.  The fact that they accept my argument doesn't mean the basis of that argument becomes objective.  And in either case, they didn't already agree with me, but they changed their minds about it.  So it doesn't have to be based on something objective or prior agreement.
the act of convincing people is just bargaining or tricking them into your belief. and that process is objective.
Something becomes fact that you all agree, so it can be used as reference in further discussions.
if we both agree that life is precious one of us can derive proof that murder is forbidden, but if  there is no agreement on prior statement it cant be used s proof for another.

Offline Truth OT

  • Reader
  • ******
  • Posts: 1451
  • Darwins +88/-7
  • Gender: Male
  • WWGHA Member
Re: Gay "discrimination" hypocrisy
« Reply #91 on: September 29, 2011, 04:47:00 PM »
Do the pros of having marriage of any sort be a legislated issue outweight the cons? Why do these laws for marriage even exist? And what business is it of a governing body what consenting adults want to do with their private lives, with their passing of their possessions, or with the insurance coverage those individuals are willing to PAY FOR to benefit their chosen partner(s)?

Offline Truth OT

  • Reader
  • ******
  • Posts: 1451
  • Darwins +88/-7
  • Gender: Male
  • WWGHA Member
Re: Gay "discrimination" hypocrisy
« Reply #92 on: September 29, 2011, 04:49:55 PM »
I choose to vote for denying gay rights  and do not need any explanation why i do so. If majority decides that gay sex is crime punishable by death then it is completely legal to kill them.

New sig is new.

All I can say is..................DAMN!!!


Offline jaimehlers

  • Fellow
  • *******
  • Posts: 4623
  • Darwins +511/-12
  • Gender: Male
  • WWGHA Member
Re: Gay "discrimination" hypocrisy
« Reply #93 on: September 29, 2011, 06:41:34 PM »
Well, I can't say the argument has been fun, but there's a limit to how long I'm willing to continue arguing with someone who isn't really getting what I'm trying to say, especially when there's a language barrier involved.

Omega, you need to actually spend time reading what other people are trying to tell you.  The fact that nobody in this topic was willing to support what you were saying should have told you that your argument wasn't convincing.

Offline Omega

  • Postgraduate
  • *****
  • Posts: 700
  • Darwins +1/-5
Re: Gay "discrimination" hypocrisy
« Reply #94 on: September 29, 2011, 07:17:13 PM »
Well, I can't say the argument has been fun, but there's a limit to how long I'm willing to continue arguing with someone who isn't really getting what I'm trying to say, especially when there's a language barrier involved.

Omega, you need to actually spend time reading what other people are trying to tell you.  The fact that nobody in this topic was willing to support what you were saying should have told you that your argument wasn't convincing.
I think you already lost in logic, because you refuse to explain your certain claims several times and it is already going in circles.
of course I lost in acceptability because most people prefer to put faith before logic. and i did not even expected to get much of support i just wanted to show your double standards.
if you admit your defeat you become hypocrite :)

also I got some lessons from this discussion to make topic more narrow and avoid sexual topics.
next time it should  something  like "Prove that genocide is immoral"
same as when atheists ask "prove that there is god".

Offline caveat_imperator

  • Undergraduate
  • ***
  • Posts: 197
  • Darwins +6/-0
  • Gender: Male
Re: Gay "discrimination" hypocrisy
« Reply #95 on: September 30, 2011, 12:29:45 AM »
and i did not even expected to get much of support i just wanted to show your double standards.
And you failed spectacularly.
You can't prove a negative of an existence postulate.

Offline Omega

  • Postgraduate
  • *****
  • Posts: 700
  • Darwins +1/-5
Re: Gay "discrimination" hypocrisy
« Reply #96 on: September 30, 2011, 05:23:05 AM »
and i did not even expected to get much of support i just wanted to show your double standards.
And you failed spectacularly.

and what makes you say that?

I asked at least one valid logical question several times and opponent refused to answer it.

Offline jetson

  • Administrator
  • *******
  • Posts: 7268
  • Darwins +169/-6
  • Gender: Male
  • Meet George Jetson!
    • Jet Blog
Re: Gay "discrimination" hypocrisy
« Reply #97 on: October 01, 2011, 07:32:36 AM »
Will all those who both understand and agree with Omega, please rise!

<crickets>

Offline Zankuu

  • Reader
  • ******
  • Posts: 2030
  • Darwins +121/-0
  • Gender: Male
    • I am a Forum Guide
Re: Gay "discrimination" hypocrisy
« Reply #98 on: October 01, 2011, 08:35:21 AM »
I would LOVE for Omega to make a "Prove genocide is immoral" thread.
« Last Edit: October 01, 2011, 08:40:47 AM by Zankuu »
Leave nothing to chance. Overlook nothing. Combine contradictory observations. Allow yourself enough time. -Hippocrates of Cos

Offline 12 Monkeys

  • Fellow
  • *******
  • Posts: 4385
  • Darwins +96/-11
  • Gender: Male
  • Dii hau dang ijii
Re: Gay "discrimination" hypocrisy
« Reply #99 on: October 01, 2011, 06:02:07 PM »
Quote
What rights are gays demanding?
Gays want to  change laws to adjust them for gay marriages and ability to demonstrate their sexuality in public while still leaving everything else as it was before.
if other perverts do not get similar upgrade to their rights then I do not see why gay rights  should be upgraded.
right for marriage is not so useless. it is same as if black people get white people rights.
once you can marry you get ability to adopt children you get security bonuses in Sweden you even get free Viagra.


Pedophiles are different, if the pedophiles practice because they are harming children.
Swingers are different if they do the swinging without the consent of their partners.
you probably confused pedophiles and swingers with molesters and rapists.

usually pedophiles just love children and do not want to harm them, I had chance to talk with some of them and they seem to be quite nice guys.
swingers like orgies where they swap their wife's or girlfriends and they do all that with consent.

Quote
Bi-sexuals? Well, I'd suppose thier status could also depend on whether their partner knows or not and whether they do multiple people at once.
how is cheating related to legality of specific sexuality? does i mean straight or gay do not cheat?
WTF pedophiles are fine upstanding citizens, who just wanna fuck children and NOT harm them,,,,is this what you are actually saying? ARE YOU SERIOUS?
There's no right there's no wrong,there's just popular opinion (Brad Pitt as Jeffery Goines in 12 monkeys)

Offline 12 Monkeys

  • Fellow
  • *******
  • Posts: 4385
  • Darwins +96/-11
  • Gender: Male
  • Dii hau dang ijii
Re: Gay "discrimination" hypocrisy
« Reply #100 on: October 01, 2011, 06:06:54 PM »
just replace word "enslave" into word "marry"  and we can legally throw them to jail.

You don't seem to understand the concept of harming people.
Quote
anyone is free to do anything with anyone else if they both agree on that. opinions of other people does not matter at all.
This is only moral value I have.

I suspect, this is untrue. Your logic seems sarcastic. Are you playing devil's advocate? Are you religious and of the opinion that morality doesn't exist without God?

actually i am fighting for freedom. so that everyone could do with own live whatever he likes .
morality only applies when you interact with others it does not apply to what you do to yourself.
In this discussion i want to eliminate all subjective arguments. and base everything just on logic,  so my responses to subjective claims are sarcastic.

My concept of harming people is, when I do to them what they do not want me to do. Of course certain types of harm are allowed.
Like when a priest takes a little boy and rapes him....is this what your last line of the post refers to....you sir are an IDIOT
There's no right there's no wrong,there's just popular opinion (Brad Pitt as Jeffery Goines in 12 monkeys)

Offline 12 Monkeys

  • Fellow
  • *******
  • Posts: 4385
  • Darwins +96/-11
  • Gender: Male
  • Dii hau dang ijii
Re: Gay "discrimination" hypocrisy
« Reply #101 on: October 01, 2011, 06:12:41 PM »
What the fucking fuck?  :o

Alright, let me try and hit each point in this thread...

a) Same-sex couples deserve the same exact rights that heterosexual couples deserve. Neither group should be entitled to exclusive rights over the other group.

b) It is illegal for any adult to have sex with any minor, regardless of whether it is same-sex or not. I fully agree with this.

c) Pedophiles do not chose to be attracted to children, they are born that way. I am against thought crime. As far as I'm concerned, they can fantasize as much as they like as long as they do no act on those fantasies in real life with actual children.

d) Child porn, where the abuse of a real life child is on tape, is illegal and should fucking stay that way. When people download child porn they are creating demand for the same which fuels the black markets that are using and exploiting children to meet that demand.

e) Cartoon depictions of child porn should not be illegal. In that case, no child was actually harmed.

f) Anyone ... single, married or other... should be allowed to adopt children, regardless of their sexual orientation, provided they meet the requirements for adoption.

There... I think I hit everything.
Some pedophiles are pedophiles because they were molested or worse when they were kids and now the bug is in their brain that it is somehow ok or justifiable (it is NOT)
There's no right there's no wrong,there's just popular opinion (Brad Pitt as Jeffery Goines in 12 monkeys)

Offline 12 Monkeys

  • Fellow
  • *******
  • Posts: 4385
  • Darwins +96/-11
  • Gender: Male
  • Dii hau dang ijii
Re: Gay "discrimination" hypocrisy
« Reply #102 on: October 01, 2011, 06:21:24 PM »
usually pedophiles just love children and do not want to harm them, I had chance to talk with some of them and they seem to be quite nice guys.

Yeah, they don't wanna hurt anyone. They just love children. Just wants the little children to enjoy his dick in their various orifices.
this statment by Omega has to be the most retarded thing I have ever read
There's no right there's no wrong,there's just popular opinion (Brad Pitt as Jeffery Goines in 12 monkeys)

Offline curiousgirl

  • Postgraduate
  • *****
  • Posts: 886
  • Darwins +22/-0
  • Gender: Female
  • Inquisitive agnostic atheist
Re: Gay "discrimination" hypocrisy
« Reply #103 on: October 01, 2011, 08:14:35 PM »
usually pedophiles just love children and do not want to harm them, I had chance to talk with some of them and they seem to be quite nice guys.

I agree, 12 Monkeys. Omega's comment pisses me off because I would never want my 2-year-old son to get "love" from a pedophile. What I want to know is:

A. What is Omega doing talking with pedophiles?

B. How did he know they were pedophiles? Did they show him some child porn or tell him the crimes they've committed? If they did so and he did not report them to the cops, IMO he is just as disgusting as they are.
"Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence."-Carl Sagan

Offline Astreja

  • Fellow
  • *******
  • Posts: 2930
  • Darwins +237/-1
  • Gender: Female
  • Agnostic goddess with Clue-by-Four™
    • The Springy Goddess
Re: Gay "discrimination" hypocrisy
« Reply #104 on: October 01, 2011, 11:15:04 PM »
(by the way you were able to obtain child porn legal about 50 year ago, so i may find a stack of legally obtained images under my grandpas  bed :) )

They're not legal now, Omega. If there is indeed a stack of child porn under your grandpa's bed,  I strongly advise you to destroy it at the first possible opportunity.

Laws change constantly, sometimes for ill but usually in the direction of a more equitable society.  In Canada before 1969, it was illegal to be gay.  Now GLBT Canadians can marry, and have numerous other rights and protections.  I realize that correlation is not causation, but the level of tolerance in My country does seem to go hand-in-hand with a pretty good standard of living.  It might be that the removal of social barriers allows people to work together more effectively, and draw upon a greater variety of talents.

Quote
yes you can't accidentally rape someone but you can be raped accidentally, because rapist chooses victims randomly, so being raped is misfortune.

This is not an accurate assessment of rape.  Many rapists attack someone whom they know, and the choice is not 100% random.
Reality Checkroom — Not Responsible for Lost Articles

Offline Omega

  • Postgraduate
  • *****
  • Posts: 700
  • Darwins +1/-5
Re: Gay "discrimination" hypocrisy
« Reply #105 on: October 25, 2011, 03:52:42 PM »
They're not legal now, Omega. If there is indeed a stack of child porn under your grandpa's bed,  I strongly advise you to destroy it at the first possible opportunity.

Laws change constantly, sometimes for ill but usually in the direction of a more equitable society.  In Canada before 1969, it was illegal to be gay.  Now GLBT Canadians can marry, and have numerous other rights and protections.  I realize that correlation is not causation, but the level of tolerance in My country does seem to go hand-in-hand with a pretty good standard of living.  It might be that the removal of social barriers allows people to work together more effectively, and draw upon a greater variety of talents.

we were discussing that child porn is illegal because it is obtained illegally, so my argument was that I can obtain it legal so in that case it must be legal, or you need to ind another objective reason to prove why it is illegal


Quote
Quote
yes you can't accidentally rape someone but you can be raped accidentally, because rapist chooses victims randomly, so being raped is misfortune.
This is not an accurate assessment of rape.  Many rapists attack someone whom they know, and the choice is not 100% random.
this is not important. I just used that to compare rape with natural accident.

Offline Omega

  • Postgraduate
  • *****
  • Posts: 700
  • Darwins +1/-5
Re: Gay "discrimination" hypocrisy
« Reply #106 on: October 25, 2011, 04:04:46 PM »
usually pedophiles just love children and do not want to harm them, I had chance to talk with some of them and they seem to be quite nice guys.

I agree, 12 Monkeys. Omega's comment pisses me off because I would never want my 2-year-old son to get "love" from a pedophile.
You just display your ignorance, or you are using argument of straw man.

Quote
What I want to know is:
A. What is Omega doing talking with pedophiles?
I am doing research.

Quote
B. How did he know they were pedophiles? Did they show him some child porn or tell him the crimes they've committed? If they did so and he did not report them to the cops, IMO he is just as disgusting as they are.
I talk not only with pedophiles but also with murderers kidnappers  and rapists. Not sure if they are real or jut pretending. Cops are free to talk with them too.
I was just unable to talk with terrorists since these people are too stupid.

However,  if you never had any chance to talk with any of these people, how can you judge them?

Offline Omega

  • Postgraduate
  • *****
  • Posts: 700
  • Darwins +1/-5
Re: Gay "discrimination" hypocrisy
« Reply #107 on: October 25, 2011, 04:13:12 PM »
Like when a priest takes a little boy and rapes him....is this what your last line of the post refers to....you sir are an IDIOT
[/quote]
You should not take quotes out of context


Quote
WTF pedophiles are fine upstanding citizens, who just wanna fuck children and NOT harm them,,,,is this what you are actually saying? ARE YOU SERIOUS?
Yes I am seriuos.
and I you disagree please prove I am wrong using objective information.


Quote
Some pedophiles are pedophiles because they were molested or worse when they were kids and now the bug is in their brain that it is somehow ok or justifiable (it is NOT)
your knowledge is just terrible.
you look like christian who talks about evolution.

Offline nogodsforme

  • Professor
  • ********
  • Posts: 6200
  • Darwins +782/-4
  • Gender: Female
  • Jehovah's Witness Protection Program
Re: Gay "discrimination" hypocrisy
« Reply #108 on: October 25, 2011, 04:21:22 PM »
I have never talked to Pol Pot. I can still condemn him.

BTW I do know a child molester. I have visited him in jail.[1] He should stay there. He does not think he did anything wrong, although the child he hurt will be in counseling for a long time. I think molesters should have to stay in jail at least until the person they molested is mentally healthy and whole again.
 1. He is, of course, becoming religious--surprise, surprise. Maybe Jesus is hiding under prison bunks, since so many people find him in jail.
Extraordinary claims of the bible don't even have ordinary evidence.

Kids aren't paying attention most of the time in science classes so it seems silly to get worked up over ID being taught in schools.

Offline Omega

  • Postgraduate
  • *****
  • Posts: 700
  • Darwins +1/-5
Re: Gay "discrimination" hypocrisy
« Reply #109 on: October 25, 2011, 05:02:21 PM »
I have never talked to Pol Pot. I can still condemn him.
On what data you base your condemnation i you don't know anything about him?
what if government is lying to you?

Quote
BTW I do know a child molester. I have visited him in jail.[1] He should stay there. He does not think he did anything wrong, although the child he hurt will be in counseling for a long time. I think molesters should have to stay in jail at least until the person they molested is mentally healthy and whole again.
 1. He is, of course, becoming religious--surprise, surprise. Maybe Jesus is hiding under prison bunks, since so many people find him in jail.

So just because you know one you know them all?
also i would be interested to evaluate that harm he done before judging.
usually most harm comes from victimization. 






Offline nogodsforme

  • Professor
  • ********
  • Posts: 6200
  • Darwins +782/-4
  • Gender: Female
  • Jehovah's Witness Protection Program
Re: Gay "discrimination" hypocrisy
« Reply #110 on: October 25, 2011, 05:37:08 PM »
I have never talked to Pol Pot. I can still condemn him.
On what data you base your condemnation i you don't know anything about him?
what if government is lying to you?

Quote
BTW I do know a child molester. I have visited him in jail.[1] He should stay there. He does not think he did anything wrong, although the child he hurt will be in counseling for a long time. I think molesters should have to stay in jail at least until the person they molested is mentally healthy and whole again.
 1. He is, of course, becoming religious--surprise, surprise. Maybe Jesus is hiding under prison bunks, since so many people find him in jail.

So just because you know one you know them all?
also i would be interested to evaluate that harm he done before judging.
usually most harm comes from victimization.
You are changing the rules. You said you had to know someone to condemn them. I don't agree. You can know what someone did and condemn them. If Pol Pot did what every witness statement and historical account says he did, then I can condemn him. If he did not do all those things, and thousands of documents and millions of witnesses and survivors are all lying, then poor Pol Pot is one of the most unlucky victims of mistaken identification in history.

And do you have to personally know every single person who does something bad to decide that something is bad? Do I have to meet and chat with Jeffrey Dahmer before I decide it is wrong to kidnap people, torture them, kill them, cut them into pieces, store the pieces in the freezer and eat them? Why would I have to hear his rationale or explanation?  What could he possibly say that would change my mind that he is one dangerously sick eff you see kay and should never see the light of day again?   Anyone who did the same thing would get the same reaction from me.

It would be impossible to formulate rules and laws if every single case is a special case.
Extraordinary claims of the bible don't even have ordinary evidence.

Kids aren't paying attention most of the time in science classes so it seems silly to get worked up over ID being taught in schools.

Offline Omega

  • Postgraduate
  • *****
  • Posts: 700
  • Darwins +1/-5
Re: Gay "discrimination" hypocrisy
« Reply #111 on: October 25, 2011, 07:14:58 PM »
Quote
You said you had to know someone to condemn them. I don't agree.
I think I did not said that you need to meet that person, but you need to know what he did and what are results of that action.
if you really objectively evaluated evidence then its fine.
but if you  condemn Pol Pot  just because everyone condemns him then you are unfair.


We have good example in Christianity: Satan is accused or all evil possible while biblical evidence shows that he is probably nicest guy on earth.
God is worst possible monster  according to  "evidence", but he is  considered as example of goodness.

Also, we condemn Bin Laden for killing Americans, but nobody condemns Bush or Obama for killing far more innocent  Iraqi and Afghanistan people.

If you would check all evidence yourself you can come to conclusion that Bin Laden is not as bad as you imagine him.

Offline Gnu Ordure

  • Fellow
  • *******
  • Posts: 3832
  • Darwins +109/-9
  • Gender: Male
Re: Gay "discrimination" hypocrisy
« Reply #112 on: October 25, 2011, 07:21:21 PM »
Quote
Quote
A. What is Omega doing talking with pedophiles?
I am doing research.
Interesting. Where and how and why are you doing this research? Are you a professional researcher? Just curious...
« Last Edit: October 25, 2011, 09:04:57 PM by Gnu Ordure »

Offline 12 Monkeys

  • Fellow
  • *******
  • Posts: 4385
  • Darwins +96/-11
  • Gender: Male
  • Dii hau dang ijii
Re: Gay "discrimination" hypocrisy
« Reply #113 on: October 25, 2011, 08:11:05 PM »
Quote
You said you had to know someone to condemn them. I don't agree.
I think I did not said that you need to meet that person, but you need to know what he did and what are results of that action.
if you really objectively evaluated evidence then its fine.
but if you  condemn Pol Pot  just because everyone condemns him then you are unfair.


We have good example in Christianity: Satan is accused or all evil possible while biblical evidence shows that he is probably nicest guy on earth.
God is worst possible monster  according to  "evidence", but he is  considered as example of goodness.

Also, we condemn Bin Laden for killing Americans, but nobody condemns Bush or Obama for killing far more innocent  Iraqi and Afghanistan people.

If you would check all evidence yourself you can come to conclusion that Bin Laden is not as bad as you imagine him.
It just depends on who you ask,,,,islamists consider BinLaden a fine upstanding citizen and Bush a terrorist. Americans the opposite.
There's no right there's no wrong,there's just popular opinion (Brad Pitt as Jeffery Goines in 12 monkeys)

Offline 12 Monkeys

  • Fellow
  • *******
  • Posts: 4385
  • Darwins +96/-11
  • Gender: Male
  • Dii hau dang ijii
Re: Gay "discrimination" hypocrisy
« Reply #114 on: October 25, 2011, 08:12:15 PM »
I have never talked to Pol Pot. I can still condemn him.
On what data you base your condemnation i you don't know anything about him?
what if government is lying to you?

Quote
BTW I do know a child molester. I have visited him in jail.[1] He should stay there. He does not think he did anything wrong, although the child he hurt will be in counseling for a long time. I think molesters should have to stay in jail at least until the person they molested is mentally healthy and whole again.
 1. He is, of course, becoming religious--surprise, surprise. Maybe Jesus is hiding under prison bunks, since so many people find him in jail.

So just because you know one you know them all?
also i would be interested to evaluate that harm he done before judging.
usually most harm comes from victimization.
You mean when I said pedophiles may have been victims of pedophiles when they were children?
There's no right there's no wrong,there's just popular opinion (Brad Pitt as Jeffery Goines in 12 monkeys)

Offline Omega

  • Postgraduate
  • *****
  • Posts: 700
  • Darwins +1/-5
Re: Gay "discrimination" hypocrisy
« Reply #115 on: October 25, 2011, 08:21:17 PM »
Quote
Quote
A. What is Omega doing talking with pedophiles?
I am doing research.
Interesting. Where and how are you doing this research? Are you a professional researcher? Just curious...

No, I am not professional researcher in that area . I am doing that for myself as hobby, mostly because I want to be able to identify people and find a ways to manipulate them.
I read books about psychology and sexuality, and when possible try to check if my ideas are correct.

I am mostly interested why people act in some ways and how to convince them to change their minds.

other topics o my research is what is the best way to deconvert someone from religion.