Your definition of what is "immoral" is completely out of whack and that is the problem. So too, no one is forcing you to take your children outside.
Thanks. I know it is b/c it's true.
If you choose to believe that sex is "evil"
Where have I said that?
Do you not believe that sex outside of marriage is a "sin" and therefore evil? This is the context we've been talking about. Have you not been paying attention?
or that human physiology has some "satanic", "spiritual", "dark" mumbo jumbo attached to it (which is just nonsense anyways)
Where have I said that?
Is humanity, for you, not "fallen", "sinful", and therefore against God? Is this not what you believe?
I'm not sorry the truth inconveniences you. Perhaps if you had children you love, you'd have cause to think on these things and how it affects them.
You haven't spoken any "truth". All you're doing here (like everyone else in the world does) is expressing your own personal subjective option of what "immoral" means. That is leagues
from actually showing that an act, thought, or intention by a person (or persons) is actually "objectively" immoral.
Who ever said anything about "promoting sex"? Now you are just being dishonest (lying for Jesus) and misrepresenting my position.
Where did I accuse you of promoting sex?
My apologize. I misread your prior statement. The question still remains as to how you can correlate advertising with people's decisions to do harm. And what exactly is the "promoting sex" you keeping talking about? Are you talking about Las Vegas hookers? Billboard ads with bikinis? Where exactly is this harm being done, and to whom? Btw, you didn't deal with the logical fallacy I noted in your previous argument.
We live in a free society.
no one is forcing you to take your children outside.
Something is wrong with these two statements. You mean you want to live in a free society and to hell with how I feel? Do you somehow benefit if sex is plastered everywhere in society? If it is moral then show me the benefit to society.
A few things here. First, you are just factually incorrect. This assertion of sex being "plastered everywhere" is just your illusion. I'm looking outside my window right now. NOPE! No sex there. EDIT: I just drove an hour down the freeway and back, near my home here in southern California. NOPE! No sexual billboards. Sorry, it's not "everywhere". Second, what exactly is being called "sex" here, and how exactly are you attempting to argue that it's harmful to people in general?
Eating hamburgers can cause heart decease, cancer, childhood obesity, and lots more.
No. Eating too many of them can. So would you say eating too many of them is beneficial or detrimental to society? Moral or immoral?
Neither, eating too many 'whatevers' is a personal choice that one must take responsibility for. But even if it were
the case that (somehow) eating too many whatevers was harmful to a person, it is still their choice to harm themselves and therefore the consequences are upon them.
So now let's replace hamburger (or whatevers) with sex. How much is "too much" and (more importantly) how can you demonstrate it? By what rational method can you actually demonstrate that sex between adults is "immoral"?
Driving cars causes carbon monoxide in the air (which is cancerous), and cars are dangerous. People use them as weapons all the time. Are you looking to ban those now too?
I've not suggested anything be banned.
But that is irrelevant to the point being made. You brought up exceptional cases where specific unfavorable results have derived from people having sex (implying that sex outside of marriage is "immoral" and that society shouldn't be aloud to promote/"plaster" it on the billboards, as it were - and this in similar fashion to the mere possibility of any-body
to harm any-one else
). And my response was that people INSIDE of marriage can logically have the same results. So by your own reasoning, ALL sex is immoral because it can
lead to people doing harmful things to each other (regardless of whether it is IN marriage or not). So then, the question of sexual morality or immorality has nothing to do with marriage. Agreed?
If you do not agree, then please demonstrate how exactly "sex" (in the way you are attempting to describe it) is somehow "immoral" or harmful to others in a way that is NOT potentially harmful in EVERY context of sexuality. The implications of what you are suggesting is that because anybody can hurt anyone with just about anything, we shouldn't have billboards at all. Are you willing to bite that bullet?
Now, STDs (including AIDS) can effect married people too.
I never said it didnt.
Great. Then I'm sure you won't mind admitting that what is moral or immoral, pertaining to sexuality, has nothing to do with marriage.
I guess sex, as a whole, is just immoral then (according to your twisted logic) right?!
I've never said that.
You may not have said it, but that is the logical conclusion of your argument.
Unwanted pregnancies aren't directly "harming" anyone either (and married people have them too!).
So then as long as it's not direct then it's okay?
This depends upon what you mean by "okay". The application of moral principles are often complicated and require a consideration of all the relevant facts. Since you haven't really presented any actual facts as to how putting sexy ladies on billboards directly causes
unwanted pregnancies I guess I'll wait for you to produce that evidence. This should be interesting.
They may be an inconvenience but most people deal with it and either have the child and do their best or allow for adoption. Again, your attempt here fails because it applies to married couples as well.
So then because it happens to married couples everything else goes too? Is this beneficial or detrimental?
It greatly depends upon the situation. Not all of them are the same and if you are attempting to reduce down every case to some simpleton blanket terms then I'm not buying it. Just because a woman gets pregnant unexpectedly does not in any way mean the action was immoral. Is this what you are implying?
Regarding abortion, married couples have them too!
And that makes sexual immorality okay?
You keep using this term without actually defining it in the manner in which you are using it. Are you really that dense to not know that we do not agree on what is sexually "immoral"? If not, then please stop making statements like this and define your terms better.
Consenting adult can do whatever they want. I don't like seeing sex plastered everywhere. Can you understand the difference?
Do you like smog coming from your own tailpipe? How about the trash that you send out each week which winds up polluting the oceans? Is it immoral or necessary? There aren't any 'absolute' answers to these questions because morality is defined by human beings each, and although definitions are ultimately arbitrary (and agreed upon by people) they also can be meaningful/non-meaningful, rational/irrational.
It's too bad your religion has caused you to think this way.
My beliefs protect me from Aids, STDs, unwanted pregnancies, and abortions. That's freedom.
Well great, but you've just gone off into a red herring (and question begging) because you haven't established that STDs, unwanted pregnancies, or abortions are (in and of themselves) "immoral". You've just claimed it without evidence.
My children looking at hamburgers, water, or anything of that nature does not offend me. While I think the over commercialism of fast food is bad, I am not offended by a picture of a hamburger.
Oh so, what is "immoral" then for you is only about what offends
you? It doesn't have anything to do with actual evidence or sound reasoning? If so please present the actual evidence and not just what offends you personally. I thought we already dealt with this when you agreed that morality has do with what is (unnecessarily) harmful or beneficial.
I'd like to see you prove the case that people having sex, in and of itself, is "detrimental" or harmful to others.
I never said that.
Then what are you complaining about, billboards? Is it the billboards themselves
that you are complaining about, or the "sex outside of marriage" (which you think the billboards causes) that you are coming against? If it's the latter, then again, please demonstrate the causation between the two. You do know that correlation does not equal causation, don't you?
Again, do you want to ban the use of motor vehicles? Because those can be "detrimental" as well. How about banning kitchen knives? They cut people a lot!
I haven't suggested banning anything.
This sounds like double think. First you say you are against the billboards (implying that you want them taken down and/or not allowed - which is the equivalent of a ban), and now you're saying you do not
want to stop the billboards?? Make up your mind dude.
You are attempting another logical fallacy (called the converse accident fallacy) - trying to take exceptional cases and apply them to the whole. That is irrational.
"The prudent see danger and take refuge, but the simple keep going and pay the penalty." (Proverbs 27:12) There is no fallacy there.
Just quoting me a bible verse and then CLAIMING that your previous fallacious argument is not a fallacious argument
doesn't in anyway change the fact that it is a fallacious argument.
You attempted to use exceptional cases and make them apply to the general whole. That is fallacious reasoning.
Btw, your vague Proverbs passage doesn't say anything specific about this case, nor does it justify your logically fallacious argument. And even if it did, why are you siting it? Is it just because your personal interpretation
(oh wait no, I mean the Watchtowers interpretation which you bought into) is that it applies here? Well, it's been mentioned before here. Your theological assumptions are not sufficient here (just like a Mormon or Muslims theological assumptions would not be accepted by you
). The fact that you would just jump to bible thumping is very telling of your confirmation bias toward the theology that you assumed from the outset. It's still hypocrisy.