patrick.net

There is really no mental superiority. There is only one will over another.

Bap33 says

I do have a question about the male/male sodomite thing: Do those that center their lives around deviant sex have different names for the masculine male and the feminine male?

In your case Bap, the former is called Fred Phelps. The latter is called Bap, as in you got screwed by Fred Phelps. He has made a fortune off your pain, and left you with only self-loathing. But, as in many abusive relationships, you continue to take his side. He's got you believing that you can't find a better man.

Peter P says

Homosexuality is not a mental disorder. It is a lifestyle choice. And for that we should celebrate its existence.

"Mental disorder" might not be the best description, in my opinion. I submit that the unnatural behavior of the masculine male/male sodomite indicates a birth defect on the same level as any other maniacal defect. I also submit that the behavior of the feminine male/male sodomite indicates a glandular birth defect. The former may only be a perverted mind expressing a dominance just short of forced rape. That may be tuff to treat. The latter is obviously suffering from a mis-firing hormone that can be treated. I suggest birth defect may be a better expression, and we should save these people from being abused, just as we save Downs people from being abused.

Dan,
that page didn't load. I figued you would have a short hand answer. I was not making any type of arugement about that issues. Just asking a question that I think helps shape the point.

Bap33 says

I submit....

Yes, or at least you keep trying to.

Bap33 says

we should save these people from being abused

Now you're asking for a government bailout? We keep telling you, just put some lube in first and make sure he wears a condom.

Peter P says

There is really no mental superiority. There is only one will over another.

correct you are. From whence, or upon what, is "will" normally hinged?

Bap33 says

Dan8267 says

convincing medical evidence

he wrote a paper, and there are footnotes at the end for double checking. What more is normally required before something wrote by a doctor is called "medical evidence"?

The only peer review of his work that I could find was http://publicaddress.net/hardnews/counting/

Dr Whitehead's claims about the potential impact of the Civil Unions Bill can, quite fairly and with due respect for the passion of his convictions, be rejected. His argument is flawed. His "research method" seems little more sophisticated than joining dots on a two-dimensional plane. He superficially connects observations from some published studies of genetic and environmental factors in human sexuality and mental health. The pattern that emerges is a distorted caricature of existing knowledge that lacks depth and complexity. It adds nothing to serious, informed debate about the nature of homosexuality or the ways in which a civil society should formulate law.

The essential problem is that Dr Whitehead's research is quasi-science. He has strayed far beyond his field of expertise. His training and professional experience, and his publications in academic journals, are almost entirely in geological and nuclear science. I conducted an exhaustive search of his research papers listed by Thompson ISI Web of Science (the international standard search tool for scientific information). Although Dr Whitehead claims he has researched the field of sexuality for 13 years, this effort has been entirely unproductive. My search revealed no empirical study of human sexuality and indeed no systematic review on the topic that has been accepted by internationally recognised, peer-reviewed journals. His three books are populist and are not published by mainstream academic publishers that require scientific review. Thus, they are not regarded as serious works in the field of human sexuality.

Bap33 says

I submit that the unnatural behavior of the masculine male/male sodomite indicates a birth defect on the same level as any other maniacal defect.

Examples of unnatural behavior common in human beings... You know, shit that other animals don't do and that our Stone Age ancestors didn't either.

- Skydiving
- Flying in giant metal machines
- Boating
- Shooting guns (there's fucking nothing less natural than a gun)
- holding court
- Congress (ok, bad example, that is deviant behavior)
- surgery
- marriage (including the heterosexual type)
- imprisonment (oh, wait, I already mentioned marriage)
- driving
- NASCAR
- writing
- maintaining a police force

So, how exactly is unnatural behavior evil?

Examples of natural behavior in human beings... You know, shit that other animals do and our Stone Age ancestors actually did.

- Shitting on the ground
- Rape
- War
- Flinging poo
- Murder
- Neglecting babies until they die of starvation
- Running around naked

So, how exactly is natural behavior good? Bap, weren't you the guy who complained about humans acting like animals? That's natural behavior. Law and order are unnatural.

Bap33 says

elliemae says

Maybe if I tattooed the info on my breasts & jumped up & down wearing a barely-there bra?

proof that I am not gay!

LOL - Elliemae's joke, in a thread about ObamaCare that Bap69 had not even commented in, doesn't prove anything about Bap, but his reply proves that he's desperately grabbing any shred of hope to deny what he refuses to accept he really is. Reasons why people want to believe in a god include the fact that they refuse to accept their own mortality, and in Bap's case his own sexuality. In both instances, obsessive fervor reflects desperation, not objective belief.

Dan8267 says

michaelsch says

Dan8267 says

No, objective means that the creator of the morality is irrelevant.

Another example of your bullshit!

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Objectivity_(philosophy)

Oh yes, because Wikipedia is the ultimate authority on all subject matter.

Only the intellectually lazy use Wikipedia. It is foolish and stupid. Get a real source. One that isn't dominated by dumb-ass kids, plagiarizers, and corporate and government agencies with political agendas.

OK, now it's Wikipedia's fault. A real source is Dan's invention, is it?

I can give you other links, like to http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/objective, but it saems useless, you are not interested in objective definitions.

Let's concentrate on your private definition of your "objective" morality. After all you've used this word, therefore you should have a right to define it the way you want, correct?

Dan8267 says

An objective moral code is no more or less likely to be accepted by a person X before and after person X's status and situation (race, gender, nationality, wealth, social or political power, etc.) is randomized.

A subjective moral code is more or less likely to be accepted by a person X depending on his status and situation.

You speak about moral code, i.e. about a codified morality. What makes you thinking such an "objective" code even exists? Could you please come up with an example of such a code? AFAIK, all moral codes that existed in human history were "subjective".

Do you think a complete moral code may be even theoretically formulated?
BTW, do you understand that such an assumption contradicts Gödel's incompleteness theorems?

Or maybe you think there is an ideal "objective" moral code common to all, which can't be completely formulated? In this case how is it different from an objectively existing morality, to which Christians believe, a man may communicate by the Grace of the Holy Spirit?

Dan, you keep juggling terms and definitions, but it does not make your position consistent.

Dan8267 says

You can call my writings bullshit all you want. Most people understand what I say and don't misinterpret them as you do.

I called bullshit those of your writing, in which You do not understand what you say and misinterpret them afterwards.

Unfortunately in some cases I abused this word trying to parodize your style, for these I apologize.

I had hoped this thread would go away but a certain user with a hunky avatar kept bringing it back when it dropped off the front page. Now it's back due to the debate about moral systems, and if I may summarize both Dan and Michael make good points.

The Best Comparisons award goes to Dan for saying moral systems are like bridges, where many different designs all depend on the same principles of engineering. A badly designed bridge may collapse suddenly, while a well designed bridge has a much better chance of enduring. A sound moral system should, in fact, be fair to all participants, like cutting a pie into pieces where the person who cuts is the last to choose his own slice.

Yet as Michael pointed out, empirical observation shows moral codes tend to be subjective.

I like the combination of these two ideas because it provides a valid tool to compare different systems of morality. For example, we can observe that the Islamic/Islamist world has a system of morality that is inherently unfair to many or most of the people who live there, and it produces volatility, and they have paid a terrible price in productivity. The entire GDP of the entire Muslim world, more than 1 billion people, adds up to around the GDP of Spain. If we evaluate moral systems like bridge designs, we may see ways to optimize existing systems of morality in ways that might improve fairness and stability and productivity, resulting in a healthier system with more successful results.

BTW, Wikipedia is never a source in itself, by its own admission. Rather, it is a place to look for sources. The text of articles can be changed by anyone, and should be considered mainly as a loose narrative presenting the source links. Citing Wikipedia is like chasing the wind, but you can use Wikipedia to retrieve sources in the same way sailors use the wind to bring back fish.

michaelsch says

I can give you other links, like to http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/objective, but it saems useless, you are not interested in objective definitions.

From that site,

3a : expressing or dealing with facts or conditions as perceived without distortion by personal feelings, prejudices, or interpretations

Exactly what I meant. Not hard to understand.

michaelsch says

OK, now it's Wikipedia's fault

Only a fool believes what he reads on Wikipedia. I quote peer-reviewed journals and site real scientific experiments. I've discussed in many other threads why Wikipedia is full of misinformation and why it should not be trusted. Just because every idiot thinks he looks smart by quoting Wikipedia, doesn't make him smart.

Remember when you were in high school or even junior high and the teacher told you not to be lazy and use an encyclopedia for research but rather to get your ass to the library? Well, that applies a thousand more times to Wikipedia since it's so damn untrustworthy. And if you can't Goggle why Wikipedia is untrustworthy, than you are too dumb to accept that fact so there's no point in discussing the issue. I would not have to persuade anyone with even half a brain that Wikipedia is propaganda.

michaelsch says

You speak about moral code, i.e. about a codified morality. What makes you thinking such an "objective" code even exists?

http://www.gutenberg.org/files/17150/17150-h/17150-h.htm

michaelsch says

Do you think a complete moral code may be even theoretically formulated?

Irrelevant. Moral systems like any software could be constructed and refined with continuous integration. This is how complex systems are typically developed today. Whether or not the software ever reaches a "final, complete" stage is irrelevant. Construction of the system is still done the exact same way, through iterative refinement.

michaelsch says

BTW, do you understand that such an assumption contradicts Gödel's incompleteness theorems?

No, it doesn't. Gödel's Incompleteness Theorem relates to the provability of statements in Number Theory. Nor does generalizing this theorem imply that a system cannot be proven correct or consistent from an outside observer. Please note that I have actually studied this shit in depth and was tested on this subject matter in detail during both undergraduate and graduate studies. I have taken a course in Number Theory and another course in Computing Theory as well as other related courses. I guarantee you that I understand the works of Gödel's and Turing a hell of a lot more than a non-professional who skimmed over a Wikipedia page. Your rank amateur misunderstanding of Gödel's and Turing isn't going to impress me. Build a complete, working computer from the gate level up, as I have done, and then we can talk.

It's really sad when people outside of a field think they are more expert in it than a person who has spent tens of thousands of hours studying and working in that field. It takes an enormous amount of time and effort to become a true expert in any field.

michaelsch says

n this case how is it different from an objectively existing morality, to which Christians believe, a man may communicate by the Grace of the Holy Spirit?

Jesus Christ! First you want to limit statements regarding morality on Gödel's Incompleteness Theorem and now you want to invoke a supernatural basis for morality. Which is it? You can't have both.

The Christian god cannot even exist as I have formally proved in this thread. [Note: Seems like the comments were deleted or some bug in site.] Basing morality on superstition is stupid. If you don't understand why, then just try basing your morality on someone else's superstition like Islam's. When you understand why you don't accept their myths as a basis for morality, you'll understand why I don't accept your myths as a basis for morality.

curious2 says

Now it's back due to the debate about moral systems, and if I may summarize both Dan and Michael make good points.

Yes, and we should get the thread back on track. If michaelsch wants to debate the existence of god or the nature/origins of morality in general, then open a new thread. This thread deals specifically with whether or not gay sex is immoral. And so far, each of the few arguments for considering gay sex to be immoral have been proven logically flawed and contradictory.

curious2 says

BTW, Wikipedia is never a source in itself, by its own admission. Rather, it is a place to look for sources. The text of articles can be changed by anyone, and should be considered mainly as a loose narrative presenting the source links. Citing Wikipedia is like chasing the wind, but you can use Wikipedia to retrieve sources in the same way sailors use the wind to bring back fish.

Whenever I point out how god-awful Wikipedia is in distributing information -- it's worst than Fox News -- someone always tries to mitigate the awfulness by suggesting that Wikipedia could be a starting point for research. Unfortunately, the biases and manipulation of Wikipedia articles makes it counterproductive to use it even as a starting point for looking up references. This is because the people that hijack articles will always point you towards material that supports their agenda and away from material that contradicts their agenda.

You are far better off just using a Google search and skipping over the Wikipedia entries and anything that scraps Wikipedia. Sure, Google searches do have biases built into them, but at least those biases are based on what Google thinks you want rather than some nefarious secret agenda. For example, an article on a product may direct you to research that shows the product is safe and healthy and any attempts to add references to studies that show it is not safe will be removed as not NPOV. You can't trust Wikipedia on any subject that involves politics, history, products, companies, profits, religion, or social agendas, i.e, anything that someone might have a vested interest in. If Wikipedia had been around in the early 1940s, all references to the Holocaust would be reverted as not NPOV.

Dan8267 says

You are far better off just using a Google search and skipping over the Wikipedia entries and anything that scraps Wikipedia.

In research as in morality, objectivity can be elusive. Your valid criticisms of Wikipedia provide perspective but don't entirely endorse Google either. Companies including PR agencies make $$$ in fields like Search Engine Optimization (SEO), getting their clients' names and products and POV to the top of the search ranks including especially Google News. For example, PhRMA has become relentless and adroit in manipulating both commercial news coverage (including the sources aggregated by Google News) and Wikipedia, and even peer-reviewed scientific publications. Memeplexes have a physics all their own, and a Matrix of falsehoods can perpetuate itself if it is sufficiently lucrative.

Newsweek: "Why Almost Everything You Hear About Medicine Is Wrong"

Vanity Fair: "Deadly Medicine"

Nevertheless, back to the OP, I don't think there are any objective arguments to support the claim. Empirically, subjective morality memeplexes have tended to evolve and spread by the sword. We can look at a bridge design and see how it could be improved, in the same way that we can look at a turtle and say it would be a better design if it could move faster, but a turtle isn't a design at all, and it isn't capable of re-designing itself. There may be some faint hope that the Internet might help humans to achieve a level of self-awareness and cooperation that might ultimately lead to better designs of moral systems, but the ones we have now are mostly inherited with all the accidents of history and vestigial tails that entails.

curious2 says

Companies including PR agencies make $$$ in fields like Search Engine Optimization (SEO), getting their clients' names and products and POV to the top of the search ranks including especially Google

True, and there are other problems with Google Search. Since it tries to anticipate what the user wants based on location and other user profile information, a person in a red state will get different results from a person in a blue state on political issues.

However, this bias is not the result of nefarious human intent, but rather due to rating the popularity of clicks. Thus, it's much less harmful than a corporation or government agency secretively hijacking a Wikipedia article.

Dan8267 says

a person in a red state will get different results from a person in a blue state on political issues.

However, this bias is not the result of nefarious human intent, but rather due to rating the popularity of clicks. Thus, it's much less harmful than...

I agreed with your entire comment up to "less harmful." I think the deepening political silo effect may increase the risk of catastrophic political failure. Credible arguments have blamed Faux News for Republicans' failure to produce a viable candidate and platform in 2012: Faux News viewers live in a parallel world, and drive Republican primaries to nominate utterly unacceptable candidates with fundamentally unreal policies. Google's fairly recent decision to customize search results, supposedly for benign reasons, may prove at least as dangerous as the other hazards you mentioned.

curious2 says

Google's fairly recent decision to customize search results, supposedly for benign reasons, may prove at least as dangerous as the other hazards you mentioned.

Maybe, but I'll take chaos over structured evil any day. Organized, deliberate evil has a tendency to self-reinforce. Unintentional evil has a tendency to cancel itself out.

Ya'll still kicking this can?
Pun intended.

CaptainShuddup says

Ya'll still kicking this can?

Pun intended.

Still waiting for an answer to the question. The very few I've received have easily been shown to imply other things are immoral that neither the submitter nor anyone else would accept as being immoral.

Such as, no one has actually submitted a reason that gay sex is immoral that doesn't contract the submitter's own beliefs and the beliefs of 99+% of people.

You'd think this question would be easy to answer if gay sex were all that bad. It's not like it's hard to justify why rape, murder, robbery, or even name calling is immoral. If something's immoral, it should be easy to explain why. It's not rocket science.

No you want an answer to why does eating Lemons, make you make a sour face.

CaptainShuddup says

No you want an answer to why does eating Lemons, make you make a sour face.

And that statement makes sense in what universe?

CaptainShuddup says

why does eating Lemons, make you make a sour face.

I like lemons, but Captain Tonya Harding Shuddup seems to think they're immoral. I'm guessing that his daughters, whom he doesn't want to wear marriage equality T-shirts, are also banned from having a lemonade stand. It seems like he makes a sour face a lot.

Perhaps it has less to with moral issue, and more to do with no body likes a petty measly prick. I mean who doesn't root for them to lose?

Their spokes people seem to be Dicks. No pun intended.

end the abuse of those born with defective minds and/or bodies that result in male/male coupling. End the abuse. Abuse of humans is immoral.

CaptainShuddup says

Perhaps it has less to with moral issue, and more to do with no body likes a petty....

This is Captain Illogic speaking, illustrating a mix of ad hominem and "No True Scotsman" fallacies. The sequence seems to be:
1) insult New Yorkers and say they shouldn't be allowed to marry;
2) Then, when Roseanne Barr and Al Franken laugh and call you an idiot, claim that you think New Yorkers are immoral because you don't like Roseanne and Al laughing at you and calling you an idiot. Meanwhile, gay couples from Buffalo to Montauk are required to file multiple tax returns because their federal government refuses to recognize their marriages, even though their state government does recognize them. Newsflash for Captain Tonya Harding: you can't save your own marriage by kneecapping someone else's.

When someone proves that your argument doesn't make sense, and that your position is based solely on bias, blaming the messenger merely shows your ignorance is willful ignorance.

Bap33 says

Abuse of humans is immoral.

Fred Phelps abuses you but if you quit taking his side then you can find a better man, and then you won't suffer as much.

CaptainShuddup says

Perhaps it has less to with moral issue, and more to do with no body likes a petty measly prick. I mean who doesn't root for them to lose?

I'm not sure what you are trying to say here, but it sounds kind of like you are calling all gay men "petty measly pricks". If so, I think that warrants a justification.

Bap33 says

end the abuse of those born with defective minds and/or bodies that result in male/male coupling. End the abuse. Abuse of humans is immoral.

The only ones abusing gay men are the ones demonizing them.

Bap33 says

end the abuse of those born with defective minds and/or bodies that result in male/male coupling. End the abuse. Abuse of humans is immoral.

Oh the carnage! Will no one stop this self-abuse?

bdrasin says

Bap33 says

end the abuse of those born with defective minds and/or bodies that result in male/male coupling. End the abuse. Abuse of humans is immoral.

Oh the carnage! Will no one stop this self-abuse?

Me, me! I want to stop it by going in the middle - yeah baby!

mell says

Me, me! I want to stop it by going in the middle - yeah baby!

Only stop it temporary, I suppose? More actions will ensue. ;-)

Dan8267 says

Bap33 says

end the abuse of those born with defective minds and/or bodies that result in male/male coupling. End the abuse. Abuse of humans is immoral.

The only ones abusing gay men are the ones demonizing them.

the men you call "gay" are suffering from a mental disorder, a gland disorder, or both. Calling for the public to accept the open activity of mentally/physically challenged men being abused by mentally disturbed sadistic/sodomistic men is demonic.

You have failed to show how a court of law would ever prove someone to be gay (or straight). If you do a particular sex act one, two, or a dozen times, does that make one "gay"? If you (a male) only want to dominate and mount other males, does that make you "gay" ?? Even if you never once do that act?
What makes a human "gay" (or straight) -- the MENTAL CONDITION or the PHYSICAL ACT?? Ofcourse the only way to prove this gayness that you are so proud of is for there to be an act commeted ... just like rape or robbery. The ACT is what is immoral, not the mental or gland disorder that causes male humans to perform them. Stop the abuse of humans suffering from a disorder. Heal them.

non "gay" males do very "gay" activity in prisons, each and every day. At the same time, male suffering from the mental and/or glad disorder that normally results in male/male coupling are able to live life without commiting the ACT. Just like someone born with a desire to rape or burn things or commit robbery is able to fight the urge and live a life in freedom. Not everyone commits the ACT that their body/mind wants them to, inorder to happily live in society. That may be what seperates us from the animals - self control.

Bap33 says

the men you call "gay" are suffering from a mental disorder, a gland disorder, or both.

No.

Bap33 says

You have failed to show how a court of law would ever prove someone to be gay

You have failed to show how a court of law could prove someone to be straight. What's the point?

Bap33 says

If you do a particular sex act one, two, or a dozen times, does that make one "gay"?
* * * * *
non "gay" males do very "gay" activity in prisons, each and every day.

You need to read this:
http://www.kinseyinstitute.org/research/ak-hhscale.html

Bap33 says

What makes a human "gay" (or straight) -- the MENTAL CONDITION or the PHYSICAL ACT??

Same thing that makes a human "straight", a mental condition that may lead to a physical act.

Bap33 says

Just like someone born with a desire to rape or burn things or commit robbery is able to fight the urge and live a life in freedom.

No, just like someone born with a desire for opposite sex relationships.

Dan8267 says

Bap33 says

end the abuse of those born with defective minds and/or bodies that result in male/male coupling. End the abuse. Abuse of humans is immoral.

The only ones abusing gay men are the ones demonizing them.

Yes, and for some this would be self-abuse.

Bap33 says

At the same time, male suffering from the mental and/or glad disorder that normally results in male/male coupling are able to live life without commiting the ACT... Not everyone commits the ACT that their body/mind wants them to, inorder to happily live in society.

Bap, your comments make it obvious that you are suffering from a mental disorder, but you don't seem happy. The disorder is the abusive religion that Fred Phelps and his ilk have programmed into you. Instead of perpetuating Phelps' cycle of abuse, just go out and find a better man. Instead of obsessing over "male/male coupling," and making an ass of yourself online, put in some lube and find a man who is willing to wear a condom.

Bap33 says

the men you call "gay" are suffering from a mental disorder, a gland disorder, or both.

You keep asserting this, but you never show any evidence or reasoning to that effect.

On the other hand, I can clearly show the reasoning that belief in god is a mental disorder. Belief in a fictitious being who interferes in the history of man is clearly a delusion, and delusions are by definition a mental disorder no matter how socially accepted the delusion is. If you think you're having a conservations with someone who doesn't exist, that's a delusion.

How is homosexuality a mental disorder? Bap finds something icky, therefore anyone who likes it must have a metal disorder. I find broccoli disgusting, that doesn't make people who like it crazy.

leo707 says

Yes, and for some this would be self-abuse.

And I'd be fine with calling such hypocritical immoral and unethical, and perhaps even mentally disturbed. But in that case, the mental damage is probably inflicted by gay-bashers and not inherent to being gay.

Dan8267 says

You keep asserting this, but you never show any evidence or reasoning to that effect.

I tried, but nobody can change your opinion. If you refuse to see male/male coupling as deviant behavior, then so be it. God forgives you.

Bap33 says

Dan8267 says

You keep asserting this, but you never show any evidence or reasoning to that effect.

I tried, but nobody can change your opinion. If you refuse to see male/male coupling as deviant behavior, then so be it. God forgives you.

Bap, variations make humanity stronger.

Bap33 says

If you refuse to see male/male coupling as deviant behavior, then so be it. God forgives you.

How very kind of you to speak for God. I'm sure the omnipotent creator of the universe will appreciate that. Probably he/she/it was eating peanut butter, and couldn't say anything, so you really helped out.

As for deviance though, nothing compares to your ice dome in the sky. You, Bop69, are by far the most deviant. And your handle reminds me of a song about something you probably do a lot while thinking of male/male coupling, Cyndi Lauper's "She-Bop":

http://www.youtube.com/embed/KFq4E9XTueY

Sorry I couldn't find a man singing "he-bop" for you, but enjoy your self-abuse :)

behavior variations keep prisons full