patrick.net
An Antidote to Corporate Media
1,210,503 comments by 14,390 users - Booger, brazil66, Ceffer, DemocratsAreTotallyFucked, mell, Patrick online now
invite response« First « Previous Comments 651 - 690 of 878 Next » Last » Search these comments
Dan8267
2012 Dec 3, 8:30am
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.
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.
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
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
curious2
2012 Dec 3, 8:52am
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 $$$ in fields like Search Engine Optimization (SEO), getting their clients' names and products and POV to the top of the search ranks including especially Google News. For example, PhRMA has become relentless and adroit in manipulating both commercial news coverage (including the sources aggregated by Google News) and Wikipedia, and even peer-reviewed scientific publications. Memeplexes have a physics all their own, and a Matrix of falsehoods can perpetuate itself if it is sufficiently lucrative.
Newsweek: "Why Almost Everything You Hear About Medicine Is Wrong"
Vanity Fair: "Deadly Medicine"
Nevertheless, back to the OP, I don't think there are any objective arguments to support the claim. Empirically, subjective morality memeplexes have tended to evolve and spread by the sword. We can look at a bridge design and see how it could be improved, in the same way that we can look at a turtle and say it would be a better design if it could move faster, but a turtle isn't a design at all, and it isn't capable of re-designing itself. There may be some faint hope that the Internet might help humans to achieve a level of self-awareness and cooperation that might ultimately lead to better designs of moral systems, but the ones we have now are mostly inherited with all the accidents of history and vestigial tails that entails.
Dan8267
2012 Dec 4, 2:18am
Companies including PR agencies make $$$ 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.
curious2
2012 Dec 4, 2:32am
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.
Dan8267
2012 Dec 4, 3:20am
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.
Dan8267
2012 Dec 5, 12:23am
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.
Tenpoundbass
2012 Dec 5, 1:46am
No you want an answer to why does eating Lemons, make you make a sour face.
Dan8267
2012 Dec 5, 5:18am
No you want an answer to why does eating Lemons, make you make a sour face.
And that statement makes sense in what universe?
curious2
2012 Dec 5, 5:25am
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.
Tenpoundbass
2012 Dec 5, 5:33am
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.
Bap33
2012 Dec 5, 6:43am
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.
curious2
2012 Dec 5, 9:30am
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.
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.
Dan8267
2012 Dec 5, 11:42pm
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.
Dan8267
2012 Dec 5, 11:43pm
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.
bdrasin
2012 Dec 6, 12:05am
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?
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!
Peter P
2012 Dec 6, 12:37am
Me, me! I want to stop it by going in the middle - yeah baby!
Only stop it temporary, I suppose? More actions will ensue. ;-)
Bap33
2012 Dec 6, 1:12am
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.
leo707
2012 Dec 6, 1:26am
the men you call "gay" are suffering from a mental disorder, a gland disorder, or both.
No.
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?
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
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.
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.
leo707
2012 Dec 6, 1:26am
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.
curious2
2012 Dec 6, 3:34am
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.
Dan8267
2012 Dec 6, 4:26am
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.
Dan8267
2012 Dec 6, 4:29am
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.
Bap33
2012 Dec 6, 12:45pm
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.
Peter P
2012 Dec 6, 12:48pm
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.
curious2
2012 Dec 6, 12:55pm
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 :)
curious2
2012 Dec 6, 1:54pm
ALEC keeps prisons full, transferring your tax dollars to ALEC members.
Remarkably, ALEC's slogan is "Limited Government · Free Markets · Federalism." That is the exact opposite of the truth. ALEC expands the drug war, including national minimum sentencing.
Dan8267
2012 Dec 6, 8:46pm
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, you still don't get it. Chocolate ice cream tastes better than strawberrry is an opinion. Football is more exciting than baseball is an opinion. The Nicks suck is an -- ok, bad example.
But whether or not homosexuality is a mental disorder, isn't an opinion. You shouldn't be trying to change my opinion on this, because I don't have one. This is a matter of fact, not opinion. Either the statement is true or it is false, and determining which is based entirely on facts, not opinions.
The problem is that you insist on reaching conclusion X no matter what, and are looking for anything to justify X, and when you can't find anything, you still assert X. The right thing to do is to accept whatever conclusion the body of evidence in modern medicine implies.
Dan8267
2012 Dec 6, 8:55pm
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.
Remember, curious2, what rejection of god really means to the faithful. When Bap33 says god forgives me, he really means that he forgives me.
Of course, what Bap33 doesn't get is that my "refusal" to believe that homosexual sex is deviant and unhealthy is based on facts not some irrational closed-mindedness. I'm more than willing to accept that breathing is an unhealthy deviant behavior if there was convincing evidence to that fact. Skepticism and closed-mindedness isn't the same thing. A closed-minded person cannot be convinced of a statement no matter the evidence. A skeptic demands to be convinced by evidence. I'm a skeptic; Bap's closed-minded.
Dan8267
2012 Dec 6, 8:58pm
behavior variations keep prisons full
Thankfully, most countries don't arrest people for homosexuality any more. To do so would be a violation of human rights and would attract international condemnation.
FortWayne
2012 Dec 7, 12:57am
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 forceSo, how exactly is unnatural behavior evil?
But Dan, no one is saying all unnatural behavior is evil. You can't take a single example and turn it into all or nothing every time. That's just not a good argument. Nor is any innovation is evil, though some can seem rather stupid.
Homosexuality is a world view that majority in the society do not agree with in the way homosexuals like to be seen. Homosexuals, are men or women who are disabled in certain ways. And physical or mental disorders should not be celebrated like the left wing media likes to pretend, merely accepted and hopefully cured.
Dan8267
2012 Dec 7, 1:54am
But Dan, no one is saying all unnatural behavior is evil
Actually, Bap's argument that homosexuality is evil because it's unnatural rests on the assumption that all natural behavior is good and all unnatural behavior is evil. As such, my counter-examples apply.
Of course a rational person would not associate "natural" with good or evil and "unnatural" with the opposite. Good/evil and natural/unnatural are clearly independent and unrelated concepts.
Bap's argument that homosexuality is evil because it's unnatural is also flawed because homosexuality is far more common in nature than monogamy, and he's not accepting that monogamy is evil. If a person's set of beliefs contradict themselves, they can't be right. Contradictions only exist in mistakes. In order for a philosophy or moral code to be valid, it must in the very least be self-consistent. That's not the only requirement, but it is a requisite.
leo707
2012 Dec 7, 2:39am
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.
- marriage (including the heterosexual type)
* * * * *
- maintaining a police force
There are animals that go through relatively elaborate courtship rituals then become monogamous partners. "Natural" marriage?
As far a police go, don't soldier ants "protect and serve?"
bdrasin
2012 Dec 7, 2:49am
Homosexuality is a world view that majority in the society do not agree with in the way homosexuals like to be seen.
Well, enjoy that while it lasts. Based on the trends I've seen in my own life its clear to me that in 20 years or so homosexuality will be totally accepted by all of mainstream society (at least in the first world), everyone will see that there are no negative repercussions, and everyone will wonder what the fuss was all about.
Bap33
2012 Dec 7, 3:49am
behavior variations keep prisons full
Thankfully, most countries don't arrest people for homosexuality any more. To do so would be a violation of human rights and would attract international condemnation.
it is impossible for someone to be arrested for being a male/male coupler in any country. Impossible. Those who suffer from the defects that result in male/male coupling can only be arrested for being "suspected" of performing male/male coupling, and if there is any legal system in place that requires proof, then they can only be convicted if they are found in a mounted condition. At that point they are guilty of performing an unnatural sex act, but even then there is no proof they are a "homosexual". The only proof is that they engage in male/male coupling. So, the laws "should" be against public/known activity, and not try to guess the motivation of the participants. Same with any other law such as theft, murder, rape, ext ext. The reason why a person does somthing should not apply. The fact a person commits any act (legal, moral, kind) indicates they were born with a pre-disposition. Being born with a pre-disposition is not an excuse for behavior.
Dan8267
2012 Dec 7, 5:54am
There are animals that go through relatively elaborate courtship rituals then become monogamous partners. "Natural" marriage?
Courtship rituals are much more akin to dating than marriage. Marriage is essentially a legal contract and other animals don't have those. Nor do other animals have tax codes with deductions for marriage. Finally, courtship rituals don't typically involve monogamy, whereas marriage usually does. Notable exceptions include newts.
As far a police go, don't soldier ants "protect and serve?"
Armies and police forces serve different purposes. Warfare definitely is abundant in nature. Jane Goodall even recorded instances of chimps engaging in systematic warfare with weaker tribes (troops).
Dan8267
2012 Dec 7, 5:58am
At that point they are guilty of performing an unnatural sex act, but even then there is no proof they are a "homosexual". The only proof is that they engage in male/male coupling. So, the laws "should" be against public/known activity, and not try to guess the motivation of the participants. Same with any other law such as theft, murder, rape, ext ext
You're making no sense. Theft, murder, and rape are all natural events, they are common in nature. Marriage is not a natural event. It does not occur anywhere in nature. Arresting a person for committing an "unnatural" act makes no sense. For example, shitting on the ground in natural; shitting in a toilet is not. Would you arrest the person using the toilet or the sidewalk?
« First « Previous Comments 651 - 690 of 878 Next » Last » Search these comments
This question goes out to all the people who actually believe that gay sex is immoral. I am formally challenging that belief. If any of you honestly believe that gay sex is immoral, give your reasons here. I reserve the right to challenge the validity of those reasons.
Attendance by Bap33 is mandatory. By the way, that avatar is pretty gay for someone who's homophobic.
Just saying...