This site makes extensive use of JavaScript.
Please enable JavaScript in your browser.
Live
PTR
10.2.7
PTR
10.2.6
Beta
A rant about my Birther, YEC, Zionist parents.
Post Reply
Return to board index
Post by
Hyperspacerebel
You know what, we're arguing over the same points now; it's quite clear that I'm not going to so much as chip your impenetrable closed mindedness, so I'm just going to stop arguing now. Goodbye.
Doesn't that make you equally close-minded?
Because she won't open her mind to something you have no evidence to convince her of?
No. No, it really doesn't.
And neither does he. Therefore, he's necessarily being just as close-minded as he claims I am.
is that no one can point at 'Hell' and say, "You're going there if you do this." I
can
point at things like cavaties, obesity, and so forth to show why eating McDonald's for every meal would be harmful.
Why are those things harmful? That's your opinion. It could be a perfectly fair trade-off for someone else, just like getting a piercing or taking drugs. It's a trade-off between harm and enjoyment, and what it more harm for one person might be more enjoyment for another.
Post by
Squishalot
It's amazing how you can shut down a discussion in the space of a page, HSR :) But thank you for continuing while I wasn't around.
Post by
Hyperspacerebel
It's amazing how you can shut down a discussion in the space of a page, HSR :) But thank you for continuing while I wasn't around.
Yeah, the unfortunate consequence of being dogged is that a lot of threads end when I'm at full steam (unless they're with someone just as dogged) :P
Post by
Tartonga
Your objection compared him with his siblings. That statement above is to show that your objection is irrelevant because it's not what I'm talking about.
Firstly, I made a comparison about him and his parents, you should re-read what I said before claiming that. If you can't catch up the point of what I said, I will sum it up for you: his parents only offer 1 point of view (which explains natural phenomena with metaphysical arguments), on the other side he offers every point of view, he studied religion and he also studied science. In other words, he gives all sides of the story and gives room for his siblings to choose what they want. How can that affect their siblings negatively?
Secondly, you can't dare to call my "objection" irrelevant, because you consider it's not related to what you said. I pointed out a statement
you said
and I told my opinion about it.
I don't care if you were here before me. You jumped into a discussion which you were not part of an made an irrelevant comment.
I find this so
irrelevant
, I wont even bother answering...
Post by
Squishalot
In other words, he gives all sides of the story and gives room for his siblings to choose what they want. How can that affect their siblings negatively?
Secondly, you can't dare to call my "objection" irrelevant, because you consider it's not related to what you said. I pointed out a statement you said and I told my opinion about it.
Actually, I don't think he's going to give the side that states "Homosexuals burn in Hell after they die." Considering that, he wouldn't be providing all sides of the story.
I'm sorry, did you have any other objections, or are you going to acknowledge that the whole thing is essentially a case of "my view is more right than yours"?
Post by
Tartonga
Actually, I don't
think
he's going to give the side that states "Homosexuals burn in Hell after they die." Considering that, he wouldn't be providing all sides of the story.
If you don't
think
he is going to tell what their parents believe and contrast it with what others believe to give his siblings the right to choose, then I see your lack of credibility towards the OP. Do you feel that way because you think you are the one who knows the only truth, but as soon as someone else says a valid argument about what you would attribute "my God did it" or "that's a sin, because...it's a sin" you don't know how to properly answer to argument what your beliefs support?. If not, then I will tell you that's only what you showed us through this thread.
And for the record, I'm not only talking about the homosexuality topic, so I will make you guys a favor since I noticed you are kind of homophobic; we can also move to other related topics that your religion arguments that are a consequence of your "God's hand" or "that's wrong, because it's a sin, and it's a sin, because it's wrong".
Post by
Squishalot
If you don't think he is going to tell what their parents believe and contrast it with what others believe to give his siblings the right to choose, then I see your lack of credibility towards the OP.
Lawl, I don't think Skreeran is going to present it as a reasonable alternative. Besides which, you can't present both sides of an argument in the context of moral instruction - you can only present what is 'right'. In that respect, Skree will probably preach tolerance and choice, and not tell them that they'll go to hell for making that choice.
The main difference between what I wrote and what you wrote is that I stated it as an opinion, and you stated it as fact. How about we let Skreeran respond to that one, eh? Why would he talk about burning in hell, faeries at the bottom of the garden and a mysterious, non-corporeal being that may or not exist, when he doesn't believe in any of it?
Do you feel that way because you think you are the one who knows the only truth, but as soon as someone else says a valid argument about what you would attribute "my God did it" or "that's a sin, because...it's a sin" you don't know how to properly answer to argument what your beliefs support?. If not, then I will tell you that's only what you showed us through this thread.
Feel what way? That I don't think Skreeran will give any time for 'Biblical' arguments? No, I feel that way because that's the impression Skree gives off.
so I will make you guys a favor since I noticed you are kind of homophobic;
Ad hominem, and a false one at that.
we can also move to other related topics that your religion arguments that are a consequence of your "God's hand" or "that's wrong, because it's a sin, and it's a sin, because it's wrong".
If you'd read what I've written in this thread, you would know that I said:
To be clear - I wouldn't tell my kids that homosexuality is bad, because to me, it's just a sexual orientation. But I'm willing to speak up for the right for other parents to do so, because a restriction is only a step away from preventing me saying that (being lazy / having premarital sex / being a teenage parent / being disrespectful to others / stealing from others / anything else attributable to both genetic and environmental factors, i.e. EVERYTHING) is bad.
You'd also note I said this:
Ugh. Religious people.
If you don't know what my views are, you shouldn't make assumptions, because it just makes an ass of you.
In any event, I'm waiting for you to respond to everything else you said you wanted to:
Damn, if I had time I would have answered to you Squish, but I don't have any right now...
There's plenty up there that I talked about for you to respond to, that you obviously haven't read. Go away and read it before coming back and making assumptions about me that make you look like an ass.
Post by
Skreeran
I'm just gonna make a few clarifying notes in here without trying to get deeply involved in the argument again (it's 1:00 AM and I have school in the morning):
I do not argue religion at all with my siblings because my parents have threatened to kick me out over it. So there's no point in discussing which viewpoints I'd teach them. If anything, I would not argue for any religion or philosophy, but rather try to awaken in them the general values of critical reasoning and empathy, and let them make their own choices from there. But again, it's a moot point, because I'd rather keep my mouth shut than get kicked out of the house at this point.
Since I overtly became an atheist (and picked up a few liberal viewpoints along the way), I haven't really heard my parents talk about homosexuality very much, but if I did, I wouldn't talk to my siblings behind their backs, but rather I'd make the argument that homosexuals are people too and deserve to be treated like people all the same. Hopefully, the mere existence of controversy on the subject would give my siblings the power to question it themselves, rather than just eat up what my parents tell them.
In addition, I might note again that I have never opposed the legal right of parents to teach their children what they believe is right, no matter how ridiculous, unless they are seriously and definitely abusing their children (by which I define causing detectable physical or psychological damage in the here and now, not just later on down the line). Legally, if they want to teach their children that evolution doesn't exist and the world is flat and the sun revolves around the earth and homosexuality is an abomination, they're legally allowed to do so, even if I think it's stupid.
I've never advocated taking away a parents right to teach their children what the want. I've only said that I think it's morally repugnant to be so reckless with your words that you could possibly inflict psychological trauma to one or more of them. I'm not saying that we should take their children away, or press charges, or force the child into therapy. All I'm saying is that a parent should consider the possible effects of their words, and that simply saying "Homosexuality is an abomination," is reckless and dangerous. Without elaboration, it's just a small step away from the concepts that "
Homosexuals
are an abomination," which can lead to violence against self or others.
Post by
Squishalot
All I'm saying is that a parent should consider the possible effects of their words, and that simply saying "Homosexuality is an abomination," is reckless and dangerous. Without elaboration, it's just a small step away from the concepts that "Homosexuals are an abomination," which can lead to violence against self or others.
I know. But I disagree that it's any more 'reckless and dangerous' than any other emphatic moral teaching, such as, 'teenage pregnancies are an abomination'.
I do still believe, however, that if kids are capable of seeing added meanings to 'abomination' above and beyond being 'another word for
bad
', they're old enough to make informed decisions of their own.
Post by
Hyperspacerebel
Lying is bad -> Liars are bad people
Eating fattening food is bad -> Fat people are bad people
Etc.
Any moral stance can be carried out to an extreme and lead to "violence against self or others." That doesn't mean the moral principles themselves are any less important or valid moral beliefs.
Post by
Skreeran
Lying is bad -> Liars are bad people
Eating fattening food is bad -> Fat people are bad people
Etc.
Any moral stance can be carried out to an extreme and lead to "violence against self or others." That doesn't mean the moral principles themselves are any less important or valid moral beliefs.I've you've read what I've written, you'd note that I'm not taking a stance against the particular principle that homosexuality is wrong. I'm criticizing the reckless way my mother handled the issue in front of her children. She never said "Hate the sin, not the sinner" or anything to that effect, and didn't take any precautions against the development of hatred against self or others.
An abomination is not just "bad," at least not in our house. "Abomination" is a special word reserved to the most extreme, abhorrent things my parents can think of. The angel/human mating that cause God to kill everyone is the world was an abomination. The Greeks sacrificing a pig in the Temple was an abomination. And apparently, homosexuality is an abomination. It's not a just a synonym for "bad." That word, at least in my family, is reserved for a select few most evil, despicable, and hateful to God things my parents reference.
Since my mother just said "Homosexuality is an abomination," and didn't explain any further, it only seems natural for a listener who's only received that one viewpoint to assume that that means the practioners of homosexuality are abominable as well. And whether that means they grow to hate innocent people or themselves, I don't think that's good parenting.
If she had said "Speaking Arabic is an abomination," or "Practicing witchcraft is an abomination," (actually, come to think of it, she has said the latter), I would be just as upset now, because she's not just saying "I don't approve of X," she's saying "X is detestable and to be hated."
Post by
Tartonga
I know. But I disagree that it's any more 'reckless and dangerous' than any other emphatic moral teaching, such as, 'teenage pregnancies are an abomination'.
Nobody said homosexuality is the most reckless and dangerous emphatic moral teaching. It's just an example that was carried away through the thread.
Post by
Hyperspacerebel
Lying is bad -> Liars are bad people
Eating fattening food is bad -> Fat people are bad people
Etc.
Any moral stance can be carried out to an extreme and lead to "violence against self or others." That doesn't mean the moral principles themselves are any less important or valid moral beliefs.I've you've read what I've written, you'd note that I'm not taking a stance against the particular principle that homosexuality is wrong. I'm criticizing the reckless way my mother handled the issue in front of her children. She never said "Hate the sin, not the sinner" or anything to that effect, and didn't take any precautions against the development of hatred against self or others.
An abomination is not just "bad," at least not in our house. "Abomination" is a special word reserved to the most extreme, abhorrent things my parents can think of. The angel/human mating that cause God to kill everyone is the world was an abomination. The Greeks sacrificing a pig in the Temple was an abomination. And apparently, homosexuality is an abomination. It's not a just a synonym for "bad." That word, at least in my family, is reserved for a select few most evil, despicable, and hateful to God things my parents reference.
Since my mother just said "Homosexuality is an abomination," and didn't explain any further, it only seems natural for a listener who's only received that one viewpoint to assume that that means the practioners of homosexuality are abominable as well. And whether that means they grow to hate innocent people or themselves, I don't think that's good parenting.
If she had said "Speaking Arabic is an abomination," or "Practicing witchcraft is an abomination," (actually, come to think of it, she has said the latter), I would be just as upset now, because she's not just saying "I don't approve of X," she's saying "X is detestable and to be hated."
And that's what she believes.
I believe rape is an abomination. I think it is detestable and to be hated. I'm going to teach my kids that. So you think I'm going to be a reckless, bad parent?
It seems to me that you're unable to understand that other people's beliefs are just as forcefully valid as your own.
Post by
Tartonga
And that's what she believes.
I believe rape is an abomination. I think it is detestable and to be hated. I'm going to teach my kids that. So you think I'm going to be a reckless, bad parent?
It seems to me that you're unable to understand that other people's beliefs are just as forcefully valid as your own.
No, his mother is actually unable to understand that other people's beliefs are just as forcefully valid as your own. For the society, raping makes you a criminal, being gay does not. For his mother, raping is a sin, being gay is a sin as well.
Post by
Hyperspacerebel
No, his mother is actually unable to understand that other people's beliefs are just as forcefully valid as your own. For the society, raping makes you a criminal, being gay does not. For his mother, raping is a sin, being gay is a sin as well.
Law has absolute no relevance to what I'm saying. I'm not saying I'll teach my kids that it's against the law. I'm saying that it's an abomination to be hated and detested.
I believe that about rape. But ultimately that's no different than saying that sodomy is an abomination to be hated and detested. Neither is any less a belief than the other.
People rape. People sodomize. Both have groups of people that are "affected" by that belief.
Post by
Tartonga
Law has absolute no relevance to what I'm saying. I'm not saying I'll teach my kids that it's against the law. I'm saying that it's an abomination to be hated and detested.
Law has absolutely no relevance? Then what are you teaching your kids? Law is the ground base of the moral instruction. It separates the things you can do from the things you can't do.
I believe that about rape. But ultimately that's no different than saying that sodomy is an abomination to be hated and detested. Neither is any less a belief than the other.
People rape. People sodomize. Both have groups of people that are "affected" by that belief.
Indeed, but are there groups of people that are "affected" by homosexuality?
Post by
Monday
Law is the ground base of the moral instruction.
So it is moral to stone homosexuals in the Middle East?
I agree that law has no relevance to morals. Laws are made to keep society running and secure, not because they are moral.
Post by
Hyperspacerebel
Law has absolute no relevance to what I'm saying. I'm not saying I'll teach my kids that it's against the law. I'm saying that it's an abomination to be hated and detested.
Law has absolutely no relevance? Then what are you teaching your kids? Law is the ground base of the moral instruction. It separates the things you can do from the things you can't do.
Law is the basis of morality? Really? Think about how ridiculous that is. Any government can arbitrarily pass rediculous laws, and then those actions become magically immoral?
Law is based on morality/ethics.
If a group of people believe that people have rights X, Y, and Z, then they try to get laws passed to protect X, Y, and Z. Why did the Americans rebel against Britain? Because they believed taxation without representation was
wrong
(among other things). There was no 'law' telling them that it was wrong; quite the opposite, laws were passed to uphold that ethical principle.
Indeed, but are there groups of people that are "affected" by homosexuality?
What?
Belief that sodomy is bad affects people who sodomize just as much as belief that rape is bad affects people who rape. Both beliefs have groups of people that are "affected" by that belief.
Post by
Skreeran
You cannot be born a rapist.
You can be born homosexual.
That's the difference.
Post by
Monday
You cannot be born a rapist.
You can be born homosexual.
That's the difference.
But you can be born with a greater desire to rape.
Post Reply
You are not logged in. Please
log in
to post a reply or
register
if you don't already have an account.