Flash Flash Revolution: Community Forums

Flash Flash Revolution: Community Forums (http://www.flashflashrevolution.com/vbz/index.php)
-   Critical Thinking (http://www.flashflashrevolution.com/vbz/forumdisplay.php?f=33)
-   -   Is it wrong to be gay? (http://www.flashflashrevolution.com/vbz/showthread.php?t=113296)

bobeck 11-12-2009 01:53 AM

Re: Is it wrong to be gay?
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by devonin (Post 3285625)
I'll give you a general principle that is one that addresses basically every point you've tried to raise here: "If all effected parties consent to X with a full understanding of X, X should be allowed, universally"

That seems to make sense but when applied, it rests on shaky ground. On your theory, Should the use of drugs, the practice of incest and polygamy be allowed? (I base these statement's solely on Devonin's general principle). It seems that consent and knowledge are not enough to make something ''right'' or legal.

In conclusion the answer then to this topic depends what standard you use for "right and wrong". Society defines right and wrong as determined by whether it's generally acceptable or not. If society has grown accustomed to homosexuals and thus accepts the practice, then it must be right. Thus according to our modern social standards being gay it right. Biblically it's wrong. *Be ware though; applying the contemporary social standards as it applies to one's morality causes that person to fall prey to the old saying that the crowd may be wrong. (Wrong referring to the best interest of society)

MrRubix 11-12-2009 01:58 AM

Re: Is it wrong to be gay?
 
But that is where you're wrong, bobeck. Consent IS enough to make something "right" or "legal" regarding sex. If you approach a girl for sex, and she's fully aware of what's going on and accepts your advances, then it's consensual sex, and no fundamental rights are violated. But if you have to force yourself on her or if you're taking advantage of her when she's unable to fully comprehend the situation, then you're grinding against those fundamental rights we've set up.

It's not like all laws were purely set up without individual consideration -- but your problem is that you extrapolate WAY too hard when it comes to a given comparison, much like Dev said.

Society DOES NOT always base "right" and "wrong" on what is "generally acceptable" ffs. There is actual reasoning behind a lot of it that pertains to utility, stability, and social optima. You bringing up the point of homosexuals again proves that you AGAIN conflate legality and social acceptance.

I can't even believe you brought that point up again. How old are you? Go take an ethics course or something and try coming back here again. You're consistently missing the point.

bobeck 11-12-2009 02:25 AM

Re: Is it wrong to be gay?
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by MrRubix (Post 3286652)
Without consent, are you going to tell me that "just because the animal seemed to like it, it was okay"? Are you going to take the same logic to the human level? "She was drunk! She was getting into it! She liked it!"

I am quite baffled by this comment. This concept ironically seems to be what you are and have been advocating. You've been saying all along "A human must give explicit consent before sexual intercourse!!!" Likewise, an animal must give explicit consent before there can be sexual intercourse with it! (and your point is that an animal can't give this type of human consent, thus you can not have sexual relations with it). Seems to me that you are the one taking the animal to the human level.

Quote:

Originally Posted by MrRubix (Post 3286652)
Are you saying that just because an animal is an animal, there aren't similarities in their fundamental functionalities to humans that should require the same types of logical and ethical considerations that uphold social optima, e.g. consent?

Did you happen to miss this phrase ''to the same degree''?




Quote:

Originally Posted by MrRubix (Post 3286652)
But to reply to your concept: Good luck trying to justify that allowing a widespread acceptance and legalization of bestiality is somehow essential to improving our social situation while maintaining the fundamental rights we've developed in our current standing.

And I'm still trying to figure out how you were logically able to fit this statement in.

MrRubix 11-12-2009 02:40 AM

Re: Is it wrong to be gay?
 
*FACE ****ING PALM*

Again you make the same damn error in logic. Just because I bring the concept of consent on the same level between animal and human doesn't suddenly mean ALL concepts of the animal are now on par with ALL concepts of human. Quit conflating the logic.

And it doesn't surprise me that you're still trying to figure it out. You seem to be misunderstanding everything being told to you in this thread.

qqwref 11-12-2009 02:51 AM

Re: Is it wrong to be gay?
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by bobeck (Post 3286658)
Should the use of drugs, the practice of incest and polygamy be allowed? (I base these statement's solely on Devonin's general principle). It seems that consent and knowledge are not enough to make something ''right'' or legal.

Actually I would say that all of these things should be allowed if everyone involved consents and understands the risks. But then, I'm more libertarian than most.

PS: Nice trolling, if that's your aim.

bobeck 11-12-2009 02:51 AM

Re: Is it wrong to be gay?
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by MrRubix (Post 3286662)
Society DOES NOT always base "right" and "wrong" on what is "generally acceptable" ffs. There is actual reasoning behind a lot of it that pertains to utility, stability, and social optima.

Maybe what you fail to understand is that by taking a backwards approach you arrive at the same conclusion. Society sees something that it thinks brings stability, and social optima, which then becomes generally accepted (because of those factors) and thus they determine that it is right.


Quote:

Originally Posted by MrRubix (Post 3286662)
You bringing up the point of homosexuals again proves that you AGAIN conflate legality and social acceptance.

I don't recall ever bringing up the issue of legality in the post you are referring to. I did use the word "right" but that by no mean's connotes legality. Though for your sake I will explain my understanding of how legality and acceptance do interplay. An act become socially acceptable and deemed ''right'' in the eyes of the majority of the public, yet it is not legalized. Through general publicity, lobbying, land mark court cases and the like, pressure is put on the legislature to enact statues protecting or legalizing said act. Thus you have the transition from acceptance to legalization. That pretty much sums up how homosexuals achieved their current status.

MrRubix 11-12-2009 03:00 AM

Re: Is it wrong to be gay?
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by qqwref (Post 3286685)
Actually I would say that all of these things should be allowed if everyone involved consents and understands the risks. But then, I'm more libertarian than most.

PS: Nice trolling, if that's your aim.

I am personally not against incest/polygamy/etc either. Again, it doesn't really violate anything at all on a rights level in itself.



Bobeck, I'm convinced at this point that you're trolling. I can't understand how someone can have such a hard time understanding this argument.

"Society sees something that it thinks brings stability, and social optima, which then becomes generally accepted (because of those factors) and thus they determine that it is right."

Again, stop equating the two, ffs you're thick. Social optima is different from "generally accepted." I'll even put it down a few times.

Social optima is different from "generally accepted." Social optima is different from "generally accepted." Social optima is different from "generally accepted." Social optima is different from "generally accepted." Social optima is different from "generally accepted."

As for your last point, it doesn't have to do with "pushing for the generally accepted." People on both sides mistakenly, as you are, try to push with "generally accepted principles" as a basis for a new law, when what matters is the underlying fundamental right. The problem is the underlying definition of marriage as a right. There are various reasons, both practical and theological, why people argue for either side, and these functions are indeed already part of the Constitution. The entire debate right now essentially pertains to modifying pre-existing stats laws or reinterpreting. Lobbying only does so much to put the issue to the table. In the end, it has to be solved within the confines of the rights systems we've set up.

bobeck 11-12-2009 03:04 AM

Re: Is it wrong to be gay?
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by MrRubix (Post 3286682)
*FACE ****ING PALM*

Again you make the same damn error in logic. Just because I bring the concept of consent on the same level between animal and human doesn't suddenly mean ALL concepts of the animal are now on par with ALL concepts of human. Quit conflating the logic.

But one question then. If your accusing me of applying all areas of humans to all area's of animals, how come you get to pick and choose which element's apply and which one's don't?

Anyhow, I've said all that needs to be said. I've spent more than enough nights on this topic so much to your enjoyment I'll just be a viewer from this point on. I've been wanting to lay this off some time ago, but your constant misunderstanding and misinterpretations of what I've been saying has been most time consuming. Night.

MrRubix 11-12-2009 03:10 AM

Re: Is it wrong to be gay?
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by bobeck (Post 3286690)
But one question then. If your accusing me of applying all areas of humans to all area's of animals, how come you get to pick and choose which element's apply and which one's don't?

Anyhow, I've said all that needs to be said. I've spent more than enough nights on this topic so much to your enjoyment I'll just be a viewer from this point on. I've been wanting to lay this off some time ago, but your constant misunderstanding and misinterpretations of what I've been saying has been most time consuming. Night.

Because our entire system is BUILT on "picking and choosing" to certain extents. It's why we can't kill other humans. It's why we can kill animals "humanely." It's why nobody gives a damn if we kill a fly. It doesn't make sense to say one solution now applies to all other problems. A solution (or precedent, if you will), however, applies when the inputs to the problem cross into the same problematic questionings of the underlying rights, SUCH AS, SURPRISE SURPRISE, CONSENT.

And I'm not the one misunderstanding -- you've just got a very dim understanding of rights and ethics.

mhss1992 11-12-2009 04:09 AM

Re: Is it wrong to be gay?
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by MrRubix (Post 3286033)
Agreeing with me 100% of the time is a good way to get ahead in life. It's called being correct :P Arrogance independent.

Don't let it get to your head... I, for example, still disagree with you on several other issues.

MrRubix 11-12-2009 04:16 AM

Re: Is it wrong to be gay?
 
What are these "several other issues" you disagree with?

devonin 11-12-2009 05:44 AM

Re: Is it wrong to be gay?
 
Quote:

That seems to make sense but when applied, it rests on shaky ground. On your theory, Should the use of drugs, the practice of incest and polygamy be allowed? (I base these statement's solely on Devonin's general principle). It seems that consent and knowledge are not enough to make something ''right'' or legal.
You're taking my ought and assuming I said Is. Is =/= ought.

Consent and knowledge are -not- enough to make something legal, but they SHOULD be. So yes, in my opinion, with knowledge and consent, incest, polygamy, duels to the death, suicide, assisted suicide, cannibalism, all of these things should be 100% allowed provided all parties involved demonstrate informed consent.

Quote:

You've been saying all along "A human must give explicit consent before sexual intercourse!!!" Likewise, an animal must give explicit consent before there can be sexual intercourse with it! (and your point is that an animal can't give this type of human consent, thus you can not have sexual relations with it). Seems to me that you are the one taking the animal to the human level.
Not all issues are what are called "issues of threshold" (IE, once you get to a certain point, everything above it is treated equally) some are "issues of degree" where the comparative difference between them is relevant as well.

The principle that Rubix is applying here is reasonably defined as "Things which can suffer need to have that suffering taken into account" He's not even saying all animals and humans are equal, let alone all equal in their ability to suffer or to have that suffering taken into account. The proof of that is the fact that it is illegal to pointlessly torture an animal, but it is legal to kill it humanely in order to eat it, but you can do neither of those things legally to a human.

The ability of sentient animals to suffer is accounted for (You can't torture them or humans legally) as a matter of Threshold (They are sentient, thus, like all sentient creatures, it is wrong to make them suffer needlessly) as well as a matter of degree (They are less intelligent and developed than humans in terms of their intellect and mental faculties, thus, it is okay to kill them humanely for food)

Put another way: Just because their intellectual development as sentient creatures is advanced enough to not justify making it suffer needlessly, doesn't mean it is the equal of humans (meaning no torture, but we don't give them the right to vote either)

MrRubix 11-12-2009 06:07 AM

Re: Is it wrong to be gay?
 
I would assume, given the list you presented, Dev, that it involves things that are illegal for reasons outside of pure consent (incest, polygamy, duels to the death, suicide, assisted suicide, cannibalism, etc).

Polygamy is again due to the definition of marriage, and I don't know much about cannibalism, but I do know that one guy in Germany wound up going to jail for life (the one who ate a man who consented via the Internet to be killed/eaten). To allow "consensual cannibalism" would make it too easy for someone to blatantly commit murder and try to hide behind a false "consent" argument in some way. Unlike rape, a victim is not alive to be able to claim whether or not he/she actually consented. :P

And assisted suicide is actually legal in my home state of Oregon, lmao. The problem there is that "assisted suicide" can also be thought of as "murder with consent," which is another tricky legal hoop.

There is always a weighing when it comes to a given law regarding what exactly is being legalized and what type of situations may arise. It's all done with the overall intent to maintain fundamental human securities and rights while allowing the greatest optima in the unrestricted area.

devonin 11-12-2009 06:20 AM

Re: Is it wrong to be gay?
 
Quote:

To allow "consensual cannibalism" would make it too easy for someone to blatantly commit murder and try to hide behind a false "consent" argument in some way.
Unless you weren't an idiot, and, as an example off the top of my head, got your consent with witnesses notarized by a lawyer in a court of law ahead of time.

People go to prison for rape all the while claiming that consent was given while the person (Who may well have given consent) is denying having done so after the fact. If you got their consent in writing, they'd have a much harder time denying it afterwards.

When I say that all parties involved need to demonstrate informed consent, for a number of things people might want to do (cannibalism, duels to the death etc) I see no reason why a formal legal proceeding to establish "informed" and "consent" shouldn't occur.

My main statement is more of a negative than a positive: "There is no reason I can think of why people -shouldn't- be allowed to do anything they want, if all parties involved give informed consent"

MrRubix 11-12-2009 06:26 AM

Re: Is it wrong to be gay?
 
Yeah, I think the law would have to be defined in a way to describe exactly what type of consent was required.

But let's assume a "more than reasonably thorough consent process" where lawyers and multiple witnesses are present, further consent in writing, possibly video proof, etc, for these "extreme" scenarios that may involve serious fundamental human right violations. I think it should be allowable -- I just don't think there's much demand pushing for such a thing. We can waive Constitutional rights all the time. When we're pulled over by the cops, we have every right, for instance, to say "No," when asked if our cars can be searched, but most people waive the right unknowingly. At what point does it become "wrong" to waive a more fundamental right (say, the right to life)?

EDIT: My point is that, going along with what I've said in this thread, we establish the rights that we do for protection. The Constitution, for instance, is purely a device meant to protect the citizens and keep the government in check. The laws made are done so to maintain society in a certain way and to maintain that protection and freedom. However, who's to say we can't opt out of that if we want to -- as little or as much as we want?

krunkykai22 11-12-2009 08:21 AM

Re: Is it wrong to be gay?
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by MrGiggles (Post 3286232)
I don't want to be 'that guy' but this is actually a protected right under the Bill of Rights. =/

Sorry for late reply. You're right. I agree with you on this. We all have the freedom of speech, freedom of religion so on and so forth. But, if I am not mistaken, I distinctly remember our current president making a speech of some sort that included the freedom of speech bill in there. His words, more or less were as such " We have freedom of speech as long as it does not harm or offend anyone." Which brings me back to Marcus' posts about having a stable system. Sure people can tell you it is wrong, but are they right? Is there a law justifying gay is wrong? The only law I know of is gay marriage. ( In some states ) Other than that, there is not any law forbidding homosexuality.

mhss1992 11-12-2009 09:37 AM

Re: Is it wrong to be gay?
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by MrRubix (Post 3286708)
What are these "several other issues" you disagree with?

Do you remember the Metaphysics thread?

Izzy 11-12-2009 11:53 AM

Re: Is it wrong to be gay?
 
I feel like bobeck would make a good lawyer. Uses really fluffed up paragraphs full of no actual information or argument while dodging every question and argument thrown at him.

MrRubix 11-12-2009 03:41 PM

Re: Is it wrong to be gay?
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by mhss1992 (Post 3286793)
Do you remember the Metaphysics thread?

Honestly, you were totally crushed in that debate. Every argument you threw at me was completely torn apart, and you ignored half of the evidence/arguments that contradicted your claims. Your only retaliation was to spin it towards extraordinarily strange thought experiments, only to get dominated there as a result of a lack of understanding for how the human brain actually works. In the end, when the entire argument clearly destroyed your position, all you were able to say is "Well I don't care, I still believe in God."

The main problem between theistic/atheistic debates is that, from what I find, theists have an extraordinarily bad understanding of the scientific views against their favor. Either way, a theist is not concerned with proof, and so all efforts are nullified from the getgo.

But I will once again proclaim that I can "let it get to my head" because I'm right. The only thing I regret is that when people die and realize they're returning to the same state of nonexistence that they did before they were born, I won't be able to say "Hah! Told you so!" There is a very good reason why we don't look at a 24-sigma event and put "faith" in the residual. If we've been flipping Heads the whole time, we don't kick Occam's Razor in the face hoping for Tails with a BS explanation. We use our brains and understand that it's a two-headed coin.

Of course, relating back to my original point, choosing to agree or disagree with any given view of the heavens won't matter. An atheist and theist alike can still live a fulfilling life.


Quote:

Originally Posted by Izzy (Post 3286845)
I feel like bobeck would make a good lawyer. Uses really fluffed up paragraphs full of no actual information or argument while dodging every question and argument thrown at him.

Izzy: Actually he would make for a very bad lawyer. Pure fluff and misunderstanding will get pissed on hardcore in the face of a more robust argument.

Izzy 11-12-2009 07:43 PM

Re: Is it wrong to be gay?
 
Yea, but people are idiots. Just being a persistent douche is bound to convince sound unintelligent jury members.


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 11:15 PM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.1
Copyright ©2000 - 2021, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright FlashFlashRevolution