JohnnyHolmes
Banned
or that end up getting caught with a toothless crack whore in a john sweep.
I was going to go for the Larry Craig shoe tap but I see you've covered the closet angle.
OT: American Politics
- Thread starter MindzEye
- Start date
or that end up getting caught with a toothless crack whore in a john sweep.
I was going to go for the Larry Craig shoe tap but I see you've covered the closet angle.
theREALkoreaboy
New member
not really, no. i don't really see what needs to be addressed.
theREALkoreaboy
New member
this means zeke's morality flows entirely from HIM, and him alone. he as an individual gets to act according to ethics and norms entirely of HIS making, as judged by HIM, based only on HIS experience, and apart from anyone else or any other social unit or societal code of morals or ethics.
it isn't "reductionist", it's an accurate description of the crux of his beliefs as he has outlined them here.
he stands for nothing except for what HE determines is moral and no one or nothing else gets to define that. this is narcissism. this is modern selfishness and arrogance.
mbow30
Spudmeister Supreme
this argument is reductionist because it is not true.
there are myriad laws that we must obey. nobody is arguing to obliterate the social contract. nobody wants to live in hobbes' state of nature. zeke is not arguing that we should be allowed to murder people, or rape people.
those things aren't illegal for religious reasons. those things are illegal because they are intrinsically bad and harmful.
you cannot say the same about laws that discriminate against gays.
MindzEye
Wayward Ditch Pig
and this is inferior to a morality based upon a book that declares sowing 2 types of seed in the same field is a sin....because?
theREALkoreaboy
New member
yes, it is. i'm not saying zeke is arguing for the right to murder people. i'm saying that zeke is arguing that morality and ethics are for him determined entirely by an INDIVIDUAL. it elevates him as an INDIVIDUAL into the position where he gets to decide what is moral, what is just, what is ethical, and no one else damn well better try to stop him from doing that, because he appears to be arguing that only HE gets to do that.
i'm not saying he's unique in thinking this. in fact, i'm saying more and more people are actually thinking this way. it is one of the underlying reasons why we are becoming a hyper-individualistic, selfish, narcissistic society. when man elevates himself above society to the point where he feels he as an INDIVIDUAL ultimately gets to determine what is ethical and moral, he is demonstrating the arrogance and selfishness that has corroded our social institutions to the point we're at today.
theREALkoreaboy
New member
you are far, far too fixated on your hatred (and its clear thats what it is- hatred) for organized religion. you fail to understand that organized religion is a HUMAN institution, built by humans, for humans, to serve human ends. the morality outlined by christianity isn't primarily about "you need to do this because some book written 2000 years ago tells you to." it is a morality and a system of belief that has developed and evolved over these thousands of years and that has for the most part done a very, very good job of helping us organize society and build a just society. you will always choose to fixate on the many wrongs committed under the influence of religion, and you will never acknowledge the far greater GOOD that has come out of it.
yes, wars and killing and persecution has happened that has flowed from religion. but i submit to you that all that would have happened anyways without religion, and probably would have been much worse. you look at where we are after 2000+ years of being influenced and shaped by christianity and the only conclusion that can be reached is that it has been a primary reason why western society flowered, prospered, spread, and succeeded. the legal and moral codes built on top of our religion have been essential in building the tolerant, liberal society that we enjoy.
18-30somethings in 2012 are being arrogant to an epic degree if they think they know better and that they can, on their own individual whims and choices, overturn thousands of years of human development just like that.
mbow30
Spudmeister Supreme
no, they aren't thinking this way. they think that the state should set guidelines for what is right and what is wrong, and it should be based on what is actually right and what is actually wrong, and not on a couple of quotes from a 2000 year old book.
how about this:
herein lies the fundamental difference: the narcissistic good for nothing youth of today isn't asking to impose their morality on anybody else in supporting gay marriage. quite the opposite. they are saying you are free to be as homophobic as you'd like, but the state should not institutionalize inequality or homophobia. you, on the other hand, are arguing for the exact opposite. you want to impose your set of morals on society, and want state conformity with religious principles so that everybody must be bound by those principles.
in effect, you are the one who wants to get to decide what is moral and just, informed only by a 2000 year old book. us narcissists just don't think that fundamental inequality at the state level should be justified by that book. no imposition of our morals is required.
lecoqsportif
Well-known member
Well, maybe you are arrogant for suppressing the rights of others by the application of single set of ethics. Very few ideas and social constructs are immutable, as witnessed by, ya know, the Enlightenment.
Anyway, this is still just philosophical wankery. The bottom line is that you are asserting some people are not full citizens.
leafman101
Well-known member
The "thousands of years" argument is ridculous. In case you havent noticed a lot has changed in the last 20 years, never mind the last thousand. If you don't adapt with the times you'll get left in the stone age, just like the people who use religion to oppress minorities simply because people thousands of years ago didn't understand them.
Sure, there are many good virtues that can be learned through religion, but religion is hardly a prerequisite for them, and oppressing minorities isn't one of those virtues anyway.
If every religious person truly lived by the core values of what their religion represented they would treat people different than them with respect and dignity. If you aren't doing that then you are doing it wrong.
Sure, there are many good virtues that can be learned through religion, but religion is hardly a prerequisite for them, and oppressing minorities isn't one of those virtues anyway.
If every religious person truly lived by the core values of what their religion represented they would treat people different than them with respect and dignity. If you aren't doing that then you are doing it wrong.
Last edited:
theREALkoreaboy
New member
you refuse to get it. knee-jerk anti-religious feeling has you railing against "a 2000 year old book" no matter what i try to tell you. i have argued that morality and ethics have evolved slowly, incrementally, and in some cases with great difficulty, shaped by HUMAN institutions like the church. we have made many mistakes along the way- both humans and institutions like the church. humans and the church have an ability to learn and grow from those mistakes and get better as a result. but without strong institutions, signposts and parameters to help guide that growth, i submit that humanity would be much worse off.
you would throw out all of that in favour of your own PERSONAL codes of ethics and morality, defined entirely by yourself, naively confident in your own ability to see what's true and what's right without any interference from social institutions. that arrogance and selfishness is proven every time you and your friends on this forum sneer and snicker at those institutions. you think you know better. that is narcissism. that is arrogance. that is moral relativism run wild. it is deeply corrosive.
theREALkoreaboy
New member
no, it isnt. its not. it most certainly is NOT ridiculous. you point to change in the "last 20 years" as if to say that that kind of change has never happened before, is entirely separate from changes that came before it, and is automatically superior than anything that came before. when you become more familiar with the wide sweep of history you see how things move in ebbs and flows, sometimes in the right direction sometimes in the wrong direction, but that beliefs and institutions that go fundamentally against human nature inevitably fall away, often times to pop up again in the future in some other form only to be cast aside again.
but never before have more human beings been more selfish and as arrogant and as smug about their own ability to perceive what's right and just and moral as we are now.
theREALkoreaboy
New member
how very typical. you have nothing to respond with, so you call me ridiculous. carry on.
You have ignored 95% of the posts that actually debunk anything that has come out of your mouth.
You are a major waste of time.
Proof that anybody can be a teacher.
You are a major waste of time.
Proof that anybody can be a teacher.
JohnnyHolmes
Banned
"The fact that Kevin and Sean want to get married is none of your ****in' concern, y'know? Your opinion about it does not matter.
It doesn't matter!
And as you know, humans are neurotic water-filled sacs of neuroses. Life is short. It is a fragile thread. If you can find some happiness in your lifetime, do not walk towards it. RUN AT IT.
If Lorraine likes Suzanne...so what? Isn't that great that two chicks dig each other? Two human beings have found enough common ground where they fall deliriously in love? Don't you wish it'd happen to you, tomorrow?
HELL YES!
And so, when you see someone who wants to deny two people that happiness, you wonder what compels this person to be so mean, so hateful, that they don't want two people to get together."
Henry Rollins - Talk Is Cheap, Vol 4
It doesn't matter!
And as you know, humans are neurotic water-filled sacs of neuroses. Life is short. It is a fragile thread. If you can find some happiness in your lifetime, do not walk towards it. RUN AT IT.
If Lorraine likes Suzanne...so what? Isn't that great that two chicks dig each other? Two human beings have found enough common ground where they fall deliriously in love? Don't you wish it'd happen to you, tomorrow?
HELL YES!
And so, when you see someone who wants to deny two people that happiness, you wonder what compels this person to be so mean, so hateful, that they don't want two people to get together."
Henry Rollins - Talk Is Cheap, Vol 4
theREALkoreaboy
New member
another pointless personal jab from the guy who:
-gloated about someone's good friend dying of cancer
-called the virgin mary a "whore"
you got nothing. and since you got nothing, you're best just staying out of this.
JohnnyHolmes
Banned
OMG!
How could anyone slander the good name of the virgin Mary?
I know for a fact that if my wife that I never boned came home knocked up, I would definitely buy the story that the invisible man in the sky put a special baby in there.
Who wouldn't?
How could anyone slander the good name of the virgin Mary?
I know for a fact that if my wife that I never boned came home knocked up, I would definitely buy the story that the invisible man in the sky put a special baby in there.
Who wouldn't?
theREALkoreaboy
New member
i think it should be clear by now that supporting the traditional definition of marriage does NOT mean "denying people their happiness". i have argued repeatedly now that "the gays" should feel entirely free to have relationships, love each other, live with each other, do whatever they want to each other, spend their lives with each other, and support each other emotionally and financially. those relationships though are not "marriages" because by definition they cannot fulfill the primary function of what traditional marriage was designed to do.
if there are people who actually "can't be happy" unless they force religions and the state to call their relationship what they want it to be called, i think that's ridiculous.