ZOMBIE FORUMS

It's a stinking, shambling corpse grotesquely parodying life.
It is currently Thu Mar 28, 2024 3:47 pm

All times are UTC - 8 hours [ DST ]




Forum locked This topic is locked, you cannot edit posts or make further replies.  [ 75 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4  Next

Should homosexuals (among other sexualities) be allowed the same basic human rights and freedoms of straight individuals?
Yes, they're called <i>human</i> rights for a reason 92%  92%  [ 36 ]
No, their form of sexuality is their choice. They must accept the consequences. 0%  0%  [ 0 ]
I'm not all too sure about the topic. I have no opinion. Purposefully or otherwise. 0%  0%  [ 0 ]
My opinion isn't listed. This is a stupid question. 8%  8%  [ 3 ]
Total votes : 39
Author Message
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Thu Jan 22, 2004 6:46 pm 
Offline
Addict

Joined: Tue Feb 18, 2003 11:08 pm
Posts: 2115
Location: Lair of the Internet Anti-Hero
Awww, look, Canwod made a friend, isnt that sweet ^__^

Kali once agian you demonstrate why upper-class nerotics should be given electroshock theropy rather than access to the internet. Lets deal with your mind-boggling fucktardism first, then move on to your partner in brain-busting moronic behavoir, shall we? Tarts before Vicars.

The Pain, It Fills me, It is Neeeeaaat wrote:
Grey: the only reason you ended that thread is because everyone is tired with dealing with you. At this point, it doesn't seem that you're capable of biting your tongue unless you're forcedly gagged and bound. And we can just call DavidoftheEast over for that, could we not? But why must we tattle on you everytime? You're a sad, pathetic little man who seems to always sidetrack the debate into personal battles


Get honest with yourself, Kali. I know its hard to do.. take a deep breath, clear your mind of stupidity (this may take some time) then try thinking. Trust me you will find the experience quite liberating. I had the last post in that thead cause.. GASP, no one else posted there, no DDZ-like glow of POWAR LEVELZ kept people out of it, I appeared to have summed up the general attitude towards that.

Of course you wouldnt like the age of consent... not that consent is an issue with you. If it were up to me, trust me, I would have preferred to swap you with my sister with the whole rape thing seeing as you masterbate to the thought of being raped, while my sister actually was. Naturally its just one of your many postions taken out of complete fucking ignorance, but thats you through and through, innit?

DOTE, eh.. keep up with the times, peace has been made with the jew. Perhaps if you spend less time wanking off to the imagry of hordes of rapists with nothing better to do than probe the dry, arid area of your vagina, you might have noticed.

Oh dear, Kali is calling someone sad and pathetic. Please excuse me while I laugh until I nearly dry-heave my stomach lining in gales of hearty bellows. Oh, Kali, you sure know how to tell/be a jolly good joke.

Finally lets not forget this thread was started with but one purpose. To garner you attention. Congrat, you got it. Price of fame.


LIFE ISH PAAAAIINN wrote:
And just for everyone's information - I get smartest once a month, because there's that week farthest away from the blood in which I can actually form thoughts. *gasp* What a wonder...


Kali 'gets smartest' once a month, eh? Im asuming that this is that time, in which case I can do little but laugh once more. I'd hate to see you when you 'gets dumbest'. however, thankyou for pointing out that you are only capable of cohearent thought, at least in an abstract sense, once per month. its a shame you waste your occasional low level intelligence on this sorta of crap.

Kali_bitch wrote:
At least someone was smart enough to get relivant information from that article. Points.


Kali points? Wow, where can we cash those in? Can we barter them in exchange for tokens of humiliation for actually being so wrong as the have Kali agree? Ha, dont forget that that was PTLIS. He's british, bad and pointless sex is the only display of affection the ugly gawth-boy knows.

Moron wrote:
Whether or not it is forced on others, it can be a prime factor of where homophobia originates. The issue with religion is learning to privately practice it instead of zealously striking those who choose not to.

This is amusing as you actually pretend to understadn what Cenwood said. This is amusing as Cenwood makes no sense. Lets fact it, if I can't decifer his trollup, you have no chance Ms. I.Q Zero

Teh Sarah wrote:
It seems ignorance is more the problem than not. Gays who practice unsafe sex (in all aspects) are just as in risk as straight human beings. The only thing they don't have to worry about is pregnancy.
Anti-gays have chosen this flaw to focus upon and publisize. So the general public "knows that all gays practice dangerous sex." Which is also a form of ignorance...


Everytime you talk about ignorance I feel funny in the pants.

Oh oh... BUT WHAT IS THIS?

Logical Debate RAWKS wrote:
Convenience..........?
Logic...?
The majority of the largely followed religions do share similarities after all...

Good questions. You've completely managed to intimidate me with your intellect. This is where I hide and closely observe the thread from afar.


Well, looks like you realised once again your out of your depth, you know, against people who can actually make a coheasive arguement.

Well, thank goodness, the Axis of Evil is down to Cenwood and whoever he can ensnare in his stupidity.

By the way, your new avatar suits you. All tits and attitude, no brain. Its got Sarah written all over it.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Thu Jan 22, 2004 7:51 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sun Jan 17, 2038 9:00 pm
Posts: 3209
Forevergrey wrote:
Hey, I just read that tripe you linked, and aside from its many glaring problems, this stood out the most.

NAMBLA could use the EXACT SAME arguement.

Come back when you have something that couldnt be used as an excuse to sodimise children.

Grey, you're a dumbass.

The difference between homosexuality and pedophilia? Two consenting adults versus an adult and a child. The "pedophilia as some sort of deviant sexual activity equitable to homosexuality" argument is complete crap.

Is homosexuality "deviant?" Might be, considering humans are definitely not designed for it (there are no genes that make someone homosexual--there might be biological factors, but that's a lot iffier and there is no real proof either way). It's been around a while, though, and I don't think that you can make it disappear, considering the range of cultures where homosexuality has been present (e.g., all of them). So, in essence, why the fuck do you care? What somebody does with another consenting adult is nobody's business except the two people's. Same with smoking pot, whatever. If it affects you or a consenting adult only, it's not anyone else's place.

You live your life, I'll live my life, Kali will live her own life, Our Friend the Dumbass Ultraliberal will live his own life, and everyone will live his or her own life. And everybody will be happier.

_________________
election results: still an op
Let me put it to you this way: I earned capital in the campaign, political capital, and now I intend to spend it. It is my style.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Thu Jan 22, 2004 8:02 pm 
Offline
Addict

Joined: Tue Feb 18, 2003 11:08 pm
Posts: 2115
Location: Lair of the Internet Anti-Hero
The Baron wrote:
I didnt actually read what Grey wrote.


Ahem, I said the *arguement* presented could be used to defend NAMBLA

In no way did I compare homosexuality and pedophilia.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Thu Jan 22, 2004 8:06 pm 
Offline
Native
User avatar

Joined: Tue Nov 19, 2002 5:00 pm
Posts: 999
Location: Midworld
Cenwood wrote:
What? You are totally at a loss as to what moral base a government should use to make lwas, OTHER then religion? Shit, I have a more stringent set of a morals then a lot of christians. Mainly they involve leaving people alone to do as they will as long as its not harming others...a lot of Secular Humanists and Unitarian Universalists dont even believe in god. Are you seriously saying that the best ethical natures spring from religious faith? Cause they often dont. Often the people that are 100% thinking for themselves construct the best moral compass.


Unfortunately, most of the judges and/or legislators in this country are religious to some extent, and as long as they control the country, we'll have to play by their rules.

Oh, and [pedant]Secular Humanists by definition don't believe in god.[/pedant] I should know, that's the closest 'religion' to what I am. Not an attack, just a clarification.

And for goodness sake, please start using apostrophes.

_________________
Go then. There are other worlds than these.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Thu Jan 22, 2004 8:09 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sun Jan 17, 2038 9:00 pm
Posts: 3209
Forevergrey wrote:
The Baron wrote:
I didnt actually read what Grey wrote.


Ahem, I said the *arguement* presented could be used to defend NAMBLA

In no way did I compare homosexuality and pedophilia.

Actually, I just didn't read the article. I have no desire to read what some radical ultraleftist moron has to say about gay rights. I could just as easily say the same thing about black people, or women, or Jews, or middle class white people, or ANY class.

maybe stop grouping gays and simply accepting it as an attribute rather than a classification. skin color used to be a classification in the US (still is in some parts, but it's a lot better), but now it's pretty much an attribute. most people don't give a damn whether you're black or white or dirty Mexican Jew lizard ( :) ). I fail to see how being gay is some more fundamental difference in the way a person lives than religion or skin color. you a human? peachy.

_________________
election results: still an op
Let me put it to you this way: I earned capital in the campaign, political capital, and now I intend to spend it. It is my style.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Thu Jan 22, 2004 8:17 pm 
Offline
Addict
User avatar

Joined: Tue May 14, 2002 5:00 pm
Posts: 3447
Location: New York
Cenwood wrote:
What? You are totally at a loss as to what moral base a government should use to make lwas, OTHER then religion? Shit, I have a more stringent set of a morals then a lot of christians. Mainly they involve leaving people alone to do as they will as long as its not harming others...a lot of Secular Humanists and Unitarian Universalists dont even believe in god. Are you seriously saying that the best ethical natures spring from religious faith? Cause they often dont. Often the people that are 100% thinking for themselves construct the best moral compass.


Dude, stop assuming things. You're starting to remind me of this O&M strip. I'm not a Christian, and I never said Christian values are in any way better than those of a Secular Humanist. But the government has to base their values on something, and isn't basing them on Secular Humanism just as much of a violation of the establishment clause as basing them on Christianity?


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Thu Jan 22, 2004 8:24 pm 
Offline
Addict
User avatar

Joined: Thu Apr 11, 2002 5:00 pm
Posts: 3730
Location: DELETED FOR SECURITY REASONS
Baron is both 100% right and 100% wrong.

Being gay is an assigned status, like your skin color, gender, hair color etc.

But all of these come with expectations. If you do not think, for example, in aussie that if you're an aborig you arn't expected to be an idiot (with <strike>a lot</strike> some justification)? White people tend to feel uncomfortable among black people they do not know. Mexicans are expected to marry circumsized lizards. Asians are expected to be smart. Gays have things attributed to them as well which, true or not, are how they are widely percieved.

So your "classification/attribute" difference is bullshit, the thing is everything is a classification, its just prejudice when people think the person isn't being treated as they should.

As a sidenote, go gays, I don't think anyone would deny them human rights. Just like we don't deny thieves human rights. You can disapprove of their actions, sure, but we still treat them as human beings. This thread is a bunch of ho-hum about nothing. Its like "OMG, IF YOU DISAPPROVE OF GAY PEOPL U R A BIGOT HOMOPHOBE."

First off, homophobia implies fear of homosexuals, which I can assure you very few of the bible-thumping OMG-U-GO-2-HEL people have. They just think, "God says thats bad, they're immoral, don't like what they do."

Second, just like people can disapprove of people using drugs, mothers working while there is a young child at home etc. What you people don't seem to get is social taboos are still social taboos, and they're constructed by the people in a society. Being gay is generally frowned upon in this society, not as bad but you can compare it (after a fashion) to a junkie, not because of any intrinsic wave of immorality the junkies bring but that both of those lifestyles go against ingrained institutions (drugs go against the law, gays infringe upon the typical family etc, its also why single moms are considered a 'problem,' all facts aside nobody would give a shit if it didn't bother such a powerful social institution.)

Get it?

-MiB

_________________
delenda est communism


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Thu Jan 22, 2004 8:29 pm 
Offline
Addict
User avatar

Joined: Tue May 14, 2002 5:00 pm
Posts: 3447
Location: New York
The Man In Black wrote:
First off, homophobia implies fear of homosexuals, which I can assure you very few of the bible-thumping OMG-U-GO-2-HEL people have. They just think, "God says thats bad, they're immoral, don't like what they do."


Actually, "phobia" (cf. Greek phobos) can mean either "fear" or "hatred". A much bigger problem with the term "homophobia" is its improper derivation - dissecting the Greek words it's composed of one would think that it was "fear/hatred of things that are the same".


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Fri Jan 23, 2004 12:25 am 
Offline
Local
User avatar

Joined: Fri Jan 16, 2004 10:29 pm
Posts: 237
Location: Nellis AFB, Las Vegas
I dont care if you bat for the other team, just dont try to sway me to join. Lothar loves the ladies.

_________________
Confuscious say: "baseball all wrong man with four balls cannot walk"


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: coheasive
PostPosted: Fri Jan 23, 2004 2:43 am 
Offline
Local

Joined: Mon Dec 22, 2003 9:33 am
Posts: 187
Location: Undisclosed at this time.
Ok, the exchange of insults isnt furthering this argument, so Im going to PM you the exact details of your mental inabilities and exact worth, and probable future employment. Enjoy. For now, Ill address your actual "points", such as they are.

Forevergrey wrote:
Get honest with yourself, Kali. I know its hard to do.. take a deep breath, clear your mind of stupidity (this may take some time) then try thinking. Trust me you will find the experience quite liberating. I had the last post in that thead cause.. GASP, no one else posted there, no DDZ-like glow of POWAR LEVELZ kept people out of it, I appeared to have summed up the general attitude towards that.


Just because people stop talking to you doesnt mean they agree with you. It means they recognise the argument is pointless as you wont ever change, because you dont have the brains to except new ideas, not because your ideas are bulletproof. See the PM for a fuller explanation.

Forevergrey wrote:
Of course you wouldnt like the age of consent... not that consent is an issue with you. If it were up to me, trust me, I would have preferred to swap you with my sister with the whole rape thing seeing as you masterbate to the thought of being raped, while my sister actually was. Naturally its just one of your many postions taken out of complete fucking ignorance, but thats you through and through, innit?


So how the fuck did you jump from homosexuality to the age of consent? And there is a world of different between Domination/Sadism fantasies and actual fucking rape. Again, see PM for explanation of probable reasons for your confusion.

Forevergrey wrote:
Oh dear, Kali is calling someone sad and pathetic. Please excuse me while I laugh until I nearly dry-heave my stomach lining in gales of hearty bellows. Oh, Kali, you sure know how to tell/be a jolly good joke.


Again, nothing I have to say here is related to the argument. Read the pm, assuming you can actually read without assistance

Forevergrey wrote:
Finally lets not forget this thread was started with but one purpose. To garner you attention. Congrat, you got it. Price of fame.


I think she started because she was interested in talking about the topic. Not everyone is a pathetic attention seeking little bitch, you know. Some of us are smart enough to actually talk about shit with resorting to shrieking "LOOK AT ME IM FOREVERGRAY I HAVE CONTROVERSIAL OPINIONS PAY ATTENTION TO ME PLEEAASSE."

LIFE ISH PAAAAIINN wrote:
And just for everyone's information - I get smartest once a month, because there's that week farthest away from the blood in which I can actually form thoughts. *gasp* What a wonder...


Forevergrey wrote:
Kali 'gets smartest' once a month, eh? Im asuming that this is that time, in which case I can do little but laugh once more. I'd hate to see you when you 'gets dumbest'. however, thankyou for pointing out that you are only capable of cohearent thought, at least in an abstract sense, once per month. its a shame you waste your occasional low level intelligence on this sorta of crap.


Your just jealous of the fact that she can say something smart, even once a month, whereas you havnt said anything remotely thought provoking or useful, in your whole life, ever. No matter how much you try, you just cant master "cohearent" thought. Doesnt matter what "sorta of" crap you talk about. See pm.

Moron wrote:
Whether or not it is forced on others, it can be prime factor of where homophobia originates. The issue with religion is learning to privately practice it instead of zealously striking those who choose not to.


Forevergrey wrote:
This is amusing as you actually pretend to understadn what Cenwood said. This is amusing as Cenwood makes no sense. Lets fact it, if I can't decifer his trollup, you have no chance Ms. I.Q Zero


Just because you fail to understand what I said doesnt mean I dont make sense. Several other people disected my points pretty effectively: Just because you didnt bother to read them, doesnt mean they are incomprehensible to anyone with more intelligence then pond scum. And I can understand whats she saying fine, whereas I have to try to think on a level several tiers less complex then a human brain usually operates on to even understrand what the fuck your getting at.

Teh Sarah wrote:
It seems ignorance is more the problem than not. Gays who practice unsafe sex (in all aspects) are just as in risk as straight human beings. The only thing they don't have to worry about is pregnancy.
Anti-gays have chosen this flaw to focus upon and publisize. So the general public "knows that all gays practice dangerous sex." Which is also a form of ignorance...


Forevergrey wrote:
Everytime you talk about ignorance I feel funny in the pants.


So you are aroused by your own incompetence and lack of knowledge? ...K.

Logical Debate RAWKS wrote:
Convenience..........?
Logic...?
The majority of the largely followed religions do share similarities after all...


Good questions. You've completely managed to intimidate me with your intellect. This is where I hide and closely observe the thread from afar.
[/quote]

Forevergrey wrote:
Well, looks like you realised once again your out of your depth, you know, against people who can actually make a coheasive arguement.

Well, thank goodness, the Axis of Evil is down to Cenwood and whoever he can ensnare in his stupidity.

By the way, your new avatar suits you. All tits and attitude, no brain. Its got Sarah written all over it.


She wasnt intimidated by YOUR particular brand of "intellect". Mildly appalled and stirred to pity, probably some kind of desire to put you out of your misery, but thats it.

_________________
I came to see the CIRCUS, not some half dressed tart spouting dire warnings. -BG2, Shadows of Amn


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Fri Jan 23, 2004 2:47 am 
Offline
Addict
User avatar

Joined: Wed Sep 18, 2002 5:00 pm
Posts: 2428
Location: In the ether, Hand of DM poised for enervation at will
I have to agree with Lothar. Lesbians are fun to look at, but I really doubt I'd ever be one. Not my bag. But it's someone else's bag, and as long as they're not making out on top of me while I'm trying to sleep, or slathering themselves with gravy while I'm trying to eat, I'm okay with it. To each his/her own.

_________________
The scent of Binturong musk is often compared to that of warm popcorn.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Fri Jan 23, 2004 6:57 am 
Offline
Native

Joined: Wed Jun 19, 2002 5:00 pm
Posts: 903
Icy, I strongly object to you comparing Cenwood to myself. From his most recent post, I think a better comparison would be that Cenwood is a leftist version of Grey.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Fri Jan 23, 2004 7:01 am 
Offline
Tourist
User avatar

Joined: Fri Jan 23, 2004 4:15 am
Posts: 38
Location: A constantly shifting IP address.
;__; that fawkin nasty.

_________________
Meet new Grey. Same as old Grey. {GA: And just as banned.}


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Fri Jan 23, 2004 8:01 am 
Offline
Addict
User avatar

Joined: Thu Apr 11, 2002 5:00 pm
Posts: 3730
Location: DELETED FOR SECURITY REASONS
Cen - stop your idiocy. You have failed. FAILYURE.

Grey has made points, however crudely and rudely. You have made nothing backed up with facts, just "OMG I KNO STUF BELIEV ME!!111"

Also, you said you'd keep insults to PM. You are a fucking dirty liar. Stop being an idiot. For one, its Grey, and for another your points were pathetic in the first place and you deserved to be made fun of.

Cenwood wrote:
Often the people that are 100% thinking for themselves construct the best moral compass.


Let me translate what you just actually said, Cen.

Cenwood wrote:
I'm better than all of you, why? Because I said so. I don't have any proof, just my loudmouth opinion, but you have to believe it or I'll insult you and shout you down!


Here's a hint: nobody gives a shit what your opinion is. What you just said was what we like to call an assertion: a statement of supposed truth not backed up by facts. In debate, this is considered bullshit useless (a techniqual term.) Stop with the assertions.

Cenwood wrote:
And if your going to use religion as a moral base, how do you pick out the good moral lessons from such crap as Sodom and Gamorrah, the slavery laws, the "if a woman is raped, beat the shit out of her" laws, the way in which god often encouraged incest....and I dont want to start a debate on the pros and cons of Christanity, and Im not going to debate on the validity of the old testament to christanity. I just think using a holy text as moral groundwork is pretty damn risky ground.


Translation:

Cenwood wrote:
A moral code different from mine is obvious evil and incorrect! Look at that old testament, it disagrees with me! Don't you see how wrong it makes it?


We're all touchy-feely here, and your feelings and personal, biased, stupid, useless opinions are important. Go post them in unrelated. Here, post something else besides "Well I think it so its right!"

Nobody gives a shit what your opinion is.

Got it?

Edit: Stuck my foot in my mouth, and apologies to Cenwood for this line.

-MiB

_________________
delenda est communism


Last edited by The Man In Black on Fri Jan 23, 2004 9:52 am, edited 1 time in total.

Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Fri Jan 23, 2004 9:11 am 
Offline
Addict
User avatar

Joined: Sat May 17, 2003 3:21 pm
Posts: 1366
Location: nowhere near the damned sacred rainbow ... U.S.
....O_O

Well damn, then, Mibby. You might as well delete my post. It's on page 1. Go right ahead, because I think that Cenwood has added more to this thread than Grey has.

_________________
::darksetyuna gets the Yevaud333 Chronomantic Seal of Approval for Funny-@$$ $#�+::

/me basks

<a href="http://darksetyuna.modblog.com">Who says computer doesn't taste like meat!?!</a>


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Fri Jan 23, 2004 9:16 am 
Offline
Addict
User avatar

Joined: Tue Apr 23, 2002 5:00 pm
Posts: 3706
darksetyuna wrote:
....O_O

Well damn, then, Mibby. You might as well delete my post. It's on page 1. Go right ahead, because I think that Cenwood has added more to this thread than Grey has.


Seconded.

PTLIS

_________________
There's mischief and malarkies but no queers or yids or darkies
within this bastard's carnival, this vicious cabaret.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Fri Jan 23, 2004 9:24 am 
Offline
Addict
User avatar

Joined: Fri Jun 27, 2003 6:10 pm
Posts: 2571
The Man In Black wrote:
Grey has made points, however crudely and rudely.


However so? The hostility between Grey and Cenwood has been taken between PMs. If Grey has contributed something, then surely Cenwood has also provided a point of view. A few in the debate forums never actually do back up their reasoning with logical facts, that should be pointed out. Their posts are rarely deleted.

The Man In Black wrote:
Do it again and a mod might decide to delete the empty post.


You should probably give warnings more often. There are quite a few that remain. Attacking my character, sexual prefferences, biological functions, intelligence, etc. is irrelivant to the debate. I was actually told in private conversations that something like this would not happen again, but I see the post is untouched.

I have nothing as of right now to contribute to the debate. I'm observing the different points being presented. Delete this post if you wish.

PS. This avatar was drawn by the comic artist, Sarah-chan. If you have a problem with her character, Cath-chan, take it up with her. I suggest you do a little background reading before insulting her characters.

_________________
-DNI ~ by Ezelek
I have earned the title of Pedant.

Image


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Fri Jan 23, 2004 9:51 am 
Offline
Addict
User avatar

Joined: Thu Apr 11, 2002 5:00 pm
Posts: 3730
Location: DELETED FOR SECURITY REASONS
--;; stuck my foot in my mouth, and apologies to cenwood.

-MiB

_________________
delenda est communism


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Fri Jan 23, 2004 10:38 am 
Offline
Addict
User avatar

Joined: Tue May 14, 2002 5:00 pm
Posts: 3447
Location: New York
Cenwood and Grey are both being smacktards. Grey, however, is being more of a smacktard. Cenwood, however mistakenly sometimes, is actually making points. Grey is simply saing "OMG LOOK HOW CLEVAR I AM I CAN MAEK AD HOMINEM ATTAX!!!1 U R OWNZED!!111ONE" (this is also known as "The Santiago Technique"). Now, I personally find Grey's comments to be hilarious, but personal insults, however witty, have no place in the debate club.

This is why I'd been shying away from Debate Club lately. Back when WI was still posting here regularly, the debates were much more civil, people often conceded points to each other, and it seemed like the goal was less for your "side" to win and more for everyone involved to come to a clearer understanding of the subject at hand. Lately, most Debates here have been glorified shouting matches. Now, this is probably partially due to a shift in the subject matter of the debates (from philosophy to politics, a subject which has a much greater tendency toward argumentative dogmatism). However, I still expect more from you all than this. We're not children here.

I realize that I may sound a bit arrogant and self-righteous right now, but... God damn, this asshattery has got to stop.

EDIT: Mibbers, I'd just like to say that your last comment goes *so well* with your current avatar.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sat Jan 24, 2004 7:24 pm 
Offline
Local

Joined: Mon Dec 22, 2003 9:33 am
Posts: 187
Location: Undisclosed at this time.
MiB, you havnt provided any more evidence for your point of view then I have. We both say we know/have met people who back up our views one way or the other.

And my "Often the people that are 100% thinking for themselves construct the best moral compass" didnt actually mean your "translation". Im wasnt suggesting that I was the only person here who is thinking and that the rest of you are sheep, and that Iam therefore better. My comment was simply that its entirely possible to be moral without following religion or using any other central role model for your moral upbringing.

As to your second statement....I was picking on the Old testament specifically because it contains some beliefs and "laws" that pretty much everyone disagrees with. And yes, call it elitism or assertions or whatever, but I do think my moral code and beliefs are superior to the old testament.

I was specifically commenting on the danger of using any religious text as the sole moral basis for any society or human being. The bible does indeed contain some kickass shit, but not all of it is right. Some of it is a matter of opinion, so of it is pretty much inarguably wrong. So using it as a literal book of laws to be literally interepreted is dangerous. Thats the point I was trying to make.

_________________
I came to see the CIRCUS, not some half dressed tart spouting dire warnings. -BG2, Shadows of Amn


Top
 Profile  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Forum locked This topic is locked, you cannot edit posts or make further replies.  [ 75 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4  Next

All times are UTC - 8 hours [ DST ]


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 29 guests


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
cron
Powered by phpBB © 2000, 2002, 2005, 2007 phpBB Group