Forum Settings
       
Reply To Thread

Texas is... progressive?Follow

#302 Oct 07 2009 at 12:23 PM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
publiusvarus wrote:
Jophiel,
Quote:
I don't want to see my kid "going at it" with anyone, really.

I'm sure you would be less if it was with someone other than a sibling.

lolwut?

Do you even read what you write?
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#303 Oct 07 2009 at 12:24 PM Rating: Good
*****
15,512 posts
Jophiel wrote:
publiusvarus wrote:
Jophiel,
Quote:
I don't want to see my kid "going at it" with anyone, really.

I'm sure you would be less if it was with someone other than a sibling.

lolwut?

Do you even read what you write?
Can he even really read?
#304 Oct 07 2009 at 12:28 PM Rating: Good
publiusvarus wrote:
Tulip,

Quote:
What consequences are you talking about, exactly?


Primarily the destruction of the nuclear family.


homosexuality is causing the destruction of the nuclear family...? Funny. I thought that would be divorce, adultry, and abuse.


Varus wrote:
Quote:
And if I had two children who started "consorting" with one another once they were adults, that's their business.


I expect that's how most liberal democrats feel. Some things are simply wrong. Just because it makes the participants happy doesn't make it any less wrong. But glad to hear a Democrat come right out and say what most of them believe.


Why is it wrong? What's wrong with it if it doesn't hurt anyone else?

Varus wrote:
Quote:
but if that is what makes them happy, then yes, I would support their decision.


And how would you feel if they started making out in front of you? How about if walk in on them going at it?


The former, I would politely ask them not to, just like I would if they were dating anyone else. I wouldn't want to watch my child making out with anyone, personally. And that has nothing to do with thinking it's "icky."

The latter, I would be sure to knock before entering the bedroom of my adult children. Just like I would for anyone else.
#305 Oct 07 2009 at 1:27 PM Rating: Decent
Belkira the Tulip wrote:
publiusvarus wrote:
Tulip,

Quote:
What consequences are you talking about, exactly?


Primarily the destruction of the nuclear family.


homosexuality is causing the destruction of the nuclear family...? Funny. I thought that would be divorce, adultry, and abuse.


It's all those gay husbands cheating on their wives with their abusive boyfriends.
#306 Oct 07 2009 at 1:45 PM Rating: Excellent
Will swallow your soul
******
29,360 posts
Only among Republicans.

____________________________
In a time of universal deceit, telling the truth is a revolutionary act.

#307 Oct 07 2009 at 3:04 PM Rating: Good
*****
10,359 posts
Quote:
One of the few things Mulisms, Jews, and Christians have in common is they all treat homosexuality as a deviant lifestyle.


Aside from a totally fucking historically blind flock of followers like you often are, excepting those followers who actually give a crap about what they do, they have an exceedingly large amount of things in common, including the same God, and eerily similar ethics by most theological standards.
#308 Oct 07 2009 at 5:11 PM Rating: Excellent
Vagina Dentata,
what a wonderful phrase
******
30,106 posts
Remember Belkira, for Varrus, moral relativism only exists when there are terrorists to torture.
____________________________
Turin wrote:
Seriously, what the f*ck nature?
#309 Oct 08 2009 at 1:39 AM Rating: Excellent
It's also quite funny that in Ancient Greece and in Ancient Rome, homosexuality didn't exist because pretty much everyone was bisexual. That was considered the norm. The nuclear family certainly didn't exist back then either.

I think we take our cultural concepts from the last 60 years far too seriously. Most of these concepts were just societal controls disguised as morality, but there are no more inherently right than what the Romans or the Greeks thought. We have to stop thinking that we are anything more than a continuation of History. We are not the end. We are just another step.

And by "We" I mean "Varrus", of course.
____________________________
My politics blog and stuff - Refractory
#310 Oct 08 2009 at 5:04 AM Rating: Good
****
5,684 posts
RedPhoenixxx wrote:
It's also quite funny that in Ancient Greece and in Ancient Rome, homosexuality didn't exist because pretty much everyone was bisexual. That was considered the norm. The nuclear family certainly didn't exist back then either.

zomg but those empires fell! They don't exist anymore and homosexuality is to blame!!!
#311 Oct 08 2009 at 5:32 AM Rating: Decent
***
3,229 posts
Damn, 7 pages read and the conclusion is exactly the same.
#312 Oct 08 2009 at 5:41 AM Rating: Excellent
Goggy wrote:
Damn, 7 pages read and the conclusion is exactly the same.


Varrus is a ****?
____________________________
My politics blog and stuff - Refractory
#313 Oct 08 2009 at 5:43 AM Rating: Good
***
3,229 posts
RedPhoenixxx wrote:
Goggy wrote:
Damn, 7 pages read and the conclusion is exactly the same.


Varrus is a ****?


See?

I didn't even have to write it Smiley: laugh
#314 Oct 08 2009 at 6:16 AM Rating: Excellent
*****
15,952 posts
Pensive the Ludicrous wrote:
Quote:
One of the few things Mulisms, Jews, and Christians have in common is they all treat homosexuality as a deviant lifestyle.


Aside from a totally fucking historically blind flock of followers like you often are, excepting those followers who actually give a crap about what they do, they have an exceedingly large amount of things in common, including the same God, and eerily similar ethics by most theological standards.

Muslims, Jews and Christians have a majority of commonalities, and a minority of differences. They even share Jesus. Don't be fooled by the dress codes that exist today. They only diverged significantly 120 years ago.
#315 Oct 08 2009 at 6:35 AM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
Much more significantly, they share Abraham. And Gabriel!
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#316 Oct 08 2009 at 6:40 AM Rating: Good
*****
10,601 posts
Aripyanfar wrote:
Pensive the Ludicrous wrote:
Quote:
One of the few things Mulisms, Jews, and Christians have in common is they all treat homosexuality as a deviant lifestyle.


Aside from a totally fucking historically blind flock of followers like you often are, excepting those followers who actually give a crap about what they do, they have an exceedingly large amount of things in common, including the same God, and eerily similar ethics by most theological standards.

Muslims, Jews and Christians have a majority of commonalities, and a minority of differences. They even share Jesus. Don't be fooled by the dress codes that exist today. They only diverged significantly 120 years ago.
they all acknowledge Jesus existed. That's where the similarity ends in their treatment of Jesus, and it's a pretty significant difference. Overall there are of course lots of similarities, although that should be expected for Jews and Christians at least.

Edited, Oct 8th 2009 9:41am by Xsarus
____________________________
01001001 00100000 01001100 01001001 01001011 01000101 00100000 01000011 01000001 01001011 01000101
You'll always be stupid, you'll just be stupid with more information in your brain
Forum FAQ
#317 Oct 08 2009 at 7:41 AM Rating: Decent
*****
10,359 posts
Jophiel wrote:
Much more significantly, they share Abraham. And Gabriel!


Was it you who had that website about the hierarchy of angels or something?

I had no idea how many angels there were until after I finished Devil Survivor and I looked up some of the names. Like, I thought there might have been 10 or so really cool ones, but it seems that for any consonant-vowel combination followed by -iel, there's an angel.

Xsarus wrote:
That's where the similarity ends in their treatment of Jesus, and it's a pretty significant difference.


Cool prophet, really cool prophet, divine prophet? Not all that huge.

There's no minimizing the differences between those religions, but there is a clear and verifiable shared history of theology as well as lots and lots of similar doctrine to come out of it, and varus seems to honestly not be slightly aware.
#318 Oct 08 2009 at 8:15 AM Rating: Decent
Prodigal Son
******
20,643 posts
Pensive the Ludicrous wrote:
here's no minimizing the differences between those religions, but there is a clear and verifiable shared history of theology as well as lots and lots of similar doctrine to come out of it, and varus seems to honestly not be slightly aware.

But he's still willing to push government-legislated morality based on it.
____________________________
publiusvarus wrote:
we all know liberals are well adjusted american citizens who only want what's best for society. While conservatives are evil money grubbing scum who only want to sh*t on the little man and rob the world of its resources.
#319 Oct 08 2009 at 8:32 AM Rating: Decent
Skelly Poker Since 2008
*****
16,781 posts
Jophiel wrote:
Bardalicious wrote:
protip: you can stick yours in someone else's *** instead.

What if it's a dog or a sheep or something? Is that okay? I mean, I don't think we should be overly concerned as a society if some goats get butt cancer from too much ***** in their butt.
Do you think it might impact their milk thoug? I lUV good homemade goat cheese, but I don't want it with no varusinogenic lumps.
____________________________
Alma wrote:
I lost my post
#320 Oct 08 2009 at 8:34 AM Rating: Good
*****
10,601 posts
Pensive the Ludicrous wrote:
Cool prophet, really cool prophet, divine prophet? Not all that huge.
So you don't really know that much about it, that's cool. Not that I disagree with the other parts of your post.

Edited, Oct 8th 2009 11:35am by Xsarus
____________________________
01001001 00100000 01001100 01001001 01001011 01000101 00100000 01000011 01000001 01001011 01000101
You'll always be stupid, you'll just be stupid with more information in your brain
Forum FAQ
#321 Oct 08 2009 at 8:54 AM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
Pensive the Ludicrous wrote:
Was it you who had that website about the hierarchy of angels or something?

That was me.

Quote:
I had no idea how many angels there were until after I finished Devil Survivor and I looked up some of the names. Like, I thought there might have been 10 or so really cool ones, but it seems that for any consonant-vowel combination followed by -iel, there's an angel.

You should browse through this book. It's considered the source by folks who concern themselves with that sort of thing.
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#322 Oct 08 2009 at 9:00 AM Rating: Decent
*****
10,359 posts
Sir Xsarus wrote:
Pensive the Ludicrous wrote:
Cool prophet, really cool prophet, divine prophet? Not all that huge.
So you don't really know that much about it, that's cool. Not that I disagree with the other parts of your post.


I know lots, but I am simplifying it severely so I can be polemical towards varrus. Didn't we have that entire sub-thread recently about simplifying my words and writing to my audience? Sheesh. I can't win.
#323 Oct 08 2009 at 9:02 AM Rating: Decent
*****
10,359 posts

Quote:
But he's still willing to push government-legislated morality based on it.


I don't really mind. We do the same thing in every single law we make. There is no law whatsoever that is not at least an amalgam of ethical um... assertions of beliefs of people.

Oh right morality vs ethics? No, no difference. They're just value judgments, like any other subset of value.
#324 Oct 08 2009 at 5:39 PM Rating: Decent
Prodigal Son
******
20,643 posts
Pensive the Ludicrous wrote:

Quote:
But he's still willing to push government-legislated morality based on it.


I don't really mind. We do the same thing in every single law we make. There is no law whatsoever that is not at least an amalgam of ethical um... assertions of beliefs of people.

Oh right morality vs ethics? No, no difference. They're just value judgments, like any other subset of value.

Legislating morality on 2,000 year old values is bad enough, even when you understand them. Which he doesn't.
____________________________
publiusvarus wrote:
we all know liberals are well adjusted american citizens who only want what's best for society. While conservatives are evil money grubbing scum who only want to sh*t on the little man and rob the world of its resources.
#325 Oct 08 2009 at 6:47 PM Rating: Decent
Encyclopedia
******
35,568 posts
Debalic wrote:
Legislating morality on 2,000 year old values is bad enough, even when you understand them. Which he doesn't.


As Pensive pointed out, "legislating morality" is what laws do. What's the opposite of an oxymoron? Mores (Morals) are social rules. Legislation is the process of formally writing down social rules in a legally binding manner. The two are inherently connected and it always amuses me when people use this phrase like it's something horrible and should be avoided.


What you meant to say was "legislating religion", which is entirely different. There's nothing wrong with taking an idea like "thou shalt not kill", and writing laws that say the same thing because your society largely agrees that killing is a "bad thing". It might be wrong (depending on the society) to pass a law mandating that it shall be illegal to eat meat on Fridays in Lent. The former is legislating morality. The latter is legislating religion.


I suspect that the word choice is modified so as to take examples of morality which can be tied to religious belief (like "thou shalt not kill") and use them as examples or proof of legislation of religion. It's the same semantic equivalence trick we see occur all the time. Of course, most people just repeat the phrase because they never bother to stop and think about what the words really mean...
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#326 Oct 08 2009 at 7:45 PM Rating: Decent
*****
10,359 posts
Legislating religion is a subset of legislating morality.

There is still no real difference except, in the mean time, we had had some 200 year old morals made which say we can't use the 2000 year old morals.

Who cares? same source. The difference of time is something inherently flawed anyway. I'd much prefer he make up his own goddamn morals and try to get those legislated rather than following either a 2000 year old set, or a 200 year old set.

I cannot and probably will never understand why history, and the morals that come from it, a look backwards into the past, is taught at the beginning of it. Do you talk about the beginning of light when you look at a chair? No: you are immediately seeing the vision of the chair in your mind and then abstracting backwards to it. It shouldn't be: "this stuff was cool and lets apply it" it should be, "hmm we've got all of this new stuff as we make history together so lets look backwards (instead of forwards) to see if we can pick something to do among the flying wanton morals presented in the past.

Sure you don't want to break good things but just... there's something sad when we can't even entertain the notion of any progressive notion without killing each other. Progresss will and is happening whether or not humans participate. I'd rather participate than get bogged down in either the bible or the constitution.

Reply To Thread

Colors Smileys Quote OriginalQuote Checked Help

 

Recent Visitors: 350 All times are in CST
Anonymous Guests (350)