Poll: Which fundie was the craziest?
voxxpopulisuxx
LouisIX
mikemac
Kaesekopf
Archer
[Show Results]
 
Real debate with fundies
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
17-10-2013, 10:57 PM
Real debate with fundies
(17-10-2013 10:47 PM)LouisIX Wrote:  
(17-10-2013 10:26 PM)Crimson Flyboy Wrote:  It wasn't very nice of me to mock you, I'll grant you that. However, I did my best to remain respectful while in the midst of horrible bigotry that you, as a moderator, allow on a consistent basis. Christians are seen as being intolerant because of the terrible things they say about homosexuals, as one example.

I am intolerant of homosexuality, not necessarily homosexuals. I understand that that seems bigoted to you and that perhaps you believe this distinction to be a false one. Again, I know that the following will sound bigoted to you, but at least try and understand the logic even if you think a premise is false.

You find rape to be abhorrent, I'm sure. Therefore you'd have no problem posting as such and allowing others to post as such on your forum. This is similar (though not the same) to how I feel about sodomy (I understand that one is a more violent act than another, so please recognize that I'm not comparing the two absolutely). For that reason, I have no problem with people speaking out against sodomy on our forum (which I only moderate and do not own, btw).

For this reason, calling my belief "bigotry" or "intolerant" doesn't sway me. If someone told you that your rejection of pedophilia was "intolerant" you wouldn't care less.

My point is that this discussion would have to be about sodomy itself. Telling me that I should change my views because they are bigoted is sort of begging the question.

Anyway, just for the record, I do not go out looking for homosexuals to chastise. I am not a Westboro Baptist. I get the feeling that some of you picture us as the idiots holding signs that say "God hates fags" at university. I don't do this. I'm too busy with work, my studies, my family, etc. (not that I would otherwise).

I don't care if you change your views or not. I wanted clear concise answers. There is a huge difference between rape and sodomy. Sodomy involves consenting adults, rape doesn't. Can you see the difference? What I wanted to know is why it is okay for the government or the Church to tell me how I may live my life. I never got any good answers.

"Laissez nous faire!"

"I swear by my life and my love of it that I will never live for the sake of another man, nor will I ever ask another man to live for mine."
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
17-10-2013, 10:57 PM
RE: Real debate with fundies
(17-10-2013 10:53 PM)Bucky Ball Wrote:  
(17-10-2013 10:28 PM)LouisIX Wrote:  I honestly don't think I've ever met anyone (even on the internet) that is as quick to jump to conclusions and make inferences.

I didn't say that one could only speak in Latin. Haha. Go back and read my post. I said that certain technical phrases are better expressed in Latin. But since you seem unable to accept this and unable to come to any conclusion other than I'm trying to pull a fast one on you, I will refrain from posting anything in Latin. You might consider, however, that Latin is familiar enough to us that we use it often without thinking much of it. You'll see a lot of Latin on our forum. Are we trying to intimidate one another?

Honestly, if your best argument against Thomistic metaphysics is calling it "worthless" without even pretending to give a reason for saying so, then addressing you is not worth my time. If having a gentlemanly conversation involves posting "fail" then I see no point in going further with you. You're just taking the opportunity to give a Christian what he's got coming and you sure as hell aren't willing to listen and discuss.

I'll spend my time responding to someone who at least attempts to discuss like an adult.

And this is adult ?
""False religions need no liberty. Part of our problems stem from the fact that we've convinced ourselves that any man has a right to worship any god he wants. Only the Church has a right to freedom. We may tolerate other religions, but no man has a God-given right to be a Hindu or a Buddhist or a Muslim"

LMAO
There is nothing "technical" about "imago Dei", that is not conveyed equally well in English. You gave no reasons to support Thomistic metaphysics, so why should I bother to try to read your mind ?

Tell us EXACTLY what the criteria you use to determine "false religions" from "true religions". I assume you know Vatican II's Constitution on the Church (Lumen Gentium), says that the Catholic Church is "subsumed" with in the Church of Christ. Therefore to assume it is the ONLY true church, is NOT what your own church teaches.

"subsumed"?

That word doesn't even appear once in Lumen Gentium. Do you mean "subsists in"?

You keep appealing to this text but it sounds like you've never even read it.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
17-10-2013, 10:58 PM
RE: Real debate with fundies
(17-10-2013 10:47 PM)LouisIX Wrote:  I am intolerant of homosexuality, not necessarily homosexuals. I understand that that seems bigoted to you and that perhaps you believe this distinction to be a false one. Again, I know that the following will sound bigoted to you, but at least try and understand the logic even if you think a premise is false.

You find rape to be abhorrent, I'm sure. Therefore you'd have no problem posting as such and allowing others to post as such on your forum. This is similar (though not the same) to how I feel about sodomy (I understand that one is a more violent act than another, so please recognize that I'm not comparing the two absolutely). For that reason, I have no problem with people speaking out against sodomy on our forum (which I only moderate and do not own, btw).

For this reason, calling my belief "bigotry" or "intolerant" doesn't sway me. If someone told you that your rejection of pedophilia was "intolerant" you wouldn't care less.

My point is that this discussion would have to be about sodomy itself. Telling me that I should change my views because they are bigoted is sort of begging the question.

Anyway, just for the record, I do not go out looking for homosexuals to chastise. I am not a Westboro Baptist. I get the feeling that some of you picture us as the idiots holding signs that say "God hates fags" at university. I don't do this. I'm too busy with work, my studies, my family, etc. (not that I would otherwise).

So, by your statement here, the choices made by consenting adults to do something that brings them pleasure (involving only those consenting individuals, with no indended harm and with no malice aforthought, nor force) has no basis on whether or not sodomy is acceptable? You compare it to rape and pedophilia without even taking consent and accountability into account? Is that what you are saying?

"Good news, everyone!"
-Cody
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
17-10-2013, 10:59 PM
RE: Real debate with fundies
(17-10-2013 10:57 PM)Crimson Flyboy Wrote:  
(17-10-2013 10:47 PM)LouisIX Wrote:  I am intolerant of homosexuality, not necessarily homosexuals. I understand that that seems bigoted to you and that perhaps you believe this distinction to be a false one. Again, I know that the following will sound bigoted to you, but at least try and understand the logic even if you think a premise is false.

You find rape to be abhorrent, I'm sure. Therefore you'd have no problem posting as such and allowing others to post as such on your forum. This is similar (though not the same) to how I feel about sodomy (I understand that one is a more violent act than another, so please recognize that I'm not comparing the two absolutely). For that reason, I have no problem with people speaking out against sodomy on our forum (which I only moderate and do not own, btw).

For this reason, calling my belief "bigotry" or "intolerant" doesn't sway me. If someone told you that your rejection of pedophilia was "intolerant" you wouldn't care less.

My point is that this discussion would have to be about sodomy itself. Telling me that I should change my views because they are bigoted is sort of begging the question.

Anyway, just for the record, I do not go out looking for homosexuals to chastise. I am not a Westboro Baptist. I get the feeling that some of you picture us as the idiots holding signs that say "God hates fags" at university. I don't do this. I'm too busy with work, my studies, my family, etc. (not that I would otherwise).

I don't care if you change your views or not. I wanted clear concise answers. There is a huge difference between rape and sodomy. Sodomy involves consenting adults, rape doesn't. Can you see the difference? What I wanted to know is why it is okay for the government or the Church to tell me how I may live my life. I never got any good answers.

Yes, I do see the difference. In fact, I pointed it out in my post.

Why is it ok for the government to restrict you from murdering? Isn't that limiting how you may live your life? What about drugs?
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
17-10-2013, 10:59 PM
RE: Real debate with fundies
(17-10-2013 10:57 PM)LouisIX Wrote:  
(17-10-2013 10:53 PM)Bucky Ball Wrote:  And this is adult ?
""False religions need no liberty. Part of our problems stem from the fact that we've convinced ourselves that any man has a right to worship any god he wants. Only the Church has a right to freedom. We may tolerate other religions, but no man has a God-given right to be a Hindu or a Buddhist or a Muslim"

LMAO
There is nothing "technical" about "imago Dei", that is not conveyed equally well in English. You gave no reasons to support Thomistic metaphysics, so why should I bother to try to read your mind ?

Tell us EXACTLY what the criteria you use to determine "false religions" from "true religions". I assume you know Vatican II's Constitution on the Church (Lumen Gentium), says that the Catholic Church is "subsumed" with in the Church of Christ. Therefore to assume it is the ONLY true church, is NOT what your own church teaches.

"subsumed"?

That word doesn't even appear once in Lumen Gentium. Do you mean "subsists in"?

You keep appealing to this text but it sounds like you've never even read it.

Nice try. I've read the whole damn thing.
Don't try to evade the point.
What translation are you looking at ?

Insufferable know-it-all.Einstein
Those who were seen dancing were thought to be insane by those who could not hear the music - Friedrich Nietzsche
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
17-10-2013, 11:02 PM
Real debate with fundies
(17-10-2013 10:59 PM)LouisIX Wrote:  
(17-10-2013 10:57 PM)Crimson Flyboy Wrote:  I don't care if you change your views or not. I wanted clear concise answers. There is a huge difference between rape and sodomy. Sodomy involves consenting adults, rape doesn't. Can you see the difference? What I wanted to know is why it is okay for the government or the Church to tell me how I may live my life. I never got any good answers.

Yes, I do see the difference. In fact, I pointed it out in my post.

Why is it ok for the government to restrict you from murdering? Isn't that limiting how you may live your life? What about drugs?

Murder takes away from the rights of another, ingesting drugs does not. I am an adult and have every right to do with my body as I please, the government has no right to tell me what substances I can and cannot ingest.

"Laissez nous faire!"

"I swear by my life and my love of it that I will never live for the sake of another man, nor will I ever ask another man to live for mine."
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
17-10-2013, 11:03 PM
RE: Real debate with fundies
(17-10-2013 10:58 PM)Anudist Wrote:  
(17-10-2013 10:47 PM)LouisIX Wrote:  I am intolerant of homosexuality, not necessarily homosexuals. I understand that that seems bigoted to you and that perhaps you believe this distinction to be a false one. Again, I know that the following will sound bigoted to you, but at least try and understand the logic even if you think a premise is false.

You find rape to be abhorrent, I'm sure. Therefore you'd have no problem posting as such and allowing others to post as such on your forum. This is similar (though not the same) to how I feel about sodomy (I understand that one is a more violent act than another, so please recognize that I'm not comparing the two absolutely). For that reason, I have no problem with people speaking out against sodomy on our forum (which I only moderate and do not own, btw).

For this reason, calling my belief "bigotry" or "intolerant" doesn't sway me. If someone told you that your rejection of pedophilia was "intolerant" you wouldn't care less.

My point is that this discussion would have to be about sodomy itself. Telling me that I should change my views because they are bigoted is sort of begging the question.

Anyway, just for the record, I do not go out looking for homosexuals to chastise. I am not a Westboro Baptist. I get the feeling that some of you picture us as the idiots holding signs that say "God hates fags" at university. I don't do this. I'm too busy with work, my studies, my family, etc. (not that I would otherwise).

So, by your statement here, the choices made by consenting adults to do something that brings them pleasure (involving only those consenting individuals, with no indended harm and with no malice aforthought, nor force) has no basis on whether or not sodomy is acceptable? You compare it to rape and pedophilia without even taking consent and accountability into account? Is that what you are saying?

No, I pointed out that the lack of consent makes it a different sort of act, one which is inherently more violent.

But just because two adults consent to something does not make it moral or amoral.

One of the fundamental differences with how we view ethics is that I do not believe adults can morally do whatever they please so long as they are not hurting anyone else. I understand that this is an alien idea. It's quite the opposite of what the Enlightenment thinkers have instilled in modern western law and government.

But if one believes that there is an objective nature of man which reflects God one can see that a man's life is not entirely his own to do with whatever he pleases. If the sexual organs are ordered to procreation and pleasure within marriage then masturbation is a disordered use of the sexual organs.

Again, I'm not trying to prove my belief right now, but merely to explain why consent is not the only moral criterion in my view.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
17-10-2013, 11:05 PM
Real debate with fundies
(17-10-2013 11:03 PM)LouisIX Wrote:  
(17-10-2013 10:58 PM)Anudist Wrote:  So, by your statement here, the choices made by consenting adults to do something that brings them pleasure (involving only those consenting individuals, with no indended harm and with no malice aforthought, nor force) has no basis on whether or not sodomy is acceptable? You compare it to rape and pedophilia without even taking consent and accountability into account? Is that what you are saying?

No, I pointed out that the lack of consent makes it a different sort of act, one which is inherently more violent.

But just because two adults consent to something does not make it moral or amoral.

One of the fundamental differences with how we view ethics is that I do not believe adults can morally do whatever they please so long as they are not hurting anyone else. I understand that this is an alien idea. It's quite the opposite of what the Enlightenment thinkers have instilled in modern western law and government.

But if one believes that there is an objective nature of man which reflects God one can see that a man's life is not entirely his own to do with whatever he pleases. If the sexual organs are ordered to procreation and pleasure within marriage then masturbation is a disordered use of the sexual organs.

Again, I'm not trying to prove my belief right now, but merely to explain why consent is not the only moral criterion in my view.

You have hit upon an important point. How can there be a crime without a victim?

"Laissez nous faire!"

"I swear by my life and my love of it that I will never live for the sake of another man, nor will I ever ask another man to live for mine."
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
17-10-2013, 11:05 PM
RE: Real debate with fundies
(17-10-2013 10:59 PM)Bucky Ball Wrote:  
(17-10-2013 10:57 PM)LouisIX Wrote:  "subsumed"?

That word doesn't even appear once in Lumen Gentium. Do you mean "subsists in"?

You keep appealing to this text but it sounds like you've never even read it.

Nice try. I've read the whole damn thing.
Don't try to evade the point.
What translation are you looking at ?

Nice try? I'm looking at the official Vatican translation to English. We can read it in Latin too if you want, since it was originally written in Latin. The Latin is "subsistit in" which translates literally to "subsists in". I promised I wouldn't use Latin anymore, but it's pretty relevant here.

What translation do you have that uses "subsumed"? I've never seen one translation which uses this word.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
17-10-2013, 11:06 PM
RE: Real debate with fundies
(17-10-2013 11:02 PM)Crimson Flyboy Wrote:  
(17-10-2013 10:59 PM)LouisIX Wrote:  Yes, I do see the difference. In fact, I pointed it out in my post.

Why is it ok for the government to restrict you from murdering? Isn't that limiting how you may live your life? What about drugs?

Murder takes away from the rights of another, ingesting drugs does not. I am an adult and have every right to do with my body as I please, the government has no right to tell me what substances I can and cannot ingest.

What if taking a drug affects how you treat others? Should we be allowed to take bath salts if it makes us violent?
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: