Thread: Why morals don't exist

Page 2 of 12 FirstFirst 123456 ... LastLast
Results 21 to 40 of 236
  1. #21
    Offline
    Account Icon
    Chat Symbol
    Join Date
    May 2010
    Location
    Dallas
    Posts
    5,017
    Quote Originally Posted by Herbert_West View Post
    when you say, "Murder is wrong" - it's stated like a fact but if I actually try to tease apart what it means, I interpret it like "I dislike murder with a strong negative emotion; do so too" with a weak imperative on the second part
    I don't know, that quote implies a shallow understanding of morality (something I think Michael Burge is guilty of ).

    An easy definition of morality is: the set of principles that determine which actions are best for society. If murder were allowed, and people murdered nonchalantly, it is clear that society would fall apart. Further, murder can be seen as wrong on the weakest premises possible. If you value your own life, and this is clearly a trait of other beings, then you shouldn't take their life; the golden rule is quite easily derived to avoid hypocrisy. Biological preference should be taken into account. Harms should not be needlessly caused, which is to say, actions that demand harm require sufficient justification. It might be hard to find agreements on what these justifications are and how to correctly value harms and benefits, but that's just part of the discussion. Morality is subjective but not arbitrary.
    __________________

  2. #22
    How was what I stated wrong. I'm simply saying morals are what the majority of people THINK is right or wrong. Meaning there is no definite right or wrong. He does the rest ^ and with punctuation so I am covered without even having to think about it (:

  3. #23
    The golden rule is broken by sadomasochistic relationships, as the sadist might not enjoy what he/she is doing to the submissive. This could be argued with semantics though, claiming that the sadist simply gives pleasure and would enjoy having someone give pleasure to him/her. But then one could argue that there are different kinds of pleasures, and the sadist is giving one he/she wouldn't appreciate etc. etc.
    I would argue that it's semantics. I would also argue that a person who practicing masochism has serious mental problems, and is therefore exempt from the rule.

    If morals don't actually exist, how can this be?" is a question a religions person could ask: "If God doesn't exist, how can this be?" (I know, I said no derailing).
    OMG TRYING TO DERAIL YOUR OWN THREAD YOU SCRUB!

    In all seriousness, I think you're getting two different subjects confused. The reason I ask how anybody can deny morals exist, is because you can easily observe them in your everyday life. You're going to have a hard time convincing anybody that morals aren't real; you could convince some people that they are completely subjective, but not that they don't exist.

    A religious person might say, for example, "Human morality comes from God", and this specifically would be an outrageous claim with no evidence backing it up. I've never said any such thing.

    I think Lhune had the best definition of morality that I've ever seen, which is our human ability to have compassion and empathy towards others, mixed with our logical ability to put ourselves in others' shoes.

    At first glance this is a really good explanation, however I'm not sure it completely covers it. There have been many documented cases of a dog or a dolphin putting themselves in harm's way to save a human being, sometimes one that they don't even know. One can only assume that these animals do not have the ability to participate in logical discourse, so what is it that drives them to do this?

    The current Dalai Lama says that all living creatures have the ability to choose the path of enlightenment. You can take this with a grain of salt, but it's just something to think about.

    You gave an example of a male cat killing all the female kittens so she would mate with him, but what about cases of a male cat protecting kittens that aren't even from his litter?

    It would seem that in the animal kingdom, just like in human society, there is a wide range of "morality".

    It concerns me that the concept of morality is so polarized into the two categories of either "completely objective" or "completely subjective". As I've mentioned before in other threads, I think we need to consider the possibility that it could be partly both.
    Quote Originally Posted by senzation54
    I don't care which Christian branch you belong to, unless you belong to one that acknowledges that the entire friggin Bible is a fairy tale that was written by a bunch of different idiots and then voted by a congress on which gospels and crap were actually worthy of being in the Bible, you're an idiot. You're a person who doesn't think for himself and clings to the stupid beliefs his parents forced on him as a child, or you're the even worse kind of idiot who actually started believing this crap as an adult. Either way you're an idiot.

  4. #24
    Offline
    Account Icon
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Posts
    79
    Quote Originally Posted by Beanybag View Post
    I don't know, that quote implies a shallow understanding of morality (something I think Michael Burge is guilty of ).

    An easy definition of morality is: the set of principles that determine which actions are best for society. If murder were allowed, and people murdered nonchalantly, it is clear that society would fall apart. Further, murder can be seen as wrong on the weakest premises possible. If you value your own life, and this is clearly a trait of other beings, then you shouldn't take their life; the golden rule is quite easily derived to avoid hypocrisy. Biological preference should be taken into account. Harms should not be needlessly caused, which is to say, actions that demand harm require sufficient justification. It might be hard to find agreements on what these justifications are and how to correctly value harms and benefits, but that's just part of the discussion. Morality is subjective but not arbitrary.
    But what is it you claim when you say "X is immoral", then?

    As I said to Hat_Truck earlier, "There's no functional difference between murder, killing and taking a life. If either one of these are "immoral" no matter what, you will never be able to justify killing someone, be it to save your own life, your family, or the entire world." With that reasoning, euthanasia would be immoral as well, but do you really not think someone should get to have help dying if the situation really is dire?

    Now I know that you added "actions that demand harm require sufficient justification", but who decides this? Even if a society would agree on a statement like "murder is wrong", there are many different views on what sufficient justification would be. In a discussion about this, people would voice their opinions on what they consider morally right, and just like I've said, it's all just opinions backed by emotions. Even the things a society agrees upon as a whole, are nothing but a mass of opinions agreeing.

    (Subjective) opinions have no meaning, no value when it comes to the function of the universe, and the only way for morality to escape that is to either consider morality objective, or your moral statements as truths. If not else, I see no way you can argue that moral claims aren't synonymous to many other things, all of but morality that hold their own values. And then we're back to page 1.

  5. #25
    Offline
    Account Icon
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Posts
    79
    Quote Originally Posted by Hat_Truck View Post
    I would argue that it's semantics. I would also argue that a person who practicing masochism has serious mental problems, and is therefore exempt from the rule.

    OMG TRYING TO DERAIL YOUR OWN THREAD YOU SCRUB!

    In all seriousness, I think you're getting two different subjects confused. The reason I ask how anybody can deny morals exist, is because you can easily observe them in your everyday life. You're going to have a hard time convincing anybody that morals aren't real; you could convince some people that they are completely subjective, but not that they don't exist.

    A religious person might say, for example, "Human morality comes from God", and this specifically would be an outrageous claim with no evidence backing it up. I've never said any such thing.

    I think Lhune had the best definition of morality that I've ever seen, which is our human ability to have compassion and empathy towards others, mixed with our logical ability to put ourselves in others' shoes.

    At first glance this is a really good explanation, however I'm not sure it completely covers it. There have been many documented cases of a dog or a dolphin putting themselves in harm's way to save a human being, sometimes one that they don't even know. One can only assume that these animals do not have the ability to participate in logical discourse, so what is it that drives them to do this?

    The current Dalai Lama says that all living creatures have the ability to choose the path of enlightenment. You can take this with a grain of salt, but it's just something to think about.

    You gave an example of a male cat killing all the female kittens so she would mate with him, but what about cases of a male cat protecting kittens that aren't even from his litter?

    It would seem that in the animal kingdom, just like in human society, there is a wide range of "morality".

    It concerns me that the concept of morality is so polarized into the two categories of either "completely objective" or "completely subjective". As I've mentioned before in other threads, I think we need to consider the possibility that it could be partly both.
    But how can you be so sure it's morals you are witnessing, and not simply people's opinions etc. acting out?

    I'm going to take what Dalai Lama says with a huge grain of salt, considering there are so many species who cannot even function on a level where they can predict what outcome an action will have. Oh also plants.

    I would also like to point out that it was Lhune who gave the example with a male cat killing kittens, not me.

    If morality would be part objective, I would refer to my first point in OP, and if part subjective, I'd still refer to how moral claims do nothing many other claims don't also do, yet they do nothing besides that. etc. etc. many other posts about this.

  6. #26
    I think my tired brain lagged behind somewhere since the start of this thread. The definition of moral explains enough. A person's standards of behavior or beliefs concerning what is and is not acceptable for them to do.

    An like I was saying in my opinion some morals are universal.What I would consider a universal moral is something like killing, stealing an other obvious crimes. If your an intelligent being from the first time you can speak and interact with other people you can communicate your feelings with other people build bonds and avoid doing something to upset the other person. Before there were police that settled problems for us we had to deal with one another directly with no third party. Morals from this ground level are things that you know will upset the other person. Of course even a moral like killing is wrong is subjective but the majority of people would agree that it is wrong. Morals have to exist for people to coincide with on another. One cannot exist without the other. I don't see the point of this thread.

  7. #27
    Offline
    Account Icon
    Chat Symbol
    Join Date
    May 2010
    Location
    Dallas
    Posts
    5,017
    Quote Originally Posted by Herbert_West View Post
    But what is it you claim when you say "X is immoral", then?
    Based on a set of premises, X action is morally impermissible.

    As I said to Hat_Truck earlier, "There's no functional difference between murder, killing and taking a life. If either one of these are "immoral" no matter what, you will never be able to justify killing someone, be it to save your own life, your family, or the entire world." With that reasoning, euthanasia would be immoral as well, but do you really not think someone should get to have help dying if the situation really is dire?

    Now I know that you added "actions that demand harm require sufficient justification", but who decides this? Even if a society would agree on a statement like "murder is wrong", there are many different views on what sufficient justification would be. In a discussion about this, people would voice their opinions on what they consider morally right, and just like I've said, it's all just opinions backed by emotions. Even the things a society agrees upon as a whole, are nothing but a mass of opinions agreeing.
    See the moral discussion that me and fluttershy had. If we have values, we can set them as moral premises, and likewise, if we have a goal, we can reverse engineer moral premises. I asked him if he held a certain moral premise, because if he did, it would morally allow X action, and X action might be known to be harmful to a functional society. There are some objective elements to moral discussions, in some sense, we can use science to tell what will let society be more successful based on certain premises. The part that people have trouble with is that the premises being set might feel arbitrary. They are not. They have reasons with the intent of improving society.

    (Subjective) opinions have no meaning, no value when it comes to the function of the universe, and the only way for morality to escape that is to either consider morality objective, or your moral statements as truths. If not else, I see no way you can argue that moral claims aren't synonymous to many other things, all of but morality that hold their own values. And then we're back to page 1.
    To say that something that is subjective is 'just an opinion' is to miss the point of life entirely. EVERYTHING is subjective. Take a look at epistemology for instance. The most widely held epistemic values are evidentialism, empiricism, or rationalism, all of which hold empirical evidence and experience as fundamental for discovering truth or facts about nature. This philosophy is what science is partially grounded on. But the thing is, thinking that beliefs should be based on evidence is just an opinion. But, it's one that virtually every person holds. Logically, the only knowledge that isn't based on opinion or subjective premises is radical skepticism - in other words, nothing!

    At some point you have to realize that we can't be entirely objective about things, but we CAN be more objective than other methods. Things aren't always simply objective or subjective, but there is a slight gradient to it. When it comes down to it, all we have and know is really democratically decided on. Even math is up in the air; is it empirical, is it a priori, is it objective and greater than the Universe? No one can really tell and it can't be proven. Math's own induction fallacy (and godel's theorem, which shows math can't be internally consistent) shows that math can't be entirely proven, much less anything scientific.

    I understand that this makes people uneasy when there is no authoritative objective voice for things, but we have to lend our confidence where the confidence is due, and I think we all agree that's where the evidence is. And evidence suggests that moral societies function better than immoral ones. Deciding what's moral is a difficult and necessary part of life, one which there will never be a definitive answer for.
    __________________

  8. #28
    Offline
    Account Icon
    Chat Symbol
    Join Date
    May 2010
    Location
    Dallas
    Posts
    5,017
    Quote Originally Posted by Hat_Truck View Post
    I would argue that it's semantics. I would also argue that a person who practicing masochism has serious mental problems, and is therefore exempt from the rule.
    LOL! Sorry, but that is so.. medieval. Fetishes are weird and hard to explain, but it doesn't mean the people are insane.

    Really, though, there's plenty of evidence that would disprove this. Masochism is still only okay when the masochist is consenting, and that's what's important.
    __________________

  9. #29
    Offline
    Account Icon
    Chat Symbol
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Location
    SoCal
    Posts
    3,721
    Quote Originally Posted by Tyrando View Post
    im Utrilitarian so whatever benefits the greater good the most is what i go along with

    if you need to kill 2 million people for the other 5 million to survive, so be it.

    though these days its hard to see the greater good when every country is in turmoil one way or another.
    That's the type of cut and dry thinking that lets atrocities occur.

  10. #30
    Lol I find it ironic that you're calling me medieval for pointing out that masochism is a mental illness, when the practice of masochism itself is pretty medieval.

    I also think there's a difference between a fetish and a dangerous behavior resulting from mental issues. Some fetishes are relatively harmless, but there's definitely a point where you cross the line; I think if you're cutting into yourself you've reached that point.
    Quote Originally Posted by senzation54
    I don't care which Christian branch you belong to, unless you belong to one that acknowledges that the entire friggin Bible is a fairy tale that was written by a bunch of different idiots and then voted by a congress on which gospels and crap were actually worthy of being in the Bible, you're an idiot. You're a person who doesn't think for himself and clings to the stupid beliefs his parents forced on him as a child, or you're the even worse kind of idiot who actually started believing this crap as an adult. Either way you're an idiot.

  11. #31
    Offline
    Account Icon
    Chat Symbol
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Location
    Earth, UK, England, Middlesbrough
    Posts
    7,281
    Quote Originally Posted by Good_Apollo View Post
    That's the type of cut and dry thinking that lets atrocities occur.
    such as?

  12. #32
    Offline
    Account Icon
    Chat Symbol
    Join Date
    May 2010
    Location
    Dallas
    Posts
    5,017
    Quote Originally Posted by Hat_Truck View Post
    Lol I find it ironic that you're calling me medieval for pointing out that masochism is a mental illness, when the practice of masochism itself is pretty medieval.

    I also think there's a difference between a fetish and a dangerous behavior resulting from mental issues. Some fetishes are relatively harmless, but there's definitely a point where you cross the line; I think if you're cutting into yourself you've reached that point.
    You might think that but you'd be wrong. Take a look at the evidence and form your belief, rather than let your belief color the evidence. This belief is almost as strange as considering homosexuality a mental illness; in both cases there is no inherent harm being done without consent. You have no sufficient reasons to believe otherwise.

    In 1994, the American Psychiatric Association responded by modifying the denotative criteria defining “sadism” and “masochism” in the fourth edition of the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM IV); thus, consensual sadomasochistic behavior no longer is considered a sexual disorder. Furthermore, in the textual revision of the DSM-IV TR (2000), sadomasochistic behavior is a sexual and mental disorder if the patient “has acted on these urges with a non-consenting person” and if “the urges, sexual fantasies, or behaviors cause marked distress or interpersonal difficulty”.[10][11] Elsewhere, in 1995, Denmark became the first country to delete “sadomasochism” from its medical disorders system of classification
    While this is just a wikipedia entry, you might just have to listen to someone who's watched and researched a lot about sex. These fetishes are very popular and even normal. There are many reasons to doubt your conclusion. Sex research has been done on this for quite a long time.

    People hurt themselves for pleasure or cosmetic reasons all the time. People get piercings, tattoos, plastic surgery. It should come as no surprise that people will hurt each other in the bedroom as well. All that matters is consent and reasonable amounts of safety. We take risks all the time if there is justification and we can minimize the probability of harm; people die every day in car accidents, but we still drive. While erotic asphyxiation is very dangerous and probably crosses the line, flogging and hitting.. not so much when done right.

    People should have some personal liberty in life to do risky things for pleasure and happiness, whether it's sky diving, recreational drug use, or sadomasochistic sex play. We all have to take risks, we just have to make sure they're worth it.

    Quote Originally Posted by Tyrando View Post
    such as?
    Immanuel Kant had a lot to say about utilitarianism. It always is going to deny the liberties of people involved who might disagree. While it is useful in some cases, I wouldn't use it when human lives are involved. Each human is a rational actor who would prefer to make their own decisions, and when the world is as complex as it is, it's almost never fair to assume that your plan has the greater possible good. Applying utilitarianism to large-scale things can lead to genocides or similar in the name of a 'greater good'.

    "The road to hell is paved with good intentions." Once people believe they know better than others about what is best is when they start down the path to, for lack of a better word, evil.
    __________________

  13. #33
    You might think that but you'd be wrong. Take a look at the evidence and form your belief, rather than let your belief color the evidence.
    I have looked at the evidence. Most psychologists would agree that masochism is a form of mental illness. It may not be considered a "sexual disorder", but that's not what we were discussing.

    This belief is almost as strange as considering homosexuality a mental illness; in both cases there is no inherent harm being done without consent. You have no sufficient reasons to believe otherwise.
    Homosexuality is a natural phenomenon, not a choice. If homosexuality were a voluntary choice, then I possibly would be against it, because there is significant evidence that a homosexual lifestyle can lead to very negative consequences for people. http://factsaboutyouth.com/posts/hea...ual-lifestyle/

    While this is just a wikipedia entry, you might just have to listen to someone who's watched and researched a lot about sex. These fetishes are very popular and even normal. There are many reasons to doubt your conclusion. Sex research has been done on this for quite a long time.
    As I mentioned before, "sexual disorder" and "mental disorder" are two different things. Secondly, I don't really consider the American Psychiatric Association to be the authority on this, considering that the depression levels in this country are astronomical.

    Psychology is far from a completely agreed-upon field. This is just my opinion on the subject, maybe when I complete my Master's, I'll change my mind.

    People hurt themselves for pleasure or cosmetic reasons all the time. People get piercings, tattoos, plastic surgery.
    Hurting yourself for "pleasure" and cosmetic reasons are two completely different things. The people who hurt themselves for cosmetic reasons aren't necessarily enjoying the pain, they're simply doing it to reach the end goal of having a shiny new whatever. It's not much different than having to take a needle to get your blood drawn or to get an injection.

    It should come as no surprise that people will hurt each other in the bedroom as well.
    There are obviously different levels of this, but for example, I think a woman who wants a man to choke her during intercourse is very sick. I really don't care if she consents or not, if I was the physician in charge of her health I would admit her to the psychiatric ward. The same goes for people who are cutting themselves or each other with razor blades.

    Hitting and flogging are definitely much less severe, but still I think it's unhealthy.

    All that matters is consent and reasonable amounts of safety. We take risks all the time if there is justification and we can minimize the probability of harm; people die every day in car accidents, but we still drive.
    This is a completely different subject. You keep mixing risk for the sake of enjoyment with risk for the sake of personal productivity and survival.

    If it makes you feel any better, my views stay logically consistent throughout. I think people smoking cigarettes have a definite issue. Killing yourself or hurting yourself on purpose for the sake of enjoyment is not something that (in my opinion) any healthy person would do.

    whether it's sky diving, recreational drug use, or sadomasochistic sex play.
    Sky diving doesn't belong in that category. People who are sky diving have a very low risk if done correctly. Secondly, the purpose OF sky diving is not to hurt yourself or others.
    Last edited by Hat_Truck; 02-21-2012 at 07:10 PM.
    Quote Originally Posted by senzation54
    I don't care which Christian branch you belong to, unless you belong to one that acknowledges that the entire friggin Bible is a fairy tale that was written by a bunch of different idiots and then voted by a congress on which gospels and crap were actually worthy of being in the Bible, you're an idiot. You're a person who doesn't think for himself and clings to the stupid beliefs his parents forced on him as a child, or you're the even worse kind of idiot who actually started believing this crap as an adult. Either way you're an idiot.

  14. #34
    Offline
    Account Icon
    Chat Symbol
    Join Date
    Sep 2010
    Location
    Ottawa
    Posts
    2,087
    Quote Originally Posted by Tyrando View Post
    im Utrilitarian so whatever benefits the greater good the most is what i go along with

    if you need to kill 2 million people for the other 5 million to survive, so be it.

    though these days its hard to see the greater good when every country is in turmoil one way or another.
    This.

    Thanks for the sig Lhune <3
    Check out My blog in which i post chapters of my novel every so often http://lightvoid.wordpress.com/

  15. #35
    Offline
    Account Icon
    Chat Symbol
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Location
    Earth, UK, England, Middlesbrough
    Posts
    7,281
    Quote Originally Posted by Beanybag View Post
    Immanuel Kant had a lot to say about utilitarianism. It always is going to deny the liberties of people involved who might disagree. While it is useful in some cases, I wouldn't use it when human lives are involved. Each human is a rational actor who would prefer to make their own decisions, and when the world is as complex as it is, it's almost never fair to assume that your plan has the greater possible good. Applying utilitarianism to large-scale things can lead to genocides or similar in the name of a 'greater good'.

    "The road to hell is paved with good intentions." Once people believe they know better than others about what is best is when they start down the path to, for lack of a better word, evil.
    it throws libertys out of the window for their own good though, We do it today we have laws stating murder is wrong and if you commit it your punished this law is in place to benefit us all and takes away your freedom of simply killing people because you want to.

    Kant himself liked to put things on the most extreme mass scale to determine if it was right or wrong, going with the murder example if everybody killed there would be nobody left so he would say its wrong.

    its the main reason i like the utilitarian idea, nobody is treated as a special case, its simply there to benefit everyone wether we like it or not, you could say they favour the majority as a special case, but when everyone is the majority there isnt a problem though obviously getting everyone to become unifed isnt easy.

  16. #36
    Offline
    Account Icon
    Chat Symbol
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Location
    SoCal
    Posts
    3,721
    That was the most ridiculous and skewed read I've ever had about homosexuality from someone claiming to be unbiased. I completely understood where it was coming from, however, when I read the website takes information from and supports organizations like NARTH. Lol! Oh, and they support the views of the Liberty Council, now it makes even more sense. An organization that supports the first amendment rights of...well....only Christian motives. Like the banning of 'holiday trees' and 'Harry Potter'.

    I mean we're talking about an organization (NARTH) that believes blacks were better off in America as slaves and homosexuality is a curable disorder.

    Quote Originally Posted by Tyrando View Post
    it throws libertys out of the window for their own good though, We do it today we have laws stating murder is wrong and if you commit it your punished this law is in place to benefit us all and takes away your freedom of simply killing people because you want to.

    Kant himself liked to put things on the most extreme mass scale to determine if it was right or wrong, going with the murder example if everybody killed there would be nobody left so he would say its wrong.

    its the main reason i like the utilitarian idea, nobody is treated as a special case, its simply there to benefit everyone wether we like it or not, you could say they favour the majority as a special case, but when everyone is the majority there isnt a problem though obviously getting everyone to become unifed isnt easy.
    Man you have some interestingly twisted logic. Murduring someone is taking away someone's right to live. Anyone smell a sociopath?
    Last edited by Good_Apollo; 02-21-2012 at 08:00 PM.

  17. #37
    Offline
    Account Icon
    Chat Symbol
    Join Date
    May 2010
    Location
    Dallas
    Posts
    5,017
    Quote Originally Posted by Hat_Truck View Post
    I have looked at the evidence. Most psychologists would agree that masochism is a form of mental illness. It may not be considered a "sexual disorder", but that's not what we were discussing.
    False and bordering on an outright lie.

    Homosexuality is a natural phenomenon, not a choice. If homosexuality were a voluntary choice, then I possibly would be against it, because there is significant evidence that a homosexual lifestyle can lead to very negative consequences for people. http://factsaboutyouth.com/posts/hea...ual-lifestyle/
    Circumstantial correlative evidence and almost an outright lie. Did you even read that article? Let's go through it.

    FAQ

    Oh, what a surprise. A catholic association finds negative trends in homosexuality. Nearly all of their findings seem to contradict what most people have actually found (although gay men are promiscuous, but this is because of the nature of men rather than the nature of homosexual men).

    I wonder..

    Change therapy - They advertise a cure for homosexuality! This sounds like where I should get my facts!

    And then they list..

    Monogamy read more

    Monogamy, meaning long-term sexual fidelity, is rare in GLB relationships, particularly among gay men. One study reported that 66 percent of gay couples reported sex outside the relationship within the first year, and nearly 90 percent if the relationship lasted five years.
    As if that's bad? Did they take into account that this might be consensual non-monogamy? I mean, it's super easy to have threesomes when everyone is gay. While it might be riskier, risks can be mitigated (although not if you're a catholic since condoms are evil).

    Then their conclusion is..

    In Summary
    It is clear that there are serious medical consequences to same-sex behavior. Identification with a GLB community appears to lead to an increase in promiscuity, which in turn leads to a myriad of Sexually Transmitted Diseases and even early death. Youth should be warned of the undeniable health risks associated with a homosexual lifestyle.
    to irresponsibly attribute the danger to homosexuality itself, rather than risky behavior. Do you see the leap they made here? Rather than use this to demonstrate the that risky sexual behavior can be harmful, they use it show that homosexual behavior is harmful, but there isn't any way to show that to be true. Man, psychology is such a mess.

    Psychology is far from a completely agreed-upon field. This is just my opinion on the subject, maybe when I complete my Master's, I'll change my mind.
    If this is your field of study you should certainly be doing much more research before jumping to any of these conclusions. Your claims were very irresponsible and unsubstantiated.
    __________________
    Last edited by Beanybag; 02-21-2012 at 07:58 PM.

  18. #38
    I will take responsibility for the bad source. I feel like an idiot.

    I'm not biased against homosexuality, I have no problem with it as long as it isn't harmful to society.

    There are many studies that point towards the same conclusion, but as you mentioned, chances are they are extremely biased/made with a motive in mind.

    I'll take the blame for that. I win the fail of the thread award.

    p.s. Another reason on my list to hate religion
    Quote Originally Posted by senzation54
    I don't care which Christian branch you belong to, unless you belong to one that acknowledges that the entire friggin Bible is a fairy tale that was written by a bunch of different idiots and then voted by a congress on which gospels and crap were actually worthy of being in the Bible, you're an idiot. You're a person who doesn't think for himself and clings to the stupid beliefs his parents forced on him as a child, or you're the even worse kind of idiot who actually started believing this crap as an adult. Either way you're an idiot.

  19. #39
    Offline
    Account Icon
    Chat Symbol
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Location
    Earth, UK, England, Middlesbrough
    Posts
    7,281
    Quote Originally Posted by Good_Apollo View Post
    Man you have some interestingly twisted logic. Murduring someone is taking away someone's right to live. Anyone smell a sociopath?

    since when did anyone give anyone the "right" to live?

    and like i said, theres no special case if someone's death benefits mankind then so be it, the individual doesnt matter.

  20. #40
    Offline
    Account Icon
    Chat Symbol
    Join Date
    Oct 2010
    Location
    Longmont
    Posts
    326
    Quote Originally Posted by Tyrando View Post
    since when did anyone give anyone the "right" to live?

    and like i said, theres no special case if someone's death benefits mankind then so be it, the individual doesnt matter.
    Just because it'll save humanity doesn't make it right though. Could you deal with the fact that someones life was taken just for you to live? Even if he/she did nothing wrong and didn't deserve it?

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •