Why are there "Gay Pride Parades" ?

[Winterwolf00]

But it takes the personal bias of those involved out of the equation.

The nature of a thing in general refers to what it does, how it reacts, etc. Animals only react (although they can see and copy what other animals or humans do sometimes). They don’t think, ponder, etc. and then act. They cannot have morals because there is no right and wrong, there is only what their nature causes them to do.

It’s only because we are not constrained to react in a particular way that allows us to choose i.e. free will. That is human nature, the fact that we can choose how to act.

Correct. But humans can choose first, and then override feelings. Remember the Good Samaritan versus the others. Feelings often lead to immoral things, but upon reflection, we can choose not to act on our feelings (for example, to get revenge).

OK, but did they have the capacity to NOT act in that way?

Do you fear to believe in God?

If you are really interested in Natural Law, then the following book would be of interest to you: “50 Questions on the Natural Law” by Charles Rice.

The nature of a thing in general refers to what it does, how it reacts, etc. Animals only react (although they can see and copy what other animals or humans do sometimes). They don’t think, ponder, etc. and then act. They cannot have morals because there is no right and wrong, there is only what their nature causes them to do.

The problem is that the only difference is what you assert there to be, you cannot actually prove any of it.

It’s only because we are not constrained to react in a particular way that allows us to choose i.e. free will. That is human nature, the fact that we can choose how to act.

Well that’s different then every other definition of ‘human nature’…ever.

Correct. But humans can choose first, and then override feelings. Remember the Good Samaritan versus the others. Feelings often lead to immoral things, but upon reflection, we can choose not to act on our feelings (for example, to get revenge).

So intelligence is required for morality?
Dolphins, dogs, and chimps will be thrilled.

OK, but did they have the capacity to NOT act in that way?

Yes.

Do you fear to believe in God?

That doesn’t even make sense.

 

[Winterwolf00]

Progressives love to make others do their research in an attempt to prove their point. And this request even asks you to use their sources

Oh, and we’re supposed to regard them as smarter than everyone else?

Could it get any more hilarious, especially since you’ve answered the call resoundingly?

When someone shows themselves to be completely ignorant of an issue then yes research is recommended.
Oh and your generalizing ad hominems are juvenile.

I’ve come to expect this more and more from this site.

 

[Winterwolf00]

When one of your sons dies from AIDS as a result of a same-sex pedophile, and the other son commits suicide because of the same pedophile’s embrace, you will perhaps stop gladly digging the same 6 foot hole for the rest of God’s children.

You also might profit from a cold shower.

Sin is very ugly and it’s too bad there is at least one Baptist who thinks the only sin is to hate sin because that would amount to hating the sinner.

Your bigotry and lies are unimpressive.
This is what’s wrong with our society today when people are too filled with hate against people they’ve never even met.

 

[Winterwolf00]

You seem unable to see any difference between child rape and what consenting adults might do in private.

If someone doesn’t understand the importance of consent then they probably shouldn’t be allowed around kids.

 

[Peter_Plato]

Give you your due, you are the master of contortionists.

But nope. The argument that naughty bits must only be coupled in designated manners necessarily reduces human beings to machine parts. It ignores all that is fine and honorable in human relationships and debases us all.

Says the rule book of the anti-rule crusader.

The argument was obviously invented to post-rationalize unreasoned phobias. It sounds silly to anyone who doesn’t suffer from the phobia, like arguing it’s unlucky to step on cracks in the pavement or something.

Obvious anachronistic tripe. I thought you could come up with something that is less “obviously” post-rationalizing in the same instant you commit the fault.

Morality is a game, and people are footballs?

Rules are for playing games. As soon as you make rules, you’re playing a game. That’s a standard mantra on management courses - if you want your team to respect you, don’t invent rules they can’t respect.

c.f. 1 Cor 13. No mention of rulebooks. Christ is not exactly a fan of legalism either.

I beg to differ: Matthew 5:17-19
And Paul: φεύγετε τὴν πορνείαν

Strange that you bring up rule books when the point was an analogy.

I recall someone defending the absolute nature of moral laws in another thread.* The same one who now trivializes the moral law. Do you want to be taken seriously? Stop doing such “obvious” contorting and plaintive post-rationalizing. Pick a side.

My impression of what’s being said is that the rules of the game we’re supposed to play are:

1. We can have whatever candy we want.
2. Children we like should only be allowed whatever candy we say.
3. Children we don’t like should never be allowed candy.

Of course that would be your impression. It completely glosses over that “candy” lacks any nutrititional value and therefore ought not to be used to rewrite food guides merely on the basis of sweetness. In addition, your impression suffers from the “post-rationalize” motivation you arbitrarily imputed to me nearer the top of the above post and now utilize with no want of indiscretion.

Besides, you are starting to sound tinny AND whiny.

---

• Wait for it. There will come an appeal to forum rules from the anti-rule crusader about not cross-referencing threads.

 

[Peter_Plato]

If someone doesn’t understand the importance of consent then they probably shouldn’t be allowed around kids.

True this.

Sounds suspiciously like a moral rule, though.

Now apply the same observation, ah… rule, to pro choicers who show complete disregard for the consent of the unborn children to have themselves dismembered and discarded.

 

[Winterwolf00]

True this.

Sounds suspiciously like a moral rule, though.

Now apply the same observation, ah… rule, to pro choicers who show complete disregard for the consent of the unborn children to have themselves dismembered and discarded.

First. By definition they are not children, so ‘unborn children’ is an oxymoron.

Biologically, a child (plural: children) is generally a human between the stages of birth and puberty.[1][2] The legal definition of child generally refers to a minor, otherwise known as a person younger than the age of majority.[1]

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Child

Second. The claim that people who are pro-choice ‘show complete disregard’ is false because a great many pro-choicers consider abortion to be an act they themselves would be uncomfortable with but would not tell others that they can’t do.

It’s called freedom.

Thirdly. Yes it is a moral rule, as I’ve already explained I have many of those.

 

[PRmerger]

Second. The claim that people who are pro-choice ‘show complete disregard’ is false because a great many pro-choicers consider abortion to be an act **they themselves would be uncomfortable with **but would not tell others that they can’t do.

Why are they uncomfortable with it?

 

[Peter_Plato]

I’ve come to expect this more and more from this site.

Oh and your generalizing ad hominems are juvenile.

Congratulations! I am duly impressed.

You have committed the precise three infractions that you call out, in the very statement you use to call them.

Must be a Guinness record of some kind.

 

[Winterwolf00]

Why are they uncomfortable with it?

…you don’t know why someone would feel uncomfortable with ending a potential life that is INSIDE of them?
Do you think that this is an easy decision to make for people?

 

[PRmerger]

…you don’t know why someone would feel uncomfortable with ending a potential life that is INSIDE of them?
Do you think that this is an easy decision to make for people?

I release an egg every month. It’s a potential life. Not an actual human life.

So I never, ever–not even once!–have a single problem with ending this potential life.

So please explain to me why someone would find abortion a difficult thing to do…if it’s not because they understand it’s actually KILLING a human organism.

 

[Winterwolf00]

I release an egg every month. It’s a potential life. **Not an actual human life. **

So I never, ever–not even once!–have a single problem with ending this potential life.

So please explain to me why someone would find abortion a difficult thing to do…if it’s not because they understand it’s actually KILLING a human organism.

And so I go back to what I said about you being incapable of seeing someone else’s perspective.

 

[PRmerger]

And so I go back to what I said about you being incapable of seeing someone else’s perspective.

Not sure what this means.

Going back to potential human lives–no one mourns the loss of a sperm or egg, which are potential human lives.

But they do feel queasy about killing ACTUAL human lives.

Is that why you find abortion so troubling (or so “uncomfortable”)? Because you realize it’s an actual human life you’re killing?

Otherwise, who cares if someone pulls out a bunch of cells from the womb which may be, some day, an actual human life? Why would anyone be “uncomfortable” about that?

 

[Peter_Plato]

First. By definition they are not children, so ‘unborn children’ is an oxymoron.

Interesting how you apply the rules of semantics so cleanly and efficiently.

The problem is that unborn children is not an oxymoron. “Unborn” simply qualifies the child as yet to be born. You aren’t claiming that children magically turn into children when they are born because the dictionary says they do, are you?

We are talking about essentially the same entity before s/he is born and after, correct?

Or do you really suppose your semantic based rules override the reality of what the continuity of human life involves?

Inocente, are you paying attention, here? Who is the big one on “rules” when it suits their purpose? The same individual who was previously claiming rules were unimportant.
Hint: it isn’t me doing the contorting. Just me trying to wrap my head around contorted claims without doing injury to myself.

Second. The claim that people who are pro-choice ‘show complete disregard’ is false because a great many pro-choicers consider abortion to be an act they themselves would be uncomfortable with but would not tell others that they can’t do.

Great! So you are saying if killing another human being makes me personally uncomfortable and, because of that, I wouldn’t, and perhaps shouldn’t, tell others what they can or can’t do, correct?

So if I want to “bump someone off” but I personally feel uncomfortable doing such a deed, it would be quite permissible to allow (and perhaps even hire) someone who IS comfortable with it to do so?

Yes, I see.

Time to invoke the “born” rule now, I guess. The above does not apply to “born” people, right?

It’s called freedom.

Thirdly. Yes it is a moral rule, as I’ve already explained I have many of those.

Freedom is an interesting and malleable concept. Individuals tend to invoke it quite arbitrarily. And, I can tell, your moral rules are equally malleable to suit the nebulous concept of freedom, to the point that freedom trumps morality for those who want it to, but who choose to keep a vestige of the rules so as not to appear uncivilized or “barbarian” - the essential meaning of which is someone who is not governed by the organizing rules of a civil society, i.e., someone who is free to do as they will.

It appears you are arguing that people ought to be barbarian if they so choose. As you say, “It’s called freedom.”

What it boils down to is that we have two diverging concepts of freedom.

You seem to imply that freedom means “freedom to do what people want.” Unfortunately, people sometimes want to harm or injure others, so freedom in this sense cannot be the ultimate ruling principle of morality.

My understanding is that freedom means freedom to seek the good, which entails an objective “good” exists and our determinable purpose is to attain it. That “good” does not reduce to “freedom” since freedom unrestricted equates to nihilism and barbarism.

 

[Peter_Plato]

Rules are for playing games. As soon as you make rules, you’re playing a game. That’s a standard mantra on management courses - if you want your team to respect you, don’t invent rules they can’t respect.

c.f. 1 Cor 13. No mention of rulebooks. Christ is not exactly a fan of legalism either.

Moral absolutism says some actions are always right or always wrong…

Now that’s not complicated, is it?

A very simple and absolutely binding book of rules, apparently.

Now let’s open up this “rule book” of “moral absolutism” shall we?

The book of “moral absolutism” explicitly says which actions are “always right” and which are “always wrong,” then?

You seemed to have no problem turning morality into a game when it suited you and you invoked the rule book of moral absolutism, but now, not so much.

What was that you said about contortionism?

 

[Charlemagne_III]

Your bigotry and lies are unimpressive.
This is what’s wrong with our society today when people are too filled with hate against people they’ve never even met.

Well you would know, wouldn’t you, being a master of the art?

 

[Joie_de_Vivre]

When one of your sons dies from AIDS as a result of a same-sex pedophile, and the other son commits suicide because of the same pedophile’s embrace, you will perhaps stop gladly digging the same 6 foot hole for the rest of God’s children.

You also might profit from a cold shower.

Sin is very ugly and it’s too bad there is at least one Baptist who thinks the only sin is to hate sin because that would amount to hating the sinner.

Are you seriously arguing that someone who doesn’t automatically assume all gay people are child molesters is supporting child molestation?