Discussion in 'Ethics, Morality, & Justice' started by Balerion, Mar 2, 2014.
The moderators are not all friends.
Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.
You, several others.
Just look at the way you phrase your sentences: You make absolute statements, as if everything that comes out of your mouth is The Absolute Truth.
A domineering attitude like yours makes discussion impossible.
There's no discussion here. All you do is snark. You have no consistent positions, you tweak them regularly to maintain opposition. As I've said before, your style is nothing more than a classic example of trolling. You have no plan or purpose here (or anywhere on SciForums) except to create disharmony and impede all of our discussions.
And yes, I know you're going to respond by accusing me of being the one who does that--a classic troll tactic for completely stalling the forward progress of a discussion. Do you really think that no one has figured you out?
I'm sorry that your real life is so sad and empty that this is what you find entertaining. Otherwise why would you bother posting in a discussion which you don't believe has any substance?
Baiting and trolling I see, the topic is homosexuality. Do you know any homosexuals personally? Do you feel that homosexuality is a detriment to your life or to society in any way? If so, in what way?
Dunning-Kruger at its best.
:yawn: Again, let me reiterate the discussion is not about me, Fraggle, Bells or anyone else its is about homosexuality! Try being fruitful wynn, you might enjoy it.
As do you. So either you think you are God, or that's just how people talk on-line.
A great absolute statement. (Also wrong by definition.)
Syne addressed the issue right on the first page:
The majority of the conversation in this thread was based on strawmaning or flat-out ignoring Syne's first post in this thread.
Maybe "meta-ethical" is too difficult a term for some posters here, after all ... hence the "discussion" ...
Perhaps, it is you who finds "meta-ethical" too difficult a term to understand, hence your confusion.
Meta-ethical is a particular means to and end, a process, it is not a specific reason linking homosexuality to being right, which is what the discussion is all about, attempting to get specifics from Syne. He has loosely provided a link to an article: "Biology Leaves Gay Men Highly Vulnerable to HIV: Study", which we assume is his specific reason as to why he thinks homosexuality is not right. It's bogus, of course, so we can only go back to assuming the bible is his reason, as is so many believers reason for thinking homosexuality is wrong.
By expecting you to take part in the actual discussion and answer questions?
So does Syne when he said homosexuality is not right and so did you when you made the unsanitary argument. He has yet to explain why his absolute statement that homosexuality is not right and you have yet to explain why it is unsanitary. Not only that, you then refer to Syne's absolute statement that homosexuality is not right as an explanation for your own absolute statements.
Instead of trying to dodge questions with the usual whine that you are the victim of something in your own imagination, please discuss the actual topic. This thread is not about you, Wynn. If you wish to discuss what you feel about people being God's or whatever your complaint happens to be, then please take it to the appropriate forum.
I am going to warn you one last time. Either discuss the actual topic or leave it. If you persist in this behaviour - off topic posting, baiting, trolling - and the absolute refusal to discuss the actual topic, then you will face moderation.
Incorrect. The majority of the conversation in this thread has been trying to get Syne to explain why homosexuality is not right. To declare that we have ignored it is fallacious. We have been discussing little else but Syne's first post.
Need one say more?
Wynn, do you realize that the meta-ethical topic only explains how Syne applies his morality, rather than why he believes it is wrong?
Look, I'm no fan of yours, but you're being ridiculous. You can so better than this. You don't have to agree with me, but at least attempt to participate. What you're doing now is just disruptive. I mean, do you really want to vindicate Bells?
I'm just mimicking the prevalent style here. You see now how absurd that style is?
The meta-ethical topic also addresses why it is problematic or impossible to go into the whole issue of why someone thinks something is right or wrong.
Trying to discuss issues of morality without going into the problems of philosophy of morality is merely a matter of power play.
And typically at Sciforums, issues of morality are expected to be discussed without going into the problems of philosophy of morality. I'm just pointing this out. And I suppose pointing this out is indeed "disruptive" ...
More put downs and crack shots from Wynn as she hides in the bushes. Nothing contributing to the OP whatsoever.
It's tough being enlightened, as always ...
Mod Hat — Horseapples
Mod Hat — Horseapples
There's a topic around here, somewhere. At least, I hope that's not a pony.
Let's find it, people.
Let's get it back on track.
Why is everyone enthralled with what gay people do in bed? It's not much different from what straight people do, ie, hot and sweaty and a lot of fun.
Maybe the straights would like to come and watch, so they can pick up some ideas.
Listen, these are consenting adults and fully entitled to do what they want to each other, whenever they want to do it, and without being condemned by anyone.
Turn it around and substitute blacks or Hispanics or Asians or women for the gays and you'll be banned, and rightly so.
Now shut the hell up about what gay people do and go find another group of people to demonise. (I don't mean 'hell').
Well, Sorcerer, the original purpose of this thread was to find out precisely that: Why do people believe sexuality is a moral issue?
So far, no one who has made moral claims about it has expressed any interest in explaining their position. Wynn came the closest, but has since retreated behind a fallacious pseudophilosophical defense. Syne, who invited me to start this thread so he could explain his beliefs, hasn't even made an attempt. I expressed my doubt to him when he extended the invite, and it appears I was right to be pessimistic.
Unless we're supposed to believe that the disproportionate levels of HIV/AIDS infections among gay men in the US is supposed to be the reason? I mean, I really can't imagine that being so, since sexuality is quite incidental to the transmission of the disease, and the culture of promiscuity and protectionless sex among gay males is the direct result of anti-homosexual violence and bigotry.
Because many homophobes are both disgusted and fascinated by what they do, specifically anal sex. Look at any post by (for example) Wellwisher - from his posts you'd think that anal sex defines gays. There is little else he talks about on the subject of homosexuality, and his posts are full of metaphors for uncleanliness, defying nature, disease etc.
Separate names with a comma.