NationStates Jolt Archive

So, I was at the gym yesterday, and as a Christ-centered individual, I realized something. Gays should have to use separate gyms.

Here I am, trying to develop my body, which is a temple unto the Lord, and I'm constantly distracted by flagrant, willful homosexuality.

Take this one guy. He was in his early twenties, caucasian, short, feathered sandy blonde hair with cute bangs, wearing a respectable white work out shirt, but he ruins the entire ensemble by wearing some tight red workout shorts! As if I, a Christ-centered heterosexual man, wants to see his massive, throbbing bulge!

But, the Bible counsels us to be patient with sin, so after fifteen minutes of stairing at him (ruefully, of course), I overlooked it and went back to my squat lunges. Not five minutes go by, when another gay saunters in front of me!

This time, it was a sizable black man, which I'm not normally opposed to, since blacks in America have dutifully accepted Christ, unlike a certain other segment of the population that Frisbee will yell at me for if I name them. So, anyway, this African American fellow goes over to the weight rack, and proceeds to shamelessly throw his gayness in my face with his strained, muscular movements and his firm jawed expression, his looming, masculine body a potent, radiant expression of dark, chocolately muscle. What a queer.

I reigned in my disgust and went to shower off, hoping to escape this soup of shameless homo-erotic horror. But sadly, there was nowhere to run. Even the shower was awash in sinful man-on-man madness. I finally couldn't stand it anymore. I marched right up to that Puerto Rican guy in the shower, tapped him on the shoulder, and when he turned around, I told him that I was tired of his sick, putrid, foul, lustful eyes all over my Christian physique. I told him to read Leviticus, pray, date, marry, and unleash his perverse urges on a woman for a change.

I'm so sick of gay people. They really need their own gym. And library.

Come to Curves. Nothing there but women. Curvy, busty, sweaty women.

I'm getting drunk right now.....Is this a parody?

best way to get rid of gays is to beat them off.

best way to get rid of gays is to beat them off.

with both hands!

Come to Curves. Nothing there but women. Curvy, busty, sweaty women.

See, that's what I thought.

Did you know there was such a thing as a group restraining order?

best way to get rid of gays is to beat them off.

I'm not falling for that one again.

So, I was at the gym yesterday, and as a Christ-centered individual, I realized something. Gays should have to use separate gyms.

Here I am, trying to develop my body, which is a temple unto the Lord, and I'm constantly distracted by flagrant, willful homosexuality.

Take this one guy. He was in his early twenties, caucasian, short, feathered sandy blonde hair with cute bangs, wearing a respectable white work out shirt, but he ruins the entire ensemble by wearing some tight red workout shorts! As if I, a Christ-centered heterosexual man, wants to see his massive, throbbing bulge!

But, the Bible counsels us to be patient with sin, so after fifteen minutes of stairing at him (ruefully, of course), I overlooked it and went back to my squat lunges. Not five minutes go by, when another gay saunters in front of me!

This time, it was a sizable black man, which I'm not normally opposed to, since blacks in America have dutifully accepted Christ, unlike a certain other segment of the population that Frisbee will yell at me for if I name them. So, anyway, this African American fellow goes over to the weight rack, and proceeds to shamelessly throw his gayness in my face with his strained, muscular movements and his firm jawed expression, his looming, masculine body a potent, radiant expression of dark, chocolately muscle. What a queer.

I reigned in my disgust and went to shower off, hoping to escape this soup of shameless homo-erotic horror. But sadly, there was nowhere to run. Even the shower was awash in sinful man-on-man madness. I finally couldn't stand it anymore. I marched right up to that Puerto Rican guy in the shower, tapped him on the shoulder, and when he turned around, I told him that I was tired of his sick, putrid, foul, lustful eyes all over my Christian physique. I told him to read Leviticus, pray, date, marry, and unleash his perverse urges on a woman for a change.

I'm so sick of gay people. They really need their own gym. And library.

Gays should be allowed to have their own gym, should a group of homosexuals so choose to start a gym in which they will only allow homosexuals to be members.
As should straight be allowed to have their own gym, should a group of heterosexuals so choose to start a gym in which they will allow only heterosexuals to be members

Some kind of trolling perhaps?

See, that's what I thought.

Did you know there was such a thing as a group restraining order?

No, but that's a good thing to know. I'll keep it in mind next time I'm at the gym.

If you want gay men segregated, you have to eliminate all restroom facilities from the gym. As Senator Larry Craig has illustrated, they're drawn to the restrooms for their illicit activities.

Gays should be allowed to have their own gym, should a group of homosexuals so choose to start a gym in which they will only allow homosexuals to be members.
As should straight be allowed to have their own gym, should a group of heterosexuals so choose to start a gym in which they will allow only heterosexuals to be members

Exactly. Same thing with water fountains and lunch counters.

Are you sure you didn't "accidentally" visit a bathhouse?

If you want gay men segregated, you have to eliminate all restroom facilities from the gym. As Senator Larry Craig has illustrated, they're drawn to the restrooms for their illicit activities.

I believe you mean as the allegations against Sen. Craig illustrate...

Exactly. Same thing with water fountains and lunch counters.

Yes, if a private company has a water fountain or a lunch counter that they wish to restrict to certain clinetele, they should have every right to do so.

Some kind of trolling perhaps?

Not at all. Look at the guy right above your first post there. He agrees that straights should be allowed to keep gays out of their "straight" gyms (and vice-versa, as if that ameliorates it).

Are you sure you didn't "accidentally" visit a bathhouse?

How on Earth do you "Accidentally" visit a bathhouse?

Hammurab, I can't help laughing. This is some of the best satire I've read today.

Not at all. Look at the guy right above your first post there. He agrees that straights should be allowed to keep gays out of their "straight" gyms (and vice-versa, as if that ameliorates it).

Yea, so I have to ask. How do you tell the differences between straight people and gay people?

How on Earth do you "Accidentally" visit a bathhouse?

Therein lies the rub...

Therein lies the rub...

Jeez..it'd be like me "accidentally" going to a strip club and being appalled by all the naked women...

Wow, I am typing good for someone who is buzzed....

Are you sure you didn't "accidentally" visit a bathhouse?

No, the only bathhouses in my neighborhood are Turkish, which sounds vaguely Muslim to me, so I avoid them.

No, this was a local Las Vegas Athletic Club, and every guy in there was gay. I looked them all over thoroughly and at length, and I could tell. They were all gay.

No, the only bathhouses in my neighborhood are Turkish, which sounds vaguely Muslim to me, so I avoid them.

No, this was a local Las Vegas Athletic Club, and every guy in there was gay. I looked them all over thoroughly and at length, and I could tell. They were all gay.

Did you do a cavity search?

Hammurab, I can't help laughing. This is some of the best satire I've read today.

Keep reading. The funniest part is those who agree that it should be legal to segregate against "certain clientele", including at lunch counters and water fountains. Its beautiful.

Keep reading. The funniest part is those who agree that it should be legal to segregate against "certain clientele", including at lunch counters and water fountains. Its beautiful.

I know. I fell off my chair when I read that.

therein lies the rub...

baaaa-ziiiiing!

Did you do a cavity search?

No, but I looked at their mouths a lot.

No, but I looked at their mouths a lot.

Well then you don't know if they're really gay or not! See, if you do a cavity search, and they actually enjoy it, then they're gay.

Therein lies the rub...

+50 Awesome points for the pun.

Not at all. Look at the guy right above your first post there. He agrees that straights should be allowed to keep gays out of their "straight" gyms (and vice-versa, as if that ameliorates it).

Freedom needs no amelioration.

Well then you don't know if they're really gay or not! See, if you do a cavity search, and they actually enjoy it, then they're gay.

[Enter serious mode]
I think that's an erroneous criteria for detecting homosexuality.

One time, a hooker in Tijuana put her finger up my ass while she was giving me the old rusty trombone, and I went off like a champagne cork in zero G. Even a straight dude can enjoy a bit of assplay if its done right.
[End serious mode]

What I should have done was had them fellate me. And if they enjoyed that, they're gay.

[Enter serious mode]
I think that's an erroneous criteria for detecting homosexuality.

One time, a hooker in Tijuana put her finger up my ass while she was giving me the old rusty trombone, and I went off like a champagne cork in zero G. Even a straight dude can enjoy a bit of assplay if its done right.
[End serious mode]

What I should have done was had them fellate me. And if they enjoyed that, they're gay.

[Enter serious mode] I wasn't being serious when I made that comment [/Serious mode]

Freedom needs no amelioration.

And of course, discriminating against and segregating "certain clientele" is a fine excercise in freedom....

And of course, discriminating against and segregating "certain clientele" is a fine excercise in freedom....

Allowing people to do so is. It is none of my business how you run your company, and it is none of yours how I run mine.

And of course, discriminating against and segregating "certain clientele" is a fine excercise in freedom....

*shrugs* If businesses want to be a total dick and discriminate, they can. They're going to get bad press, lose money and go out of business, but hey, a fool and his money are soon parted.

[Enter serious mode] I wasn't being serious when I made that comment [/Serious mode]

Yes you were. You gaymosexuals are constantly trying to get us straight men to give you "cavity searches".

Well, you won't fool me again,wiley gay. There's no such thing as the "Auxillary Roving Airport Security Citizen's Brigade Unit".

*shrugs* If businesses want to be a total dick and discriminate, they can. They're going to get bad press, lose money and go out of business, but hey, a fool and his money are soon parted.

Exactly, a brilliant observation. Few businesses, even if allowed to discriminate, would do so, as this would hurt the bottom line.

Allowing people to do so is. It is none of my business how you run your company, and it is none of yours how I run mine.

Thus, victims of discrimination in a private setting, whether sexual, racial, or religious, should have no recourse, of course!

Why, hatred is made a good thing via privatization! As long as you're signing the checks, you can treat people like crap for being black or gay or whatever "certain clientele" Nicea doesn't like!

Blacks not welcome at the lunch counter? Why, that's none of your business, civil rights lawyer!

Make sure you put it on your business cards, Nicea, so people know who they're dealing with.

Exactly, a brilliant observation. Few businesses, even if allowed to discriminate, would do so, as this would hurt the bottom line.

So, then, there couldn't be thousands of business in hundreds of places that still did observably and openly discriminate, then?

I'll look around, check active cases and get back to you.

Thus, victims of discrimination in a private setting, whether sexual, racial, or religious, should have no recourse, of course!

Why, hatred is made a good thing via privatization! As long as you're signing the checks, you can treat people like crap for being black or gay or whatever "certain clientele" Nicea doesn't like!

Blacks not welcome at the lunch counter? Why, that's none of your business, civil rights lawyer!

Make sure you put it on your business cards, Nicea, so people know who they're dealing with.

Yes, they should have no recourse.

Morality has nothing to do with it. The only one whose business a company's allowed clientele is is that company's owners. If a company wants to not hire a person because he is black, gay, unwilling to have sex with the CEO, left-handed, club-footed, cross-eyed or blonde haired, that is nobody else's business. Your assumption that, because I argue in favour of legalised discrimination that I therefore would practise it is unfounded. I believe such discrimination to be immoral; I also happen to believe that the immorality of discrimination is no business of legislation.

Yes, it is none of the civil rights lawyer's business.

This fallacy is called ad hominem.

So, then, there couldn't be thousands of business in hundreds of places that still did observably and openly discriminate, then?

I'll look around, check active cases and get back to you.

Of course there could be. I said few, not none.

This fallacy is called ad hominem.

In order for it to be that, he'd have to actually insult you directly, like implying that your reason for opposing homosexuality would be that you secretly enjoy dog prostitutes.

Yes, they should have no recourse.

Morality has nothing to do with it. The only one whose business a company's allowed clientele is is that company's owners. If a company wants to not hire a person because he is black, gay, unwilling to have sex with the CEO, left-handed, club-footed, cross-eyed or blonde haired, that is nobody else's business. Your assumption that, because I argue in favour of legalised discrimination that I therefore would practise it is unfounded. I believe such discrimination to be immoral; I also happen to believe that the immorality of discrimination is no business of legislation.

Yes, it is none of the civil rights lawyer's business.

This fallacy is called ad hominem.

Ad hominem refers to an "attack to the man".

Its also an attack to discriminate against a person's race or sexuality, and by advocating that those thus victimized should have no recourse, you are abetting those attacks.

You say you wouldn't do it yourself, but you are against those laws that protect those who are hurt by the activity. By trying taking away their protection, you are assisting the attack.

You've provided me with some great new sigs.

Of course there could be. I said few, not none.

I'll check around and see if "few" blacks and gays are discriminated against, given that you've decided its so "few" instances where it would happen.

you christians...annoy me. homosexuals shouldnt have to live by your sick rules

Ad hominem refers to an "attack to the man".

Its also an attack to discriminate against a person's race or sexuality, and by advocating that those thus victimized should have no recourse, you are abetting those attacks.

You say you wouldn't do it yourself, but you are against those laws that protect those who are hurt by the activity. By trying taking away their protection, you are assisting the attack.

You've provided me with some great new sigs.

And you have attacked me, rather than my argument, thus, ad hominem.

Allowing a business to decide its own clientele is far from abetting ad hominem; allowing for your stretching of the meaning of the term, it is at most legalising it.

Wrong, I am assisting the personal freedoms of business owners. No one has a right to patronize a given business, and no business owner should be forced to accept clientele he or she does not wish to accept. Further, your chosen term "attack" to describe preventing a given person of a given demographic from patronizing one's business is a contentious term. It is not an attack but a choice not to allow patronage.

I'll check around and see if "few" blacks and gays are discriminated against, given that you've decided its so "few" instances where it would happen.

What I said was, if the free market were allowed to operate without government restrictions on discrimination, few instances would occur. In fact, discrimination was mandated, which was immoral.

See, that's what I thought.

Did you know there was such a thing as a group restraining order?

Really? So I can put a restraining order on annoying white heterosexual Christ-Centered bigot individuals so I can be free of their stupidity? That's awesome!

The biggest flaw in this argument is that you can't truly define homosexuality on a legal basis. That's why a ban on gay marriage is unconstitutional. What's to stop a gay man from dressing as *snicker* a 'Normal' person and claiming to be strait so he could work out and enjoy all the tight asses around him? What about a Buddhist attending a Church? There's no legal basis to ban gays from going a gym. A gym can do so on their own, but I will not live in a government that supports separate but equal on ANY terms.

I believe you mean as the allegations against Sen. Craig illustrate...

Wait, are you actually claiming he's innocent? I thought that case was setteled.

And you have attacked me, rather than my argument, thus, ad hominem.

You're confusing an attack on your argument with an attack on yourself.

Wait, are you actually claiming he's innocent? I thought that case was setteled.

Not at all. I have no idea whether he actually participated in homosexual sexual activities; this has never been proven in court. So no, it isn't settled.

And you have attacked me, rather than my argument, thus, ad hominem.

Allowing a business to decide its own clientele is far from abetting ad hominem; allowing for your stretching of the meaning of the term, it is at most legalising it.

Wrong, I am assisting the personal freedoms of business owners. No one has a right to patronize a given business, and no business owner should be forced to accept clientele he or she does not wish to accept. Further, your chosen term "attack" to describe preventing a given person of a given demographic from patronizing one's business is a contentious term. It is not an attack but a choice not to allow patronage.

Rather than attacking you, I simply said you should put this on your business cards, that you are in favor of legalizing discrimination. You should make sure all your customers and business associates know that you would withdraw those protections.

When the blacks were told "No, you can't eat here, you're black, leave", it's an attack. When they're told "You can't apply to work here, you're black", it harms their lives. That's being contentious.

You have every right to believe what you believe. I think you should be very vocal in your beliefs, particularly with those you encounter daily, so they know how you feel and what your convictions are.

Also, I was not saying you were abetting an ad hominem attack, I was using a very simple play on words to contrast the difference between a personal attack on an internet forum versus being attacked by having your economic and employment options limited by your race. One is more harmful than another, and although you claim you wouldn't do the latter, you advocate removal of the protections for those victims. Its more than abettance, its collusion.

You're confusing an attack on your argument with an attack on yourself.

That statement was in response to this one:


Make sure you put it on your business cards, Nicea, so people know who they're dealing with.

Which is, in fact, an attack on me, and not my argument.

Not at all. I have no idea whether he actually participated in homosexual sexual activities; this has never been proven in court. So no, it isn't settled.

Was he ever charged with anything? Homosexuality isn't illegal, but I suppose doing it in a public bathroom is.

Um, are we having a troll-fest here?
Am I the only one that senses crypto-homoerotic satire in the OPs post
short, feathered sandy blonde hair with cute bangs.....his strained, muscular movements and his firm jawed expression, his looming, masculine body a potent, radiant expression of dark, chocolately muscle
Or am I just being captain obvious?

Dude, you make me hard.

What I said was, if the free market were allowed to operate without government restrictions on discrimination, few instances would occur. In fact, discrimination was mandated, which was immoral.

Many practiced it (and continue to practice it) voluntarily.

Rather than attacking you, I simply said you should put this on your business cards, that you are in favor of legalizing discrimination. You should make sure all your customers and business associates know that you would withdraw those protections.

When the blacks were told "No, you can't eat here, you're black, leave", it's an attack. When they're told "You can't apply to work here, you're black", it harms their lives. That's being contentious.

You have every right to believe what you believe. I think you should be very vocal in your beliefs, particularly with those you encounter daily, so they know how you feel and what your convictions are.

Also, I was not saying you were abetting an ad hominem attack, I was using a very simple play on words to contrast the difference between a personal attack on an internet forum versus being attacked by having your economic and employment options limited by your race. One is more harmful than another, and although you claim you wouldn't do the latter, you advocate removal of the protections for those victims. Its more than abettance, its collusion.

You have committed the ad hominem fallacy by assuming that, because I argue in favour of the legalisation of a certain practice that I therefore am in favour of that practice.

No, it wasn't. It was a choice of clientele. A given individual has no right to patronize a given business. It does not harm their lives one whit. What does harm lives, is the anti-discrimination laws, which restrict personal freedom.

Holding a philosophical position in favour of legalisation of a given practice does not in any way involve the person with those carrying out that practice. I favour the legalisation of flag-burning, yet I abhor the practice and personally feel this is a despicable action. My stance in favour of flag-burning's legalization in no way groups me together with those who, in actuality, burn flags.

That statement was in response to this one:


Make sure you put it on your business cards, Nicea, so people know who they're dealing with.

Which is, in fact, an attack on me, and not my argument.

So, the premise that you would put your advocation of legalizing discrimination (not practicing it yourself, of course, just freeing others to do it) on your business cards, actually letting people apart from an anonymous internet forum know how you think, isn't really an attack.

Saying you should be upfront with people you encounter, that's not an attack.

Now, refusing to interview a guy for a job because he's black, that does more harm to him, better fitting the idea of an attack.

That statement was in response to this one:


Make sure you put it on your business cards, Nicea, so people know who they're dealing with.

Which is, in fact, an attack on me, and not my argument.

Hmm... Not really. For one thing, you both were talking from the supposition that you were running the company. What he said is in line with attacking that particular argument.

Of course, the NS mods may rule differently, but that's my judgement on it. Want to bug them about making a ruling on this topic?

Was he ever charged with anything? Homosexuality isn't illegal, but I suppose doing it in a public bathroom is.

He pleaded guilty to misdemeanor disorderly conduct, not to public homosexual sex, or even of seeking it out. He has since denied, publicly, that he ever sought or committed such acts.

Really? So I can put a restraining order on annoying white heterosexual Christ-Centered bigot individuals so I can be free of their stupidity? That's awesome!

The biggest flaw in this argument is that you can't truly define homosexuality on a legal basis. That's why a ban on gay marriage is unconstitutional. What's to stop a gay man from dressing as *snicker* a 'Normal' person and claiming to be strait so he could work out and enjoy all the tight asses around him? What about a Buddhist attending a Church? There's no legal basis to ban gays from going a gym. A gym can do so on their own, but I will not live in a government that supports separate but equal on ANY terms.

You didn't really read the OP, did you?

Hmm... Not really. For one thing, you both were talking from the supposition that you were running the company. What he said is in line with attacking that particular argument.

Of course, the NS mods may rule differently, but that's my judgement on it. Want to bug them about making a ruling on this topic?

If you wish. I do not use the moderators as a weapon, seeking to trap my opponent into saying something that will get him or her in trouble, so I generally avoid getting a moderator involved. And as a conservative, Libertarian, Christian, I'm used to ad hominem attacks.

You have committed the ad hominem fallacy by assuming that, because I argue in favour of the legalisation of a certain practice that I therefore am in favour of that practice.

No, it wasn't. It was a choice of clientele. A given individual has no right to patronize a given business. It does not harm their lives one whit. What does harm lives, is the anti-discrimination laws, which restrict personal freedom.

Holding a philosophical position in favour of legalisation of a given practice does not in any way involve the person with those carrying out that practice. I favour the legalisation of flag-burning, yet I abhor the practice and personally feel this is a despicable action. My stance in favour of flag-burning's legalization in no way groups me together with those who, in actuality, burn flags.

The difference is, a flag is an object, property (one with important symbolism, but still just a thing). Burning one is an act of speech.

Now, a human being, yes, even a black or gay one, is entitled to a different level of protection.

I'm going to log off and get on WestLaw and seriously find out what I can do to volunteer to clerk or something on an anti-discrimination case. Either you really think this way, in which case I should get out and do something in the real world to counteract this mentality, or else you're a satirist, in which case you've inspired me to get and do something in the real world to counteract your portrayed mentality.

EDIT: Yes, I see how you're saying you wouldn't do this yourself, you just want others to be able to get away with it without penalty. I believe you when you say you wouldn't discriminate, that you just want others to be able to do it. But that mentality will have victims, and the burden of not having the choice to discriminate is not as harmful as the burden of being discriminated against.

If you wish. I do not use the moderators as a weapon, seeking to trap my opponent into saying something that will get him or her in trouble, so I generally avoid getting a moderator involved. And as a conservative, Libertarian, Christian, I'm used to ad hominem attacks.

Wasn't wanting to use them as tools, but merely ask them to act as a deciding factor in whether or not it was ad hominem. According to every definition of it I've seen, what he did wasn't ad hominem. He did use a logical fallacy, but not the one you're thinking of. However, if you don't want to call them to decide, fair enough. I generally try to avoid bugging them with inconsequential items anyway.

Also, I should note that the personal details of yourself are unimportant for this discussion. What is important is the position you are arguing.

Wasn't wanting to use them as tools, but merely ask them to act as a deciding factor in whether or not it was ad hominem. According to every definition of it I've seen, what he did wasn't ad hominem. He did use a logical fallacy, but not the one you're thinking of. However, if you don't want to call them to decide, fair enough. I generally try to avoid bugging them with inconsequential items anyway.

Also, I should note that the personal details of yourself are unimportant for this discussion. What is important is the position you are arguing.

Ah, I see the miscommunication. My fault. When I refer ad hominem I mean the philosophical fallacy, not the type of behaviour which requires moderation. I am a philosophy graduate, so I tend to speak in philosophy's terms. My mistake for not clarifying this earlier.

Agreed.

Why don't we just ask Betty Bowers - aka "America's Best Christian" - what her opinion is? That'll settle it.

Why don't we just ask Betty Bowers - aka "America's Best Christian" - what her opinion is? That'll settle it.

Why even ask Betty? Just pick up a rock and start chucking them at Chuck and Larry.

You have a point - but why limit ourselves? We can always do both!

Um, are we having a troll-fest here?
Am I the only one that senses crypto-homoerotic satire in the OPs post

Or am I just being captain obvious?

Dude, you make me hard.

Anyone who's been here longer than 10 minutes gets it. Some people just choose to be ignorant.

I think that some christians should be put in a jail or closed hospital.

Some christians are a real threat for the society.

Or am I just being captain obvious?


That one. For penance, you and find the other seven incidences of implied homoeroticism and irony in the OP that you missed.

Ah, I see the miscommunication. My fault. When I refer ad hominem I mean the philosophical fallacy, not the type of behaviour which requires moderation. I am a philosophy graduate, so I tend to speak in philosophy's terms. My mistake for not clarifying this earlier.

Agreed.

In philosophy's terms, an assumption that advocating something be legalized includes favoring the practice would be non sequitur, not ad hominem.

That said, again, calling for the removal of restraints against a practice that has victims opens the way for that harm to be done.

I think that some christians should be put in a jail or closed hospital.

Some christians are a real threat for the society.

A threat for the society? I don't think you read the OP carefully, but I'm still flattered.

Okay, now I really have to get some work done.

In philosophy's terms, an assumption that advocating something be legalized includes favoring the practice would be non sequitur, not ad hominem.

That said, again, calling for the removal of restraints against a practice thas has victims opens the way for that harm to be done.

Non sequitur would also be included, as would ad hominem if it were implied that the arguer were the one favouring the practice.

Discrimination has no victims, and no harm is done.

They still have lunch counters?

I think that some christians should be put in a jail or closed hospital.

Some christians are a real threat for the society.

And I feel that atheists are able to believe a statement which is demonstrably incoherent, and thus are not competent to vote.

Fortunately, cooler heads than yours and mine prevail in such decisions.

They still have lunch counters?

They darn well should. Where else can my sweetie and I split a malt before the sock hop?

Feathered sandy blonde hair with cute bangs

...tight red workout shorts!

...throbbing bulge!

squat lunges.

sizable black man,
firm jawed expression,
looming, masculine body
Dark, chocolately muscle.

homo-erotic horror.

I have some bad news for you.

Non sequitur would also be included, as would ad hominem if it were implied that the arguer were the one favouring the practice.

You favor the legalization of discrimination, while saying you would not do it yourself. The first part is what I'm accusing you of, of being in favor of legalizing it, making it safe and easy for others to do.


Discrimination has no victims, and no harm is done.

This is a very broad statement, I wonder if you'll try to dial it back later.

Like I said, I'm going to check around, look at some cases and see if discrimination has victims and has done harm.

And I feel that atheists are able to believe a statement which is demonstrably incoherent, and thus are not competent to vote.


Oh, but discrimination could never have victims or do harm, right?

EDIT: I have to hit the sack, have a nice night everybody.

And remember, everybody, Nicea Sancta has told us that discrimination is immoral and wouldn't do it himself, but it should be legalized because it has no victims and does no harm.

You favor the legalization of discrimination, while saying you would not do it yourself. The first part is what I'm accusing you of, of being in favor of legalizing it, making it safe and easy for others to do.



This is a very broad statement, I wonder if you'll try to dial it back later.

Like I said, I'm going to check around, look at some cases and see if discrimination has victims and has done harm.

All legalization of discrimination does is make it legal for others to do. This I am in favour of.
No, I do not intend to dial it back. Discrimination, of the type I advocate legalizing, does no harm and has no victims.

All legalization of discrimination does is make it legal for others to do. This I am in favour of.
No, I do not intend to dial it back. Discrimination, of the type I advocate legalizing, does no harm and has no victims.

While I get where you're coming from (I have a relative who's a libertarian), I wonder if you would so quickly say it something does no harm if you were the victim of it. Just wondering.

Oh, but discrimination could never have victims or do harm, right?

EDIT: I have to hit the sack, have a nice night everybody.

And remember, everybody, Nicea Sancta has told us that discrimination is immoral and wouldn't do it himself, but it should be legalized because it has no victims and does no harm.

This would be legally mandated discrimination, which was not included in the context of my earlier statement. Further, as I thought obvious, the implication that I would prevent atheists from voting were I given the chance was satirical, designed primarily to show the absurdity of the claim it was responding to. I apologize if I came across as serious. For official record, while I do believe atheists hold a position which is incoherent with itself, I do not advocate removal of their suffrage.
And yes, I have stated that discrimination, of the type I advocate legalizing, would be immoral, and I would not practice it. Such discrimination has no victims and does no harm.

While I get where you're coming from (I have a relative who's a libertarian), I wonder if you would so quickly say it something does no harm if you were the victim of it. Just wondering.

Oh, no doubt I would feel put upon and unfairly targeted. This would be the case, since discrimination is by definition unfair. However, I would like to think that, whatever race, gender, sexual orientation or handedness I happened to be, I would care enough about personal freedom to recognize the right of a private business to exclude me, for any or no reason, from its clientele.

All legalization of discrimination does is make it legal for others to do. This I am in favour of.
No, I do not intend to dial it back. Discrimination, of the type I advocate legalizing, does no harm and has no victims.

You do realise that you're already dialling that back, by putting restrictions on what discrimination you're speaking about.

So how about the following case:

I'm a Blefuscan, and as such believe passionately that the correct way to eat a boiled egg is large end first. One day, however, I'm hit by a car as I cross the street. Seriously injured, I'm rushed to the local hospital. However, this hospital is run by Lilliputans, and refuses to treat Blefuscans. There is no other hospital for several hours drive, and I die en route.

No harm or victims, eh?

You do realise that you're already dialling that back, by putting restrictions on what discrimination you're speaking about.

So how about the following case:

I'm a Blefuscan, and as such believe passionately that the correct way to eat a boiled egg is large end first. One day, however, I'm hit by a car as I cross the street. Seriously injured, I'm rushed to the local hospital. However, this hospital is run by Lilliputans, and refuses to treat Blefuscans. There is no other hospital for several hours drive, and I die en route.

No harm or victims, eh?

I am not dialing it back, I am explaining the context of the debate in which the original statement was made.
No, no harm or victims in the discrimination. The harm and victim comes about in being hit by the car. All the hospital did was decide not to serve you.

I am not dialing it back, I am explaining the context of the debate in which the original statement was made.
No, no harm or victims in the discrimination. The harm and victim comes about in being hit by the car. All the hospital did was decide not to serve you.

You went from an absolute --- "No discrimination causes harm" --- to a qualified statement --- "No discrimination, of type x, causes harm". Very big difference there.

And there was harm in the discrimination. By discriminating, they moved the situation from an injury to a death, leaving at least one definite victim, and definite harm.

Of course, you might claim that killing people doesn't really harm them. But that is, quite frankly, ridiculous.

You went from an absolute --- "No discrimination causes harm" --- to a qualified statement --- "No discrimination, of type x, causes harm". Very big difference there.

And there was harm in the discrimination. By discriminating, they moved the situation from an injury to a death, leaving at least one definite victim, and definite harm.

Of course, you might claim that killing people doesn't really harm them. But that is, quite frankly, ridiculous.

If you will read the context in which the original statement was made, you will see that it is, in fact, not an absolute. If you stubbornly refuse to take anything in context, then you have my leave to call it dialing the statement down; I won't argue any further about semantics.

Wrong; they simply refused to treat the victim. The accident caused the death; the hospital could have prevented it, but they were under no obligation to do so. The victim was the victim of the accident, the harm was done because of the accident.

Straw man.

The harm and victim comes about in being hit by the car. All the hospital did was decide not to serve you.

Inaction is still a choice, it is not a neutral stance. By choosing not to help someone under such circumstances when you have the capabilities to do so you are directly harming them.

Exactly, a brilliant observation. Few businesses, even if allowed to discriminate, would do so, as this would hurt the bottom line.

Of course, we have actual evidence on this subject, and it suggests that not only do free markets not in and of themselves end discrimination, but as a matter of fact, even with free markets and anti-discrimination laws, discrimination persists.

Strange, that. Must be another instance of reality's liberal bias.

:rolleyes:

I think that gays should have their own music, bars, movies, condoms, Olympic games and street parades !

I think that gays should have their own music, bars, movies, condoms, Olympic games and street parades !

You forget, they should also have their own brand of rainbow coloured bumber stickers.

Have my babies Hammurab!

So, I was at the gym yesterday, and as a Christ-centered individual, I realized something. Gays should have to use separate gyms.

Here I am, trying to develop my body, which is a temple unto the Lord, and I'm constantly distracted by flagrant, willful homosexuality.

Take this one guy. He was in his early twenties, caucasian, short, feathered sandy blonde hair with cute bangs, wearing a respectable white work out shirt, but he ruins the entire ensemble by wearing some tight red workout shorts! As if I, a Christ-centered heterosexual man, wants to see his massive, throbbing bulge!

But, the Bible counsels us to be patient with sin, so after fifteen minutes of stairing at him (ruefully, of course), I overlooked it and went back to my squat lunges. Not five minutes go by, when another gay saunters in front of me!

This time, it was a sizable black man, which I'm not normally opposed to, since blacks in America have dutifully accepted Christ, unlike a certain other segment of the population that Frisbee will yell at me for if I name them. So, anyway, this African American fellow goes over to the weight rack, and proceeds to shamelessly throw his gayness in my face with his strained, muscular movements and his firm jawed expression, his looming, masculine body a potent, radiant expression of dark, chocolately muscle. What a queer.

I reigned in my disgust and went to shower off, hoping to escape this soup of shameless homo-erotic horror. But sadly, there was nowhere to run. Even the shower was awash in sinful man-on-man madness. I finally couldn't stand it anymore. I marched right up to that Puerto Rican guy in the shower, tapped him on the shoulder, and when he turned around, I told him that I was tired of his sick, putrid, foul, lustful eyes all over my Christian physique. I told him to read Leviticus, pray, date, marry, and unleash his perverse urges on a woman for a change.

I'm so sick of gay people. They really need their own gym. And library.
i weep for your predicament.

you should view this as an opportunity to strengthen your faith. i reccomend reciting bible verses while you work out. maybe something from the song of songs. it is (as im sure you know) an inspiring work outlining the relationship between jesus and his church. "My love is like a gazelle, like a young stag. See where he stands behind our wall. He looks in at the window, he peers through the opening. " chapter2 verse9

or, if you find yourself overwhelmed by the sinful distractions at the gym you MUST avoid the occasion of sin for the sake of our own immortal soul. get a bowflex--or, as i call it, the satan foiler. http://www.bowflexhomegyms.com/ they have easy payment plans that fit every budget.

It would be awesome to have gay people segregated.

Kinda playing around, but at the same time I'm kinda serious...

It would be awesome to have gay people segregated.

Kinda playing around, but at the same time I'm kinda serious...
how do you envision it working that would make it awesome?

Discrimination. Also, did you ask or do you know and have [I]proof that these men are, have been, or were gay? I don't think Gods got a reason to hate gays, you fuck your wife/husband (depending on your gender just choose) in the ****, so why can't two men or women fuck each other? Discrimination, brought on by the elitist, narrow minded order of delusionals (not everyone) that was dreamed up by some ancient dudes on crack. Yeah, thanks for hating everyone who's different than you, and fyi, I'm bi-, and don't appreciate people saying that those men were trying to show off. Fuck you. Discrimination.

*snip*

It's satire.

Well, its uncalled for by anyone. I hate Christianity and all religions except Unitarian Universalism because we preach acceptance. Also, I was using it to make a statement also, regardless of the first post.

how do you envision it working that would make it awesome?

cuz I said so. muahaha

just screwing around I really don't care... also, posted with the wrong account

I hate Christianity and all religions except Unitarian Universalism because we preach acceptance.

I love this sentence.

We should stop segregating men and women, and convert all stalls to a big unisex one.
And that goes for everywhere this most hideous kind of discrimination occurs.

The original posting, once I read the whole thing without an emotional reacting, is a great parody on stereotypes of both closed-minded Christianity (and not all Christians are this way) and the gay lifestyle.

Do you think gay people purposely look suspicious at airports for the sole purpose of being selected for cavity searches?

If you will read the context in which the original statement was made, you will see that it is, in fact, not an absolute. If you stubbornly refuse to take anything in context, then you have my leave to call it dialing the statement down; I won't argue any further about semantics.

Wrong, as usual. Let us compare both of these posts, shall we:

Non sequitur would also be included, as would ad hominem if it were implied that the arguer were the one favouring the practice.

Discrimination has no victims, and no harm is done.

All legalization of discrimination does is make it legal for others to do. This I am in favour of.
No, I do not intend to dial it back. Discrimination, of the type I advocate legalizing, does no harm and has no victims.

(Emphasis mine in both cases).

As the first post has no other content that is relevant here, please show how the context makes it clear that there are limits on the type of discrimination. The second post also has no other relevant content, so we simply have two statements to compare. One of them was an absolute, the other was not. As a result, and directly contradicting your stated position, you have 'dialled it back'.

Unless you would care to show the context I have missed. I've quoted the whole of both posts, so I'm not sure where it might be, but maybe you can produce something.

(On browsing, there is a third post (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=14067128&postcount=83) of yours similar to the second I have quoted. However, it is after both of the quoted posts, and so doesn't help to provide context for the first.)

Wrong; they simply refused to treat the victim. The accident caused the death; the hospital could have prevented it, but they were under no obligation to do so. The victim was the victim of the accident, the harm was done because of the accident.

Straw man.

The victim was the victim of the accident, that is true. Their death as a result of it directly follows from the hospital's choice not to treat them. If you make a choice, which directly causes the preventable death of a person, seems to me you're at least partially responsible for their death. Eofaerwic has already expounded on this here (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=14067302&postcount=89).

I love this sentence.

We should not accept people who preach bigotry. We should tolerate them, perhaps, but we should attack and condemn their positions and their behavior at every possible opportunity.

Unfortunately, preaching bigotry is the reality of most of Christianity at this point.

Wrong, as usual. Let us compare both of these posts, shall we:





(Emphasis mine in both cases).

As the first post has no other content that is relevant here, please show how the context makes it clear that there are limits on the type of discrimination. The second post also has no other relevant content, so we simply have two statements to compare. One of them was an absolute, the other was not. As a result, and directly contradicting your stated position, you have 'dialled it back'.

Unless you would care to show the context I have missed. I've quoted the whole of both posts, so I'm not sure where it might be, but maybe you can produce something.

(On browsing, there is a third post (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=14067128&postcount=83) of yours similar to the second I have quoted. However, it is after both of the quoted posts, and so doesn't help to provide context for the first.)



The victim was the victim of the accident, that is true. Their death as a result of it directly follows from the hospital's choice not to treat them. If you make a choice, which directly causes the preventable death of a person, seems to me you're at least partially responsible for their death. Eofaerwic has already expounded on this here (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=14067302&postcount=89).

Nicea Sancta always brings this to every argument:

http://www.goal-posts.net/media/FBL605G.jpg

I hate Christianity and all religions except Unitarian Universalism because we preach acceptance.
Oh, that is so sigged!

I love Hammurab's OPs but the ensuing threads invariably make me sad. Sucky.

how do you envision it working that would make it awesome?

It would make it easier for him to spot the gay men he's trying to pick up, of course! No more straight men distracting him :wink:

It would make it easier for him to spot the gay men he's trying to pick up, of course! No more straight men distracting him :wink:
Awesome!

I have some bad news for you.

You do? Don't worry, I think he's used to people not getting his OPs, so the news that you too completely missed the mark will not have him tearing out his hair in handfuls as you might have envisioned.

You do? Don't worry, I think he's used to people not getting his OPs, so the news that you too completely missed the mark will not have him tearing out his hair in handfuls as you might have envisioned.

I was sort of sad this thread was created by Hammurab...

Until I saw some of the idiots posting.

Then I realised, against all odds, it still works! Huzzah!

The OP makes me think of this (http://www.theonion.com/content/opinion/why_do_all_these_homosexuals) classic Onion article.

The OP makes me think of this (http://www.theonion.com/content/opinion/why_do_all_these_homosexuals) classic Onion article.

And your post made me think of this (http://stuffwhitepeoplelike.com/2008/09/15/109-the-onion/) classic Stuff White People Like article!

The OP makes me think of this (http://www.theonion.com/content/opinion/why_do_all_these_homosexuals) classic Onion article.

I'm still very fond of this Onion gem (http://www.theonion.com/content/news/new_dad_thinks_baby_might_be_gay).

How are you a christin if all you do is segregate people? Surely Jesus wouldn't have minded?

And your post made me think of this (http://stuffwhitepeoplelike.com/2008/09/15/109-the-onion/) classic Stuff White People Like article!
My canned humor has been trumped by someone else's canned humor! How embarrassing!

Hammurab, once again you have made a brilliant argument. Life is truly a struggle for us straight people, constantly being besieged by horrors like those vicious, immoral, pert, squeezable gay buttocks...

You are all stupid!

My canned humor has been trumped by someone else's canned humor! How embarrassing!

:tongue:

Mr. Smunkee would like to point out that straight people don't go to gyms.

Why even ask Betty? Just pick up a rock and start chucking them at Chuck and Larry.
Ohhh, I hated that movie.
Mr. Smunkee would like to point out that straight people don't go to gyms.
So that is why so many people I know are fat...

Also: Whatever happened to being Mrs?

you christians...annoy me. homosexuals shouldnt have to live by your sick rules

Up wid dat!

Also: Whatever happened to being Mrs?

You know you can talk to others about NSG, outside of the forum itself? You know, maybe family or 'friends'. 'Real life' 'people'.

You know you can talk to others about NSG, outside of the forum itself? You know, maybe family or 'friends'. 'Real life' 'people'.

That's just silly. Smunkee obviously had a sex change and we should all be supportive of his decision.

Mr. Smunkee would like to point out that straight people don't go to gyms.

Suddenly fact the gym on my military base is constantly full makes a lot more sense.

That's just silly. Smunkee obviously had a sex change and we should all be supportive of his decision.

Yes, we should be supportive, but very few people actually talk about themselves in the third person.

So perhaps he/she has multiple personalities.

Yes, we should be supportive, but very few people actually talk about themselves in the third person.
Tmutarakhan does, sometimes.

I feel silly now...

Yes, they should have no recourse.

Morality has nothing to do with it. The only one whose business a company's allowed clientele is is that company's owners. If a company wants to not hire a person because he is black, gay, unwilling to have sex with the CEO, left-handed, club-footed, cross-eyed or blonde haired, that is nobody else's business. Your assumption that, because I argue in favour of legalised discrimination that I therefore would practise it is unfounded. I believe such discrimination to be immoral; I also happen to believe that the immorality of discrimination is no business of legislation.

Yes, it is none of the civil rights lawyer's business.

This fallacy is called ad hominem.

Nice piece of satire!

...


It is satire, isn't it? Isn't it???



please let it be satire

You are all stupid!

I'm not stupid, I'm illiterate. :)

Which gym would the Bisexuals use?

Freedom needs no amelioration.

Allowing people to do so is. It is none of my business how you run your company, and it is none of yours how I run mine.

I'm sure you are consistent in this approach and believe it is none of your business what someone does with their body. Right?

Discrimination has no victims, and no harm is done.

I don't know whether to laugh or cry.

Rosa Parks was just a whiner, I guess.

All legalization of discrimination does is make it legal for others to do. This I am in favour of.
No, I do not intend to dial it back. Discrimination, of the type I advocate legalizing, does no harm and has no victims.

Since you prefer "philosophy's terms", consider that the statement "Discrimination does no harm and has no victims" is what philosophy would call a categorical claim.

Philosophical discourse, to be cogent, calls for a rigorous precision of language, including not assuming that a qualifying clause is magically inserted via "context".

If I am discussing concept x which is a subset of A, and I make the claim "All A has property q", and it turns out that the statement is false, philosophy wouldn't really accomodate one saying "Oh, uh, by context, I meant x has property q, because that's the context of what we were discussing".

Like I said, your statement was broad, and if you meant "Only the specific discrimination I advocate has no victims and does no harm", you could have said that. Instead, you invoked a broad, categorical claim involving the supraset of discrimination.

Formal philosophy frequently references characteristics of conceptual sets that a particular element of discussion might be subject to; that's why those versed in the study or discourse of philosophy, especially when emphasizing how educated they are on the matter, apply care in when they are making a categorical statement so that they are prepared to take responsibility for their claims. This applies not merely to you, but to philosophy as a field of study.

Since categorical claims (or in this case, your attempt at one that later had to be narrowed, after I warned you it was broad) can be made in some contexts where they are intended to apply broadly, when you wish to make a narrower claim, your claim should reflect that, since context can allow for categorical statement (when done carefully).

Again, if a person claims "A has property q" when discussing x that is an element of A, for them to claim that it is the same as saying "x has the property q" because x was the "context" isn't really an apt use of "philosophy's terms". A philosopher would see that either claim could fit the context of a premise (depending on what A, x, and q are), and would express the one that actually reflects what they're prepared to take responsibility for.

Since you prefer "philosophy's terms", consider that the statement "Discrimination does no harm and has no victims" is what philosophy would call a categorical claim.

Philosophical discourse, to be cogent, calls for a rigorous precision of language, including not assuming that a qualifying clause is magically inserted via "context".

If I am discussing concept x which is a subset of A, and I make the claim "All A has property q", and it turns out that the statement is false, philosophy wouldn't really accomodate one saying "Oh, uh, by context, I meant x has property q, because that's the context of what we were discussing".

Like I said, your statement was broad, and if you meant "Only the specific discrimination I advocate has no victims and does no harm", you could have said that. Instead, you invoked a broad, categorical claim involving the supraset of discrimination.

Formal philosophy frequently references characteristics of conceptual sets that a particular element of discussion might be subject to; that's why those versed in the study or discourse of philosophy, especially when emphasizing how educated they are on the matter, apply care in when they are making a categorical statement so that they are prepared to take responsibility for their claims. This applies not merely to you, but to philosophy as a field of study.

Since categorical claims (or in this case, your attempt at one that later had to be narrowed, after I warned you it was broad) can be made in some contexts where they are intended to apply broadly, when you wish to make a narrower claim, your claim should reflect that, since context can allow for categorical statement (when done carefully).

Again, if a person claims "A has property q" when discussing x that is an element of A, for them to claim that it is the same as saying "x has the property q" because x was the "context" isn't really an apt use of "philosophy's terms". A philosopher would see that either claim could fit the context of a premise (depending on what A, x, and q are), and would express the one that actually reflects what they're prepared to take responsibility for.

Wonderful argument! As a reward, I'll stop doing your wife.

Wonderful argument! As a reward, I'll stop doing your wife.

That'd be a punishment. Hammurab watches you doing his wife. He's a voyeur.

That'd be a punishment. Hammurab watches you doing his wife. He's a voyeur.

:eek: That explains everything!

I don't know whether to laugh or cry.

Rosa Parks was just a whiner, I guess.

Don't worry, Cat-Tribe, you just don't see his "context". He meant only the discrimination he wants to legalize.

Like if we were discussing corvettes, and I claimed "Cars do not have less than 200 horsepower" as part of my argument, I obviously only meant corvettes, clearly.

Because nobody would invoke the characteristic of a supraset to apply to something being discussed...by context you would have to assume they only meant the subset when they referenced the supraset.

That'd be a punishment. Hammurab watches you doing his wife. He's a voyeur.

What bothers me is that LG won't sign the release.

What bothers me is that LG won't sign the release.

My lawyer hasn't cleared it yet.

:eek: That explains everything!

Looks like Hammurab really cherishes his status as a cuckold.

Nice piece of satire!

...


It is satire, isn't it? Isn't it???



please let it be satire

Unfortunately, I think that Nicea is actually being serious about things. He's not quite over the top enough to be satirising, and his position has been kept and defended far too consistently over his time here.

I don't know whether to laugh or cry.

Rosa Parks was just a whiner, I guess.

But just remember, discrimination can't cause harm. It's all the fault of someone else, in that case Rosa, for not having her own means of transport. Even if it causes a person's death, discrimination still hasn't harmed anyone.

[/nicea]

So, I was at the gym yesterday, and as a Christ-centered individual, I realized something. Gays should have to use separate gyms.

Here I am, trying to develop my body, which is a temple unto the Lord, and I'm constantly distracted by flagrant, willful homosexuality.

Take this one guy. He was in his early twenties, caucasian, short, feathered sandy blonde hair with cute bangs, wearing a respectable white work out shirt, but he ruins the entire ensemble by wearing some tight red workout shorts! As if I, a Christ-centered heterosexual man, wants to see his massive, throbbing bulge!

But, the Bible counsels us to be patient with sin, so after fifteen minutes of stairing at him (ruefully, of course), I overlooked it and went back to my squat lunges. Not five minutes go by, when another gay saunters in front of me!

This time, it was a sizable black man, which I'm not normally opposed to, since blacks in America have dutifully accepted Christ, unlike a certain other segment of the population that Frisbee will yell at me for if I name them. So, anyway, this African American fellow goes over to the weight rack, and proceeds to shamelessly throw his gayness in my face with his strained, muscular movements and his firm jawed expression, his looming, masculine body a potent, radiant expression of dark, chocolately muscle. What a queer.

I reigned in my disgust and went to shower off, hoping to escape this soup of shameless homo-erotic horror. But sadly, there was nowhere to run. Even the shower was awash in sinful man-on-man madness. I finally couldn't stand it anymore. I marched right up to that Puerto Rican guy in the shower, tapped him on the shoulder, and when he turned around, I told him that I was tired of his sick, putrid, foul, lustful eyes all over my Christian physique. I told him to read Leviticus, pray, date, marry, and unleash his perverse urges on a woman for a change.

I'm so sick of gay people. They really need their own gym. And library.

meh, maybe you're giving them the wrong signals or maybe they think your the homo. Until you actually get to talk to them, you're only speculating. Maybe the whole world is gay to you. If you really want an opinion, a gym full of sweaty guys seems gay to me so I turned my basement into a gym.

But just remember, discrimination can't cause harm. It's all the fault of someone else, in that case Rosa, for not having her own means of transport. Even if it causes a person's death, discrimination still hasn't harmed anyone.

[/nicea]

:D

But seriously, Nicea should do a little learning. Beyond the obvious effects of discrimination are more insidious negative impacts:

Experiences of racial discrimination harm mental and physical health (http://www.ur.umich.edu/0607/Oct02_06/03.shtml)
Study Suggests Racial Discrimination Harms Health (http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2005/09/050909074111.htm)
Racial discrimination & health: Pathways & evidence (http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qa3867/is_/ai_n21279012)

:D

But seriously, Nicea should do a little learning. Beyond the obvious effects of discrimination are more insidious negative impacts:

Experiences of racial discrimination harm mental and physical health (http://www.ur.umich.edu/0607/Oct02_06/03.shtml)
Study Suggests Racial Discrimination Harms Health (http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2005/09/050909074111.htm)
Racial discrimination & health: Pathways & evidence (http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qa3867/is_/ai_n21279012)

Intriguing. I'll have to read those later.

Thanks for the links.

Which gym would the Bisexuals use?
Bisexuals are gays who can't get rid of their old bad habits.

Of course, we have actual evidence on this subject, and it suggests that not only do free markets not in and of themselves end discrimination, but as a matter of fact, even with free markets and anti-discrimination laws, discrimination persists.

Strange, that. Must be another instance of reality's liberal bias.

:rolleyes:
Don't you know? It's because of this great and vile distortion in the Almighty Free Market that discrimination happens in the first place! Don't you remember that there was no discrimination before the 1964 Civil Rights Act?

Honestly. This thread has no redeeming value.

If you want gay men segregated, you have to eliminate all restroom facilities from the gym. As Senator Larry Craig has illustrated, they're drawn to the restrooms for their illicit activities.

We should make it so that no gyms have locker rooms or bathrooms for that purpose. If people need to go they can go out the window. Also all the walls will be made of glass for two reasons.

A: To show off the gym-goer's muscles and physique

B: So that outsiders can report homosexual activity.

*nods*

Agree?

The victim was the victim of the accident, that is true. Their death as a result of it directly follows from the hospital's choice not to treat them. If you make a choice, which directly causes the preventable death of a person, seems to me you're at least partially responsible for their death. Eofaerwic has already expounded on this here (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=14067302&postcount=89).

My work on this thread is done :D. At least until Nicea comes back.

Where can I get membership to this gym?

Where can I get membership to this gym?

By the looks of things, the ads on this page :tongue:

I can't work out whether your being ironic, and being quite clever in saying that hetro guys that get really uncomfortable at gay people walking around or even at hot guys walking around and using the same facilities should really be questioning their own sexuality.
Or if your SERIOUS, in which case, GET a life and wake up! your gayer than ME! (and thats very gay!) ask yourself why your staring at a guy for "15 mins" and ask yourself why your so desturbed by them acutally just walking around looking hot!

I can't work out whether your being ironic, and being quite clever in saying that hetro guys that get really uncomfortable at gay people walking around or even at hot guys walking around and using the same facilities should really be questioning their own sexuality.
Or if your SERIOUS, in which case, GET a life and wake up! your gayer than ME! (and thats very gay!) ask yourself why your staring at a guy for "15 mins" and ask yourself why your so desturbed by them acutally just walking around looking hot!

ironically clever

Oh man, best satire I've seen in a long, long time. Three thumbs up! (Realizes the topic and how that can be miscontructed.) Run away! Run away!

Inaction is still a choice, it is not a neutral stance. By choosing not to help someone under such circumstances when you have the capabilities to do so you are directly harming them.

Suppose I have the ability, today, to feed a starving child in Africa (by sending in just three cents a day etc.) The fact that I do not do so in no way makes me responsible for that child's starvation. The conditions in his country are responsible. Inaction is a neutral choice; it causes no harm whatsoever, it merely allows preexisting conditions to run their course.

Why don't we just have Christian gyms?

Problem solved.

Of course, we have actual evidence on this subject, and it suggests that not only do free markets not in and of themselves end discrimination, but as a matter of fact, even with free markets and anti-discrimination laws, discrimination persists.

Strange, that. Must be another instance of reality's liberal bias.

:rolleyes:

Hardly. We have no free markets as they should exist, apart from government interference. With a truly free market we would see few instances of discrimination. With the current anti-discrimination laws in place, we do see few instances of discrimination.

The only way reality can be said to have a liberal bias is when reality has certain twisted ideals forced upon it by unelected activist judges pursuing the liberal agenda.

Wrong, as usual. Let us compare both of these posts, shall we:





(Emphasis mine in both cases).

As the first post has no other content that is relevant here, please show how the context makes it clear that there are limits on the type of discrimination. The second post also has no other relevant content, so we simply have two statements to compare. One of them was an absolute, the other was not. As a result, and directly contradicting your stated position, you have 'dialled it back'.

Unless you would care to show the context I have missed. I've quoted the whole of both posts, so I'm not sure where it might be, but maybe you can produce something.

(On browsing, there is a third post (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=14067128&postcount=83) of yours similar to the second I have quoted. However, it is after both of the quoted posts, and so doesn't help to provide context for the first.)



The victim was the victim of the accident, that is true. Their death as a result of it directly follows from the hospital's choice not to treat them. If you make a choice, which directly causes the preventable death of a person, seems to me you're at least partially responsible for their death. Eofaerwic has already expounded on this here (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=14067302&postcount=89).

As I stated earlier, I won't play semantics games. If you wish to consider it "dialing down" you have my leave.

No, their death as a result of the accident comes as a direct cause of the accident itself. The hospital is under no onus to treat the patient. The hospital's choice caused nothing and has no responsibility.

Why don't we just have Christian gyms?

Problem solved.

Too late :D

http://www.lordsgym.org/

Nice piece of satire!

...


It is satire, isn't it? Isn't it???



please let it be satire

No, it isn't.

As I stated earlier, I won't play semantics games. If you wish to consider it "dialing down" you have my leave.


Its interesting on this thread how often you've made appeals to semantic distinction, but quickly eschew such care for the meaning of language when your own usage is examined and you have no cogent response.

I'm sure you are consistent in this approach and believe it is none of your business what someone does with their body. Right?

Insofar as "my business" refers to "my right to legislate against" as it did in the original context, then no, what people do with their bodies, provided it causes no harm to another, is none of my business. I find, for instance, homosexual sex and prostitution to be morally indefensible, but both should be legal.

Its interesting on this thread how often you've made appeals to semantic distinction, but quickly eschew such care for the meaning of language when your own usage is examined and you have no cogent response.

My meaning was clear in the context it was expressed. If you choose to deliberately misconstrue that meaning, it is your choice. I have articulated the contextual meaning of that phrase, and have given you leave to call this articulation "dialing down" as you seem intent on doing. This response seems cogent enough to me.

Hardly. We have no free markets as they should exist, apart from government interference. With a truly free market we would see few instances of discrimination. With the current anti-discrimination laws in place, we do see few instances of discrimination.

Are you sure you don't want to revise this? Its reasonably predictable what you're trying to claim, but you may want to improve the clarity of your assertion, even if it is merely a broad assumption.


The only way reality can be said to have a liberal bias is when reality has certain twisted ideals forced upon it by unelected activist judges pursuing the liberal agenda.

Speaking generally, those with a thorough and penetrating training in philosophy may be less tempted to ascribe to so simplistic and erroneously polarized a political model as "conservatives vs. liberals", since such a uni-axial spectrum hardly represents anything beyond the most rudimentary (and parrotted) description of the dynamic at hand.

Insofar as "my business" refers to "my right to legislate against" as it did in the original context, then no, what people do with their bodies, provided it causes no harm to another, is none of my business. I find, for instance, homosexual sex and prostitution to be morally indefensible, but both should be legal.


Will the bolded part also be dialed back later?

(Once you've provided your "leave" for us to describe it as such, as you've kindly provided before.)

Here I am, a Christian heterosexual dude with no particular fondness for gays, and I read your post, thinking it'll just be some other random guy bashing homosexuality. And it's not. Not the way I read it. You're something different. That was shamelessly over-righteous, if you don't mind saying so, and it came off as extremist and hypocritical, as if that wasn't enough. You sound like you're into other guys anyway, what with your spending your time staring at that dude's nether regions. I'd appreciate it if you wouldn't post any more until you've figured out a way to do it with love, as a Christian should, and if you can't, then you might want to look into another religion. It's very hard to maintain a good reputation for Christianity with people like you around, saying intolerant things.

(I do not condone homosexuality, but I do believe that Jesus loves everyone, from serial murderers to rapists to terrorists, and that we should mimic that. Even towards you.)

Are you sure you don't want to revise this? Its reasonably predictable what you're trying to claim, but you may want to improve the clarity of your assertion, even if it is merely a broad assumption.



Speaking generally, those with a thorough and penetrating training in philosophy may be less tempted to ascribe to so simplistic and erroneously polarized a political model as "conservatives vs. liberals", since such a uni-axial spectrum hardly represents anything beyond the most rudimentary (and parrotted) description of the dynamic at hand.

The claim seems fine by me as is.

Even granting this for the sake of argument, this in no way demonstrates that a given individual who does so ascribe to such models is therefore not philosophically trained.

Will the bolded part also be dialed back later?

(Once you've provided your "leave" for us to describe it as such, as you've kindly provided before.)

This is a fallacious question of the same variety as "Do you still beat your wife?" As I have not dialed my prior statement back (my giving you leave to call it such does not make it such) there is no answer to this question.

If you instead meant to ask if I intend on dialing this part back later, then no.

My meaning was clear in the context it was expressed. If you choose to deliberately misconstrue that meaning, it is your choice. I have articulated the contextual meaning of that phrase, and have given you leave to call this articulation "dialing down" as you seem intent on doing. This response seems cogent enough to me.

And your "contextual meaning" has been refuted in a way you seem unable to address.

I'll try another illustrative parallel:

If we're talking about Kant, and you say "German philsophers exhibit property X", and it can be shown that they clearly do not, is it reasonable to claim "Oh, we were talking about Kant, so obviously I just meant him"?

The fact is, in "philosophy's terms" as you say you are accustomed to, characteristics of sets are frequently referenced as a means of establishing those properties amongst member elements.

Your insistence that context precludes categorical statements, and that references to sets must somehow be assumed to apply only to those elements of the set under discussion, is not merely semantically unsound, but is inconsistent with many general principles of deduction.

Since you raised the issue of your status as a "philosophy graduate", I must ask, have you never encountered, in any number philosophical contexts, instances where a skilled philosopher might say, when discussing concept alpha which is a member of set omega, "All omega are beta" as a means of ascribing beta to alpha? The fact this is done by philosophy "graduates" and philosophers alike is why they wouldn't assume that when they say omega, they meant only alpha.

Here I am, a Christian heterosexual dude with no particular fondness for gays, and I read your post, thinking it'll just be some other random guy bashing homosexuality. And it's not. Not the way I read it. You're something different. That was shamelessly over-righteous, if you don't mind saying so, and it came off as extremist and hypocritical, as if that wasn't enough. You sound like you're into other guys anyway, what with your spending your time staring at that dude's nether regions. I'd appreciate it if you wouldn't post any more until you've figured out a way to do it with love, as a Christian should, and if you can't, then you might want to look into another religion. It's very hard to maintain a good reputation for Christianity with people like you around, saying intolerant things.

(I do not condone homosexuality, but I do believe that Jesus loves everyone, from serial murderers to rapists to terrorists, and that we should mimic that. Even towards you.)

So, it sounds like you actually read the OP with some attention...and...

still?

Really?

I mean.....really?

Here I am, a Christian heterosexual dude with no particular fondness for gays, and I read your post, thinking it'll just be some other random guy bashing homosexuality. And it's not. Not the way I read it. You're something different. That was shamelessly over-righteous, if you don't mind saying so, and it came off as extremist and hypocritical, as if that wasn't enough. You sound like you're into other guys anyway, what with your spending your time staring at that dude's nether regions. I'd appreciate it if you wouldn't post any more until you've figured out a way to do it with love, as a Christian should, and if you can't, then you might want to look into another religion. It's very hard to maintain a good reputation for Christianity with people like you around, saying intolerant things.

(I do not condone homosexuality, but I do believe that Jesus loves everyone, from serial murderers to rapists to terrorists, and that we should mimic that. Even towards you.)

You are ever so funny.

The claim seems fine by me as is.

Even granting this for the sake of argument, this in no way demonstrates that a given individual who does so ascribe to such models is therefore not philosophically trained.

Well, its just those who are "philosophically trained" usually are sufficiently cognizant of the perils of language that they would, at least upon diligent review, see a problem with:

"Under my preferred system, we would see few blank, but under the current system we do see few blank."

Maybe it might fit more to say "Under my preferred system we would see fewer blank, but under the current system we se more blank?

And your "contextual meaning" has been refuted in a way you seem unable to address.

I'll try another illustrative parallel:

If we're talking about Kant, and you say "German philsophers exhibit property X", and it can be shown that they clearly do not, is it reasonable to claim "Oh, we were talking about Kant, so obviously I just meant him"?

The fact is, in "philosophy's terms" as you say you are accustomed to, characteristics of sets are frequently referenced as a means of establishing those properties amongst member elements.

Your insistence that context precludes categorical statements, and that references to sets must somehow be assumed to apply only to those elements of the set under discussion, is not merely semantically unsound, but is inconsistent with many general principles of deduction.

Since you raised the issue of your status as a "philosophy graduate", I must ask, have you never encountered, in any number philosophical contexts, instances where a skilled philosopher might say, when discussing concept alpha which is a member of set omega, "All omega are beta" as a means of ascribing beta to alpha? The fact this is done by philosophy "graduates" and philosophers alike is why they wouldn't assume that when they say omega, they meant only alpha.

Perhaps you misunderstood when I said I would not play semantics games. Allow me to clarify: by my statement that I would not play semantics games, I meant that, should any semantics games be played, I would not be among their players. Or, if you like, that I would refrain from playing semantics games. Or further, that any semantics games which might be extant would not be participated in by me.
Don't really know how to make this any clearer.

So, it sounds like you actually read the OP with some attention...and...

still?

Really?

I mean.....really?

It's one of the horrors of NSG.

I wonder if he'll realize his mistake and come back or just fade away.

Well, its just those who are "philosophically trained" usually are sufficiently cognizant of the perils of language that they would, at least upon diligent review, see a problem with:

"Under my preferred system, we would see few blank, but under the current system we do see few blank."

Maybe it might fit more to say "Under my preferred system we would see fewer blank, but under the current system we se more blank?

No, I'm fine with few. This is a relational term, true, but not meaningless.

And your "contextual meaning" has been refuted in a way you seem unable to address.

Don't you understand Hammurab? They're not mercenaries, they're private police forces!

Discrimination. Also, did you ask or do you know and have [I]proof that these men are, have been, or were gay? I don't think Gods got a reason to hate gays, you fuck your wife/husband (depending on your gender just choose) in the ****, so why can't two men or women fuck each other? Discrimination, brought on by the elitist, narrow minded order of delusionals (not everyone) that was dreamed up by some ancient dudes on crack. Yeah, thanks for hating everyone who's different than you, and fyi, I'm bi-, and don't appreciate people saying that those men were trying to show off. Fuck you. Discrimination.

God made Adam and Eve, not Adam and Steve. I am a proud Christian, and am fully against homosexuality of any kind or bisexuality.

And I'm curious, who here is ACTUALLY offended/disturbed by gays? Most people, if put to a vote, would submit different answer than the opinion they tell their peers.

Don't you understand Hammurab? They're not mercenaries, they're private police forces!

No, silly, they just engage in "police force activities." Totally different. ;)

God made Adam and Eve, not Adam and Steve.

Actually that's untrue. Recent biblical scholarship has suggested that it was Adam and Steve, the "Eve" thing was a mistranslation.

Perhaps you misunderstood when I said I would not play semantics games. Allow me to clarify: by my statement that I would not play semantics games, I meant that, should any semantics games be played, I would not be among their players. Or, if you like, that I would refrain from playing semantics games. Or further, that any semantics games which might be extant would not be participated in by me.
Don't really know how to make this any clearer.


Semantics:

1. Linguistics. The study or science of meaning in language.

2. Linguistics. The study of relationships between signs and symbols and what they represent. Also called semasiology.

3. The meaning or the interpretation of a word, sentence, or other language form.


Generally, aside from lawyers, philosophers are the most mindful of semantics, since the weight of complexity and the need for precision makes it of utmost value. That you consider the "meaning in language" to be a mere "game", in a debate forum wherein almost the entirety of your premise must be transmitted by language, is telling (especially since you do it selectively).

I also notice that you don't seem to respond to questions when phrased in "philosophy's terms", a semanticism that you've claimed to expressly embrace.

No, I'm fine with few. This is a relational term, true, but not meaningless.

I didn't claim it was meaningless, but you've essentially said:

"I prefer system X where we would see few Y, yet now we have system Z where we do see few Y."

You're trying to contrast systems, but assigning them the same outcome.

Since you raised the issue and made it relevant, may I ask what kind of philosophy program you graduated from?

Semantics:

1. Linguistics. The study or science of meaning in language.

2. Linguistics. The study of relationships between signs and symbols and what they represent. Also called semasiology.

3. The meaning or the interpretation of a word, sentence, or other language form.


Generally, aside from lawyers, philosophers are the most mindful of semantics, since the weight of complexity and the need for precision makes it of utmost value. That you consider the "meaning in language" to be a mere "game", in a debate forum wherein almost the entirety of your premise must be transmitted by language, is telling (especially since you do it selectively).

I also notice that you don't seem to respond to questions when phrased in "philosophy's terms", a semanticism that you've claimed to expressly embrace.

Hmm. I see I wasn't clear enough. But as I said, I don't know how to make it any clearer to you. Maybe:

Me. Semantics games. No.

It's one of the horrors of NSG.

I wonder if he'll realize his mistake and come back or just fade away.

The worst part is, from at least some of his post, he/she is one of the more tolerant folks, yet...

I mean, for fook's sake, really?

I didn't claim it was meaningless, but you've essentially said:

"I prefer system X where we would see few Y, yet now we have system Z where we do see few Y."

You're trying to contrast systems, but assigning them the same outcome.

Since you raised the issue and made it relevant, may I ask what kind of philosophy program you graduated from?

No, what I said was, under the system I advocate, we would see few instances of discrimination. This, however, has no bearing on my support for that system. Even if it were the case that we would see many instances of discrimination if discrimination were legal, I would still advocate legalizing discrimination in private businesses.
I raised the issue, but did not make it relevant, as I brought up my philosophy degree as a clarification on why I did not consider ad hominem attacks against me as necessary of moderation. But yes, you may ask.

No, what I said was, under the system I advocate, we would see few instances of discrimination.

That largely has to do with the system you advocate having no actual connection to anything anyone should consider "reality"

Hmm. I see I wasn't clear enough. But as I said, I don't know how to make it any clearer to you. Maybe:

Me. Semantics games. No.

I hear your evasion, but you aren't the only one reading this, and the best thing I can do in the short term to object to your mentality is continue to juxtapose my questions to your responses.

Also, there is often a bit of a rivalry in my graduate program between some of those trained in the "philosophical" milieu and those of us with a background in the physical sciences.

Even though a single data point is hardly conclusive, your status as a philosophy graduate, coupled with the comparative depth and merit of our respective arguments, will make for fine reading.

I hear your evasion, but you aren't the only one reading this, and the best thing I can do in the short term to object to your mentality is continue to juxtapose my questions to your responses.

Ah, my mistake. I assumed that, since you quoted me and used the second person, that you were addressing me with your posts. I see this assumption was in error.

And I'm curious, who here is ACTUALLY offended/disturbed by gays? Most people, if put to a vote, would submit different answer than the opinion they tell their peers.

So? And I'm sure there are plenty of white people who cross the street when a black person approaches but tell their friends they like blacks. That doesn't mean we should reinstate miscegenation laws and put black people back in the back of the bus.

The worst part is, from at least some of his post, he/she is one of the more tolerant folks, yet...

I mean, for fook's sake, really?

No matter how crazy what you say is someone on NSG will believe you.

No, what I said was, under the system I advocate, we would see few instances of discrimination.

Your exact words, post #158:

With a truly free market we would see few instances of discrimination. With the current anti-discrimination laws in place, we do see few instances of discrimination.(emphasis added)

It parallels precisely my example of contrasting systems, yet assigning them identical outcomes for the aspect at hand.



I raised the issue, but did not make it relevant, as I brought up my philosophy degree as a clarification on why I did not consider ad hominem attacks against me as necessary of moderation. But yes, you may ask.

By saying "yes, you may ask", instead of answering, do you realize you've engaged in something far closer to a supposed "semantic game" then anything I've said?

Actually that's untrue. Recent biblical scholarship has suggested that it was Adam and Steve, the "Eve" thing was a mistranslation.


And they had children how? :eek:

The Bible still has so much to teach us...

Your exact words, post #158:

(emphasis added)

It parallels precisely my example of contrasting systems, yet assigning them identical outcomes for the aspect at hand.




By saying "yes, you may ask", instead of answering, do you realize you've engaged in something far closer to a supposed "semantic game" then anything I've said?

And as I stated earlier, the actual outcomes are irrelevant to my own support for legalization of private discrimination.

Ah, my mistake. I assumed that, since you quoted me and used the second person, that you were addressing me with your posts. I see this assumption was in error.

Of course, after all, rarely would one engage in dialogue with someone to explore a premise for the benefit of the listener/reader.

That's something you might see from Socrates, or even a peripatetic approach, or perhaps, something that would be frequently found in and instantly recognizable to anybody with rudimentary exposure to philosophy...

Of course, after all, rarely would one engage in dialogue with someone to explore a premise for the benefit of the listener/reader.

That's something you might see from Socrates, or even a peripatetic approach, or perhaps, something that would be frequently found in and instantly recognizable to anybody with rudimentary exposure to philosophy...

I am quite familiar with Socrates.

Now that you have clarified that your posts directed at me are for the benefit of others, I will honour your intentions and not respond the them.

And as I stated earlier, the actual outcomes are irrelevant to my own support for legalization of private discrimination.

Because, naturally, a disregard for actual outcomes is the best foundation for sound policy discussion...

Even though your assumed outcome of "reduced freedom" for the discriminator was the entire impetus for your objection to anti-discrimination law. Or do you now mean "oh, wait, I meant only the outcome of those subjected to discrimination"?

When you brought up that you were a philosophy graduate, what kind of program did you graduate from?

And they had children how? :eek:

The Bible still has so much to teach us...

Just to be clear - you have no problem believing that people could be created out of mud, that the sun not only orbits the Earth but can stop doing so upon request, that rivers can turn into blood, and that a flood once covered the entire planet, but you have a problem believing gay people could have children?

So? And I'm sure there are plenty of white people who cross the street when a black person approaches but tell their friends they like blacks. That doesn't mean we should reinstate miscegenation laws and put black people back in the back of the bus.
Point made. But we are also looking at two different kinds of discrimination. One by skin color, which truly isn't fair because it's a result of where your far back ancestors were located in the world and how they adapted.

The other type is against someone's sexual preference.


Now, if we continue this arguement, I'll go into the meaning of the following question in greater detail. Will someone mind checking if back in colonial times there were many cases of homosexuality? Keep going further into the future until you see the outbreak (For lack of a better word. it sounds bad, I know.)

When you brought up that you were a philosophy graduate, what kind of program did you graduate from?

Just because he said he was a philosophy graduate, doesn't mean he actually graduated or has a degree in philosophy. Why would you assume he meant that?

Hasn't he made it clear he's not willing to be engaged in semantics with you? He's very clearly anti-semantic.

Now, if we continue this arguement, I'll go into the meaning of the following question in greater detail. Will someone mind checking if back in colonial times there were many cases of homosexuality? Keep going further into the future until you see the outbreak (For lack of a better word. it sounds bad, I know.)

It sounds bad because it is bad, both for the connotation that homosexuality is a disease, and second by implication that one can choose his sexuality.

But, you know, colonials times were often filled with sexual openness and experimentation. Those pilgrims were real big on it.

I am quite familiar with Socrates.

Now that you have clarified that your posts directed at me are for the benefit of others, I will honour your intentions and not respond the them.

If you truly were familiar with the Socratic Dialogues, you would know that, to truly honor the intensions of the questioner, you would respond to them, since its those very responses that serve as steps to discovery.

Do you seriously think it was Socrates' (or his proxies in various pieces) intention that the other not respond?

And they had children how? :eek:

God, obviously.

So? And I'm sure there are plenty of white people who cross the street when a black person approaches but tell their friends they like blacks. That doesn't mean we should reinstate miscegenation laws and put black people back in the back of the bus.

Point made. But we are also looking at two different kinds of discrimination. One by skin color, which truly isn't fair because it's a result of where your far back ancestors were located in the world and how they adapted.

The other type is against someone's sexual preference.

...which, so far, seems to be the result of a combination of genetics and hormone levels in utero. So?


Now, if we continue this arguement, I'll go into the meaning of the following question in greater detail. Will someone mind checking if back in colonial times there were many cases of homosexuality? Keep going further into the future until you see the outbreak (For lack of a better word. it sounds bad, I know.)

"Cases" of homosexuality? Oh dear... :rolleyes:

And yes, we know that homosexuality has existed throughout history, although (shockingly enough!) there are much more extensive accounts of happy openly gay or bi people in societies that didn't typically treat openly gay or bi people like crap. Amazing, I know.

Just to be clear - you have no problem believing that people could be created out of mud, that the sun not only orbits the Earth but can stop doing so upon request, that rivers can turn into blood, and that a flood once covered the entire planet, but you have a problem believing gay people could have children?

Poliwanacraca, you are the devil's heterozygous recessive gene!

Just to be clear - you have no problem believing that people could be created out of mud, that the sun not only orbits the Earth but can stop doing so upon request, that rivers can turn into blood, and that a flood once covered the entire planet, but you have a problem believing gay people could have children?

But those are all acts of God, each meant for a specific purpose. What purpose would he have for allowing gay people to have children?

Just because he said he was a philosophy graduate, doesn't mean he actually graduated or has a degree in philosophy. Why would you assume he meant that?

Hasn't he made it clear he's not willing to be engaged in semantics with you? He's very clearly anti-semantic.

Neo Art, I will not tolerate you coming onto my satire thread and being funnier than me. I issue a cease and desist, and will file a pleading with the 3rd Circuit Court for Specious Claims on Monday morning.

But those are all acts of God, each meant for a specific purpose. What purpose would he have for allowing gay people to have children?

The same purpose in "allowing" straight people to have children, I would assume.

(Really, the funniest part of your objection was that, of all the acts mentioned, exactly one of them is within a few years of being a reality. Hint: it's not the sun revolving around the Earth!)

But those are all acts of God, each meant for a specific purpose. What purpose would he have for allowing gay people to have children?

you presume to believe that you understand the thoughts of god?

But those are all acts of God, each meant for a specific purpose. What purpose would he have for allowing gay people to have children?

"The Sun orbiting the Earth"....is an act of God?

Tell me you were making some sort of reference to the relatively lesser wobble effect that the planets have on the far more massive star...

I call Poe.

If you truly were familiar with the Socratic Dialogues, you would know that, to truly honor the intensions of the questioner, you would respond to them, since its those very responses that serve as steps to discovery.

Do you seriously think it was Socrates' (or his proxies in various pieces) intention that the other not respond?

Then, in that case, I will not honour your intentions by responding, as I have previously stated that I will not play semantic games. But feel free to continue posting your own semantic games. The audience can consider it a Socratic monologue.

It sounds bad because it is bad, both for the connotation that homosexuality is a disease, and second by implication that one can choose his sexuality.

But, you know, colonials times were often filled with sexual openness and experimentation. Those pilgrims were real big on it.

Wearing your buckle slightly to the left on your hat is a signal that you're a bottom.

Neo Art, I will not tolerate you coming onto my satire thread and being funnier than me. I issue a cease and desist, and will file a pleading with the 3rd Circuit Court for Specious Claims on Monday morning.

Like all jews, my humor comes from the wellspring of agony, cynicism, pain and self loathing. I'm currently in the emergency room on hospital wifi sitting next to my unconscious brother who is hooked up to a respirator with an IV drip.

Thus my capacity for humor is at an all time high, don't worry, I shall revert to my usual level of wit and irreverence shortly, making lymrics that rhyme with "poo"

...which, so far, seems to be the result of a combination of genetics and hormone levels in utero. So?



"Cases" of homosexuality? Oh dear... :rolleyes:

And yes, we know that homosexuality has existed throughout history, although (shockingly enough!) there are much more extensive accounts of happy openly gay or bi people in societies that didn't typically treat openly gay or bi people like crap. Amazing, I know.

I apologize for the way it was written. Not exactly running at 100% right now.

But if everyone decides to be gay, what will happen?
All the women will be with other women, and men with their men. They all live their happy homosexual lifes till they realize this:

If everyone is gay, there has been no heterosexual's to make children! Population goes goodbye.

Wearing your buckle slightly to the left on your hat is a signal that you're a bottom.

slightly to the right however was a clear sign of witchery and required you being stoned to death.

Which, if that's what you were in to, you wore the hat backwards.

I apologize for the way it was written. Not exactly running at 100% right now.

But if everyone decides to be gay, what will happen?
All the women will be with other women, and men with their men. They all live their happy homosexual lifes till they realize this:

If everyone is gay, there has been no heterosexual's to make children! Population goes goodbye.

the question makes about as much sense, and is answered in just the same way, as asking "what if everyone decides to become sterile?"

I apologize for the way it was written. Not exactly running at 100% right now.

But if everyone decides to be gay, what will happen?
All the women will be with other women, and men with their men. They all live their happy homosexual lifes till they realize this:

If everyone is gay, there has been no heterosexual's to make children! Population goes goodbye.

I'm more worried about the day that everyone decides to become invisible and intangible. Have you ever tried to have invisible intangible sex? It's pretty tricky!

the question makes about as much sense, and is answered in just the same way, as asking "what if everyone decides to become sterile?"

What if everyone decides to become women? No wait we can actually do that.

I'm more worried about the day that everyone decides to become invisible and intangible. Have you ever tried to have invisible intangible sex? It's pretty tricky!

you've never had hot, hot, astral sex?

"The Sun orbiting the Earth"....is an act of God?

Tell me you were making some sort of reference to the relatively lesser wobble effect that the planets have on the far more massive star...

I call Poe.

What I meant by that is that in God's creation of the universe, he made it that way. At least I presume that he did.You must admit that having a source of light and heat the perfect distance away to benefit us (not kill us) is convienient, no?

Like all jews, my humor comes from the wellspring of agony, cynicism, pain and self loathing. I'm currently in the emergency room on hospital wifi sitting next to my unconscious brother who is hooked up to a respirator with an IV drip.


Oh, geez, I'm sorry to hear that. I hope he gets better quickly. Has he got a diagnosis yet?

Then, in that case, I will not honour your intentions by responding, as I have previously stated that I will not play semantic games.

Again, semantics are defined as the study of the meanings of words, something a philsopher could conceivably see the relevance of here where words are the principle embodiment of the entire argument, but do you at least see where your previous response suggest you aren't as familiar with Socrates, or with "philosophy's terms", as you claimed to be?


But feel free to continue posting your own semantic games. The audience can consider it a Socratic monologue.

You dismiss the examination of the use of suprasets in demonstrating characteristics of set elements, a relatively simple but critical aspect of even basic formal logic, as merely a "semantic game"?

Its speaks directly to "philosophy's terms", the very jargon of semantics that you advocated, and now you think this mantra "semantic games" serves as a credible response?

That you try to don the mantle of philosopher suggests that some part of you sees the value in philosophy. Let some part of your conscience ask you here, now....have your responses really reflected a true attempt at philosophy? Have you represented philosophy well here?

WhatI meant by that is that in God's creation of the universe, hemade it that way. At least i presume that he did.You must admit that having a source of light and heat the perfect distance away to benefit us (not kill us) is convienient, no?

it's an awfully big presumption to believe that the sun was placed where it is so that it would be the best place for us, and not that we exist the way we are, in adaption to the sun being where it is.

you've never had hot, hot, astral sex?

Well, I was planning on it last night, but somehow it didn't quite work out. ;)

Oh, geez, I'm sorry to hear that. I hope he gets better quickly. Has he got a diagnosis yet?

blood clot, caused his pancreas and spleen to not drain properly, leading to inflammation.

He's on some heavy duty blood thinners and painkillers right now. I'm just killing time on his laptop. Shitty thing, has a web browser, but that's about it.

it's an awfully big presumption to believe that the sun was placed where it is so that it would be the best place for us, and not that we exist the way we are, in adaption to the sun being where it is.

Mayi be correct in assuming you are a believer in the theory of evolution?

Like all jews, my humor comes from the wellspring of agony, cynicism, pain and self loathing. I'm currently in the emergency room on hospital wifi sitting next to my unconscious brother who is hooked up to a respirator with an IV drip.

Thus my capacity for humor is at an all time high, don't worry, I shall revert to my usual level of wit and irreverence shortly, making lymrics that rhyme with "poo"

Oh, man...Neo Art....

I've never really had a brother, so I can't truly empathize. I hope he recovers, or at least has as little pain as possible.

Let me know if I can do anything.

blood clot, caused his pancreas and spleen to not drain properly, leading to inflammation.

He's on some heavy duty blood thinners and painkillers right now. I'm just killing time on his laptop. Shitty thing, has a web browser, but that's about it.

Ouch, that doesn't sound pleasant at all. I hope his inflammation clears up quickly so you both can get back home!

But if everyone decides to be gay, what will happen?
All the women will be with other women, and men with their men. They all live their happy homosexual lifes till they realize this

Since your earlier points were already addressed I'll address this one.

Here's a quick thought experiment for you. Find a picture of a man, one that is generally considered to be attractive such as Brad Pitt or George Clooney or whomever. Poli could probably provide you better suggestions. Are you aroused by this picture? Can you choose to be aroused by this picture? If no, then why not?

Mayi be correct in assuming you are a believer in the theory of evolution?

Do I believe in it? Hard question to answer. Nobody with a mind to science should ever commit absolute belief in any particular position. One should merely state whether or not it's the best explanation for available evidence.

Which it is, and I do. I believe that no other theory has come close to providing a more complete and adequate understanding.

It is certainly superior to a position that states that the sun was placed just in the right place to most benefit us, billions of years before there was even a planet for us to stand upon.

Ouch, that doesn't sound pleasant at all. I hope his inflammation clears up quickly so you both can get back home!

I'm headed back to boston tomorrow, not sure if I'm going to work or not. Might have one of the admins scan some files that are on my desk and email them to me.

What I meant by that is that in God's creation of the universe, he made it that way. At least I presume that he did.You must admit that having a source of light and heat the perfect distance away to benefit us (not kill us) is convienient, no?

You presume a great deal. Suppose lightning knocks down a tree, and later a group of beavers see a fallen tree and take shelter there.

And every night, they give thanks to the Beaver God, because if the Beaver God hadn't knocked that particular tree over on purpose, they wouldn't have anywhere to live...

Poli could probably provide you better suggestions.

Mmm....Stephen Colbert.... *drools*

(What? I like 'em smart and snarky! :tongue:)

Do I believe in it? Hard question to answer. Nobody with a mind to science should ever commit absolute belief in any particular position. One should merely state whether or not it's the best explanation for available evidence.

Which it is, and I do. I believe that no other theory has come close to providing a more complete and adequate understanding.

It is certainly superior to a position that states that the sun was placed just in the right place to most benefit us, billions of years before there was even a planet for us to stand upon.


Have you ever read the Bible?
Many scientific predictions were made in it long before scientists throughout the ages truly discovered them to be true.

Oh and also, I hope your brother makes a speedy and full recovery.

Mmm....Stephen Colbert.... *drools*

(What? I like 'em smart and snarky! :tongue:)

You, uh....you get a bit warm for the satirists, do you?

Do they have to be all that smart? What about merely snarky?

You presume a great deal. Suppose lightning knocks down a tree, and later a group of beavers see a fallen tree and take shelter there.

And every night, they give thanks to the Beaver God, because if the Beaver God hadn't knocked that particular tree over on purpose, they wouldn't have anywhere to live...

The Beaver God is a loving god indeed...

Have you ever read the Bible?
Many scientific predictions were made in it long before scientists throughout the ages truly discovered them to be true.

Like what?

Have you ever read the Bible?
Many scientific predictions were made in it long before scientists throughout the ages truly discovered them to be true.

Oh and also, I hope your brother makes a speedy and full recovery.

That's funny, the Koran makes exactly the same claim, so, it must be just as true as your favored version of the Bible...

Does this include your earlier allusion to the Sun orbiting the Earth, for God's purpose, naturally?

The Beaver God is a loving god indeed...

POE! POEPOE! Poe poe poe poe poe!

I call Poe!

Have you ever read the Bible?
Many scientific predictions were made in it long before scientists throughout the ages truly discovered them to be true.

I'm actually trying to think of a single one that has been proven true.

Pi is exactly 3? Nope.

Earth is flat? nuh-uh

Like what?

http://www.clarifyingchristianity.com/science.shtml

Like what?

Like, right there in Deuteronomy 4:15 where it says

"And Demonas shall be a Poe"

You, uh....you get a bit warm for the satirists, do you?

Do they have to be all that smart? What about merely snarky?

http://generalitemafia.ipbfree.com/uploads/ipbfree.com/generalitemafia/emo-goumoticon0bk.gif

I'm actually trying to think of a single one that has been proven true.

Pi is exactly 3? Nope.

You know what you get if you combine Pi with Omega?

PO! Which rhymes with Poe!

http://www.clarifyingchristianity.com/science.shtml

I think neither you, nor they, really understand what a scientific prediction is.

http://generalitemafia.ipbfree.com/uploads/ipbfree.com/generalitemafia/emo-goumoticon0bk.gif

If I wasn't presently rendered somber by Neo Art's brother's illness, I would flirt the sig off you.

As it stands, I seriously just hope he gets better...

Like, right there in Deuteronomy 4:15 where it says

"And Demonas shall be a Poe"

Edgar Allen, to be precise.


Ughh, that was the worst attempt at humor I have made yet.

http://www.clarifyingchristianity.com/science.shtml

It claims that Leviathan and Behemoth are dinosaurs. Since the former is aquatic, and the latter has a navel, this is an impossible situation, and thus the site automatically loses all credibility by displaying an extreme lack of knowledge about the subjects of which it claims to be knowledgeable.

I think neither you, nor they, really understand what a scientific prediction is.

I have a prediction.

Demonas will drop his cloaking device and reveal that he is captain of the Klingon Bird of Prey K'tang Poe.

If I wasn't presently rendered somber by Neo Art's brother's illness, I would flirt the sig off you.

As it stands, I seriously just hope he gets better...

no no, go ahead.

I like to watch..

no no, go ahead.

I like to watch..

Oh really?

Interesting... ;)

I love this part from the website:

Even today, scientists admit that they do not know how many stars there are. Only about 3,000 can be seen with the naked eye. We have seen estimates of 10^21 stars—which is a lot of stars.[2] (The number of grains of sand on the earth’s seashores is estimated to be 10^25. As scientists discover more stars, wouldn’t it be interesting to discover that these two numbers match?)

I love the fact that they somehow seem to act like 10^21 and 10^25 are roughly the same, since, after all, 21 is almost 25!

It's not like, I dunno, one is, literally, ten thousand times as large as the other.