Knight's pick 10-08-2011

[MaryContrary]

...you continue to advocate that [whoever] be jailed or even executed while others are denied a chance of living this life in a way that suits them, even though you are fallible and could well be wrong.
What is not presumptuous about that, twit?

content edited

It's presumptuous to advocate for jailing or executing people who do 'x'? Or is it presumptuous only when x=homosexual fornication?
And 'living this life in a way that suits them'? Again, presumptuous to deny others this chance only in the case of homosexual fornication or does this apply to all the other myriad instances where we deny people such a 'chance'?

Assuming you're not willing to call having a criminal justice system of any sort presumptuous, then I can only interpret this as being limited exclusively to homosexual fornication.

I wonder if you can discern the hypocrisy here. :think:

 

[alwight]

content edited

It's presumptuous to advocate for jailing or executing people who do 'x'? Or is it presumptuous only when x=homosexual fornication?

I'm not quite sure why we can't simply remain specific here without bringing in criminal secular activities, which usually does cause real harm to others and which clearly does call for secular sanctions imo, even at the risk of the occasional regretable miscarriage of justice.

And 'living this life in a way that suits them'? Again, presumptuous to deny others this chance only in the case of homosexual fornication or does this apply to all the other myriad instances where we deny people such a 'chance'?

I see no problem while other people's own preferred way of life is not impinged on.

Assuming you're not willing to call having a criminal justice system of any sort presumptuous, then I can only interpret this as being limited exclusively to homosexual fornication.

I wonder if you can discern the irony here. :think:

You're someone who wants homosexuality between consenting adults criminalised apparently, not me.

 

[MaryContrary]

I'm not quite sure why we can't simply remain specific here without bringing in criminal secular activities, which usually does cause real harm to others and which clearly does call for secular sanctions imo, even at the risk of the occasional regretable miscarriage of justice.

Because a foundational point here would be whether homosexual fornication should be outlawed, by the same rational by which we justly outlaw anything else. :duh:

I see no problem while other people's own preferred way of life is not impinged on.

Another point. Not everything we outlaw necessarily or unarguably impinges on someone else's preferred way of life (or whatever weird way you want to word the general principle you're trying to be so vague about here).

You're someone who wants homosexuality between consenting adults criminalised apparently, not me.

:chuckle:
So...you fail to recognize hypocrisy and accuse me of it incorrectly. Maybe you should have looked it up in a dictionary or something?

 

[alwight]

Because a foundational point here would be whether homosexual fornication should be outlawed, by the same rational by which we justly outlaw anything else. :duh:

From a purely secular pov then why even consider it criminal, at least while third parties remain unharmed and uninvolved?
Of course I can't account for any mental anguish anyone might put themselves through if they rather suspect it is going on and object because of say their personal religious reasons.

Another point. Not everything we outlaw necessarily or unarguably impinges on someone else's preferred way of life (or whatever weird way you want to word the general principle you're trying to be so vague about here).

OK then to be more blunt, I think people who object to consenting gay sex are free to not like it or have their religious views, but should ultimately simply butt out of other people's preferred way of life.

:chuckle:
So...you fail to recognize hypocrisy and accuse me of it incorrectly. Maybe you should have looked it up in a dictionary or something?

How did I fail to do that, if it isn't a secular crime then secular punishment is surely inappropriate?
I don't suggest you are being hypocritical at all I'm actually saying that you are wrong and intolerant.

 

[MaryContrary]

From a purely secular pov then why even consider it criminal, at least while third parties remain unharmed and uninvolved?
Of course I can't account for any mental anguish anyone might put themselves through if they rather suspect it is going on and object because of say their personal religious reasons.

Funny. "Religious reason" and presumptuousness and whatnot seemed to have been your objections before. Why are you focusing sharply on the 'victimless crime' argument now?

OK then to be more blunt, I think people who object to consenting gay sex are free to not like it or have their religious views, but should ultimately simply butt out of other people's preferred way of life.

So people are free to have a particular opinion on a particular issue as long as they don't express it? Or vote accordingly?

Seriously?

How did I fail to do that, if it isn't a secular crime then secular punishment is surely inappropriate?

Who limited what is appropriate to the secular? What are you on about here? :liberals:

I don't suggest you are being hypocritical at all I'm actually saying that you are wrong and intolerant.

Uh huh. lain:

-5 credibility

 

[WizardofOz]

Because a foundational point here would be whether homosexual fornication should be outlawed, by the same rational by which we justly outlaw anything else. :duh:

Justly outlawing anything else like regular, heterosexual fornication?

Wait :doh:

 

[alwight]

Funny. "Religious reason" and presumptuousness and whatnot seemed to have been your objections before. Why are you focusing sharply on the 'victimless crime' argument now?

Is there an actual point here? :idunno:

So people are free to have a particular opinion on a particular issue as long as they don't express it? Or vote accordingly?

Seriously?

Sorry but the idea of a "moral majority" voting away the preferred way of life of a minority who don't harm theirs is all rather obnoxious and creepy afaic.

Who limited what is appropriate to the secular? What are you on about here? :liberals:
Uh huh. lain:

-5 credibility

So perhaps you don't actually want homosexual acts done in private to be against civil laws or gays locked up in secular jails then? Perhaps I've misunderstood you all along?
Or do you suggest the "moral majority" vote for a Christian police force, jails and judicial system designed to uphold your own theocratic morality where you live?.

 

[MaryContrary]

Sorry but the idea of a "moral majority" voting away the preferred way of life of a minority who don't harm theirs is all rather obnoxious and creepy afaic.

Democracy sucks, huh?

So perhaps you don't actually want homosexual acts done in private to be against civil laws or gays locked up in secular jails then? Perhaps I've misunderstood you all along?
Or do you suggest the "moral majority" vote for a Christian police force, jails and judicial system designed to uphold your own theocratic morality where you live?.

I'd prefer the government we're supposed to have, that makes no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof, while outlawing homosexual sex. I'm sorry if I haven't been clear about that over the last few years.

 

[alwight]

Democracy sucks, huh?

No, but the abuse of democracy does when it is used as a tool to oppress a minority, as you would like to do it seems.

I'd prefer the government we're supposed to have, that makes no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof, while outlawing homosexual sex. I'm sorry if I haven't been clear about that over the last few years.

Oh I think you've been clear enough.

 

[some other dude]

Sorry but the idea of a "moral majority" voting away the preferred way of life of a minority who don't harm theirs is all rather obnoxious and creepy afaic.

Would that assessment extend to drug users? Child molesters who prey upon their own children exclusively? Those who engage in bestiality? Wife beaters? Husband beaters? Polygamists?

 

[alwight]

Would that assessment extend to drug users? Child molesters who prey upon their own children exclusively? Those who engage in bestiality? Wife beaters? Husband beaters? Polygamists?

Clearly then for some reason you simply automatically equate consenting homosexuals and what they do with actions of those that will do harm to others who have not consented. That rather seems to me as being dogmatically homophobic or perhaps just badly rationalised by you.

 

[some other dude]

Unable to answer simple questions, alwight erects a strawman and whacks away.

Clearly then for some reason you simply automatically equate consenting homosexuals and what they do with actions of those that will do harm to others who have not consented. That rather seems to me as being dogmatically homophobic or perhaps just badly rationalised by you.

"Those that will do harm to others who have not consented."

Drug users? Those who engage in bestiality? Polygamists?

 

[alwight]

Unable to answer simple questions, alwight erects a strawman and whacks away.


"Those that will do harm to others who have not consented."

Drug users? Those who engage in bestiality? Polygamists?

Good, so we can eliminate the others from your list.

Drug users are only harming themselves. The role of civil law enforcement is primarily against those who make money out of making drugs available and encouraging the misuse of drugs.

Bestiality? Red herring? Are animals harmed, possibly, I don't really know.

Polygamists? Who is harmed if anyone is, ask the Mormons? The civil responsibility lies only in the legally binding contract of marriage between two people.

Your whole list was a red herring imo.

 

[some other dude]

Good, so we can eliminate the others from your list.

Drug users are only harming themselves. The role of civil law enforcement is primarily against those who make money out of making drugs available and encouraging the misuse of drugs.

Bestiality? Red herring? Are animals harmed, possibly, I don't really know.

Polygamists? Who is harmed if anyone is, ask the Mormons? The civil responsibility lies only in the legally binding contract of marriage between two people.

Your whole list was a red herring imo.

Rather, it was a reasonable reponse to your statement "Sorry but the idea of a "moral majority" voting away the preferred way of life of a minority who don't harm theirs is all rather obnoxious and creepy afaic."

 

[alwight]

Rather, it was a reasonable reponse to your statement "Sorry but the idea of a "moral majority" voting away the preferred way of life of a minority who don't harm theirs is all rather obnoxious and creepy afaic."

That's a bit lame, but perhaps we made some progress in trimming your list.
What exactly do you know about bestiality that you feel you can equate it to gay sex but not to straight sex?

 

[some other dude]

That's a bit lame, but perhaps we made some progress in trimming your list.

Not at all.

None of the following minorities harm the "moral majority".

Child molesters who prey upon their own children exclusively? Those who engage in bestiality? Wife beaters? Husband beaters? Polygamists?

 

[alwight]

Not at all.

None of the following minorities harm the "moral majority".

Child molesters who prey upon their own children exclusively? Those who engage in bestiality? Wife beaters? Husband beaters? Polygamists?

However I was more concerned about the "moral majority" harming a minority if you check.
But since it was your list not mine I did wonder why gays have to be on it any more than straight people?
I've already touched on the ones we did not eliminate originally.
Sadly however you didn't seem to want to reply to my question about one of the remainder, i.e. bestiality.

 

[some other dude]

However I was more concerned about the "moral majority" harming a minority if you check.

Right, but you're OK with the "moral majority" restricting child molesters who prey upon their own children exclusively and wife beaters and husband beaters. You're OK with the "moral majority" voting away the preferred way of life of those minorities even though they don't harm theirs, right?

 

[alwight]

Right, but you're OK with the "moral majority" restricting child molesters who prey upon their own children exclusively and wife beaters and husband beaters. You're OK with the "moral majority" voting away the preferred way of life of those minorities even though they don't harm theirs, right?

The supposed "moral majority" can all go fly a kite afaic, but I expect my elected representatives to be accountable agents on my behalf to prevent harm or detriment coming to innocent people. Where there is no harm or unreasonable effects on those otherwise not involved then I'd rather like them to butt out.

 

[some other dude]

The supposed "moral majority" can all go fly a kite

Many of us do indeed enjoy flying kites with our children, children we are trying to raise in a world that is increasingly hostile to Godly principles.

but I expect my elected representatives to be accountable agents on my behalf

As do we. We expect that those we elect will represent our interests. That includes reversing the coarsening of our culture.

Where there is no harm or unreasonable effects on those otherwise not involved then I'd rather like them to butt out.

It harms us all, as a society, to allow abortion, pornography, homosexuality, adultery and other perversions to become accepted as "normal".