quote:

---

Originally posted by Bill scott

quote:

---

Originally posted by Siberia

quote:

---

Originally posted by Bill scott

Right. Like when society says this is immoral and science says it is dangerous and people do it anyway. Their crazy and have no concept of the results they may face for their ignoring of the obvious.

---

Ah yes, the problem is, people do stupid things. They drive too fast, drink too much, smoke and use drugs quite dangerous and they know it's dangerous. But do it anyway. In spite of indoctrination, in spite of people forcing morality down their throats, in spite of scientific warnings, in spite of themselves. Why? I don't know, but they do.

And even promiscuous people can be relatively safe if they wear protection. So it's not a hazard anymore - except, perhaps, in sub-Saharan Africa.

At least we agree that the presence or lack of homosexuality is irrelevant when it comes to social ills and disease?

---

Ah yes, the problem is, people do stupid things. They drive too fast, drink too much, smoke and use drugs quite dangerous and they know it's dangerous. But do it anyway. In spite of indoctrination, in spite of people forcing morality down their throats, in spite of scientific warnings, in spite of themselves. Why? I don't know, but they do.
(bill) It is all most as if man has an internal drive to do what is wrong. Hmm???


And even promiscuous people can be relatively safe if they wear protection. So it's not a hazard anymore - except, perhaps, in sub-Saharan Africa.
(bill) I would suspect a big problem in africa is the lack of access to "protection." But I don't know. In the case of the gay american male they have full access to "protection" but many fail or refuse to use it. After all it does restrict the pleasure and sensation level and that is what the unbridled, unrestricted, sleeping around with anyone and everyone lifestyle is all about, pleasure and physical sensations. They value the pleasure of the moment over the future of their health and well being. This is the same for the highly promiscuous hetro as well. They put themselves at risk from this dangerous behavior for pleasure. The general public has called this immoral and the gov. has produced the science that this is dangerous and to engage your playing russian roulette. Yet people in masses deify both and do as they please. People have reported that they seek to escape this type of behavior only to be drawn right back to it. Once they have a taste for the sweet honey is hard not to return. It is all most as if man has an internal drive to do what is wrong. Hmm???

---

quote:

---

At least we agree that the presence or lack of homosexuality is irrelevant when it comes to social ills and disease?
(bill) We don't agree. In the US sexual transmitted disease is disproportional in the homo community. Alcohol and drug abuse also reek havoc on this community. In most cases it is a highly promiscuous lifestyle where pleasure is the ultimate goal and many times personal safety and health are tossed to the wind in quest for the prize. Hetros who live the same promiscuous lifestyle face many of the same ill effects. Proportionately not the same risks, but the risks are there none the less.

---

quote:

---

(bill) We don't agree. In the US sexual transmitted disease is disproportional in the homo community. Alcohol and drug abuse also reek havoc on this community. In most cases it is a highly promiscuous lifestyle where pleasure is the ultimate goal and many times personal safety and health are tossed to the wind in quest for the prize. Hetros who live the same promiscuous lifestyle face many of the same ill effects. Proportionately not the same risks, but the risks are there none the less.

---

quote:

---

Morality has always evolved through history.
(bill) Up or down? Are we working towards that utopian society where evolution comes in full circle, where man, in all his glory, conquers the ills that have plague civilizations since the dawn of time?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by filthy

quote:

---

(bill) We don't agree. In the US sexual transmitted disease is disproportional in the homo community. Alcohol and drug abuse also reek havoc on this community. In most cases it is a highly promiscuous lifestyle where pleasure is the ultimate goal and many times personal safety and health are tossed to the wind in quest for the prize. Hetros who live the same promiscuous lifestyle face many of the same ill effects. Proportionately not the same risks, but the risks are there none the less.

---

References please. What studies and conducted by whom?

quote:

---

Morality has always evolved through history.
(bill) Up or down? Are we working towards that utopian society where evolution comes in full circle, where man, in all his glory, conquers the ills that have plague civilizations since the dawn of time?

---

Correction: evolution has no direction beyond that of adapting species to better fit their ecological niche and thus better their long-term survival chances. No back, no forward, no up nor down, and certainly no circle. With evolutiuon of species, you can never go back around for a do-over.

The evolution of morals and ethics can easily be observed by a simple study of the history of any culture that is or has ever been. Indeed, a look at the historical Catholic Church can be enlightening. Go back to, oh, maybe the 1100s, or even earlier, and see how their doctrines changed from then to now.

Can you have a do-over in this sort of evolution? Sure you can. These are artificial concepts put forth by ourselves. Apart from the cooperation and consideration natural to any social species, they are not geneticly hard-wired into us. So, any society can do pretty much wharever it wants, and still call it 'moral' and 'ethical.' Germany from 1939 to 1945 clearly demonstrates that. I have read that bloody Vlad Tepes, impaler of Turks and revolutionaries, is a national hero in Romania.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Bill scott

quote:

---

Originally posted by filthy

quote:

---

(bill) We don't agree. In the US sexual transmitted disease is disproportional in the homo community. Alcohol and drug abuse also reek havoc on this community. In most cases it is a highly promiscuous lifestyle where pleasure is the ultimate goal and many times personal safety and health are tossed to the wind in quest for the prize. Hetros who live the same promiscuous lifestyle face many of the same ill effects. Proportionately not the same risks, but the risks are there none the less.

---

References please. What studies and conducted by whom?

quote:

---

Morality has always evolved through history.
(bill) Up or down? Are we working towards that utopian society where evolution comes in full circle, where man, in all his glory, conquers the ills that have plague civilizations since the dawn of time?

---

Correction: evolution has no direction beyond that of adapting species to better fit their ecological niche and thus better their long-term survival chances. No back, no forward, no up nor down, and certainly no circle. With evolutiuon of species, you can never go back around for a do-over.

The evolution of morals and ethics can easily be observed by a simple study of the history of any culture that is or has ever been. Indeed, a look at the historical Catholic Church can be enlightening. Go back to, oh, maybe the 1100s, or even earlier, and see how their doctrines changed from then to now.

Can you have a do-over in this sort of evolution? Sure you can. These are artificial concepts put forth by ourselves. Apart from the cooperation and consideration natural to any social species, they are not geneticly hard-wired into us. So, any society can do pretty much wharever it wants, and still call it 'moral' and 'ethical.' Germany from 1939 to 1945 clearly demonstrates that. I have read that bloody Vlad Tepes, impaler of Turks and revolutionaries, is a national hero in Romania.

---

Correction: evolution has no direction beyond that of adapting species to better fit their ecological niche and thus better their long-term survival chances.
(bill) really? So random mutations have never resulted in an ill effect that might bring the species down? That is amazing and what do you think the odds are for random mutations to only improve the situation and never have an adverse affect?[/quote

I again refer you to Talk Origins, futiley because you obviously never open links. The amazing part to me is that you can read, but don't.

<snippage of much bullshit>

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Bill scott

quote:

---

Originally posted by filthy

quote:

---

(bill) We don't agree. In the US sexual transmitted disease is disproportional in the homo community. Alcohol and drug abuse also reek havoc on this community. In most cases it is a highly promiscuous lifestyle where pleasure is the ultimate goal and many times personal safety and health are tossed to the wind in quest for the prize. Hetros who live the same promiscuous lifestyle face many of the same ill effects. Proportionately not the same risks, but the risks are there none the less.

---

References please. What studies and conducted by whom?

quote:

---

Morality has always evolved through history.
(bill) Up or down? Are we working towards that utopian society where evolution comes in full circle, where man, in all his glory, conquers the ills that have plague civilizations since the dawn of time?

---

Correction: evolution has no direction beyond that of adapting species to better fit their ecological niche and thus better their long-term survival chances. No back, no forward, no up nor down, and certainly no circle. With evolutiuon of species, you can never go back around for a do-over.

The evolution of morals and ethics can easily be observed by a simple study of the history of any culture that is or has ever been. Indeed, a look at the historical Catholic Church can be enlightening. Go back to, oh, maybe the 1100s, or even earlier, and see how their doctrines changed from then to now.

Can you have a do-over in this sort of evolution? Sure you can. These are artificial concepts put forth by ourselves. Apart from the cooperation and consideration natural to any social species, they are not geneticly hard-wired into us. So, any society can do pretty much wharever it wants, and still call it 'moral' and 'ethical.' Germany from 1939 to 1945 clearly demonstrates that. I have read that bloody Vlad Tepes, impaler of Turks and revolutionaries, is a national hero in Romania.

---

Correction: evolution has no direction beyond that of adapting species to better fit their ecological niche and thus better their long-term survival chances.
(bill) really? So random mutations have never resulted in an ill effect that might bring the species down? That is amazing and what do you think the odds are for random mutations to only improve the situation and never have an adverse affect?

---

quote:

---

<snippage of much bullshit, red herrings and so forth.>[/

---

quote:

---

Morality has always evolved through history.
(bill) Up or down? Are we working towards that utopian society where evolution comes in full circle, where man, in all his glory, conquers the ills that have plague civilizations since the dawn of time? Well if that is the over all big picture let me inform you that we are going in reverse direction. We have had 1000's of years of "modern civilization" trying to work it all out yet we just came out of one of the most bloodiest centuries the world has ever seen. As our knowledge increases our morals seem to remain status quo at best, and regress at worse. The more our knowledge advances it just seems we come up with more effective ways of killing each other. Back in the day nations went to war with sticks and stones. Now they just build nuclear armed ICBM's where they can eliminate entire cities from the other side of the globe. Man still has the bent to do wrong just as he did in the cave with the stick and stone. Modern technology has just given him the power to do it on a much grander scale. The 21st century seems to be aligning itself for more of the same. Are men more evil these days then in past. No, just now we fight with all kinds of WMD's rather then sticks and stones.

---

quote:

---

Moral Justification: soldiers seeing killing in the context of a larger good: terrorists punishing "nonbelievers"

Euphemistic Labeling: "Collateral damage" "clean, surgical strikes" and having someone "taken care of"

Advantageous comparison(the worlds favorite): comparing an enemy to hitler as justification for attack, or excusing an act based on a worse act

Displacement of resposibility: "I was just carrying out orders"

Diffusion of responsibility: "Everyone was doing it"

Disregard or distortion of consequences: "it wasnt all that bad"

Dehumanization: assailing others as "degenerates, devils, savages or infidels" Some torturers refer to victims as "worms"

Blaming the Victim: "she was asking for it"

---

quote:

---

(regarding execution teams at prisons and the "eye for an eye" verse of the bible and how this is used more by guards who have done more executions)

"you have to sanctify lethal means, this is the most powerful technique" of disengagement from a powerful human moral code.... ....."If you cant convince people of the sanctity of the greater cause, they are not going to carry out the job as effectively."

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by marfknox

Halfmooner wrote: Morality has always evolved through history.

To which Bill replied: Up or down? Are we working towards that utopian society where evolution comes in full circle, where man, in all his glory, conquers the ills that have plague civilizations since the dawn of time?

The fact that you ask “up or down” in response to a statement about evolution shows that you don't know what the concept means. Sure Halfmooner is referring to cultural, not biological evolution. But the principal of adapting to what is best for the present environment is the same. There is no up or down. Up or down assumes an objective standard, and you are the only one here claiming that an objective standard even exists.

Bill wrote: The homo crowd loves to scream "intolerant". Anybody who calls homo sex immoral is just "intolerant." Yet when asked about nambla they will say this behavior is immoral.

Wow, you're still not getting how relative morality works, are you? I said I can do whatever I want, which includes applying more own personal moral system to my own behavior and judgments of others. You keep insisting that more relativists cannot do this, but we can and we do all the time! We can because nothing is stopping us. Again, in morality were absolute, something would be stopping us! There would be consequences for breaking the laws. But there aren't. Heck, even in Christianity, hell isn't a consequence for sinning, it's a consequences for sinning plus lack of faith. If one has faith, apparently one's sins get washed away – thus, even the Christian God is cool with relative morality

Jason Barker wrote: Why do ALL of your posts get around to homosexuality eventually?

Because he's obsessed by his own distaste for gay male sex. Notice that his info profile includes very little information, but under marital status, he didn't just put “married”, he put “married to a woman”.

Bill wrote: In the case of the gay american male they have full access to "protection" but many fail or refuse to use it. After all it does restrict the pleasure and sensation level and that is what the unbridled, unrestricted, sleeping around with anyone and everyone lifestyle is all about, pleasure and physical sensations. They value the pleasure of the moment over the future of their health and well being. This is the same for the highly promiscuous hetro as well.

Are you just blind to reality? Most gay men do not engage in “unbridled, unrestricted, sleeping around with anyone and everyone”. I have two gay friends. One has less than averaged one sexual partner a year since he turned 18 and most of his partners have been boyfriends, not mere sex partners. Oh, and did I mention that he ALWAYS uses condoms? The other gay guy friend has been in a serious relationship for years and he's not even 30 yet – and he lives in San Francisco, the bathhouse capital of the world. I've also been pretty deeply involved in the gay rights movement in Columbus, OH in the past, as well as on two campuses, and the sexual patterns of the gay people in those organizations were no more active than straight men's patterns. I agree with you that reckless sex is immoral (because it is self-destructive and destructive of others), but most promiscuous behavior among gay men is no longer reckless. I notice how you didn't respond to my statement about how prejudice and laws against gays essentially created the reckless sex culture of young urban gay men.

Once they have a taste for the sweet honey is hard not to return. It is all most as if man has an internal drive to do what is wrong. Hmm???

LOL! Most people who are promiscuous in their young adulthood, slow down and eventually settle down with either a single partner. Wh

quote:

---

Posted by marfknox:
All of those examples had reasons behind them.

genocide again Jews - to take resources away from wealthy Jews and to create a scapegoat so the German people would blame Jews and not the government for their economic woes.

Rwanda - like any other ethnic conflict, the roots are tied to groups wanting to monopolize resources, and like the Nazis, people of one group gaining power by pointing the finger at a scapegoat.

Infanticide is a common practice, even among many animals like chimps, gorillas and baboons. The evolutionary advantage is obvious: kill an infant, and the mother - who is now no longer nursing - will be more quickly furtile and will have more time and energy to spend on raising future offspring that will have the genes of the baby-murderer/rapist.

---

quote:

---

Posted by Bill:
If morality is simple left to the majority. i.e. majority rules then the american people have spoken, and homo sex is immoral. So in your world of living and breathing morals that change with the wind the majority of the american people are bigots.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Bill scott
A world where morals come and go and change with the wind is just another way of saying that morals are relative. If morals are relative then no one can make a judgement on any immoral/moral issue.

---

quote:

---

The homos will say we don't call homo sex immoral so who are you to force your morals on us.

---

quote:

---

The child molester will say they are not involved in a immoral act and who are you to pass moral judgment on me when I don't even subscribe to the notion that child/sex is wrong?

---

quote:

---

Yes it is illegal, but so was homo sex and that was their battle cry, "intolerance". PC took over and common sense was ejected and before you know it, despite that fact that the American society had deemed it immoral with a majority and that science and stats have labeled it a dangerous activity to your health the gov. "legalized" homo sex with the help of activist judges.

---

quote:

---

Now that homo sex has been declared legal despite that the fact that it was illegal and immoral in america what is to stop the nambla gang from going the exact same path and winning?

---

quote:

---

What is to stop people who want to have sex with their farm animals from using the homo logic to proceed in their "cause"?

---

quote:

---

What is to stop farmers who want martial status for their sheep they have a relationship with?

---

quote:

---

Have you made a judgment that homo sex is moral and deserves legalization while farmer horse sex is immoral and should not be legal.

---

quote:

---

Same for child/adult who wants to advance the child/adult relationship to a legal level. By who's standard have you judged child/adult sex immoral?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Dr. Mabuse

quote:

---

Originally posted by Bill scott
A world where morals come and go and change with the wind is just another way of saying that morals are relative. If morals are relative then no one can make a judgement on any immoral/moral issue.

---

You are offering a false dichotomy here. "A world where morals come and go" isn't necessarily another way to say that morals are relative. Valiant Dancer has already addressed that.
Morals change and evolves because of external pressures. These pressures comes (from among other things) from people realising that parts their morals rests of false premises. Take for example slavery.
One of the key reasons for people to think slavery was moral, was the idea that slaves were inferior human beings. After people realised that this assumption was wrong, the standard for what was moral changed. It changed slowly, and there are still people around who thinks that coloured people are inferior.

quote:

---

The homos will say we don't call homo sex immoral so who are you to force your morals on us.

---

If two men are having sex with each-other, how does that affect you? Except of course that you find the thought of two athletic naked men with their bodies lightly glistening from sweat, and both with erection, French-kissing
highly disturbing...
You don't have to look, you know. The sky doesn't fall down because of it.
As long as they don't hurt each-other, and don't hurt anyone else, who are you to dictate what they should and should not do? That is one of the moral codes that were written into the constitution of the United States by the founding fathers: Freedom and liberties, as long as it doesn't hurt anyone, and equality for all. Equality for homosexual people to make love with their significant other, just as heterosexual people.

quote:

---

The child molester will say they are not involved in a immoral act and who are you to pass moral judgment on me when I don't even subscribe to the notion that child/sex is wrong?

---

We do pass judgement on them, because we do not ascribe to the false dichotomy you are offering us. We have already explained it to you several times: 1) Paedophilia hurt kids. 2) Your version of relative moral is a straw-man. 3) You see everything in black and white, and seem unable to see the grey area in between.

quote:

---

Yes it is illegal, but so was homo sex and that was their battle cry, "intolerance". PC took over and common sense was ejected and before you know it, despite that fact that the American society had deemed it immoral with a majority and that science and stats have labeled it a dangerous activity to your health the gov. "legalized" homo sex with the help of activist judges.

---

Do you even realise how bigoted and historically revisionist you rhetorics is? Slavery was banned because people realised that it should be illegal, it violated what we perceive as human rights. Ban on homosexuality and anti-homosexual laws are getting changed because they are also violations of human rights.
We consider "human rights" more important than "anti-gay" laws. That's why the anti-gay laws has to go.

Nambla's wishes to lower the legal limit for sex. The rest of society realises that this will most probably lead to massive violations of the human rights of children, that is why it is unlikely they will succeed.

quote:

---

Now that homo sex has been declared legal despite that the fact that it was illegal and immoral in america what is to stop the nambla gang from going the exact same path and winning?

---

Because of the reasons I stated above: gay sex between consenting adults is part of human rights. Paedophilia is hurting children and violates their human rights because they can't be considered consenting adults.

quote:

---

What is to stop people who want to have sex with their farm animals from using the homo logic to proceed in their "cause"?

---

The question of consent is a difficult one. Where do you draw the the line between consensual sex and rape when the animal cannot explicitly say yes or no? A man can force himself on an sheep or a dog, which would be rape. I have trouble figuring out how a woman would force her animal to mount her against its will though.
From what Valiant Dancer has written in this forum I understand that bestiality is not unlawful in all American states. I though it was, but I was wrong. In Sweden, sex with animals are prosecutable under the animal protection laws, if the animal suffer injury.

quote:

---

What is to stop farmers who want martial status for their sheep they have a relationship with?

---

I don't know... Why can't they have? He will be the ridicule of community, and no animal has ever to my knowledge gained status as a judicial person.

quote:

---

Have you made a judgment that homo sex is moral and deserves legalization while farmer horse sex is immoral and should not be legal.

---

I try to be open-minded about these things. A horse has larger vaginas than humans, so the risk of mechanical strains are low. However, we're back to the consent part. How does a horse relay to the farmer that it doesn't have a headache? Of that it indeed has one? A kick in the family jewels? This is a question that I feel unqualified to answer, so I'll refer to the consensus of veterinaries. It's their job to look after welfare of animals. Whatever they say is ok by me.

quote:

---

Same for child/adult who wants to advance the child/adult relationship to a legal level. By who's standard have you judged child/adult sex immoral?

---

By the qualified majority of the people in the western society: Human Rights as described by the UN. The legal limits in most countries are based on when a teenager becomes an adult. When they are considered mature enough. In most European countries that is between 16 and 20.

---