|
Source: (consider it)
|
Thread: I call all homophobes to Hell - especially Russ
|
IngoB
Sentire cum Ecclesia
# 8700
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
You consistently veer, in your misguided attempts to prove why homosexuality is wrong and bad, towards some kind of moral obligation on each individual to procreate. Which is a source of constant amusement given that your own clergy tell against there being any such moral obligation.
Concerning this, you are clearly listening more to the voices in your head than to me. As has been quite consistently the case in your comments on my posts - really, of late you have been getting to near Croesus levels of misreading, misinterpretation, misattribution and misquoting with malicious intent.
I have in the above not made the slightest reference to anything moral - in fact, I have multiply denied that the biological discussion is decisive in this regard. I have consistently made just one point: that biologically speaking homosexuality is not in the same ballpark as handedness or colour of hair. And why have I insisted on this (basically trivial) point? Because multiple people on this very thread have asserted that these are comparable biological variations. And why have these people made this (basically absurd) claim? Because if granted, then it would seem to follow that people who do not care about handedness or hair colour but do care about sexual orientation are being incoherent and/or unreasonable. I happen to be one of these people, and I believe that I am neither. That's really all that is going on here.
Now, if you want to get from biology to morals, then this is possible. However, not through a simple evolutionary survival calculus. Rather you have to explicitly consider the teleology of biological function, and its relation to free-willed control of the individual. These are natural moral law arguments, and we have been through those. They are - if you kindly remember - not exactly like the sort of thing we have been talking about here.
And if you really want to talk about the sexual continence and celibacy of RC priests, then we can do that as well. We would have to start though with acknowledging that the RCC considers this to be the rejection of an important good for even higher purposes. And this simple point, I believe, pretty much removes all the rhetorical interest you have in the matter.
[ 19. August 2015, 11:27: Message edited by: IngoB ]
--------------------
They’ll have me whipp’d for speaking true; thou’lt have me whipp’d for lying; and sometimes I am whipp’d for holding my peace. - The Fool in King Lear
Posts: 12010 | From: Gone fishing | Registered: Oct 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
lilBuddha
Shipmate
# 14333
|
Posted
Originally posted by hatless:
quote:
What's the evolutionary justification for not being a selfish bastard? Why on earth would anyone ever let reason or compassion direct them?
A species survival depends on more than an individual's genes being passed. For a species as weak as ours, cooperation is a key factor to survival. Ten average people have a better chance of survival than one epitome of human perfection. We care because it is advantageous to our species success. Self-sacrifice is an extension of this.
--------------------
I put on my rockin' shoes in the morning
Hallellou, hallellou
Posts: 17627 | From: the round earth's imagined corners | Registered: Dec 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
orfeo
Ship's Musical Counterpoint
# 13878
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Penny S:
Drat, I stuck an unconnected comment on the end of my post and didn't allow time to explain that not correcting for switched handedness would naturally result in there being fewer left-handers in the older cohorts because the older the people were, the more likely they were to have been switched, this making it look as though the left-handers had died younger.
Um, what's all this about older cohorts? You seem to be under a severe misapprehension as to how such a study works.
Me, I've always pretty much assumed you wait until someone's dead before working out what age they died at. You can't work out what age a 3-year-old, 23-year-old or 63-year-old left-hander is going to die at by looking at them.
Your objection makes little sense on any basis. You take the people who were actually left-handed, work out their average age at death, and you compare that to the average age at death of right-handers. If there's a difference, then handedness makes a difference. The fact that some of your right-handers are "true left-handers" doesn't alter this unless you're somehow suggesting that those "true left-handers" actually raised the average age for right-handers, despite the fact that the actual left-handers had a lower average at death.
--------------------
Technology has brought us all closer together. Turns out a lot of the people you meet as a result are complete idiots.
Posts: 18173 | From: Under | Registered: Jul 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
lilBuddha
Shipmate
# 14333
|
Posted
Originally posted by IngoB:
quote:
Because if granted, then it would seem to follow that people who do not care about handedness or hair colour but do care about sexual orientation are being incoherent and/or unreasonable. I happen to be one of these people, and I believe that I am neither.
ha! I think unreasonable, at the very least, describes your position. That God would create homosexuality and then condemn it. Or the silly dance done to use bits of biblical text to justify a position which contradicts the overall message.
quote:
And if you really want to talk about the sexual continence and celibacy of RC priests, then we can do that as well. We would have to start though with acknowledging that the RCC considers this to be the rejection of an important good for even higher purposes.
So celibacy of priests is a direct comparison to homosexuality? Glad to have you on board. IngoB.
--------------------
I put on my rockin' shoes in the morning
Hallellou, hallellou
Posts: 17627 | From: the round earth's imagined corners | Registered: Dec 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
orfeo
Ship's Musical Counterpoint
# 13878
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by IngoB:
And why have I insisted on this (basically trivial) point?
Trust me, we are all asking the same question.
quote:
Because multiple people on this very thread have asserted that these are comparable biological variations. And why have these people made this (basically absurd) claim? Because if granted, then it would seem to follow that people who do not care about handedness or hair colour but do care about sexual orientation are being incoherent and/or unreasonable. I happen to be one of these people, and I believe that I am neither. That's really all that is going on here.
Wow, are you reading the thread wrong. We've already been through this. No-one is literally suggesting that they are biologically the same, and all you've done is show that they are different, which is a non-trivial statement for any 2 things in the universe that are not identical to each other. No-one, except perhaps you, uses the word "comparable" to mean "identical". At most they use it to mean "the differences aren't relevant for our purposes, for the topic at hand".
You HAVEN'T shown that the difference is "significant", because you simply can't answer a question of significance unless you say significant in relation to something. Showing that homosexuality is significant to procreation, and to your fictional ship, is stating the obvious.
It doesn't make homosexuality significant to anything else. It doesn't show that homosexuality is significant to arithmetical ability, or to horseriding skills, or to capacity to conjugate verbs, or to analytical capacity. It doesn't show that homosexuality is significant to height, weight, mental health, digestion or to risk of bowel cancer.
And it doesn't show that homosexuality's effect, or lack of effect, on any of those things differs from red hair or left-handedness. There may well be many situations in which all 3 of those traits have no impact.
Read the next paragraph very, VERY carefully Ingo.
You might as well say that blindness has implications for one's capacity to see, and that in that respect it is significantly different to red hair or left-handedness. Such a statement does exactly zero to establish that blindness has significance for anything OTHER than capacity to see.
It doesn't make the difference significant to morals, which was the actual relevant topic of the thread. Eliab has already dealt with this perfectly earlier today.
You are basically spending pages and pages proving something that was never in question, and completely failing to grasp just how trivial the thing you've proved actually is.
[ 19. August 2015, 11:51: Message edited by: orfeo ]
--------------------
Technology has brought us all closer together. Turns out a lot of the people you meet as a result are complete idiots.
Posts: 18173 | From: Under | Registered: Jul 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
orfeo
Ship's Musical Counterpoint
# 13878
|
Posted
I honestly don't think I've ever encountered anyone else whose stupidity was so full of its self-importance. Ingo, you have the worst of all possible worlds: a firm belief in your own analytical capacity combined with a serious lack of actual analytical capacity.
You have just enough reasoning ability to be proud of your abilities, but little enough to be a source of serious embarrassment to anyone who actually knows what they're doing.
It would almost be endearing if it wasn't such a colossal waste of everyone's time. So I'm declaring an end to my interest.
I could run rings around you all day with just two words: relational definitions. You have absolutely no clue how to use them, which is what leads you to declare "I'VE FOUND SIGNIFICANCE!" without understanding that significance is a relational concept, and that something that is of great significance to one question can be of no relevance whatsoever to a slightly different question.
You're like a man who thinks that knowing off by heart the timetable for trains to London enables him to shout "I KNOW THE TRAIN TIMETABLE!" and that this is going to enable him to get to Edinburgh.
But I have better things to do than try to teach you the value of prepositions.
--------------------
Technology has brought us all closer together. Turns out a lot of the people you meet as a result are complete idiots.
Posts: 18173 | From: Under | Registered: Jul 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
IngoB
Sentire cum Ecclesia
# 8700
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
It doesn't make the difference significant to morals, which was the actual relevant topic of the thread. Eliab has already dealt with this perfectly earlier today.
The actual topic of this thread is that Boogie is upset with Russ for suggesting that if homosexuality was genetically determined, then scientist would seek a cure for it - which implies that it is a dysfunction or disease. There are of course moral implications to this, but the key concern there is not whether homosexuality is morally licit, but whether it is an infrequent variation of sexual orientation or a defect thereof. A defect is a potential target for a medical cure whether it has any moral implications or not, hence that homosexuality is under moral scrutiny is secondary here.
That you have this pressing need to belittle me says more about you than about me. But to use a German saying: "Was kümmert es die deutsche Eiche, wenn sich eine Wildsau an ihr reibt?" (Does it bother a German oak if a wild sow rubs itself against it?)
--------------------
They’ll have me whipp’d for speaking true; thou’lt have me whipp’d for lying; and sometimes I am whipp’d for holding my peace. - The Fool in King Lear
Posts: 12010 | From: Gone fishing | Registered: Oct 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Doc Tor
Deepest Red
# 9748
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by IngoB:
The actual topic of this thread is that Boogie is upset with Russ for suggesting that if homosexuality was genetically determined, then scientist would seek a cure for it - which implies that it is a dysfunction or disease. There are of course moral implications to this, but the key concern there is not whether homosexuality is morally licit, but whether it is an infrequent variation of sexual orientation or a defect thereof. A defect is a potential target for a medical cure whether it has any moral implications or not, hence that homosexuality is under moral scrutiny is secondary here.
Are you so fucking dense as to not realise that you are exactly 180 degrees wrong on this?
Everybody else gets this. Even Russ gets this, to his credit. You don't. I know the centre of Reading has reached the Shoe Event Horizon and that Clue Bat shops are in perilously short supply, but there must be one remaining second-hand shop with sufficient quantities somewhere down the Oxford Road. Go there and apply liberally until you come to your senses.
[ 19. August 2015, 13:55: Message edited by: Doc Tor ]
--------------------
Forward the New Republic
Posts: 9131 | From: Ultima Thule | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
quetzalcoatl
Shipmate
# 16740
|
Posted
The gay spaceship idea is fun, but surely it does not invalidate the original comparisons between gay and left-handed (and red-haired). Such comparisons or analogies are not meant to match 100%; in fact, if they did, they would be copies, not analogies.
So if X and Y share the feature Z, you can't point out that they differ in W, and hope to invalidate the Z comparison. Thus, dogs and cats share commensalism with humans, and they also both hunt, but they differ in other regards. But their differences do not nullify what they have in common.
Or, saying that left-handedness and gay were once both considered to be defects, does not imply that they are similar in other regards.
Now I am thinking of all the fanfic - Kirk laid a trembling hand on Spock's trembling thigh, 'this is tumescence, Spock, but not as we know it'.
--------------------
I can't talk to you today; I talked to two people yesterday.
Posts: 9878 | From: UK | Registered: Oct 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
LeRoc
Famous Dutch pirate
# 3216
|
Posted
quote:
quetzalcoatl: Now I am thinking of all the fanfic - Kirk laid a trembling hand on Spock's trembling thigh, 'this is tumescence, Spock, but not as we know it'.
Actually, this is slashfic ![[Smile]](smile.gif)
--------------------
I know why God made the rhinoceros, it's because He couldn't see the rhinoceros, so He made the rhinoceros to be able to see it. (Clarice Lispector)
Posts: 9474 | From: Brazil / Africa | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
IngoB
Sentire cum Ecclesia
# 8700
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Doc Tor:
Are you so fucking dense as to not realise that you are exactly 180 degrees wrong on this?
Well, there certainly is an element of "what people should be talking about" in my description. Let's call it my reasonable hope for an interesting discussion that avoids the abject tedium of yet another round of sentimental pledges of moral allegiance, shall we?
--------------------
They’ll have me whipp’d for speaking true; thou’lt have me whipp’d for lying; and sometimes I am whipp’d for holding my peace. - The Fool in King Lear
Posts: 12010 | From: Gone fishing | Registered: Oct 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
quetzalcoatl
Shipmate
# 16740
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by LeRoc:
quote:
quetzalcoatl: Now I am thinking of all the fanfic - Kirk laid a trembling hand on Spock's trembling thigh, 'this is tumescence, Spock, but not as we know it'.
Actually, this is slashfic
Hang on, they haven't got that far yet. I'm going for the long build up before the double money shot and golden showers.
--------------------
I can't talk to you today; I talked to two people yesterday.
Posts: 9878 | From: UK | Registered: Oct 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Doc Tor
Deepest Red
# 9748
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by IngoB:
quote:
Originally posted by Doc Tor:
Are you so fucking dense as to not realise that you are exactly 180 degrees wrong on this?
Well, there certainly is an element of "what people should be talking about" in my description. Let's call it my reasonable hope for an interesting discussion that avoids the abject tedium of yet another round of sentimental pledges of moral allegiance, shall we?
Is this an admission of an attempt at junior hosting, or just an admission that shouting "I LIKE SQUIRRELS!" at the Kennel Club Show is a massive non sequitur?
Either way, you can stop now.
--------------------
Forward the New Republic
Posts: 9131 | From: Ultima Thule | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Curiosity killed ...
Ship's Mug
# 11770
|
Posted
Russ - we know that homosexuality has been around for as long as we have records - why else would it have been described in Leviticus? There are illustrations from earlier civilisations too - explicit Etruscan vases and other art. So homosexuality is nothing new.
There are theories that it had an evolutionary advantage in group bonding in hunter-gatherer societies because it allowed the all male hunter group to bond and support each other emotionally, as it did the mostly female gatherer / camp establishing group. Also the theory is homosexuality allowed additional spare male and female input not tied having to support their own family. (Referred to by a number of people above.) We have been round the genetic / epigenetic / intrauterine causation, and we probably all now accept that homosexuality is innate.
Morally, Eliab has given a very clear post on the reasoning for accepting sexual behaviour - between consenting adults without hurting others. If you want to include a proviso that sex should only happen within a committed relationship many would also agree with that, although not everyone. Those moral guidelines rule out:
- paedophilia - a child is by definition is not a consenting adult;
- adultery - others could be hurt;
- rape - no consent;
- forced sexual relations - again, no consent
That moral guidance does not rule out homosexual relations between consenting adults, with possibly the rider of within committed relationships, and positively encourages same sex marriage. The problem with this common sense moral point of view is that, in this case, it does not match the Biblical guidance. But there is a lot of Biblical guidance that is now ignored.
--------------------
Mugs - Keep the Ship afloat
Posts: 13794 | From: outiside the outer ring road | Registered: Aug 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
orfeo
Ship's Musical Counterpoint
# 13878
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by IngoB:
Let's call it my reasonable hope for an interesting discussion
Mate, we all hope for that. But you just won't do the decent thing and leave.
--------------------
Technology has brought us all closer together. Turns out a lot of the people you meet as a result are complete idiots.
Posts: 18173 | From: Under | Registered: Jul 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Sandemaniac
Shipmate
# 12829
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
quote:
Originally posted by IngoB:
Let's call it my reasonable hope for an interesting discussion
Mate, we all hope for that. But you just won't do the decent thing and leave.
![[Killing me]](graemlins/killingme.gif)
Quotes file!
AG
--------------------
"It becomes soon pleasantly apparent that change-ringing is by no means merely an excuse for beer" Charles Dickens gets it wrong, 1869
Posts: 3574 | From: The wardrobe of my soul | Registered: Jul 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
mousethief
Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
Straight men tend to fantasize about lesbians. They think, I think, that they might have a chance. ![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
They tend to think "If only she had a REAL man, like me, she'd realize women can't really fulfill her desires."
Why this doesn't generalize to "If only **I** had a real man, I'd realize women don't fulfill **my** desires," I do not know.
--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Penny S
Shipmate
# 14768
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
quote:
Originally posted by Penny S:
Drat, I stuck an unconnected comment on the end of my post and didn't allow time to explain that not correcting for switched handedness would naturally result in there being fewer left-handers in the older cohorts because the older the people were, the more likely they were to have been switched, this making it look as though the left-handers had died younger.
Um, what's all this about older cohorts? You seem to be under a severe misapprehension as to how such a study works.
Me, I've always pretty much assumed you wait until someone's dead before working out what age they died at. You can't work out what age a 3-year-old, 23-year-old or 63-year-old left-hander is going to die at by looking at them.
Your objection makes little sense on any basis. You take the people who were actually left-handed, work out their average age at death, and you compare that to the average age at death of right-handers. If there's a difference, then handedness makes a difference. The fact that some of your right-handers are "true left-handers" doesn't alter this unless you're somehow suggesting that those "true left-handers" actually raised the average age for right-handers, despite the fact that the actual left-handers had a lower average at death.
I'm pretty sure that the study I saw reported looked at the proportion of people of each sort alive in each age range they looked at, and looking mostly at the older end of life, and found that at the older end there were more righthanders alive than would be expected if the proportion were the same as that for younger groups. I think the study took place in old people's homes. I did say I wasn't convinced about it, for obvious reasons.
If you've come across a study which actually looked at the deaths, I'd be interested to see it. I'd also be interested to know if someone has come up with a mechanism. Any study so far has had to be dealing with the victims of forcible switching and the sort of pressures which led to George whatever the number was having his stammer and need to relieve stress by smoking. Until the mortality of people who were not switched has been properly studied, which won't be for some years yet, conclusions about comparative mortality have too many variables.
If another study (reported in New Scientist a number of years ago) is correct, and what is inherited is righthandedness, with those who do not inherit it split equally between lefthanders, righthanders and ambidextrous (as are ape populations), then one would expect lefthanders to be more flexible about how they use equipment than genetic righthanders. (It's jolly useful being ambi - some screws are in places inaccessible if I were a fully committed rightie.)
As a model for sexuality - those not inheriting righthandedness would not be entirely random about which hand they favoured for most things, position in the womb, plus which hand the parents handed things to and other environmental factors would make the whole business much more complex. The NS study I mentioned looked at whole families with lefthandedness in them to find those proportions.
Posts: 5833 | Registered: May 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
rolyn
Shipmate
# 16840
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
Straight men tend to fantasize about lesbians. They think, I think, that they might have a chance.
They tend to think "If only she had a REAL man, like me, she'd realize women can't really fulfill her desires."
Men think they want to see women 'at it' because patriarchy is at work. Women don't seem to be much bothered about seeing two men 'at it' presumably for the same reason.
Have a thread exclusively about female homosexuality and my guess is it would run for half a page. What on earth is it, if not patriarchy, that makes discussions on male homosexuality go on an on for ad infinitum?
Patriarchy is just so much a part of the bedrock of human psyche and civilisation I sometimes wonder if it wouldn't still exist,(for a while), even in the event every single male being killed off in a massive war.
--------------------
Change is the only certainty of existence
Posts: 3206 | From: U.K. | Registered: Dec 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
quetzalcoatl
Shipmate
# 16740
|
Posted
Good points, rolyn. I am always surprised at how little patriarchy figures in these discussions of homosexuality, and also sex identity and gender. In sociology, gender studies, and some parts of anthropology, it is given a large role.
I suppose in a theistic context, these things are seen as divinely ordained, maybe, or at any rate, seen in terms of essentialism. Whereas a sociological approach is more evolutionary, and looks at how patriarchy seems to shape such ideas as fidelity, adultery, primogeniture, treatment of women as property, and so on. Interesting here is Foucault's discussion, where he states that homosexuality as an identity was constructed quite recently. This throws an interesting light on discussions of the Biblical texts.
Some academics bring together misogyny and homophobia, on the basis of a shared origin in patriarchal relations. And, as you say, lesbians are not really seen as interesting. I wonder how many married women snogged the maid.
[ 19. August 2015, 18:15: Message edited by: quetzalcoatl ]
--------------------
I can't talk to you today; I talked to two people yesterday.
Posts: 9878 | From: UK | Registered: Oct 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
mousethief
Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
Good point re. patriarchy.
--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
St Deird
Shipmate
# 7631
|
Posted
quote:
Men think they want to see women 'at it' because patriarchy is at work. Women don't seem to be much bothered about seeing two men 'at it' presumably for the same reason.
You clearly haven't encountered slashfic.
[ 19. August 2015, 21:03: Message edited by: St Deird ]
--------------------
They're not hobbies; they're a robust post-apocalyptic skill-set.
Posts: 319 | From: the other side of nowhere | Registered: Jun 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Cottontail
Shipmate
# 12234
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by rolyn:
Men think they want to see women 'at it' because patriarchy is at work. Women don't seem to be much bothered about seeing two men 'at it' presumably for the same reason.
You're male, right? How would you know?
Could it be that the same patriarchy has mysteriously overlooked women's desires?
--------------------
"I don't think you ought to read so much theology," said Lord Peter. "It has a brutalizing influence."
Posts: 2377 | From: Scotland | Registered: Jan 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
Nicolemr
Shipmate
# 28
|
Posted
There is a thriving industry of male on male romance novels written for women. I have a few.
--------------------
On pilgrimage in the endless realms of Cyberia, currently traveling by ship. Now with live journal!
Posts: 11803 | From: New York City "The City Carries On" | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Kelly Alves
Bunny with an axe
# 2522
|
Posted
I'm not alone! i'm not alone! ![[Yipee]](graemlins/spin.gif)
--------------------
I cannot expect people to believe “
Jesus loves me, this I know” of they don’t believe “Kelly loves me, this I know.”
Kelly Alves, somewhere around 2003.
Posts: 35076 | From: Pura Californiana | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Russ
Old salt
# 120
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
Have you actually read any of this thread or the DH thread from which it was spawned?
Well, I've largely skimmed over the parts where people just insult me for the fun of it.
Or present moronic arguments like "homosexuality is morally OK because to think otherwise is offensive to homosexuals"
Which hasn't actually left many posts worth reading...
Posts: 3169 | From: rural Ireland | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
mousethief
Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Russ:
quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
Have you actually read any of this thread or the DH thread from which it was spawned?
Well, I've largely skimmed over the parts where people just insult me for the fun of it.
Or present moronic arguments like "homosexuality is morally OK because to think otherwise is offensive to homosexuals"
Which hasn't actually left many posts worth reading...
This goes a long way to explaining why your answers here have been so irrelevant to the flow of conversation.
--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Lyda*Rose
Ship's broken porthole
# 4544
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Nicolemr:
There is a thriving industry of male on male romance novels written for women. I have a few.
Slash!
--------------------
"Dear God, whose name I do not know - thank you for my life. I forgot how BIG... thank you. Thank you for my life." ~from Joe Vs the Volcano
Posts: 21377 | From: CA | Registered: May 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
lilBuddha
Shipmate
# 14333
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Russ:
quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
Have you actually read any of this thread or the DH thread from which it was spawned?
Well, I've largely skimmed over the parts where people just insult me for the fun of it.
Did you notice the many posts prior where people gave you the benefit of the doubt? Or that the insults did not start until it was crystal clear you either refused, or lacked the capacity, to respond with anything rational?
quote:
Originally posted by Russ:
Or present moronic arguments like "homosexuality is morally OK because to think otherwise is offensive to homosexuals"
No one has made this argument. That you say this either demonstrates your inability to process the dialogue or that you are intentionally trolling.
--------------------
I put on my rockin' shoes in the morning
Hallellou, hallellou
Posts: 17627 | From: the round earth's imagined corners | Registered: Dec 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Palimpsest
Shipmate
# 16772
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by LeRoc:
quote:
quetzalcoatl: Now I am thinking of all the fanfic - Kirk laid a trembling hand on Spock's trembling thigh, 'this is tumescence, Spock, but not as we know it'.
Actually, this is slashfic
I heard Eileen Gunn read a short story of hers where Spock and Kirk go down to a planet so they can have a baby together.
Posts: 2990 | From: Seattle WA. US | Registered: Nov 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Russ
Old salt
# 120
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Curiosity killed ...:
Those moral guidelines rule out:
- paedophilia - a child is by definition is not a consenting adult;
- adultery - others could be hurt;
- rape - no consent;
- forced sexual relations - again, no consent
What of harmless men in dirty raincoats who feel the need to remind others of the fact that they possess the usual sexual organs ?
What of incest ? What of sado-masochism ?
--------------------
Wish everyone well; the enemy is not people, the enemy is wrong ideas
Posts: 3169 | From: rural Ireland | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
LeRoc
Famous Dutch pirate
# 3216
|
Posted
quote:
Russ: What of harmless men in dirty raincoats who feel the need to remind others of the fact that they possess the usual sexual organs ?
Not ok.
quote:
Russ: What of incest ?
Not ok.
quote:
Russ: What of sado-masochism ?
Ok (unless this is an invitation)
This isn't hard.
--------------------
I know why God made the rhinoceros, it's because He couldn't see the rhinoceros, so He made the rhinoceros to be able to see it. (Clarice Lispector)
Posts: 9474 | From: Brazil / Africa | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Anglican't
Shipmate
# 15292
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by LeRoc:
quote:
Russ: What of sado-masochism ?
Ok (unless this is an invitation)
If you're engaging with Russ on this thread I think you might already be doing it.
Posts: 3613 | From: London, England | Registered: Nov 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
orfeo
Ship's Musical Counterpoint
# 13878
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Russ:
What of harmless men in dirty raincoats who feel the need to remind others of the fact that they possess the usual sexual organs ?
What part of the word "consent" do you not understand?
Honestly, questions like this just prove that you're not putting an iota of rational thought into this, and it's all just an emotional "I believe all sex outside the missionary position is immoral" kind of reaction, and you're just keep mentioning every kind of "bad" sexual activity you can think of in the hope of triggering a matching emotional reaction in other Shipmates.
You are, in short, trying to be a tabloid newspaper.
Some areas of sexual morality are difficult. This is not one of them. 5 seconds of actual thought would tell you that lack of consent is the issue.
[ 20. August 2015, 07:39: Message edited by: orfeo ]
--------------------
Technology has brought us all closer together. Turns out a lot of the people you meet as a result are complete idiots.
Posts: 18173 | From: Under | Registered: Jul 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Curiosity killed ...
Ship's Mug
# 11770
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Russ:
quote:
Originally posted by Curiosity killed ...:
Those moral guidelines rule out:
- paedophilia - a child is by definition is not a consenting adult;
- adultery - others could be hurt;
- rape - no consent;
- forced sexual relations - again, no consent
What of harmless men in dirty raincoats who feel the need to remind others of the fact that they possess the usual sexual organs ?
What of incest ? What of sado-masochism ?
I am not sure that I would describe those men in dirty raincoats as harmless, having encountered them in action, but where is the consent there? The person being confronted by the flasher hasn't consented. The other problem there is that the flasher often goes on to additional abuse.
Incest is complicated. For families that are still together there is usually a power imbalance that means any consent is flawed. Power imbalances make true consent difficult to obtain - the same argument that bans teacher-pupil relationships, for example.
There are occasional cases of accidental incest which are far more complicated - families where half brothers and sisters meet and fall in love as adults without realising that they are related. This is recognised as genetic sexual attraction and is usually avoided by the Westermarck effect. These cases are often prosecuted and debated. There was a recent German case of a brother and sister where two of their four children were disabled. The debate here hinges on the power imbalances and the problems of congenital birth defects.
Sado-masochism - consenting adults again. Both adults have to consent and they need to agree safeguards first (unlike Fifty Shades of Grey). It depends on where you draw the line. Amazon sells fur lined handcuffs and other sex toys. I suspect far more people in so-called normal relationships experiment with dominance sex games, which takes us back to Sioni's question about normality.
--------------------
Mugs - Keep the Ship afloat
Posts: 13794 | From: outiside the outer ring road | Registered: Aug 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Curiosity killed ...
Ship's Mug
# 11770
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Anglican't:
quote:
Originally posted by LeRoc:
quote:
Russ: What of sado-masochism ?
Ok (unless this is an invitation)
If you're engaging with Russ on this thread I think you might already be doing it.
Oi, I resemble that remark
(I have some sympathy, having been on the defensive in Hell before, and I realise that it's very difficult to deal with the abuse and get anything out of it. The fact that Russ is still here and engaging means it is worth talking to him.)
--------------------
Mugs - Keep the Ship afloat
Posts: 13794 | From: outiside the outer ring road | Registered: Aug 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
LeRoc
Famous Dutch pirate
# 3216
|
Posted
quote:
Anglican't: If you're engaging with Russ on this thread I think you might already be doing it.
Nice one!
--------------------
I know why God made the rhinoceros, it's because He couldn't see the rhinoceros, so He made the rhinoceros to be able to see it. (Clarice Lispector)
Posts: 9474 | From: Brazil / Africa | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
orfeo
Ship's Musical Counterpoint
# 13878
|
Posted
Of course, only women should be engaged with Russ, and one at a time.
EDIT: No, I am not even going to pretend that is up to the standard of my work a couple of days ago.
[ 20. August 2015, 09:41: Message edited by: orfeo ]
--------------------
Technology has brought us all closer together. Turns out a lot of the people you meet as a result are complete idiots.
Posts: 18173 | From: Under | Registered: Jul 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
lilBuddha
Shipmate
# 14333
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Curiosity killed ...:
The fact that Russ is still here and engaging means it is worth talking to him.)
there is all manner of motivation for engagement, so it possibly means what you think it does. For me, it is apparent that even if he is listening, he is incapable of hearing.
quote:
Originally posted by LeRoc:
quote:
Russ: What of sado-masochism ?
Ok (unless this is an invitation)
This isn't hard.
If it is t hard, you are probably not going to get many invitations.
Bu-dum crash
--------------------
I put on my rockin' shoes in the morning
Hallellou, hallellou
Posts: 17627 | From: the round earth's imagined corners | Registered: Dec 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
LeRoc
Famous Dutch pirate
# 3216
|
Posted
--------------------
I know why God made the rhinoceros, it's because He couldn't see the rhinoceros, so He made the rhinoceros to be able to see it. (Clarice Lispector)
Posts: 9474 | From: Brazil / Africa | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Russ
Old salt
# 120
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Curiosity killed ...:
Sado-masochism - consenting adults again. Both adults have to consent
Basically, you're telling me that it's about consent, all the way down the line. Pretty much no other consideration gets a look-in.
And you're extending that need for consent beyond the immediate participants, To the spouse, in the case of adultery. And to those confronted by a man in a dirty raincoat engaging in what is physically speaking a solitary sexual activity.
[note to self: don't forget to get raincoat dry-cleaned ]
Now the hard part. [if you'll pardon the expression]
As the basis for deciding what is and is not morally condemned, in an essentially pluralist society which is post- shared religious conviction, that seems entirely reasonable.
I don't want to see anybody locked up for the consensual activities that they undertake in private. In private implying that they're not forcing this activity to the attention of unwilling third parties.
But that doesn't mean that I want my daughter growing up thinking that maybe she'll turn out to have an orientation to incest so that she can marry her brother. Or have her watching some politically-correct sequel to Frozen where the main characters express their attraction to each other through sado-masochistic foreplay.
I suggested earlier that there should be a tolerance gap between what we advocate and what we condemn. Tolerating incest doesn't mean advocating it. People want to read 50 shades as a guilty pleasure ? Fine by me. But if they want it studied in school and held up to children as an ideal, a model for their character formation ?
Treating other adults as people whose consent is to be sought rather than using or manipulating them is necessary for the good life. But I'm suggesting that it is not sufficient.
--------------------
Wish everyone well; the enemy is not people, the enemy is wrong ideas
Posts: 3169 | From: rural Ireland | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
orfeo
Ship's Musical Counterpoint
# 13878
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Russ:
some politically-correct sequel to Frozen where the main characters express their attraction to each other through sado-masochistic foreplay.
You really are hysterical, aren't you? I don't mean that you're incredibly humorous, I mean you have lost your mind and your utterances are getting more and more feverish all the time.
WHICH PART OF YOUR BRAIN THINKS ANYONE IS SUGGESTING ADULT SEXUAL ACTIVITY SHOULD APPEAR IN CHILDREN'S ENTERTAINMENT?!!??
--------------------
Technology has brought us all closer together. Turns out a lot of the people you meet as a result are complete idiots.
Posts: 18173 | From: Under | Registered: Jul 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
quetzalcoatl
Shipmate
# 16740
|
Posted
I am becoming more tolerant of Russ, as his replies are so confused, that it can't be deliberate, I think. For example, his reference to 'Frozen' with S/M references is cognitively a total stramash. Compassion beckons.
--------------------
I can't talk to you today; I talked to two people yesterday.
Posts: 9878 | From: UK | Registered: Oct 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
RooK
1 of 6
# 1852
|
Posted
Indeed. Basically, Russ is advocating a sequel with graphic penetration, proving the princess' hetero-ness.
Posts: 15274 | From: Portland, Oregon, USA, Earth | Registered: Nov 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Anglican't
Shipmate
# 15292
|
Posted
I presume that, in this sequel, 'Let It Go' is the safeword? That could work, I guess.
Posts: 3613 | From: London, England | Registered: Nov 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
Marvin the Martian
Interplanetary
# 4360
|
Posted
Rule 34 says that film is already out there.
No, I'm not going to Google it. Not from work, anyway.
--------------------
Hail Gallaxhar
Posts: 30100 | From: Adrift on a sea of surreality | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
LeRoc
Famous Dutch pirate
# 3216
|
Posted
This is the first time I'm sad that I haven't watched Frozen (and I already heard a sermon about it!)
--------------------
I know why God made the rhinoceros, it's because He couldn't see the rhinoceros, so He made the rhinoceros to be able to see it. (Clarice Lispector)
Posts: 9474 | From: Brazil / Africa | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
orfeo
Ship's Musical Counterpoint
# 13878
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Anglican't:
I presume that, in this sequel, 'Let It Go' is the safeword? That could work, I guess.
--------------------
Technology has brought us all closer together. Turns out a lot of the people you meet as a result are complete idiots.
Posts: 18173 | From: Under | Registered: Jul 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Anglican't
Shipmate
# 15292
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
quote:
Originally posted by Anglican't:
I presume that, in this sequel, 'Let It Go' is the safeword? That could work, I guess.
The cane never bothered me anyway...
Posts: 3613 | From: London, England | Registered: Nov 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
Thread closed
Printer-friendly view
![[Waterworks]](graemlins/bawling.gif)
