Prove it. Or cite a source. Or shut up.
All homosexuals should be stoned to death, says Muslim preacher
- Thread starter StrangerInAStrangeLand
- Start date
Prove it. Or cite a source. Or shut up.
You guys completely fail to see what I am saying: I am not saying that it is good to stone homosexuals. I'm saying that the cleric thinks it is good to stone homosexuals.
And he comes from a different culture and has different values and a different opinion; so do you guys. Just don't betray your apparant 'reason and logic' and somehow assume you are objectively more worthy or more righteous than he, because that isn't the case.
Even when I vehemently disagree with people, even when I think it's a stupid opinion I still realize that my position is also nothing more than opinion.
And he comes from a different culture and has different values and a different opinion; so do you guys. Just don't betray your apparant 'reason and logic' and somehow assume you are objectively more worthy or more righteous than he, because that isn't the case.
Even when I vehemently disagree with people, even when I think it's a stupid opinion I still realize that my position is also nothing more than opinion.
The burden of proof is on you. I am saying they are not; if you think they are, it is you that has to prove it.
Now I'm ok with you guys believing whatever you want; if it makes you feel better, then go ahead and believe that you are "righteous" and "good" and "more worthy" all you want.
However hopefully you will one day understand the concept of "perspective".
Last edited:
I understand where you are coming from and you are reluctantly defending his position because you don't agree with it.
But there are rights and wrongs that are universal. They creep and crawl along as we do. Eventually infiltrating all of us.
For example, slavery, human sacrifice and the like.
He doesn't know it yet but he is wrong to make such statements, the funny thing is there are people here in the US that make those types of statements even today because of their ignorance, but certainly was more prevelant 30 + years ago, there are still people who believe people of color are below them, just because they were raised in a white trash trailer park in Alabama does not make it ok, because that is how they were raised.
I agree we can't make up arguments that don't apply. In the end, IMO the guy is ignorant at best, but because he has the information available to understand more than he is clearly presenting to us, he is an idiot and a coward.
I simply have to disagree with that. There is absolutely no such thing as right and wrong. Absolutely none. Apart from our human perception.
And the thing is, even then........it is ultimately might, the ability to enforce a position, that makes right. Thus, with enough strength.....everyone can be "righteous". Even Hitler. The Allies are only "good" because Hitler lost. If Hitler won, then history would've taught the Allies to be evil.
You see?
They are wrong from a certain perspective.
Slavery from a certain perspective is "efficient" and "justified"
Human sacrifice from a certain perspective is "culture"
And their beliefs, I think, are stupid. However I am not "better" than thim for disagreeing with them.
The best I can hope for is that the consensus is on my side and not on theirs, and that I (as in, my position) holds more weight and more power than theirs.
Think it through though.........perhaps he does understand that homosexuality is "natural" and still feels that it is wrong. It is only his opinion.
Intolerance does not necessarily mean a lack of civility; in fact, I could argue that the more "civilized" a society becomes, the less free and less tolerant it will become.
This is because of how we define "civilized"; I view civilization as having to do with efficiency, thus freedom, as it is inefficient, would have to be cut; furthermore diversity is also inefficient and thus it would have to be cut.
i.e, although I don't agree with communism or fascism, they are the "most civilized" systems.
Freedom is dangerous, and beautiful; and freedom is also wild.
Wrong again. I am alluding to a positive statement:
Homosexuality is necessary.
This is falsifiable.
You are asking me to "prove" a negative.
That is impossible.
The burden is on you.
Start over with Scientific Method 101.
So the cleric is a backwards know-nothing. Idiots aren't hard to find.
Extreme moral relativism is an unsustainable proposition.
You assert, in essence, that any bigotry or wrongdoing must be tolerated or accepted if it happens in another culture. But that would defeat the whole purpose of morality.
I don't have to accept that killings in Darfur are acceptable because it isn't my country. I don't have to accept that polluting the planet is acceptable because countries other than my own are worse polluters than mine. I don't have to accept that female genital mutilation, or a repressive caste system, or a fundamentalist interpretation of Sharia law is acceptable because these things happen overseas.
Demonstrably, as a matter of observable fact, all of these things lead to a net reduction in human happiness. That's just one moral argument against them - a utilitarian one in this case. And there are others, just as logically defensible. The arguments for these things, based on "tradition" or "cultural difference" are far weaker, on an objective basis - unless you seriously wish to suggest that tradition is a higher moral aim than the common good, for example. And if you do wish to promote such a view, I want to hear your logical and reasoned justification for it, then to compare it against a goal such as utilitarianism.
But it is the case. I go about my life letting homosexual people do as they wish. I do not persecute them. That would be wrong, for many many justifiable reasons. If you cannot see this, then you obviously need to get yourself some kind of moral compass soon.
What is your statement? If you are saying homosexuality is necessary, you need to prove it.
I am saying it is not necessary for the survival of the species. Obviously both of us cannot practically test our opinions, however I can try to back it up as best as possible:
In my perspective, homosexuals neither aid nor hinder the survival of the species, as there is no purpose served by their existence (or by anyone ultimately, but this is from the perspective of "survival). Therefore they are not necessary in order for the species to survive. In fact, logically it would be a poor decision to allow them to survive as they waste resources and space.
This, coupled with targeted eugenics and population regulation, would be the "best" way to ensure the survival of the species
That is the "logical" approach.
This is precisely what I am arguing against: the arrogance of people like you. You are smart, but don't assume that if someone disagrees with YOU, they are a "backwards know-nothing"
That could sum up everything I've been trying to say.
Although true
No, I am not at all saying it must be tolerated. Nobody, no group of people "must" be tolerated. It's simply whatever way society flows. If you wish to take action, it's merely a matter of having the might to (for instance, through human-created institutions and constructs like politics)
I'm not even talking about tolerating bigots. I'm saying that everybody has their opinion and nobody has a "correct" opinion.
I completely agree you don't have to accept them. I never said you had to accept them; I just said that those people have different opinions.
From the perspective that human happiness is desirable; which it is, I agree. However I'm simply pointing out that even this is from a certain perspective.
That's the problem, what is the "common good"?
Good for you.
Why? I do believe we should tolerate them............but if society deemed it acceptable not to, then it wouldn't be "wrong"
I find it very difficult to believe in morality seeing as I know that it does not exist.
Just like that I want to believe in a god, I want to believe that everything is taken care of and will be A-OK, but I can't. I just can't fool myself like that.
OK, Norsefire, I'll play...
My premise - homosexuality is necessary for the survival of species because:
Telegraph.co.uk - viewed at 01:10 AM EST on 07/01/09:
Your turn - falsify that.
Oh, and let me reiterate, you are...:
Yes, that is what I am saying. See below for source.
Fail. This is another of your "opinions", backed up by nothing.
See above.
My premise - homosexuality is necessary for the survival of species because:
Telegraph.co.uk - viewed at 01:10 AM EST on 07/01/09:
Your turn - falsify that.
Oh, and let me reiterate, you are...:
Just like yours.
As I said I disagree and I feel it is not necessary for the survival of the species. i.e, the species can survive without homosexuality. And if your goal is survival, read what I said: a targeted eugenics program coupled with population regulation would be the ideal way to ensure survival.
Furthermore you are assuming that we must tolerate anything that is natural. Or that because of such study we have to tolerate it and it's impossible to hold the position that we shouldn't.
Mere opinion.
Take it a step further. If society said it was ok to stone them but you felt it was wrong, is it still acceptable to you ? Is it right ?
I understand what you are saying about societies rules, in the case that society said it was ok to stone them then it would be acceptable.
As you said and I agree, things could be a lot different depending on who or what was in charge.
But I believe that there is a battle that is constantly taking place against that which is considered wrong by individuals, it takes place in conversations with family and friends and in speeches and the voting booths.
Who knows what things will be considered right and wrong in a thousand years from now.
Another species could land here tommorrow and take us over who are all one race because they deemed it acceptable to wipe out anyone who wasn't just like them. Take us as slaves because they deemed that acceptable as well.
Whether we agreed with them or not would be irrellevant.
"A pair of "gay" penguins recently hatched an egg at a German zoo after being given the egg that had been rejected by its biological parents by keepers."
How did they know they were actually gay.
Oh that's right they were fashionably dressed and their hair was perfect ! lol.
How did they know they were actually gay.
Oh that's right they were fashionably dressed and their hair was perfect ! lol.
Not to me. But what power do I have? I am not here to judge people, anyway.
Precisely. Therefore although thankfully the "sane" are in charge now, don't assume that you are universally, infinitely and forever "right" because it is an arrogant and untrue position.
All it takes is for the fundamentalists to take power and then we are........wrong and dead.
Yes and good terminology: a battle. As in, the victor is not yet decided; and neither side is "right". Not yet.
Precisely.
For the survival of the human species, however, would it be acceptable to throw the religious into concentration camps?
In your opinion? I'm undecided.
Well you already did. I am not saying it's right to judge other people but as you stated it's not what you feel is right. So then, what do we do about it.
That is where the likes of Martin Luther King step in and fight for what they believe in. It's taken a long time and we are still not there.
It's tempting LOL.
No because the oppressed are the most passionate about their fight. They would come back even stronger.
Beyond the obvious that it would be inhumane it would backfire.
Fail. Can you read? Comprehend? Hello?
Perhaps you missed this bit, since you ignored it:
Now - one more time - falsify this, cite your sources or STFU.
Ahem. Are you a reincarnation, or just channeling?
Before you act stupid, try really, really hard to understand what I said and how it relates to the above extract from your previous post..
Norsefire:
No, I assume that when somebody wants to oppress other human beings who pose no threat to them they are a backwards know-nothing.
Then your "morality" reduces to "do what you like, as long as you have a big enough gun, because there is no right and wrong, just might and weakness".
That's not any kind of morality I want to buy into.
Well, yes. Some perspectives are demonstrably superior to others, in that they produce better outcomes. (Of course, even that is saying that good outcomes are desirable - something not likely to be argued by anybody but a philosopher with too much spare time).
That would require an essay. I don't have the time.
I couldn't disagree more. Often the mark of the bravest man is to oppose utterly the will of the majority, where do so it the right thing to do.
But it does exist. The fact that you're personally amoral (or immoral) doesn't say anything about morality as an objective fact. It just means that either you can't or don't want to understand something.
No, I assume that when somebody wants to oppress other human beings who pose no threat to them they are a backwards know-nothing.
Then your "morality" reduces to "do what you like, as long as you have a big enough gun, because there is no right and wrong, just might and weakness".
That's not any kind of morality I want to buy into.
Well, yes. Some perspectives are demonstrably superior to others, in that they produce better outcomes. (Of course, even that is saying that good outcomes are desirable - something not likely to be argued by anybody but a philosopher with too much spare time).
That would require an essay. I don't have the time.
I couldn't disagree more. Often the mark of the bravest man is to oppose utterly the will of the majority, where do so it the right thing to do.
But it does exist. The fact that you're personally amoral (or immoral) doesn't say anything about morality as an objective fact. It just means that either you can't or don't want to understand something.
Rand,
Where in there does it prove that homosexuals are needed for the survival of the human species ?
I am not saying they are a detriment, and some even have children with women before they come out of course. Some I am sure donate sperm.
But we humans are not in any way having problems bringing children into the world without them, wouldn't you agree ?
Where in there does it prove that homosexuals are needed for the survival of the human species ?
I am not saying they are a detriment, and some even have children with women before they come out of course. Some I am sure donate sperm.
But we humans are not in any way having problems bringing children into the world without them, wouldn't you agree ?