With nothing to offer, Jan steers us round and round chasing tails.
That's all he ever does. He's devious and a liar too.
With nothing to offer, Jan steers us round and round chasing tails.
Why not?
jan.
I said why not in the gorram post!
I would presume from your statement you also feel that the act of marrying your 13 year old daughter to a 60 year old man in order to gain access to the wealth owned by the older man is an acceptable practice?
Or that forcing a daughter to get married to someone she has never met from a hostile tribe as part of negotiating a peace treaty is acceptable?
Or that marriages arranged for children at birth are okay as well?
What a sick and twisted worldview you must have that you would say using marriage as a tool, and thus your own child as a PAWN, is acceptable.
The question I asked was...
Marriage isn't only about love. In fact, love isn't a necessary component in marriage. It is first and foremost about biological procreation, and creating families, and in turn societies. That's the important thing about marriage. And it has worked. Do you agree with this?
...your response:
How does this answer the question?
jan.
Lets put it to a vote... who here believes Jan cannot possibly be capable of this level of misunderstanding and/or ineptitude, and as a result is simply trolling?
That's a lie Jan. I've watched you repeat it over and over but that doesn't make it less a lie. Can't you at least google something first? Or, maybe visit Wiki if you're not capable of tracking original, secondary or even tertiary sources? Is that too much to ask of a member of an "intelligent" forum? Really?Historically, marriage represents the union between male and female.
That's not a lie.
jan.
I already answered your question, are you dim or something?
Folks, there are two types of people in this world... those that can extrapolate from incomplete data...
Jan Ardena is apparently NOT from that group.
On who's part J? Yours? Why do I infer that you are defending Jan's behavior? Is that what you are implying? (I actually doubt that - I think you're trying to stir up sheit, personally, kind of like that trolling you so despise)Careful. I don't mean overstep my bounds, but piling on isn't the solution.
I don't know if Jan is trolling, but there's certainly some intellectual dishonesty going on.
On who's part J? Yours? Why do I infer that you are defending Jan's behavior? Is that what you are implying? (I actually doubt that - I think you're trying to stir up sheit, personally, kind of like that trolling you so despise)
Are you saying that if someone is so grossly inept at presenting the facts that the rest of us should take it easy upon him or her? Why? Does Sci have some sort of "handicap" rule that I'm not aware of? (Except for Victor Spinoza of course, bless his little heart)
On who's part J? Yours? Why do I infer that you are defending Jan's behavior? Is that what you are implying? (I actually doubt that - I think you're trying to stir up sheit, personally, kind of like that trolling you so despise)
Are you saying that if someone is so grossly inept at presenting the facts that the rest of us should take it easy upon him or her? Why? Does Sci have some sort of "handicap" rule that I'm not aware of? (Except for Victor Spinoza of course, bless his little heart)
On who's part J? Yours? Why do I infer that you are defending Jan's behavior? Is that what you are implying? (I actually doubt that - I think you're trying to stir up sheit, personally, kind of like that trolling you so despise)
Are you saying that if someone is so grossly inept at presenting the facts that the rest of us should take it easy upon him or her? Why? Does Sci have some sort of "handicap" rule that I'm not aware of? (Except for Victor Spinoza of course, bless his little heart)
Because she murdered her son.
jan.
Hey Jan, I think Bells may be referring to this piece of Bible Babble:If we take the Bible as the definitive word on the matter, she did was she was supposed to do. After all, you are cherry picking using the Bible to deem homosexuality to be deviant or perverted behaviour. If you are going to use the Bible to prove your point, you don't get to cherry pick. The Bible advocates killing gays. She killed her son because she thought he was gay.Jan Ardena said:Because she murdered her son.
jan.
Again, that's not reductionism. Reductionism is not saying "You are your actions." That's (another) misunderstanding on your part. What's more, no one is saying that a person is reducible to their actions. That's not being argued.
What is being argued is that by condemning gay sex, you're condemning homosexuals. Sex isn't like theft, or gambling; it's an intrinsic part of our nature. It is a part of who we are.
Dualism... <snipped sad and inaccurate trolling>
You are using Dualism to try and substantiate your claim... but Dualism is, at its best, inherently flawed. If the mind and body are not interconnected (and are, instead, separate) then how do you explain such things as psychosomatic disorders (such as psychosomatic pregnancy or Pseudocyesis, in which a woman so fervently believes she is pregnant that her body presents every sign of being pregnant, including the cessation of menstruation, beginning of lactation, enlargement of the breasts and stomach, morning sickness.. hell, some of them even report positive on pregnancy tests... the only symptom of pregnancy missing tends to be, well, the fetus!). There is also the whole idea of a self-fulfilling prophesy (you believe something is going to happen, and thus you subconsciously and inadvertently cause it to happen) or those that simply give up the "will to live" and thus die, despite being physically healthy otherwise?
Likewise, why is it that it is so important to keep a patient undergoing treatment for an extreme condition (such as cancer) in good spirits? Simple- a happier person has been proven to recover faster and more fully than someone who has resigned themselves to die from it... if they have the will to beat it, they generally fair better.
Of course, you state that you feel all biological behavior is separate from ones identity... does this mean that rape, and the person committing the act, should be considered as 'not a part of who they are' and should be pardoned as simply an 'act of the flesh' rather than a conscious decision to violate someone else's person-hood?
No, but after being labeled so long, you start to wear that label as your identity.
No it isn't the sole basis of anything. People regularly condemn behavior and so condemn the person performing the behavior. Behavior is simply an expression of who one is. It is inseparable from their identity. If I morally condemn a person's behavior, I am axiomatically making a moral judgement about that person doing and thinking certain things. There is no condemnation of a behavior in a vacuum, as if behavior could exist without the person performing it. If I morally condemn the addictive behavior of an addict, I am also condemning the addict as well. If I morally condemn a person's sexual behavior, I am also condemning that person as well. There is simply no moral condemnation of behavior without condemning the person as the agent of that behavior. Moral or immoral behavior assumes the moral culpability of the person themselves.This seems to be the sole basis on which the reductionist condemns the criticism of behavior as a demonizing of the individual. It is simply a false assumption that their own reductionist context has any real bearing on the holistic opinion. We might surmise that this is an inability to fathom philosophically opposing context or that people are actively "playing dumb" as justification for hyperbolic rhetoric.
Bit of a straw man, as I did not say that reductionism necessarily implies that "you are your actions".
Syne said:This seems to assume that behavior cannot be distinguished from identity. This is a reductionist view, in which the whole (identity) is thought to be entirely accounted for by the parts (behaviors).
People are arguing that behavior is equivalent to identity, because they equate a criticism of action as a criticism of who someone is. But, benefit of the doubt here, how exactly are these equivalent without both action and identity being reducible to, at least, that same origin?
Sex is an intrinsic part of biological nature. It is only through the exact same "hierarchical reductionism" above that you can claim that:
But bringing up other behaviors... do you think that condemnation of any other behavior is equally devoid of the variety of condemnation that you think adheres to gays in this case? Quite to the contrary, as more and more "wrong" behavior is considered "mental illness" or "disease". Neither of which typically condemn the individual, at least as anything much more than a victim of genetics, upbringing, trauma, etc.. And just as with any other behavior, condemnation that may adhere to the individual will vary quite a bit. Even if someone believes that a person has a choice in the behavior, they could still consider it compulsive, thus alleviating some degree of intent or willfulness that typically weighs heavier on moral culpability.
That's a lie Jan. I've watched you repeat it over and over but that doesn't make it less a lie. Can't you at least google something first? Or, maybe visit Wiki if you're not capable of tracking original, secondary or even tertiary sources? Is that too much to ask of a member of an "intelligent" forum? Really?
Although state-recognized same-sex unions are becoming more accepted, there is a long history of same-sex unions around the world. Various types of same-sex unions have existed, ranging from informal, unsanctioned, and temporary relationships to highly ritualized unions that have included marriage