Notices
Results 1 to 56 of 56
Like Tree9Likes
  • 1 Post By Dywyddyr
  • 1 Post By adelady
  • 1 Post By Paleoichneum
  • 1 Post By Dywyddyr
  • 2 Post By Paleoichneum
  • 1 Post By RedPanda
  • 1 Post By wegs
  • 1 Post By zinjanthropos

Thread: Consideration against...what is response for?

  1. #1 Consideration against...what is response for? 
    Forum Senior chero's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2013
    Posts
    365
    I was rummaging around found this unique, though common, argument against same-sex marriage as well as reasons not to approach same sex activities. thought to post it to see how others may respond to it.
    Quote Originally Posted by Sam
    Natural law is a sense of good and evil that is written on the heart of every person. It tells us which acts are good and rational and which are evil and irrational. Natural law tells us that not every kind of behavior is a right. The act of murder is not a right, nor is incest. These go against human nature. We inherently know that these are wrong. If, for example, many people began telling us that incest is a right and that to deny such a right is similar to discrimination because of race or sex, our first reaction would be moral outrage. For a parent and child to have sexual relations with one another violates the very nature of who they are in relation to one another. Something is out of sync.
    But eventually we might be swayed by such argumentation because of the sheer volume and intensity of the propaganda, not because of the rationality of the argument. This is what has happened with the so-called right to homosexual "marriage."
    For two members of the same sex to have genital relations violates the nature of who they are in relation to one another. Their bodies are simply not designed for it. Something is out of sync.
    The problem is that in our culture we tend to put feelings before right reason. Reason would tell us that in such a situation, one ought to put feelings second. For rational creatures to make reason subject to feelings is to court disaster.
    I am not taking any sides on this. just asking questions.


    Last edited by chero; December 20th, 2013 at 05:54 PM.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  2.  
     

  3. #2  
    Genius Duck Moderator Dywyddyr's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Location
    Scunthorpe, UK
    Posts
    10,689
    Quote Originally Posted by chero View Post
    I am not taking any sides on this. just asking questions.
    What questions?

    I find it quite remarkable 1 that the excerpt talks about "reason" and "rationality" while making the utterly unfounded claims that it does, viz.: "Natural law is a sense of good and evil that is written on the heart of every person", and "murder [and] incest... go against human nature", or even "We inherently know that these are wrong"
    In short, it's guff.


    1 In the sense that it's not at all remarkable, given that it's humans 2 making the claims.
    2 You know, the sort of creature that tends"justify" anything it likes and denies the things it doesn't but others do.


    "[Dywyddyr] makes a grumpy bastard like me seem like a happy go lucky scamp" - PhDemon
    Reply With Quote  
     

  4. #3  
    Forum Senior chero's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2013
    Posts
    365
    Quote Originally Posted by Dywyddyr View Post
    What questions?
    well I haven't asked them yet.

    I find it quite remarkable 1 that the excerpt talks about "reason" and "rationality" while making the utterly unfounded claims that it does, viz.: "Natural law is a sense of good and evil that is written on the heart of every person", and "murder [and] incest... go against human nature", or even "We inherently know that these are wrong"
    In short, it's guff.


    1 In the sense that it's not at all remarkable, given that it's humans 2 making the claims.
    2 You know, the sort of creature that tends"justify" anything it likes and denies the things it doesn't but others do.
    do we not know that killing another person is wrong?


    hey, there's a question.
    Last edited by chero; December 17th, 2013 at 12:23 PM. Reason: 1st q for your a
    Reply With Quote  
     

  5. #4  
    Genius Duck Moderator Dywyddyr's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Location
    Scunthorpe, UK
    Posts
    10,689
    Quote Originally Posted by chero View Post
    do we not know that killing another person is wrong?
    If we "know" it why are there so many laws and strictures in place to legislate against it?
    Under what conditions is it "wrong"?
    Doesn't society take young men (and now women) and train them to do exactly that? Hasn't that been a facet of practically every society throughout history?
    To claim it's "against human nature" ignores the problematical fact that humans do actually kill each other.
    RedPanda likes this.
    "[Dywyddyr] makes a grumpy bastard like me seem like a happy go lucky scamp" - PhDemon
    Reply With Quote  
     

  6. #5  
    Moderator Moderator
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Location
    city of wine and roses
    Posts
    6,225
    For two members of the same sex to have genital relations violates the nature of who they are in relation to one another. Their bodies are simply not designed for it. Something is out of sync.
    This is pure guff. If their bodies weren't designed for it, they wouldn't be able to do it at all. It's not as though they're breathing underwater or flying or walking on ceilings which humans are definitely not designed to do.

    Humans are animals much like other animals. We have particular, special, unusual attributes and abilities that many animals don't or can't have, but we're still animals. Other animals have been observed having same sex genital relations. Other animals which form long-term sexual/family relationships as humans do sometimes set up long-term same sex relationships as some humans do.

    This is not remarkable. It's just another aspect of the variety of human life and experience. Not many people are left-handed or have blue eyes or are albino or a whole lot of other things that only show up in less than 10% of a population - but that doesn't make them freaks of nature or not-human. It just makes them unusual.
    "Courage is what it takes to stand up and speak; courage is also what it takes to sit down and listen." Winston Churchill
    "nature is like a game of Jenga; you never know which brick you pull out will cause the whole stack to collapse" Lucy Cooke
    Reply With Quote  
     

  7. #6  
    Forum Senior chero's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2013
    Posts
    365
    Quote Originally Posted by Dywyddyr View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by chero View Post
    do we not know that killing another person is wrong?
    If we "know" it why are there so many laws and strictures in place to legislate against it?
    Under what conditions is it "wrong"?
    Doesn't society take young men (and now women) and train them to do exactly that? Hasn't that been a facet of practically every society throughout history?
    To claim it's "against human nature" ignores the problematical fact that humans do actually kill each other.
    I did not read it that way.

    There are many things people do that are wrong. An alcoholic knows he should not drink (in some cases) but still does. An addict is aware of the dangers of o.d. but still persists. despite countless laws, institutes, and other trying to tell us murder and stealing is wrong, we still do it. a lot of people do these things even beyond the understanding of what is right or wrong, as that does not guarantee an individual's actions. Any one person against stealing might do so to eat a meal. even a person against violence may be prone to act violent. ability to do something does not make it right.

    Instead I considered what it takes to kill. though anyone is capable of it, it is difficult to do and once completed, there are mental conditions that plague the person who committed the act. the more one kills, that may dissipate, but that is the extreme. An abnormal occurrence. Even people who may have killed another person in self defense or they themselves justify the act, there are still mental consequences. It takes years to deal with it, in which I am not sure if it goes away. its just "handled."

    If it was in our nature to kill, then why does it have such a mental toll on us? should it not be instinct just like the animals, nothing?

    do the animals feel nothing in a kill or an unwilling pursuit for survival?
    obsessions only in man, correct?

    what are the reasons to kill?
    insanity = don't understand what is going on, take satisfaction from it.
    accident = may be liable, manslaughter, but was not intentional.
    protection = self defense, armies.

    are there more reasons than that?
    Last edited by chero; December 17th, 2013 at 04:09 PM.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  8. #7  
    Forum Senior chero's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2013
    Posts
    365
    Quote Originally Posted by adelady View Post
    This is pure guff. If their bodies weren't designed for it, they wouldn't be able to do it at all. It's not as though they're breathing underwater or flying or walking on ceilings which humans are definitely not designed to do.
    do we not still find ourselves committed to such things? there are multiple renditions of people walking on walls (e.g. spider man).

    Humans are animals much like other animals. We have particular, special, unusual attributes and abilities that many animals don't or can't have, but we're still animals. Other animals have been observed having same sex genital relations. Other animals which form long-term sexual/family relationships as humans do sometimes set up long-term same sex relationships as some humans do.
    so, what you are saying is that there is no such thing as human nature; different from animals?
    Last edited by chero; December 17th, 2013 at 04:07 PM.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  9. #8  
    Moderator Moderator
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Location
    city of wine and roses
    Posts
    6,225
    There is such a thing as human nature. But humans are animals.

    We aren't dolphin or elephant or swan or anemone or wolf or koala animals, we're human animals. We're very like many other animals in some ways and not like many others in any discernible way at all. Parrots are not like sharks and we're not very much like either of them - apart from parrots' obvious intelligence and some, very few, aspects of their family/social behaviours.

    And it's very easy to see similarities in particular behaviours of other animals. Elephants mourning their dead, birds which mate for life and pine for the one who dies, wolves with their one pair of strong parents controlling the life of their pack/ family, a whole range of critters that organise creches for the young while most of the adults go out for food, herd animals where the whole group will act in concert to defend a youngster attacked or threatened by a predator rather than leaving it to the individual parent(s), birds and animals which display awareness and commitment to fairness in distribution of food or attention.

    We're the only ones with our own particular assemblage of behaviours and approaches - and we're also more inclined to differ in our arrangements in our various populations and sub-populations. But once you get past spoken language and its consequences, you'd be hard-pressed to find any human behaviours that aren't also found in some or many other animals.
    Ascended likes this.
    "Courage is what it takes to stand up and speak; courage is also what it takes to sit down and listen." Winston Churchill
    "nature is like a game of Jenga; you never know which brick you pull out will cause the whole stack to collapse" Lucy Cooke
    Reply With Quote  
     

  10. #9  
    Genius Duck Moderator Dywyddyr's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Location
    Scunthorpe, UK
    Posts
    10,689
    Quote Originally Posted by chero View Post
    I did not read it that way.
    Huh?
    Here: "The act of murder is not a right, nor is incest. These go against human nature." Sentences 4 & 5 in your quote.

    there are mental conditions that plague the person who committed the act. the more one kills, that may dissipate, but that is the extreme. An abnormal occurrence. Even people who may have killed another person in self defense or they themselves justify the act, there are still mental consequences. It takes years to deal with it, in which I am not sure if it goes away. its just "handled."
    Apart from those for whom there aren't.

    If it was in our nature to kill, then why does it have such a mental toll on us?
    Now you're getting somewhere, although your question should be: WHY is there a mental toll on those who kill (for those for whom there IS such a toll), what is the cause of it?
    As opposed to assuming that it's "against our nature" as an a priori reason.

    what are the reasons to kill?
    insanity = don't understand what is going on, take satisfaction from it.
    accident = may be liable, manslaughter, but was not intentional.
    protection = self defense, armies.
    are there more reasons than that?
    How about: "that person is obstructing me in the pursuit of what I want, I'll remove them"?
    (Or does that come under your rubric of "insanity"? If so I'd like a citation that it actually IS "insanity").
    "[Dywyddyr] makes a grumpy bastard like me seem like a happy go lucky scamp" - PhDemon
    Reply With Quote  
     

  11. #10  
    Forum Senior chero's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2013
    Posts
    365
    Quote Originally Posted by Dywyddyr View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by chero View Post
    I did not read it that way.
    Huh?
    Here: "The act of murder is not a right, nor is incest. These go against human nature." Sentences 4 & 5 in your quote.
    yes. I know what is says. but I read the entire quote differently to understand what the author was trying to say. if we do have a human nature in which such things listed are "against it" then repercussions would exist in order for things to be "out of sync." I presume mental stability would be part of that since many arguing against homosexuality state that there are mental repercussions in such actions. that would follow the concept that murder may result in the same thing. So that is how I read it.

    ...your question should be: WHY is there a mental toll on those who kill (for those for whom there IS such a toll), what is the cause of it?
    As opposed to assuming that it's "against our nature" as an a priori reason.
    I do not know what assumptions were made by the author. it was merely a short q&a. I guess that would be a good follow up question.

    as for me, I only know of small amount of circumstances in which may be "against our nature." If it is, however. would the individuals that have an "easy" time killing be abnormal part of a population?


    iceman confession - YouTube

    what are the reasons to kill?
    insanity = don't understand what is going on, take satisfaction from it.
    accident = may be liable, manslaughter, but was not intentional.
    protection = self defense, armies.
    are there more reasons than that?
    How about: "that person is obstructing me in the pursuit of what I want, I'll remove them"?
    (Or does that come under your rubric of "insanity"? If so I'd like a citation that it actually IS "insanity").
    depends on the individiual and what their reasoning is. I can't comment on every possible outcome or internal thought process. if it is not insanity, however, another category would need to be added. that is, if (blood) lust or ignoring other possibilities other than killing can be considered sane.

    what category might you add to the list of reasons?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  12. #11  
    Forum Senior chero's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2013
    Posts
    365
    To expand the thread...

    what is natural law and just what might it refer to?

    what relations do people have to one another?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  13. #12  
    Forum Professor Daecon's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2013
    Location
    New Zealand
    Posts
    1,274
    Reply With Quote  
     

  14. #13  
    Genius Duck Moderator Dywyddyr's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Location
    Scunthorpe, UK
    Posts
    10,689
    Quote Originally Posted by chero View Post
    yes. I know what is says. but I read the entire quote differently to understand what the author was trying to say. if we do have a human nature in which such things listed are "against it" then repercussions would exist in order for things to be "out of sync." I presume mental stability would be part of that since many arguing against homosexuality state that there are mental repercussions in such actions. that would follow the concept that murder may result in the same thing. So that is how I read it.
    Excuse me, mental repercussions with homosexuality?
    Or would they be "mental repercussions" attendant on how a homosexual fits into society? E.g. condemnation, ostracisation...

    as for me, I only know of small amount of circumstances in which may be "against our nature."
    Really? What would they be?

    If it is, however. would the individuals that have an "easy" time killing be abnormal part of a population?
    Regardless of their sanity or not these people are still human. Unless you want to recategorise them.
    Thus their behaviour falls within the range of possible behaviours by humans: human nature.

    what category might you add to the list of reasons?
    I thought I just had added one: "that person is obstructing me in the pursuit of what I want, I'll remove them"?

    And I missed this:
    protection = self defense, armies.
    So there's never been an army fielded except for "self defence" purposes?
    "[Dywyddyr] makes a grumpy bastard like me seem like a happy go lucky scamp" - PhDemon
    Reply With Quote  
     

  15. #14  
    Forum Senior chero's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2013
    Posts
    365
    Quote Originally Posted by Dywyddyr View Post
    Excuse me, mental repercussions with homosexuality?
    Or would they be "mental repercussions" attendant on how a homosexual fits into society? E.g. condemnation, ostracisation...
    The first. in order for the quote to be true there would have to be consequences or repercussions on the mind when acting on homosexuality. that is how the other stuff would be used as a ... well I guess the other stuff was used as an analogy. Don't really see the mentioning of murder being anything else but an analogy.

    Really? What would they be?
    as I said, "may be." current stipulations are on going. Giving description would lead to possible misconception of my opinion, in which I said I would not provide. I'm on the side line, sorry. Plus, as stated, it is not..it is a puzzle and I am not done putting it together.

    Regardless of their sanity or not these people are still human. Unless you want to recategorise them.
    Thus their behaviour falls within the range of possible behaviours by humans: human nature.
    Just because a human acts a certain way does not mean that action is normal or within a range of human behaviors. look at whales in zoos. not only is there a physical change, unusual for their population, but mental changes occur as well. could this not be possible for humans?

    I thought I just had added one: "that person is obstructing me in the pursuit of what I want, I'll remove them"?
    then pursuit...hm...possibly greed, or envy.


    protection = self defense, armies.
    So there's never been an army fielded except for "self defence" purposes?[/QUOTE]no, armies are built up for protection, but the concept of protection does not mean that the army or any person would act purely in self defense. protecting one's economy or ideas is not an act of self defense.

    Quote Originally Posted by Daecon View Post
    1,500 animal species practice homosexuality
    Sex among dwarf chimpanzees is in fact the business of the whole family, and the cute little ones often lend a helping hand
    justification of pedophilia? I am actually really disturbed by how this person choose to write their article.

    there's some other parts describing conflict resolution - is that not expressing dominance?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  16. #15  
    Forum Radioactive Isotope Paleoichneum's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    Washington State, USA
    Posts
    4,565
    Quote Originally Posted by chero View Post
    yes. I know what is says. but I read the entire quote differently to understand what the author was trying to say. if we do have a human nature in which such things listed are "against it" then repercussions would exist in order for things to be "out of sync." I presume mental stability would be part of that since many arguing against homosexuality state that there are mental repercussions in such actions. that would follow the concept that murder may result in the same thing. So that is how I read it.
    What exact mental tolls are you suggesting are present in a healthy LGBT individual?
    If more of us valued food and cheer and song above hoarded gold, it would be a merrier world. -Thorin Oakenshield

    The needs of the many outweigh the need of the few - Spock of Vulcan & Sentinel Prime of Cybertron ---proof that "the needs" are in the eye of the beholder.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  17. #16  
    Forum Senior chero's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2013
    Posts
    365
    Quote Originally Posted by Paleoichneum View Post
    What exact mental tolls are you suggesting are present in a healthy LGBT individual?
    I suggested nothing. the provided quote suggests that something must be out of sync. considering what is most common but most difficult to measure, actions we take impact us mentally. if a child is pressured/introduced to sexuality/sexual acts early in life, such incidences influence their mental development (incest). there is a mental toll.

    I watched a documentary of a group in which sexuality was...well lets say anything goes. they were bisexual as well as including children. similar to what that link provided earlier suggests occurs among "dwarf chimpanzees" - "business of the whole family." well, all the children from this group grew up, and the documentary was following their life as adults. well, I don't remember the docu title (wish I could now). for the kids they did get into contact with were abusing/addicted to drugs, and a good portion of them committed suicide (after admitting having problems with what they dealt with during childhood).

    so based on that information I considered that part of the "out of sync." mentioned in the provided quote must consider mental tribulations. Perhaps the author was suggesting physical as well.

    p.s. the documentary was showcased on pbs in the USA. the group was formed in the 70's. that's most of what I remember. I remember a portion of the video, as well as the faces of some of the "kids." that doesn't help identify anything though.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  18. #17  
    Moderator Moderator
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Washington State
    Posts
    8,309
    [QUOTE=chero;503779]
    "Natural law is a sense of good and evil that is written on the heart of every person."

    Really? Such Hobbesian thinking is mostly religious tripe put forth well before sciences knew anything about human development or physiology as an excuse for bigotry, oppression, and church/governmental tyranny.

    What we know is homosexuality and coupling (marriage if you want to dress it up in human terms), while somewhat uncommon, is a significant proportion of human as well as most other social mammals.

    The act of murder is not a right, nor is incest.
    Entirely depending on circumstance and context. In most context it's probably detrimental to social animals at least as far as kin and tribal relationships go.



    "For two members of the same sex to have genital relations violates the nature of who they are in relation to one another. Their bodies are simply not designed for it. Something is out of sync."

    And there's the clue that this is a superstitious belief, and not one based in reason. (engage sarcasm) Or perhaps women should have been "designed" with a raspy tongue, much like a cat, which doesn't feel good during cunnilingus, or their vagina's not so close to the anus so as to confuse men, or prostate's less well positioned for internal stimulation. It seems humans are indeed designed for homosexuality! (disengage sarcasm). All kidding aside, humans aren't designed, nor is their attraction driven by primary sex organs--they are driven primarily by secondary sex characteristic.

    I am not taking any sides on this. just asking questions.
    Doubtful given your other post on similar social issues. Nice try though.
    Last edited by Lynx_Fox; December 20th, 2013 at 03:26 PM.
    Meteorologist/Naturalist & Retired Soldier
    “The Holy Land is everywhere” Black Elk
    Reply With Quote  
     

  19. #18  
    Forum Radioactive Isotope Paleoichneum's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    Washington State, USA
    Posts
    4,565
    Quote Originally Posted by chero View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Paleoichneum View Post
    What exact mental tolls are you suggesting are present in a healthy LGBT individual?
    I suggested nothing. the provided quote suggests that something must be out of sync. considering what is most common but most difficult to measure, actions we take impact us mentally. if a child is pressured/introduced to sexuality/sexual acts early in life, such incidences influence their mental development (incest). there is a mental toll.

    I watched a documentary of a group in which sexuality was...well lets say anything goes. they were bisexual as well as including children. similar to what that link provided earlier suggests occurs among "dwarf chimpanzees" - "business of the whole family." well, all the children from this group grew up, and the documentary was following their life as adults. well, I don't remember the docu title (wish I could now). for the kids they did get into contact with were abusing/addicted to drugs, and a good portion of them committed suicide (after admitting having problems with what they dealt with during childhood).

    so based on that information I considered that part of the "out of sync." mentioned in the provided quote must consider mental tribulations. Perhaps the author was suggesting physical as well.

    p.s. the documentary was showcased on pbs in the USA. the group was formed in the 70's. that's most of what I remember. I remember a portion of the video, as well as the faces of some of the "kids." that doesn't help identify anything though.
    So you are basing this off a video you only partially remember, and off a very notable out-lying datapoint, as a means to address and entire spectrum of humans the you haven't actually researched?

    What evidence do you have for mass pedophilia or mental abuse that would lead to 2-10% of the population, across all demographics, being LGBT.

    Have you interacted at all with an out LGBT person/people to get an understanding of who they are?
    If more of us valued food and cheer and song above hoarded gold, it would be a merrier world. -Thorin Oakenshield

    The needs of the many outweigh the need of the few - Spock of Vulcan & Sentinel Prime of Cybertron ---proof that "the needs" are in the eye of the beholder.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  20. #19  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Oct 2013
    Posts
    1,034
    Quote Originally Posted by chero View Post
    I was rummaging around found this unique, though common, argument against same-sex marriage...
    Did you reference that anywhere in the thread?

    :EDIT:

    Meh http://www.catholic.com/quickquestions/is-the-right-to-marry-a-person-of-the-same-sex-a-civil-right


    B
    ut anyway, I think gravity is a natural law. That would be my best ignorant guess.
    Last edited by Beer w/Straw; December 20th, 2013 at 03:23 PM.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  21. #20  
    Forum Senior chero's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2013
    Posts
    365
    Quote Originally Posted by Paleoichneum View Post
    So you are basing this off a video you only partially remember, and off a very notable out-lying datapoint, as a means to address and entire spectrum of humans the you haven't actually researched?

    What evidence do you have for mass pedophilia or mental abuse that would lead to 2-10% of the population, across all demographics, being LGBT.

    Have you interacted at all with an out LGBT person/people to get an understanding of who they are?
    I am not basing anything upon anything else. I am just looking at what someone else said/put up and now doing so from a different perspective, by the help of posters on this thread.

    the rest doesn't matter. I am only looking at this one individual statement. seeing how it may be true and then considering ow it may be false. From there I can generate what questions I have.

    Quote Originally Posted by Beer w/Straw View Post
    Did you reference that anywhere in the thread?
    http://www.catholic.com/quickquestions/is-the-right-to-marry-a-person-of-the-same-sex-a-civil-right

    B
    ut anyway, I think gravity is a natural law. That would be my best ignorant guess.
    Hey, that looks exactly like it. I got it from a thread, which I may pressume was copy and paste there.
    what am I to reference?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  22. #21  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Oct 2013
    Posts
    1,034
    Maybe the thread where it was, mentioning you got it from another thread too?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  23. #22  
    Forum Radioactive Isotope Paleoichneum's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    Washington State, USA
    Posts
    4,565
    Ok, in that case:

    The statement is utterly false as shown by decades of psychological research on LGBT individuals. And the purposeful comparison of LGBT people to murderers, rapists, and pedophiles is a veiled attempt to cause the audience to lump all of them together.
    adelady likes this.
    If more of us valued food and cheer and song above hoarded gold, it would be a merrier world. -Thorin Oakenshield

    The needs of the many outweigh the need of the few - Spock of Vulcan & Sentinel Prime of Cybertron ---proof that "the needs" are in the eye of the beholder.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  24. #23  
    Forum Senior chero's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2013
    Posts
    365
    Quote Originally Posted by Paleoichneum View Post
    Ok, in that case:

    The statement is utterly false as shown by decades of psychological research on LGBT individuals. And the purposeful comparison of LGBT people to murderers, rapists, and pedophiles is a veiled attempt to cause the audience to lump all of them together.
    ah...I do not remember the name of it, but that is a logical fallacy as well.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  25. #24  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Oct 2013
    Posts
    1,034
    Quote Originally Posted by chero View Post
    To expand the thread...

    what is natural law and just what might it refer to?

    what relations do people have to one another?
    I answered "gravity."
    Reply With Quote  
     

  26. #25  
    Forum Radioactive Isotope Paleoichneum's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    Washington State, USA
    Posts
    4,565
    Quote Originally Posted by chero View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Paleoichneum View Post
    Ok, in that case:

    The statement is utterly false as shown by decades of psychological research on LGBT individuals. And the purposeful comparison of LGBT people to murderers, rapists, and pedophiles is a veiled attempt to cause the audience to lump all of them together.
    ah...I do not remember the name of it, but that is a logical fallacy as well.
    In what exact why is it a logical fallacy?

    It is the simplest answer to the "question" you keep defending.

    What is YOUR opinion on the topic at hand?
    If more of us valued food and cheer and song above hoarded gold, it would be a merrier world. -Thorin Oakenshield

    The needs of the many outweigh the need of the few - Spock of Vulcan & Sentinel Prime of Cybertron ---proof that "the needs" are in the eye of the beholder.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  27. #26  
    Genius Duck Moderator Dywyddyr's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Location
    Scunthorpe, UK
    Posts
    10,689
    Quote Originally Posted by chero View Post
    Just because a human acts a certain way does not mean that action is normal or within a range of human behaviors.
    1) I didn't say "normal".
    2) If humans act in a given way their behaviour falls within the range of possible behaviours by humans: by definition.
    adelady likes this.
    "[Dywyddyr] makes a grumpy bastard like me seem like a happy go lucky scamp" - PhDemon
    Reply With Quote  
     

  28. #27  
    Forum Senior chero's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2013
    Posts
    365
    Quote Originally Posted by Paleoichneum View Post
    In what exact why is it a logical fallacy?
    to assume a group of people the characteristics of a few.

    It is the simplest answer to the "question" you keep defending.
    I have not defended anything. only asking questions.

    What is YOUR opinion on the topic at hand?
    did I not already say I had no opinion? well, just looking over the thread, I guess I didn't. well, none.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  29. #28  
    Forum Senior chero's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2013
    Posts
    365
    Quote Originally Posted by Beer w/Straw View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by chero View Post
    To expand the thread...

    what is natural law and just what might it refer to?
    I answered "gravity."
    Yea, but that is not written on our hearts, would it? I did not consider it. it weighs on our hearts, ha ha...sort of speak. well, literally.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  30. #29  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Oct 2013
    Posts
    1,034
    Then ask better questions.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  31. #30  
    Forum Radioactive Isotope Paleoichneum's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    Washington State, USA
    Posts
    4,565
    Quote Originally Posted by chero View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Paleoichneum View Post
    In what exact why is it a logical fallacy?
    to assume a group of people the characteristics of a few.

    It is the simplest answer to the "question" you keep defending.
    I have not defended anything. only asking questions.

    What is YOUR opinion on the topic at hand?
    did I not already say I had no opinion? well, just looking over the thread, I guess I didn't. well, none.
    And the simple answer to the opening post is that LGBT people fall into the range of commonly seen behavior for humans and animals and there is no mental disorder involved.
    Lynx_Fox and adelady like this.
    If more of us valued food and cheer and song above hoarded gold, it would be a merrier world. -Thorin Oakenshield

    The needs of the many outweigh the need of the few - Spock of Vulcan & Sentinel Prime of Cybertron ---proof that "the needs" are in the eye of the beholder.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  32. #31  
    Forum Ph.D.
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Posts
    885
    dude just likes staring into others window to have a topic. nutjob or locked in closet.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  33. #32  
    Forum Ph.D.
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Posts
    885
    lol what are LGBT ppl?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  34. #33  
    Forum Radioactive Isotope Paleoichneum's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    Washington State, USA
    Posts
    4,565
    Ok so your first post makes absolutely no sense and your second is answered here https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/LGBT
    If more of us valued food and cheer and song above hoarded gold, it would be a merrier world. -Thorin Oakenshield

    The needs of the many outweigh the need of the few - Spock of Vulcan & Sentinel Prime of Cybertron ---proof that "the needs" are in the eye of the beholder.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  35. #34  
    Forum Ph.D.
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Posts
    885
    sad to see your remark about my first post and lol about grouping it up. makes it easier, i guess.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  36. #35  
    Forum Radioactive Isotope Paleoichneum's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    Washington State, USA
    Posts
    4,565
    Why is it sad? You seem to be making a garbled comment which is not at all related to the thread. Or if it is you are making very slanderous remarks about someone/the LGBT community.
    If more of us valued food and cheer and song above hoarded gold, it would be a merrier world. -Thorin Oakenshield

    The needs of the many outweigh the need of the few - Spock of Vulcan & Sentinel Prime of Cybertron ---proof that "the needs" are in the eye of the beholder.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  37. #36  
    ▼▼ dn ʎɐʍ sıɥʇ ▼▼ RedPanda's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Location
    UK
    Posts
    2,737
    Quote Originally Posted by Paleoichneum View Post
    Or if it is you are making very slanderous remarks about someone/the LGBT community.
    I think it was a comment about Chero - but it is not clear.
    SayBigWords.com/say/3FC

    "And, behold, I come quickly;" Revelation 22:12

    "Religions are like sausages. When you know how they are made, you no longer want them."
    Reply With Quote  
     

  38. #37  
    ...matter and pixie dust wegs's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2013
    Posts
    1,924
    Quote Originally Posted by chero View Post
    I was rummaging around found this unique, though common, argument against same-sex marriage as well as reasons not to approach same sex activities. thought to post it to see how others may respond to it.
    Quote Originally Posted by Sam
    Natural law is a sense of good and evil that is written on the heart of every person. It tells us which acts are good and rational and which are evil and irrational. Natural law tells us that not every kind of behavior is a right. The act of murder is not a right, nor is incest. These go against human nature. We inherently know that these are wrong. If, for example, many people began telling us that incest is a right and that to deny such a right is similar to discrimination because of race or sex, our first reaction would be moral outrage. For a parent and child to have sexual relations with one another violates the very nature of who they are in relation to one another. Something is out of sync.
    But eventually we might be swayed by such argumentation because of the sheer volume and intensity of the propaganda, not because of the rationality of the argument. This is what has happened with the so-called right to homosexual "marriage."
    For two members of the same sex to have genital relations violates the nature of who they are in relation to one another. Their bodies are simply not designed for it. Something is out of sync.
    The problem is that in our culture we tend to put feelings before right reason. Reason would tell us that in such a situation, one ought to put feelings second. For rational creatures to make reason subject to feelings is to court disaster.
    I am not taking any sides on this. just asking questions.
    So, ''Sam'' believes that homosexuality (I'm assuming from the comments here) is based off of 'feelings?' And 'written on everyone's heart' is a common phrase religion uses to promote itself. If ''Sam'' is religious, then he/she isn't applying ''reason'' to his/her brand of ''natural law.'' From this brief opening post, it seems that ''Sam's'' approach to viewing natural law, and right vs. wrong, stems from religion and/or a belief in God. I'm not sure what is 'unique' about ''Sam's'' stance on the subject.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  39. #38  
    Forum Senior chero's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2013
    Posts
    365
    Quote Originally Posted by wegs View Post
    So, ''Sam'' believes that homosexuality (I'm assuming from the comments here) is based off of 'feelings?' And 'written on everyone's heart' is a common phrase religion uses to promote itself. If ''Sam'' is religious, then he/she isn't applying ''reason'' to his/her brand of ''natural law.'' From this brief opening post, it seems that ''Sam's'' approach to viewing natural law, and right vs. wrong, stems from religion and/or a belief in God. I'm not sure what is 'unique' about ''Sam's'' stance on the subject.
    why does it have to be unique?

    If sam is religious, that does not mean he is not applying reason.
    Last edited by chero; December 29th, 2013 at 11:57 AM.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  40. #39  
    Genius Duck Moderator Dywyddyr's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Location
    Scunthorpe, UK
    Posts
    10,689
    Quote Originally Posted by chero View Post
    why does it have to be unique?
    Do try to keep up:
    Quote Originally Posted by YOU!!!
    I was rummaging around found this unique, though common, argument
    "[Dywyddyr] makes a grumpy bastard like me seem like a happy go lucky scamp" - PhDemon
    Reply With Quote  
     

  41. #40  
    Forum Radioactive Isotope Paleoichneum's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    Washington State, USA
    Posts
    4,565
    Quote Originally Posted by chero View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by wegs View Post
    So, ''Sam'' believes that homosexuality (I'm assuming from the comments here) is based off of 'feelings?' And 'written on everyone's heart' is a common phrase religion uses to promote itself. If ''Sam'' is religious, then he/she isn't applying ''reason'' to his/her brand of ''natural law.'' From this brief opening post, it seems that ''Sam's'' approach to viewing natural law, and right vs. wrong, stems from religion and/or a belief in God. I'm not sure what is 'unique' about ''Sam's'' stance on the subject.
    why does it have to be unique?
    Out of curiosity, what is the overall goal of this thread, now that the argument is been shown to be false?
    If more of us valued food and cheer and song above hoarded gold, it would be a merrier world. -Thorin Oakenshield

    The needs of the many outweigh the need of the few - Spock of Vulcan & Sentinel Prime of Cybertron ---proof that "the needs" are in the eye of the beholder.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  42. #41  
    Forum Senior chero's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2013
    Posts
    365
    Quote Originally Posted by Dywyddyr View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by chero View Post
    why does it have to be unique?
    Do try to keep up:
    Quote Originally Posted by YOU!!!
    I was rummaging around found this unique, though common, argument
    congratulations, you copied and paste.

    Quote Originally Posted by Paleoichneum View Post
    Out of curiosity, what is the overall goal of this thread, now that the argument has been shown to be false?
    is it?
    I just respond to quotes.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  43. #42  
    Genius Duck Moderator Dywyddyr's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Location
    Scunthorpe, UK
    Posts
    10,689
    Quote Originally Posted by chero View Post
    congratulations, you copied and paste.
    Presumably your dog pointed that out to you, since you're too bloody thick to even read your own words.
    I.e. the question I answered shouldn't have been - ever - asked, especially by you.
    "[Dywyddyr] makes a grumpy bastard like me seem like a happy go lucky scamp" - PhDemon
    Reply With Quote  
     

  44. #43  
    Forum Senior chero's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2013
    Posts
    365
    Quote Originally Posted by Dywyddyr View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by chero View Post
    congratulations, you copied and paste.
    Presumably your dog pointed that out to you, since you're too bloody thick to even read your own words.
    I.e. the question I answered shouldn't have been - ever - asked, especially by you.
    get over yourself.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  45. #44  
    ...matter and pixie dust wegs's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2013
    Posts
    1,924
    Quote Originally Posted by chero View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by wegs View Post
    So, ''Sam'' believes that homosexuality (I'm assuming from the comments here) is based off of 'feelings?' And 'written on everyone's heart' is a common phrase religion uses to promote itself. If ''Sam'' is religious, then he/she isn't applying ''reason'' to his/her brand of ''natural law.'' From this brief opening post, it seems that ''Sam's'' approach to viewing natural law, and right vs. wrong, stems from religion and/or a belief in God. I'm not sure what is 'unique' about ''Sam's'' stance on the subject.
    why does it have to be unique?
    It doesn't...but you commented in your opening post that you thought it was unique. (I don't find it unique, if Sam is religious)

    If sam is religious, that does not mean he is not applying reason.
    Yes, and no. When religious people talk about ‘right vs. wrong,’ it usually has little to do with reason and logic, and has more to do with their faith’s ideas and/or doctrines of right vs. wrong. (which I don’t automatically discount and think them to be ‘unreasonable,’ but religion and/or the belief in a higher power, is not based on logic and reason. It’s based on nothing more than one’s desire to believe there is a ‘higher power’ guiding the universe.)
    Reply With Quote  
     

  46. #45  
    ▼▼ dn ʎɐʍ sıɥʇ ▼▼ RedPanda's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Location
    UK
    Posts
    2,737
    Quote Originally Posted by chero View Post
    get over yourself.
    Your inability to acknowledge your own mistakes - but instead hide behind insults - paints you in a very poor light.
    Dywyddyr likes this.
    SayBigWords.com/say/3FC

    "And, behold, I come quickly;" Revelation 22:12

    "Religions are like sausages. When you know how they are made, you no longer want them."
    Reply With Quote  
     

  47. #46  
    Forum Senior chero's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2013
    Posts
    365
    Quote Originally Posted by RedPanda View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by chero View Post
    get over yourself.
    Your inability to acknowledge your own mistakes - but instead hide behind insults - paints you in a very poor light.
    1. acknowledging one's own mistakes does not involve waving a flag for everyone to see. that's self centered and prideful.

    2. "get over yourself" is not an insult. if you think otherwise, great. I am responding to some jerk who insulted me. I can respond any bloody way I want. if he was not so high and mighty, nothing would have been said. Instead, if he had thought of it so wrong, but taken a respectful approach, he would have mentioned his thought. perhaps posting:
    "chero. wegs was commenting on your op statement, in which you state the quote was unique. It seems like your question does not address that."

    then I would have most likely responded

    "hey, thanks for noticing that. I did read it differently, and perhaps different than what the author intended it to be read. I did consider this, in editing the post...but it appears I could have taken out "why" to clarify the question. since I did not want it to be taken out of context as well."

    but clearly, that is going to happen no matter what. by then, someone had already quoted my post and I don't like changing what someone else quotes, if I know about it. sometimes I edit posts a lot, but don't see a response until I reload the page.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  48. #47  
    Forum Professor Daecon's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2013
    Location
    New Zealand
    Posts
    1,274
    Quote Originally Posted by chero View Post
    I was rummaging around found this unique, though common, argument against same-sex marriage as well as reasons not to approach same sex activities.
    Isn't "unique, though common" a contradiction?

    There's no argument against same-sex marriage that doesn't rely on bigotry and/or stupidity.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  49. #48  
    Forum Senior chero's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2013
    Posts
    365
    Quote Originally Posted by wegs View Post
    If sam is religious, that does not mean he is not applying reason.
    Yes, and no. When religious people talk about ‘right vs. wrong,’ it usually has little to do with reason and logic, and has more to do with their faith’s ideas and/or doctrines of right vs. wrong. (which I don’t automatically discount and think them to be ‘unreasonable,’ but religion and/or the belief in a higher power, is not based on logic and reason. It’s based on nothing more than one’s desire to believe there is a ‘higher power’ guiding the universe.)
    reason is thought. logic, is the process of that thought. to say someone is not thinking or unreasonable because they come to a different conclusion is incorrect as it is invalid.

    if you are so concerned about logic, then you would not use the word "usually." Instead, there is all, none, or some. usually still mean some. it is used to identify that the majority of some thing occurs. but with out any works or literature to justify a premise, the conclusion is invalid. since it seems to be incorrect, the conclusion is incorrect.

    otherwise, I'm done here. I don't need s***
    Reply With Quote  
     

  50. #49  
    Genius Duck Moderator Dywyddyr's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Location
    Scunthorpe, UK
    Posts
    10,689
    Quote Originally Posted by chero View Post
    I am responding to some jerk who insulted me.
    Yeah, I find the easiest way to "insult" someone is to do very little but cut and paste their own words.
    What a maroon.
    "[Dywyddyr] makes a grumpy bastard like me seem like a happy go lucky scamp" - PhDemon
    Reply With Quote  
     

  51. #50  
    ▼▼ dn ʎɐʍ sıɥʇ ▼▼ RedPanda's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Location
    UK
    Posts
    2,737
    Quote Originally Posted by chero View Post
    *feebly tries to avoid admitting his mistake*
    Continuing to do so continues to paint you in a bad light.
    But don't let me stop you from digging yourself deeper.
    Carry on.
    SayBigWords.com/say/3FC

    "And, behold, I come quickly;" Revelation 22:12

    "Religions are like sausages. When you know how they are made, you no longer want them."
    Reply With Quote  
     

  52. #51  
    Forum Professor jrmonroe's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Posts
    1,444
    Please exercise some patience with me.

    As someone who has been naturally left-handed all his life, I have not always been made to feel comfortable about it ("Uh oh, you're left-handed." "I don't want you on my team," "Stop bumping my elbow."). More than once I have asked myself why it was me in my family who is left-handed. Why couldn't I be normal like everyone else? The typical right-handed person can't begin to imagine how many items and situations in life give the advantage to right-handed people ...

    ... and not just scissors and rulers. Car ignitions and gearshift levers, vending machine money acceptors and selection buttons, number pads on keyboards, shirt pockets (try putting/retrieving things into/from the breast pocket with your left hand), shirt buttons, belts and buckles, spray bottle labels, toothpaste tube labels, dental floss snagger/cutters, pen imprints, capture buttons on cameras, knife blades that steer the blade out of a block of cheese if used left-handed, pencil sharpener cranks, wristwatch knobs, imprints on mugs, control panels on all sorts of commonplace and scientific devices (from stove vents/lights at home to GC/MS's in the lab), power switches on the back of devices and instruments, etc. The list is endless.

    I know from listening to homosexuals, a few of them my roommates, that at least some of them wonder why they don't want to use their reproductive organs for reproductive purposes. And they weren't looking for something to tell their parents and siblings, but for their own understanding of their situation in life. They wonder what happened in their life to make them this way. One man asked me why he was gay but not any of his brothers. Why don't some of them want to make love to a woman? I can see something as important as desires/abilities (or not) for children and other progeny causing a lot of internal turmoil. A future generation is perhaps the one natural thing that people expect to occur — as certain as Time.

    At least being left-handed has never interfered with my reproductive desires or abilities.
    Grief is the price we pay for love. (CM Parkes) Our postillion has been struck by lightning. (Unknown) War is always the choice of the chosen who will not have to fight. (Bono) The years tell much what the days never knew. (RW Emerson) Reality is not always probable, or likely. (JL Borges)
    Reply With Quote  
     

  53. #52  
    ...matter and pixie dust wegs's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2013
    Posts
    1,924


    @ chero:

    For someone of faith, whether they follow a religion or not…he/she might feel that they've arrived at their faith beliefs through reason. Reason and logic though are hard to apply to intangibles, and such ‘’ideas’’ as say the paranormal, or spirituality. If you believe in the existence of God, you will not have arrived there through a step by step, logical process. Faith is not built upon logic, it’s based on either indoctrination into it, perhaps by peers or one’s family of origin, or it is based on feelings and emotions. You can’t believe in the existence of something that no one has ever seen AND/OR no one can ever prove, through a logical process. This isn’t to say that a person of faith always uses his faith as his/her moral compass in life. I do believe that a religious person is capable (I once was) of separating his/her beliefs from thinking things through in a logical way. But, my point is more that if a religious person believes that homosexuality is ‘wrong,’ or ‘evil,’ or ‘immoral,’ more often than not, that ‘idea’ comes from their faith doctrine on what is deemed immoral and moral. Because logically, there’s nothing immoral about homosexuality. Nothing at all. If you believe so, and you find yourself in agreement with ‘Sam,’ then please share as to why you feel homosexuality is immoral, through the employment of logic. (and not using faith or religion as a form of reason and/or logic) And I'm not interested in offending you, I'm interested in learning why you agree with ''Sam.''
    Last edited by wegs; December 29th, 2013 at 06:21 PM.
    RedPanda likes this.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  54. #53  
    ▼▼ dn ʎɐʍ sıɥʇ ▼▼ RedPanda's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Location
    UK
    Posts
    2,737
    Quote Originally Posted by jrmonroe View Post
    ... and not just scissors and rulers. Car ignitions and gearshift levers, vending machine money acceptors and selection buttons, number pads on keyboards, shirt pockets (try putting/retrieving things into/from the breast pocket with your left hand), shirt buttons, belts and buckles, spray bottle labels, toothpaste tube labels, dental floss snagger/cutters, pen imprints, capture buttons on cameras, knife blades that steer the blade out of a block of cheese if used left-handed, pencil sharpener cranks, wristwatch knobs, imprints on mugs, control panels on all sorts of commonplace and scientific devices (from stove vents/lights at home to GC/MS's in the lab), power switches on the back of devices and instruments, etc. The list is endless.
    Just so you know: being left-handed does not prevent you from using your right hand.
    For example, if you are struggling to start your car using your left hand, then I strongly suggest using your right hand instead.

    If you are having problems changing gear, have some sympathy for all the suffering right-handed drivers in the UK / Australia / etc. - they suffer in silence (it seems).
    I also frequently find myself unable to tell which is the toothpaste tube due to the writing being upside-down. It is a constant fear that I will accidentally use the antiseptic cream by mistake.
    And don't get me started on shirt buttons. I am often forced to use both hands!

    First world problems. Oh the humanity.

    p.s. I am left-handed.
    SayBigWords.com/say/3FC

    "And, behold, I come quickly;" Revelation 22:12

    "Religions are like sausages. When you know how they are made, you no longer want them."
    Reply With Quote  
     

  55. #54  
    Time Lord
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Posts
    5,305
    Quote Originally Posted by Daecon View Post
    There's no argument against same-sex marriage that doesn't rely on bigotry and/or stupidity.
    Broadly true. But there is a decent argument against society's now hollow definition of marriage that is enabling gay couples to say "why not?"

    While same-sex marriage in itself is fine, society recognizing it as argued by proponents, is conceding that marriage should only mean monogamy (until probable divorce). I see this as a killing blow to a gutted institution.
    A pong by any other name is still a pong. -williampinn
    Reply With Quote  
     

  56. #55  
    Forum Radioactive Isotope zinjanthropos's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2005
    Location
    Driving in my car
    Posts
    3,812
    Yours truly personally got to attend a gay wedding this fall. It was my first alternative lifestyle marriage ceremony. I have to tell you that in all honesty I've never been to a wedding better than that one.

    The traditional heterosexual ceremony has become a giant commercial undertaking and I get turned off by the unnecessary pomp and pageantry, or who can outspend who. I just don't feel the love in such an event. However the gay ceremony was the most heartfelt I've ever attended. There was so much love between the two women that it dominated every aspect of the event. The speeches by the two girls were above anything I ever heard at any wedding. You couldn't help but feel moved when you listened to their personal stories, the coming out of the closet and just how difficult it is for gay couples to live in a society where a predominantly religious demographic is dead against such a thing.

    It's like I always said, a wedding is nothing more than a ceremony for signing a legal contract. Take away the religious intolerance and there would be no problems. Glad I went.
    scoobydoo1 likes this.
    All that belongs to human understanding, in this deep ignorance and obscurity, is to be skeptical, or at least cautious; and not to admit of any hypothesis, whatsoever; much less, of any which is supported by no appearance of probability...Hume
    Reply With Quote  
     

  57. #56  
    Forum Radioactive Isotope Paleoichneum's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    Washington State, USA
    Posts
    4,565
    Quote Originally Posted by chero View Post
    is it?
    I just respond to quotes.
    Do you feel the answer provided did NOT answer your initial question? if so, Why specifically?
    If more of us valued food and cheer and song above hoarded gold, it would be a merrier world. -Thorin Oakenshield

    The needs of the many outweigh the need of the few - Spock of Vulcan & Sentinel Prime of Cybertron ---proof that "the needs" are in the eye of the beholder.
    Reply With Quote  
     

Similar Threads

  1. Replies: 6
    Last Post: May 15th, 2012, 09:27 PM
  2. Response equation
    By NOF in forum Chemistry
    Replies: 2
    Last Post: January 23rd, 2011, 09:40 AM
  3. Ufos on consideration!
    By PetriFB in forum Pseudoscience
    Replies: 10
    Last Post: July 10th, 2006, 10:37 PM
  4. Psychological Response
    By CyndiLoo in forum Behavior and Psychology
    Replies: 46
    Last Post: October 20th, 2005, 10:19 AM
  5. Asimov and religion - an article and response.
    By Silas in forum Science-Fiction and Non-Fiction
    Replies: 1
    Last Post: September 27th, 2005, 01:57 AM
Bookmarks
Bookmarks
Posting Permissions
  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •