Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
That would set the medical community back by a few centuries.
Notice the qualifiers I used there? That means I'm not being declarative, but provisional and you can correct it rather than being defensive and making your own accusations without understanding how language is not cut and dry
Do they even understand the nuance of informed and enthusiastic consent and how you can have the latter without the former?
The rules don't require you to not be offended or challenged on what you insinuate in terms of this idea that we seemingly need to return to "tradition", whatever that is (because you're not being that clear on that so that you can pivot if needed)
From the conversation we had, he seems to think it's impossible to stop once sex has begun and suddenly consent is withdrawn and it's not actually rape because, in his own words, it would make many people into a rapist if that's how it was because he believes you can't just stop.
I'd forgotten about that great film. And a very original one too.
No it isn't. We are all humans, and our experience of abuse is very similar. Similar enough for us to easily determine when it's happening and when it's not,
That's because their experience is not logically relevant. I pointed out that it takes both experience and reason. And there is no reason for them to assume that books containing homosexual content led to any negative experience they have had regarding homosexuality. In fact, it would be logical to assume that the books would help to inform more people about it, and thus decrease any negative impact related to it.
I detest show tunes, of any kind. From opera to the latest flamboyant idiocy on the stages of Broadway. They're bad enough in the context of the theatrical performance, but to listen to them apart from that is grotesquely offensive to my ears and mind. Yet it would not even occur to me to deny other people the ability to listen to that crap just because I find it so horrible. And I really don't understand why you think you or anyone should have that right, or even that ability. It's as if you think you own the world, and therefor are in charge of whatever happens in it. And to hell with anything anyone else happens to think or feel about it. And I don't understand such an extraordinarily selfish mentality. Can you explain it to me?
The only oppression in this instance is the suppression of a genre of literature. And I see no logical reason for it, at all.
Morality is irrelevant to the making and enforcing of laws. Social functionality is and should be the determining factor.
I knew there was more to the story. With media it always is.
None of that has anything to do with what I said.
For your information Sigmund Freud is the founding father of conversion therapy, he was the first to come up with solutions that show positive results of 25%,
Which means 65% of the participants saw "improvements in their psychological, interpersonal, and spiritual well-being"
Reliable but have you actually try to use it?
Which confirms my previous point that "it seems like you neither feel nor respect their experience"
Reason? doesn't reason tell you that they don't just assume negative experience?
That would be logical fallacy since you need to account for a lot factors, ex. you would satisfy gays but harm children and cause negative experience in some people, is that reasonable really?
Not my job for sure, we're just debating on what would be the most appropriate decision for this problem
No I don't, I already told you that morality isn't specifically a church thing, morality is also called ethics, when I say morality I'm referring to ethics rather than church dogma.
I don't think majority is automatically righteousness, resolution to problem is in making a prudent choice for which experience and reason of the public is not appropriate solution.
I'm asking why any decision needs to be made at all. Why did these people in this town think they were in charge of what books other people in their town should be reading? Why didn't they just assume that those other people are capable of deciding what books they should read for themselves? And as for children, it's their parents job to make those decisions for them. So again, why did these other folks think it was theirs? And why do you?
What does anyone's chosen ethics have to do with making societal laws that protect us form each other's behavior? We are all free to determine our own ethics and no one can stop us from doing it, anyway. Nor can any law. But for society to function, and thrive, we need to protect each other from each others harmful actions. But reading a book is not a harmful action toward anyone. So I see no logical reason for us to concern ourselves with with people reading them. In fact, it's denying people access to books that is the harmful act in this instance, as it's meant to provoke and enforce ignorance and prejudice.
First, you need to explain why this "choice" is even required. Because what I'm seeing is that no one needs to make the choice but the readers, themselves. As no harmful behavior toward anyone is involved in the reading of these books. And in fact, the harm would be done by denying people access to those books.
The issue is not about denying reading their books or whether they are capable of deciding but rather removing books that the other group sees provocative and disturbing, they don't want to see these books and neither they want their kids to be tempted by reading these books.
As if parents are watching on their children 24/7
ethics is universal, there are no flavors of ethics but it is developing and improving with time just like any other branch in philosophy.
Ethics - Wikipedia
No, obviously not, as you can see it's contradictory to what ethics is.
It's harmful to young population because it may influence their personality development, and for this reason, it's not ethical to give gay population higher priority than young population.
There are better means to educate general population I'm sure and to protect gay population from discrimination.
What does this have to do with anyone else. If they don't want to read those books, then they don't have to. "Don't want to see them"??? What the heck is THAT about? They don't want them to EXIST? Who are they to decide what should exist or not exist, in a library or anywhere else? That's INSANE!
No book ever harmed a child that didn't read it. All the parents have to do is mind what books their child is reading. If they can't even bother to do that then what business do they have minding what books anyone else is reading? These excuses are getting more and more absurd.
Well, that's patently false. Are your ethics and Adolph Hitler's "universal"? Seems there is an enormous variety of "flavors" when it comes to ethics. In fact it's a whole sub-category of philosophy.
Laws are not about what's "right and wrong". They are about maintaining social function. Somehow you can't seem to grasp this idea.
Literally anything "may influence their personality development". That's why it's their parents responsibility to guide them through their developmental years. None of this has anything to do with banning books from a library. Because it's not a library's purpose or responsibility to raise your children. It's precisely NOT a library's function the keep information AWAY from your child. It's literally their job to provide your child access to information. And it's YOUR job to determine what information they have access to at what age. Not the library's.
The general population is responsible for educating itself. Why do you keep assuming people are idiots that need someone else to "teach them" (by force) what to think and what they should learn about?
Putting books of the shelves is literally what libraries exist to do. The "controversy" is entirely make-believe, by people who think other people are too stupid to decide for themselves what they should or shouldn't read. And who apparently think it's the whole world's job to raise their kids for them in the manner they see fit.