Spin-off from "I am a Christian/Catholic..." thread

[Magic Man]

Let's discuss this further, if you're really interested.

I'll talk to you, I really will. We have gone way off course of the OP though.

But if you go on with your rhetoric of bieng intolerant and we can't think etc. etc.....then don't bother pursing answers from me.

Yes. Now, would you like to answer my question?



Because if you accept something when it doesn't make sense, it means you're accepting it without really questioning it, or else you wouldn't accept it when it doesn't make sense.

Makes sense to a rational mind.

Also open to anyone else who wants to continue their conversation from that thread here.

 

[Quiddity]

Did you read my conditions?

What is the topic at hand?

 

[Magic Man]

Did you read my conditions?

What conditions?

What is the topic at hand?

Anything that was being discussed in that thread. Homosexuality, gay marriage, intolerance, thinking for oneself, etc.

 

[Quiddity]

What conditions?



Anything that was being discussed in that thread. Homosexuality, gay marriage, intolerance, thinking for oneself, etc.

You quoted them!!! Look at your OP.

 

[Magic Man]

You quoted them!!! Look at your OP.

You're right. That's much easier and more conducive to conversation than simply saying "the ones in the OP". I only really see one condition there, and I think you mentioned others in the other thread. That's why I asked.

So, what you're saying is you want to call something "horse manure" and then not discuss it at all. In other words, you want to have your say, and not listen to anyone else's.

 

[Quiddity]

You're right. That's much easier and more conducive to conversation than simply saying "the ones in the OP". I only really see one condition there, and I think you mentioned others in the other thread. That's why I asked.

So, what you're saying is you want to call something "horse manure" and then not discuss it at all. In other words, you want to have your say, and not listen to anyone else's.

........

I'm guessing that was a "no" for the conditions?

 

[Magic Man]

........

I'm guessing that was a "no" for the conditions?

I'm guessing that's a "yes" for "I just want to stamp my foot indignantly, and call other people's comments 'horse manure', but not actually discuss anything"?

 

[Quiddity]

I'm guessing that's a "yes" for "I just want to stamp my foot indignantly, and call other people's comments 'horse manure', but not actually discuss anything"?

That's what I thought.

Take care.

 

[Magic Man]

That's what I thought.

Take care.

You, too. Good luck with conversations in the future. I'm sorry you can't handle criticism. A piece of advice, it helps to talk about something after you start something, not just do a hit-and-run.

 

[Mister Emu]

Baddum tsh!

You kind of asked for that though

Not really. I can say the sentence "A glub feeling this but imply too, pert, :love" doesn't make sense without really thinking about it.

What do you mean "A glub feeling this but imply too, pert, :love" doesn't make sense!?

I don't think that is a fair comparison though, because it isn't a matter of the sentence being coherent, but one of the thought behind them. To ponder whether the teaching, taught in a coherent manner, is rational, or makes sense, one does have to think about it. Or the designation of making sense, or not, is shallow at best.

OK, here's what I mean. There is no reason to think there's anything wrong with homosexuality other than believing what someone else told you or just going by your feeling of disgust towards it. Either way, you're not really thinking about it.

The decision of whether to trust what someone says, what the Bible says, what you believe God is telling you, is not always without thought. Nor does it mean you didn't think about the issue, don't currently think about the issue, or won't think about the issue in the future.

One might come to a question that they work though, and have an answer that makes sense to them... a teacher tells them it is wrong, and gives the correct answer, which, at the time, does not make sense. The teacher leaves for a time, and the student, knowing his own state of understanding is flawed, thinks about the problem and how and why it is correct instead of the sensible one he came up with. Later the teacher and he go through the question and then it is understood why that is the indeed the correct answer and it makes perfect sense now.

Knowing that your own understanding is flawed and accepting the answer from another, does not mean you don't think about the question.

 

[Magic Man]

The decision of whether to trust what someone says, what the Bible says, what you believe God is telling you, is not always without thought. Nor does it mean you didn't think about the issue, don't currently think about the issue, or won't think about the issue in the future.

It means you didn't think about it enough to realize that it's drivel. My point is that all you have to do is look at an issue like gay marriage/homosexuality thoughtfully, and you'll find that there's nothing wrong with it.

It's like someone saying "the square root of 9,690 is 49. When you think about it, it doesn't make sense, but if you don't think about it and you're not good at math, you might just take someone's word for it.

Knowing that your own understanding is flawed and accepting the answer from another, does not mean you don't think about the question.

Well, that would involve knowing your own understanding is flawed in the first place. I don't think people even take that step. They're taught something from a young age, and they stick with it.

I'll give you this, they might think a little about it, but the main point is they don't think about it in depth.

 

[Mister Emu]

My point is that all you have to do is look at an issue like gay marriage/homosexuality thoughtfully, and you'll find that there's nothing wrong with it.

Unless you don't, then it is drivel... and you haven't thought at all...

I've had the urge to feel that before in other regards, but I recognize that just because I feel something is blatantly obvious if one just looks/thinks, doesn't mean that other don't look/think when they come to different conclusions...

It's like someone saying "the square root of 9,690 is 49. When you think about it, it doesn't make sense, but if you don't think about it and you're not good at math, you might just take someone's word for it.

Even if the person said 98.4378 if you didn't know what square roots were/were terrible at math, that or 49 would make the same amount of sense... You could think on it all you want, put a whole lot of effort into it, but without the requisite knowledge you wouldn't come up with the right answer...

I don't think people even take that step.

Some do

I'll give you this, they might think a little about it, but the main point is they don't think about it in depth.

I'm not saying everyone does... but I believe plenty do though...

 

[Magic Man]

Unless you don't, then it is drivel... and you haven't thought at all...

Huh? I don't follow.

I've had the urge to feel that before in other regards, but I recognize that just because I feel something is blatantly obvious if one just looks/thinks, doesn't mean that other don't look/think when they come to different conclusions...

Well, for these purposes I'm assuming the people we're talking about are moderately intelligent. If you can follow simple logic, you can see that homosexuality is perfectly acceptable.

Even if the person said 98.4378 if you didn't know what square roots were/were terrible at math, that or 49 would make the same amount of sense... You could think on it all you want, put a whole lot of effort into it, but without the requisite knowledge you wouldn't come up with the right answer...

This goes back to my assumption that the people in question are smart enough to understand.

Some do

I actually have to doubt that.

I'm not saying everyone does... but I believe plenty do though...

Again, I have to doubt that. It's a very simple concept, so it doesn't take much thought to understand. I'm not even saying people can't be grossed out by homosexuality or anything, just that the view that it's somehow wrong is easily debunked.

 

[Mister Emu]

Huh? I don't follow.

What you said before that statement "It means you haven't thought about it enough to realize it is drivel"... One can either agree with you, or they just haven't thought about it, their opinion is drivel... My apologies, if misunderstood, but that is how it came across...

Well, for these purposes I'm assuming the people we're talking about are moderately intelligent. If you can follow simple logic, you can see that homosexuality is perfectly acceptable.

So am I, the reality is that perfectly intelligent people can think about something and come to two different conclusions, both "obvious" and "simple"... one may be right, the other wrong, both wrong, or both, in their ways, right... however to assume that one or the other never thought about the issue merely because of the conclusion they arrived at is baseless...

This goes back to my assumption that the people in question are smart enough to understand.

Understand what though?

I actually have to doubt that.

*waves*

Again, I have to doubt that. It's a very simple concept, so it doesn't take much thought to understand. I'm not even saying people can't be grossed out by homosexuality or anything, just that the view that it's somehow wrong is easily debunked.

As I said, I've thought the same thing about other issues, and I was surprised by the result... also, owing to the nature of morality, unless you both agree on a basis of morality, "debunking" right or wrong is nigh impossible...

 

[Magic Man]

What you said before that statement "It means you haven't thought about it enough to realize it is drivel"... One can either agree with you, or they just haven't thought about it, their opinion is drivel... My apologies, if misunderstood, but that is how it came across...

This isn't about agreement/disagreement, though. This isn't talking about which football team is better or which soda is better. This is something that is either right or wrong. It's not about disagreeing with me. It's about disagreeing with logic and reason.

For instance, you're welcome to believe that the Steelers are the best team ever, but you simple can't make the claim that their offense is the best in the league. That's not something to agree or disagree with. You can look at the numbers.

So am I, the reality is that perfectly intelligent people can think about something and come to two different conclusions, both "obvious" and "simple"... one may be right, the other wrong, both wrong, or both, in their ways, right... however to assume that one or the other never thought about the issue merely because of the conclusion they arrived at is baseless...

No, it's not. If an intelligent person uses logic and reason on a certain problem, they'll come to the same conclusion as any other intelligent person who did the same.

Understand what though?

Logic and reason.

*waves*

So, you think homosexuality is wrong and/or that same-sex marriage shouldn't be legal?

As I said, I've thought the same thing about other issues, and I was surprised by the result... also, owing to the nature of morality, unless you both agree on a basis of morality, "debunking" right or wrong is nigh impossible...

No, debunking whether or not something's right is easy. It goes back to the sports example. You're welcome to dislike baseball or be grossed out by it or bored by it or whatever, but there's nothing wrong with it. It's not morally wrong. The same goes for homosexuality. You may be grossed out by it or dislike it intensely, but there's nothing wrong with it.

If you think there is, you're just going by what others have told you, thereby not thinking for yourself.

I'm not sure what other issues you're talking about, but some other issues are much grayer than this. Abortion, for example, has legitimate arguments on both sides. It's not cut and dry like homosexuality. There are other issues that are similar. They are issues where two intelligent people can apply logic and reason and come up with different answers that are both valid. Homosexuality is not.

 

[Mister Emu]

This isn't about agreement/disagreement, though. This isn't talking about which football team is better or which soda is better. This is something that is either right or wrong. It's not about disagreeing with me. It's about disagreeing with logic and reason.

Except there is no logic of morality that everybody agrees to...

You can look at the numbers

But there are no numbers of "right" and "wrong" to look at...

No, it's not. If an intelligent person uses logic and reason on a certain problem, they'll come to the same conclusion as any other intelligent person who did the same.

Not always...

Logic and reason.

What logic explains for everyone what is right and what is wrong?

So, you think homosexuality is wrong and/or that same-sex marriage shouldn't be legal?

Yes to the first, unsure on the second...

It goes back to the sports example. You're welcome to dislike baseball or be grossed out by it or bored by it or whatever, but there's nothing wrong with it. It's not morally wrong. The same goes for homosexuality. You may be grossed out by it or dislike it intensely, but there's nothing wrong with it.

Unless there is according to one's system of morality...

If you think there is, you're just going by what others have told you, thereby not thinking for yourself.

I've already explained how one can do both...

It's not cut and dry like homosexuality.

Those other issues(I don't want to turn this into a debate on them, so I won't name them ) seem fairly cut and dry to me, but I still understand that because they seem so to me, that does not mean those who disagree don't think.

 

[Magic Man]

Except there is no logic of morality that everybody agrees to...

Yeah, that's the problem.

But there are no numbers of "right" and "wrong" to look at...

Yes, there are.

Not always...

Yes, always.

What logic explains for everyone what is right and what is wrong?

The logic that says that it doesn't hurt anyone.

Yes to the first, unsure on the second...

Wow, I didn't realize that. Well, sorry to say you fit the mold we're talking about then, an intelligent person who hasn't thought enough about it.

Unless there is according to one's system of morality...

See, we really need to stop this "everyone's morality is OK" stuff. It reminds me of DarkSun's thread saying that belief and disbelief are equally justified because neither one has evidence. Allowing people to say that little things that don't hurt others are immoral only enables bigotry. The difference between like/dislike and moral/immoral should be made more clear. The view that homosexuality is wrong is no more justified or valid than the view that being black is.

I've already explained how one can do both...

No, you attempted to, but you weren't successful.

Those other issues(I don't want to turn this into a debate on them, so I won't name them ) seem fairly cut and dry to me, but I still understand that because they seem so to me, that does not mean those who disagree don't think.

Well, there's a problem if you see them as cut and dry. Whatever you believe concerning them, it's impossible to justifiably say they're cut and dry.

 

[Mister Emu]

Yeah, that's the problem.

Ineed

Yes, there are.

No, there are not. At least not in my philosophy. Murdering an innocent person is wrong no matter if it is for the money in his pocket, or saving 1000 other people's lives.

Yes, always.

No. There are shows based on the two teams of intelligent people(rocket scientists for example in Master Blasters) that are given the same challenge, and the different paths they take to solve that problem.

Well, sorry to say you fit the mold we're talking about then, an intelligent person who hasn't thought enough about it.

Except I have thought about it, for years, in depth... I reject, and am evidence against, your theory. One that seems exceptionally arrogant at that. Either you agree with me, or you haven't thought about it enough.

See, we really need to stop this "everyone's morality is OK" stuff.

Indeed we do. I find many morality systems reprehensible, I understand that many feel mine is so, it is ok for you to do so. But that you do, reflects not at all on how much I've thought on a matter.

Allowing people to say that little things that don't hurt others are immoral only enables bigotry.

Should we be prevented, perhaps forcefully, from saying it?

No, you attempted to, but you weren't successful.

My apologies, I did not think you disputed the idea of accepting the word of an authority, when you acknowledge your lack of understanding, while moving towards further understanding under that authority's tutelage being both taking another's word and thinking at the same time.

In other words, I took a high level calculus problem to a calculus professor, and I accepted the answer while he taught me up from a base of calculus(or even a base in math if I didn't even have that) up to where I could understand the problem I had first brought. Would there be an evident lack of thought, on my part, into the initial problem based solely on my acceptance of the professor's answer?

Well, there's a problem if you see them as cut and dry.

Or, as I have, acknowledge that disagreement on an issue one sees as cut and dry has no reflection on how much thought the one who disagrees has put into the question. That I see it one way does not mean that another must, or that they haven't thought about it if they do.

 

[Magic Man]

No. There are shows based on the two teams of intelligent people(rocket scientists for example in Master Blasters) that are given the same challenge, and the different paths they take to solve that problem.

That's a little different, though. What we're talking about is more like an algebra problem. Two intelligent people figuring out the problem are going to get the same answer. As I said, there are other things and issues where two intelligent people will get different answers even when applying logic and reason. This isn't one of them.

Except I have thought about it, for years, in depth... I reject, and am evidence against, your theory. One that seems exceptionally arrogant at that. Either you agree with me, or you haven't thought about it enough.

Well, it's very simple. There's nothing wrong with homosexuality or same-sex marriage. The only thing you have to go on is an old book, and it's only one interpretation that even says it's wrong. So, you're just letting someone else tell you what's right and wrong, which doesn't really involve thinking for yourself.

Also, the only place that book really says homosexuality is wrong is the same place it says not to eat shellfish and not to wear clothes blended of two different fabrics. I'm assuming you don't think those things are wrong or bad. So, I wonder what possible justification you could have for discarding those but keeping the one about homosexuality.

It's not arrogant, it's just looking at the situation objectively and not being afraid to call it like it is.

Indeed we do. I find many morality systems reprehensible, I understand that many feel mine is so, it is ok for you to do so. But that you do, reflects not at all on how much I've thought on a matter.

No, it doesn't. The fact that an intelligent person using logic and reason wouldn't come to the conclusion you have is what reflects on how much you've thought about the matter.

Should we be prevented, perhaps forcefully, from saying it?

No, you should be allowed to say it (unless you're actually inciting violence or something, of course). What I'm saying is we need a mindset in the country like the one towards racism. People are allowed to voice racist sentiments, but the majority of the country will see them for the bigots they are. Plus, racial minorities are protected in many ways by the government, which helps a little bit in laughing off racists. All I want is the same general sentiment and attitude towards silly "immoralities" like homosexuality.

My apologies, I did not think you disputed the idea of accepting the word of an authority, when you acknowledge your lack of understanding, while moving towards further understanding under that authority's tutelage being both taking another's word and thinking at the same time.

The whole idea of that tutelage is to learn it for yourself, though. I only accept a math teacher's word on something while they teach it to me because eventually I can see it for myself.

In other words, I took a high level calculus problem to a calculus professor, and I accepted the answer while he taught me up from a base of calculus(or even a base in math if I didn't even have that) up to where I could understand the problem I had first brought. Would there be an evident lack of thought, on my part, into the initial problem based solely on my acceptance of the professor's answer?

Yes, if you're just accepting his answer without understanding why it's the answer. As I just said, the whole point of his teaching you is for you to understand the problem for yourself, so that when given a similar problem, you can figure it out for yourself.

Or, as I have, acknowledge that disagreement on an issue one sees as cut and dry has no reflection on how much thought the one who disagrees has put into the question. That I see it one way does not mean that another must, or that they haven't thought about it if they do.

In some cases it does. Homosexuality/same-sex marriage is one of those cases.

Look, there are two options for reasons for believing homosexuality is wrong.

1) Because a book says so.
2) Because you don't like it/are disgusted by it.

Neither one is a justified reason for believing it. It doesn't take any thought to just go by what a book says, and believing something's wrong because you're disgusted by it shows a lack of thought about it, too.

 

[TheKnight]

It means you didn't think about it enough to realize that it's drivel. My point is that all you have to do is look at an issue like gay marriage/homosexuality thoughtfully, and you'll find that there's nothing wrong with it.

What? Basically you're saying, "If you don't agree with me, then you didn't think about the matter enough." Imagine if we all discussed things that way. "Trust me buddy, you would agree with me if you thought about it. You don't agree with me so you probably haven't thought about it."

Absolutely wonderful Mball. And to think I had respect for you.