(August 6, 2015 at 12:41 pm)robvalue Wrote:

(August 6, 2015 at 12:38 pm)Ace Wrote: It is some post back but it had to so with gay's not hurting anyone. I was asking that when gays come out to their family's do you not think that some are hurt by the news or everyone is happy or no one cares.
that is what it was pertaining to.

So you're very concerned about bigots' feelings getting hurt because their offspring is gay through no fault of their own, and you want to blame the gay for it? What choice did he have, pretend not to be gay?

Parents could be upset about any aspect of their child. What is so special about being gay that causes you such concern?

This is some desperate reasoning.

No that is not what I said at all . . .

Some one asked how does gay hurt people? Anima gave example of family''s reaction to a gay relative. Then another said no, gays do not hurt and that is when I asked you the question. To which you acknowledged that one feelings does get hurt by a gay person. The example, them coming out to their family.

Hence, to say that gay's do not hurt is not correct, because they can and they do
That's all.

(August 6, 2015 at 12:41 pm)robvalue Wrote: So you're very concerned about bigots' feelings getting hurt because their offspring is gay through no fault of their own, and you want to blame the gay for it? What choice did he have, pretend not to be gay?

Yeah because it is not like anyone in the history of the world has ever pretended to be something they are not in order to avoid hurting someone else. Your not married are you?

(August 6, 2015 at 12:41 pm)robvalue Wrote: Parents could be upset about any aspect of their child. What is so special about being gay that causes you such concern?

Ace never said they were not upset about other aspects of the child. And I am sure Ace would not argue any of the other undesirable aspects of their child are good and not harmful.

(August 6, 2015 at 1:06 pm)Ace Wrote:

(August 6, 2015 at 12:41 pm)robvalue Wrote: So you're very concerned about bigots' feelings getting hurt because their offspring is gay through no fault of their own, and you want to blame the gay for it? What choice did he have, pretend not to be gay?

Parents could be upset about any aspect of their child. What is so special about being gay that causes you such concern?

This is some desperate reasoning.

No that is not what I said at all . . .

Some one asked how does gay hurt people? Anima gave example of family''s reaction to a gay relative. Then another said no, gays do not hurt and that is when I asked you the question. To which you acknowledged that one feelings does get hurt by a gay person. The example, them coming out to their family.

Hence, to say that gay's do not hurt is not correct, because they can and they do
That's all.

OK...

I would say the gay has not hurt anyone. The bigot has hurt themself through their own ridiculous hatred. All the gay has done is be honest about themselves.

There is certainly no intention to hurt, unlike murder and such to which homosexuality is somehow being compared by people who must be poes.

What's your relation to Anima by the way? You seem rather more than random internet buds.

Ace, I'm not even gonna try to quote that mess, but I'll try to address at least some of it.

First off, christians kill other christians all the time. That is a non-argument.

As for church closings, Hitler was trying to create a unified German church. He wasn't trying to get rid of religion, he was trying to get rid of everything except the state religion, and the state religion was a Christian German Church. Again, 10 seconds spent with google would have taught you this. Nazi Germany was Christian, and they were closing churches to set up their own unified church. Look it up.

Again, Stalin was power-mad, and religion (aside from its other failings) can inspire people to threaten and sometimes overthrow earthly authority. Stalin's efforts against religion were likely in favor of empowering the state, not setting up atheism as the official state position. Stalin was destroying power threats, not opposing ideologies. Same thing with Mao. Yes, China is still imperialistic and puts a lot of pressure and heavy scrutiny on religion, but technically the Chinese have more religious freedom today than they did under older forms of Chinese Communism.

Unless you can provide figures that definitively show that violence is more common amongst non-religious people, you have nothing. Isolated examples from history are nothing more than anecdotes, and even the ones you've presented are either wrong or debatable as to whether it was atheism or some other factor that accounts for the actual violence.

I haven't killed hardly anyone today.

(August 6, 2015 at 1:17 pm)robvalue Wrote: I haven't killed hardly anyone today.

Then what the hell are you doing on the internet?  Get out in the world and accomplish something!

What am I doing? Making sexy memes is what I'm doing

(August 6, 2015 at 11:08 am)Anima Wrote:

(August 6, 2015 at 10:28 am)Jenny A Wrote: You're making a rather odd comparison here, the behavior we punish murders, pedophiles, necrophiliacs (I'm thinking about the mourners here), abusers, psychos, and sociopaths for injures other people and it's that behavior that we punish.  The behavior of homosexuals does not (except perhaps your sense of propriety and taboo).

In this regard you would be correct under they are not hurting anyone.  But as I have argued throughout this thread the determination of harm is to be objective and not subjective. In this regard I presented the argument #1 in accordance with biology to show the orientation leads to action with a particular result that is harmful and a universal result which is also harmful.  This is to say they result in an objective harm biologically speaking.

This thread is endless. I'm not combing 70 pages to figure out what biological harm. Tell me. Harm to the voluntary participants doesn't count. Neither does hurt feelings, that icky feeling some people get imagining gay sex, or lack of fertility (there is no shortage of people on the planet).

Quote:Now if one wishes to argue a subjective determination (which I would not advise) we have also provided this argument in terms of physical and metaphysical harm.  Neither of these arguments have been refuted and are logically sound. The best response as of yet is the harm should be tolerated, without really giving a reason why.

What harm?

Quote:Furthermore the argument to not hurting anyone is predicated on an argument to ignorance.  I am sure we are all aware of anecdotal evidence of their harm to others.  Even when they "come out" to their parents.  Do we think those are tears of joy or anger of happiness?  No.  They are physical manifestation of a metaphysical harm.  This is where special pleading comes in by which it is argued to deny them the right to express is a metaphysical harm that should be avoided while the metaphysical harm of their expression is just ignored or written off as bigots suffering because of their bigotry (an ad hominem attack).  So we know their orientation results in a subjective harm and thus we are compelled to move to the objective determination in order to avoid special pleading.

We do not prohibit things because it upsets mommy and daddy. If we did, not changing religions, keeping the family business alive, going to med school because daddy really wants you to and mommy scrubbed floors so you could, would be moral imperatives. They aren't.

What would you do with bisexuals, Anima?

(August 6, 2015 at 1:09 pm)Redbeard The Pink Wrote: Ace, I'm not even gonna try to quote that mess, but I'll try to address at least some of it.

You are right, it is a lot of  history to go thought and since I am not writing a paper or giving a presentation, I to do not have the energy right now to argue. I will respond to your post, but I am not looking to argue history because their is a lot to write about.

(August 6, 2015 at 1:09 pm)Redbeard The Pink Wrote: First off, christians kill other christians all the time. That is a non-argument.

I did not say Christians killing other Christians, you said that form some conclusion. So it is your statement that is non-argument

(August 6, 2015 at 1:09 pm)Redbeard The Pink Wrote: As for church closings, Hitler was trying to create a unified German church. He wasn't trying to get rid of religion, he was trying to get rid of everything except the state religion, and the state religion was a Christian German Church. Again, 10 seconds spent with google would have taught you this. Nazi Germany was Christian, and they were closing churches to set up their own unified church. Look it up.

Agree and you will find this in wiki.

"Nazism wanted to transform the subjective consciousness of the German people—their attitudes, values and mentalities—into a single-minded, obedient "national community". The Nazis believed they would therefore have to replace class, religious and regional allegiances.

Under the Gleichschaltung process, Hitler attempted to create a unified Protestant Reich Church from Germany's 28 existing Protestant churches. The plan failed, and was resisted by the Confessing Church. Persecution of the Catholic Church in Germany followed the Nazi takeover. Hitler moved quickly to eliminate political catholicism

Hitler by no means was still catholic after he left his home. He actually had a dislike for his child hood faith.
Historians have suspected this was an attempt to start a cult worshipping Hitler as the new Messiah. However, in a diary entry of 28 December 1939, Joseph Goebbels wrote that "the Fuhrer passionately rejects any thought of founding a religion. He has no intention of becoming a priest. His sole exclusive role is that of a politician." In Hitler's political relations dealing with religion he readily adopted a strategy "that suited his immediate political purposes

Christianity remained the dominant religion in Germany through the Nazi period, and its influence over Germans displeased the Nazi hierarchy. Evans wrote that Hitler believed that in the long run National Socialism and religion would not be able to co-exist, and stressed repeatedly that Nazism was a secular ideology, founded on modern science: "Science, he declared, would easily destroy the last remaining vestiges of superstition". Germany could not tolerate the intervention of foreign influences such as the Pope and "Priests, he said, were 'black bugs', 'abortions in black cassocks'"

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religion_in_Nazi_Germany

(August 6, 2015 at 1:09 pm)Redbeard The Pink Wrote: Again, Stalin was power-mad, and religion (aside from its other failings) can inspire people to threaten and sometimes overthrow earthly authority. Stalin's efforts against religion were likely in favor of empowering the state, not setting up atheism as the official state position. Stalin was destroying power threats, not opposing ideologies.

Soviet authorities suppressed and persecuted various forms of Christianity to different extents depending on the particular era. Soviet policy, based on the ideology of Marxism-Leninism, made atheism the official doctrine of the Soviet Union. Marxism-Leninism has consistently advocated the control, suppression, and the elimination of religious beliefs.

The Soviet regime had an ostensible commitment to the complete annihilation of religious institutions and ideas. Militant atheism was central to the ideology of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union and a high priority of all Soviet leaders. Convinced atheists were considered to be more virtuous individuals than those of religious belief.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Persecutio...viet_Union

Stalin had a complex relationship with religion. He officially adopted the Russian Communist Party’s stance on religion, claiming atheism and continuing the tradition of teaching atheism in schools and propagating the idea that religion was only damaging to a perfect communist society. Stalin even took it further than his predecessor, Lenin, and initiated a nationwide campaign to destroy churches and religious property and even persecute and kill church officials.3 It is said that under Stalin, the Russian Orthodox Church went from 50,000 to 500 open and operating churches

There were time were he would be relaxed with his policy but, still during
his life time, under his rule the religious were always being arrested and sent away to camps in Siberia.

But for all accounts and purposes, Stalin was a hardcore atheist until the day he died

http://hollowverse.com/joseph-stalin/

(August 6, 2015 at 1:09 pm)Redbeard The Pink Wrote: Same thing with Mao. Yes, China is still imperialistic and puts a lot of pressure and heavy scrutiny on religion, but technically the Chinese have more religious freedom today than they did under older forms of Chinese Communism.[/color]

Well tell that shit to Titbit and the Dalai lama

(August 6, 2015 at 1:09 pm)Redbeard The Pink Wrote: Unless you can provide figures that definitively show that violence is more common amongst non-religious people, you have nothing.

Haha so we are just making flat out  statements with no backing?hAHAHA if that is your position your are right we got nothing to talk about.

You do know that number's in history are more estimate's and not always 100% official.

HAHAHAH And what is your prof of your statement of religious killing more the atheist? And as you say, " [i]Isolated examples from history are nothing more than anecdotes, and even the ones you've presented are either wrong or debatable as to whether it was atheism or some other factor that accounts for the actual violence"

So please numbers only.