(March 7, 2011 at 10:51 pm)BlackUnicorn Wrote: Keep hating homosexuals, ....

Again with this? No one is "hating" anyone.

Quote:... it is clear tolerance does not exist here when it comes to homosexuality.

One vocal dissenting opinon equals tolerance does not exist here?

Quote:I would advise the admins to ban talk on such topics as gay marriage in the future, ....

Bring in the thought police, that'll solve everything! Just tell people what they can talk about and what is verboten. Yes that will promote understanding and goodwill. [/sarcasm]

(March 8, 2011 at 3:36 am)Aerzia Saerules Arktuos Wrote: It matters because of a key word: efficiency. It is morbidly inefficient to analyze every tree in the forest when deciding what will make good firewood and not. Where I live there is a predominance of three species, and while every tree that comes in is different, there is a set of standard things that I can judge of each species and be right about most of the time. The alders do not make good firewood, and are not even worth the time of cutting down. The spruce will catch faster and burn faster, and so is a poor choice to stick in over the night. The birch will catch slower but will burn longer and is therefore a poor firestarter.

This is a simple view? Yes. But the view is efficient and it gets the job done well. And variants of this view apply to people.

Sorry, no. The tree analogy doesn't apply. In terms of firewood, there is no significant difference between individuals of different species. We seem to agree that there are significant differences between individual people within the various groups. As a contractor, if I had disregarded female applicants on the basis of gender I would have missed out on some damn good employees.

Quote:Equal rights should not exist between all of men or all of women, let alone the two together. Treating people equally is to say that all of their differences, wether they be in achievement/talent/usefulness matters not in the eyes of the law. I disagree, if we are lacking something, the law needs to recognize this. The community is lacking teachers at the moment, and you are considering locking a teacher up as if they were anyone else? That is to ignore the problems faced by the state in favor of a blanket statement.

I'm not sure that the inherent equality of all human beings is something that can be explained. Your argument is basically the one that was used to justify the subjugation of people for thousands of years. Slavery is economically advantageous, but it is morally wrong. I'm not sure I understand your example of locking up teachers. If you are suggesting they get a 'get out of jail free' card you wouldn't have a shortage of teachers for long, you would every manner of criminal teaching your kids.

corndog36 Wrote:Sorry, no. The tree analogy doesn't apply. In terms of firewood, there is no significant difference between individuals of different species. We seem to agree that there are significant differences between individual people within the various groups. As a contractor, if I had disregarded female applicants on the basis of gender I would have missed out on some damn good employees.

There is massive difference between birch and spruce. I'd like to see you use a big hunk of birch as firestarter And I am not kidding about alders ≠ good firewood. Not that you could find an alder of decent size anyway

Of the same species, there is variance along lines of rot, dryness, bugginess, knots, etc. However: almost everything in each of these groups possesses all of its defining traits, and those that do not have all of them have most of them.

Significant groups of humans are like different trees: all of them belong to the tree family (humanity), but each major group possesses certain traits shared by the majority of its members. I could note the staggering ratio of decent female workers at the fish site to poor ones, but that would be an anecdote like the one you shared

Corndog36 Wrote:I'm not sure that the inherent equality of all human beings is something that can be explained. Your argument is basically the one that was used to justify the subjugation of people for thousands of years. Slavery is economically advantageous, but it is morally wrong. I'm not sure I understand your example of locking up teachers. If you are suggesting they get a 'get out of jail free' card you wouldn't have a shortage of teachers for long, you would every manner of criminal teaching your kids.

If it cannot be explained, then you are suggesting it is metaphysical... and therefore irrelevant if I do not have faith in it already. People are *not* remotely equal... some are the scum of the earth, others the paragons of our kind, some talented, some worthless, some kind, some assholes. Equality is a poor measure by which to gauge humans.

Slavery is not necessarily morally wrong. We make slaves of dogs, horses, cattle, pigs... what is so different about making slaves of humans? I say squat, and although i dislike slavery (at least where it applies to me being a slave or having slaves): i do not consider it morally wrong.

I suggest intelligent use of resources, especially when those resources are limited. If teachers are a resource that we are short on, then one needs to consider this before locking them up as if they were anyone else. I do not mean to suggest that they will not suffer consequences for whatever they did... but it should at least enter into the thought of the legal system when deciding how to punish said teacher.

And I think that it would be interesting to have a 'criminal' teaching children from an honest perspective regarding their 'crimes'. Has some potential to be much more useful than what bored me out of my mind in high school

(March 9, 2011 at 6:01 am)Aerzia Saerules Arktuos Wrote: There is massive difference between birch and spruce. I'd like to see you use a big hunk of birch as firestarter And I am not kidding about alders ≠ good firewood. Not that you could find an alder of decent size anyway

Of the same species, there is variance along lines of rot, dryness, bugginess, knots, etc. However: almost everything in each of these groups possesses all of its defining traits, and those that do not have all of them have most of them.

So you would use a wet, rotted, bug infested, knotty log for your fire because you prefer that species over any other? I would choose my log based on it's own merit.

Quote:Slavery is not necessarily morally wrong. We make slaves of dogs, horses, cattle, pigs... what is so different about making slaves of humans? I say squat, and although i dislike slavery (at least where it applies to me being a slave or having slaves): i do not consider it morally wrong.

Your concept of morality is flawed.

(March 9, 2011 at 12:32 pm)corndog36 Wrote: Your concept of morality is flawed.

How would you define a flawless concept of morality with which to make a comparison?

(March 2, 2011 at 11:26 am)theVOID Wrote:

(March 2, 2011 at 10:35 am)BlackUnicorn Wrote: For gay marriage, marriage with goats* , marriage with rocks, and polygamy with multiple consenting partners having the same status as heterosexual marriage.

*With SPCA rules over care of animals in place of course (so that rules out sex).

Spot on, the government should have no place deciding the terms of marriage other than officially recognising the union that the consenting adults have chosen.

What if neurological scans reveal that fluffy enjoys it?

There's a fundamental issue of consent here. In that Fluffy is incapable of consenting. A marriage has to be between two consenting parties.

Quote:A marriage has to be between two consenting parties.

Sometimes...............


http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-504083_162-2...04083.html

Quote:HESPERIA, Calif. - Police who spent more than a week searching for 13-year-old Jessie Bender say they found the girl unharmed in a hotel Wednesday, where she said she ran away to avoid being forced into an arranged marriage in Pakistan.

corndog36 Wrote:So you would use a wet, rotted, bug infested, knotty log for your fire because you prefer that species over any other? I would choose my log based on it's own merit.

Depends on how wet. Rotted I'll stick in whenever, and buggy is irrelevant to what wood we actually get (having bugs in the winter is hell, fyi). But wet wood doesn't burn until it dries, and so i'll take dry wood over wet wood almost all of the time. I'll sometimes stick a not perfectly dry piece of birch on top of a few other pieces of wood and hope that it dries out and catches fire at some point Knotty wood burns fine, but is a major hassle to split.

Wetness really is the only attribute on which I may choose to use any dry piece of wood before it. When it comes to humans, I will look at those stuck in wheelchairs as so much less useful for a strenuous physical job than really anything *functional*.

Quote:Your concept of morality is flawed.

My morality changes according to resources available. Population crises in the form of population explosion? It is immoral to have an unsustainable number of babies (2 or more) until the population settles to the point that it can be sustained (easily).

If there is a population crisis in the form of us being near extinction: it is immoral to not have children if you can.

If my morality is flawed, then I am glad of it.

(March 9, 2011 at 1:52 pm)lilphil1989 Wrote:

(March 9, 2011 at 12:32 pm)corndog36 Wrote: Your concept of morality is flawed.

How would you define a flawless concept of morality with which to make a comparison?

My own, of course.

A serious response is a bit more problematic. I would have to say that a flawless concept of morality would be based on fundamental principles of right and wrong. It could be applied to any set of circumstance and would yield the morally correct answer in all cases.

(March 9, 2011 at 5:54 pm)corndog36 Wrote:

(March 9, 2011 at 1:52 pm)lilphil1989 Wrote:

(March 9, 2011 at 12:32 pm)corndog36 Wrote: Your concept of morality is flawed.

How would you define a flawless concept of morality with which to make a comparison?

My own, of course.

A serious response is a bit more problematic. I would have to say that a flawless concept of morality would be based on fundamental principles of right and wrong. It could be applied to any set of circumstance and would yield the morally correct answer in all cases.

As it happens, morality is subjective, and therefore cannot be flawed by being subjective.