pop morality

[Drich]

Does someone want to explain what the word hypothetical means to this guy??

You keep forgetting I'm a scientist by education and former career-training. I know exactly what hypothetical means. The problem is that you weren't really offering a hypothetical, but a syllogism: "if allowing homosexuals to do what they want is justified by science, and therefore socially acceptable, then how can we stop the pedophiles from being next by using the same argument?"

The problem is that it doesn't work that way. Science has had very little to contribute to the social debate over whether or not to allow consenting adults to have sex with each other if they wish to do so. That's why I cited the Lawrence case, to show you exactly what the rationale actually is. As I also said, and you also ignored, it doesn't matter if there's a gene for a certain propensity or desire, as far as the social/moral questions you're asking go.

What an idiot douche
You keep forgetting I have access to an on line dictionary:
hy·po·thet·i·cal
/ˌhīpəˈTHedək(ə)l/
noun
1. a hypothetical proposition or statement "Finn talked in hypotheticals, tossing what-if scenarios to Rosen"

adjective

1. of, based on, or serving as a hypothesis "that option is merely hypothetical at this juncture"

The abject arrogance and unwillingness you display "to check your self" will always leave me the opportunity to put you into 'check.'

I always worry about going too far though (don't want you to have another melt down) But I think it's worth the risk to point out that the definition provided by Yahoo seems to differ from your own definition... Since i already used "do you just make up definitions for popular English words to win arguments" line on someone else already I guess i get to ask you: does your 'training as a scientist' not include basic english, and or how to use a dictionary? Maybe you were a Russian scientist or german perhaps.. Don't feel bad alot of their best scientist don't know the english word hypothetical either!!!
:Roflol:

Let me be really clear, here: Science. Did. Not. Legitimize. Homosexuality. Science has less bearing on public policy and lawmaking than I'd like to see, to be sure, but it certainly had nothing to do with this one. Gays coming "out of the closet" and making themselves known, so that people realized their own friends, family, neighbors, etc., were gay is what legitimized it-- people began to have empathy for those who had formerly been forced to live in hiding because of fear of what Christians would do to them, once the rest of us who weren't bent into bigots by religion actually got a chance to know members of the gay community.

Let me be clear... Homosexual movement has and is still pushing for a 'gay gene' to legitimize Homosexuality. In the morality argument May point to how other species indulge in homosexuality. This confirmation in nature and it's cataloging by science is supposed to lend legitimacy to the homosexual argument. For my HYPOTHETICAL Pedo argument I went a step further. Instead of following the exact foot steps of homosexuality, I took the scenario all the way and gave it a true 'scientific' blessing. Something the Homosexual community is still trying to do with it's search for the gay gene. So stop adding to the scenario so you do not have to give a straight answer, and just address the parameters provided.

As the others have been trying to tell you, much of what the Bible condones, such as slavery, was rejected by society once people began to have empathy for the oppressed, and to see them as fellow human beings. None of this has anything to do with the question of whether we let people harm our children just because they have urges that may or may not be rooted in their genomic defects.

In other words, who cares if there's a genetic propensity for pedophilia? There's also a gene-set for tendencies toward extreme and unreasonable violent reactions... it's still illegal for that guy to punch people who piss him off. And what "traditional values" are you talking about? On the one hand, you seem to be implying that I'm only against pedophilia because it has traditionally been banned (which is only loosely true; the modern trend has been toward protecting children more than in the past), while on the other I'm being attacked by Wooters for acknowledging that it may be possible that it changes in the future, as more information about the nature of the harm done comes to light. For reasons I already stated, I don't think that number will move downward, but I acknowledge the possibility that it could be so.

again address the hypothetical scenario with the parameters provided. The genetic predisposition of the pedophile was just one aspect of the senerio, the other being the mental and physical availability of the child. Coupled with a standing social judgement that this is still immoral behaivor.

Why don't you know this as many times as i have spelled out this scenario? Oh, that's right you keep changing it so you do have to make a stand based on the science logic and reason the last social tabooo was over turned before the band wagon of society tells you it is ok.

Nice.. All of the heavy hitters on the Athiest side of the evolution of morality with science being your guide line, Cower like little children afraid of the boogey man, at the thought of making a moral judgement that society has not already preapproved. Even though all of the 'check points' of scientific permission have been met as with the case of homosexuality.

This should freak all of you the Hell out if you have two brain cells to rub together!

Holy shit, Drich. Seriously, your holiness is shit. You're the only one here who's saying "If science says ____, then ____ is permissible." We may use scientific knowledge to inform our own moral judgment making (we more than most!), but your entire argument is based on a false premise. So take your childish insults and provocations, reach waaaaaaayyyy back, and shove them up your ass.

I haven't actually said anything was permissable... I am putting you in a hypothetical scenario and asking if it is permissable.
You know what I will say if I'm asked.
It s a sin just like Homosexuality is a sin.