What IS good, and how do we determine it?

[Thumpalumpacus]

You'll need to demonstrate this before you swing it around in a conversation.

Here is some background.

Unfortunately, citing the opinion of a religious man doesn't qualify as demonstrating a fact. The article linked appeals to to the design "god built into" the human race. Given that your god's existence has yet to be demonstrated, citing one of his acts to demonstrate an intrinsic quality in anything is laughably incomplete insofar as an argument is concerned.

You're essentially arguing that "it's evil because I believe it's evil" ... which is circular reasoning. Yet one more logical fallacy from you -- can you not mount one point without engaging in slipshod thinking?

Parkers-

I'm not sure what CL had in mind in her post to which you are objecting. However, I would like to say that while SOME instances of looking at a beautiful woman MAY cross the line to "committing adultery" as Jesus said, not all do.

• It’s one thing to be looking at a marble statue of a nude woman.
  
• It’s another to be looking at a color photograph of a nude woman.
  
• It’s another yet to be looking at a real live nude woman.
  

Why don't you answer the quote from Jesus that I posted? It didn't mention any of those conditions at all. He wasn't even talking about looking at a woman. He makes it perfectly clear that if you desire to be adulterous with a woman, the desire is the sin already committed. Why is that so hard for you guys to understand?

Oh, that's right, it's because you recognize the unjust nature of thoughtcrime and have to explain it away with mental gymnastics.

No, I don't, dumbfuck.  What I continue to do is object to you using my post in a dishonest manner.

Don't fucking quote me unless I have done what you're complaining about, or else we'll have this conversation again ... and again ... and again.

... said the asshole who cannot figure out what my complaint is.  

You're being a cunt.  Stop it.

How does language like this increase the credibility of what you're saying?

Do these words make your arguments stronger?

Or should we take your point of view more seriously because you've chose more forceful language?

This is the only sort of treatment Huggy merits. If you've been around long enough to witness his dishonesty, you'd understand. He's a lying idiot, bereft of any insight, given to an obsessive embrace of the inane -- and he takes any opportunity to slur those who don't agree with him, such as accusing them of tolerating child abuse, which I will never do. I don't appreciate anyone imputing positions to me which I don't hold, and when someone not only does that, but refuses to apologize for their poor treatment, they get the treatment they deserve.

Whether or not that damages my credibility in your eyes doesn't matter. Firstly, I'm not mounting an argument; I'm pointing out a salient fact. There is no arguing with the fact that I didn't post in that thread, and he has no idea what my views re: Milk are, and yet he is imputing a position to me anyways. Secondly, I don't crave your good opinion in this or any other matter. The people who are close to me, their opinion matters; and they know already that when confronted with dishonesty, I am a salty motherfucker. Dishonesty is a quality I don't tolerate.

If you find it discomfiting, go on ahead and put me on ignore.