Politics On Politics.

[Rod'sT-5]

36 minutes ago, Fudge_Brownie said:

I also think trying to pull hard to keep conservative values just makes it easier for people to run the other direction. But I think we're getting to the real core issue of transgenders in bathrooms; whether or not you believe homosexuality is a sin. At least I on the surface. I usually assume there's a good chance people who are upset by the transgender issue are in that category.

 

I think everyone has their own definition of right and wrong. You can see that in all the responses so far. It can be based on many things. Some are based in their own experiences, things they've read or heard or seen. That foundation reflects in how you view the world. I believe that the Bible was written by God for all of us. My views, that I mentioned earlier, come from that viewpoint. As mentioned in that video, homosexuality is no worse that drunkenness, lying, murder, etc. They are all sin.

49 minutes ago, Fudge_Brownie said:

If you condense the 10 commandments down to some more simple phrases, they pretty much sum up some decent moral benchmarks. I think we all socially agree with them. I think if religion never existed, we probably would have decided murder was wrong. Most of it makes sense because it causes some emotional or physical harm to another. Cheating, lying, stealing, etc. How does a transgender person cause some social damage?

Have you noticed that everyone seems to have a inner sense of right and wrong. Where did that come from? For those that believe in the "Big Bang", maybe a piece of cosmic dust got mixed into the first cell.  How can a few inert particles lead to a moral compass?

I believe that God put it in us when we were created. Makes sense, since my views are based on my understanding of the Bible. I can't force my views on anyone, nor should I. Not my kids, or friends. Everyone has to decide for themselves, what they believe, and why.

But I like that we can talk about it.

 

[Burn-E]

13 hours ago, Fudge_Brownie said:

I've used the slippery slope argument myself on other issues, but I'm just not convinced it applies here regarding morality. I also think trying to pull hard to keep conservative values just makes it easier for people to run the other direction. But I think we're getting to the real core issue of transgenders in bathrooms; whether or not you believe homosexuality is a sin. At least I on the surface. I usually assume there's a good chance people who are upset by the transgender issue are in that category.

This is bull s h i t.  It has nothing to do with homosexuality.  It has everything to do with gender dysphoria.  They are entirely different dispositions Alden.  This is a primary source of confusion on the conversations around this issue.

13 hours ago, Fudge_Brownie said:

I'm not really seeing how. Well, I see how you think it's highly relevant. Wasn't familiar with him or the poem. But I think I've heard the term 'borked' used, might have even used it myself once. Never knew the history.

No, you don't see how I would think it's highly relevant.  You're making assumptions.  I don't entirely agree with Bork's conclusions for recommended action but I do agree that a variety of social phenomena driven by motivations toward radical egalitarianism and radical individualism are fracturing the social fabric both at the 1% and the bottom 20% as well as in the ivory towers of every variety. The fact that liberal arts universities are offering degrees such as Queer Musicology or Human Sexuality or any of the odd psychology and gender studies degrees is part and parcel of the complaints of over educated baristas soaking in college debt.

[S8ET6]

Logged into FB on my train ride into work and had to laugh at the first post in my timeline:

 

 

 

 

[Fudge_Brownie]

15 hours ago, Rod'sT-5 said:

As mentioned in that video, homosexuality is no worse that drunkenness, lying, murder, etc. They are all sin.

Have you noticed that everyone seems to have a inner sense of right and wrong. Where did that come from? For those that believe in the "Big Bang", maybe a piece of cosmic dust got mixed into the first cell.  How can a few inert particles lead to a moral compass?

I'd confused on how homosexuality could ever be on the same level as murder. But I guess we'll have to agree to disagree there. I think a conscience has a biologic purpose. Our social structure, or emotional connection with others, has a survival value. Some animals are solitary, others work in groups. We work in groups. Once you understand that killing your son's friend would upset your son, it's easy to expand on that. And thus, morals are born. If the next point is "but why are we here? Because of god", skip to "but why is god here". We have drastically different views on how we arrived at this point, but neither of us have the answer to existence. Getting pretty far from the original point too.

Side note - I'm cringing at my sentence structure after re-reading some of my statements you quoted. One of the reasons I like to debate online is to practice my writing. Just think of how bad it would be if I didn't get any practice

3 hours ago, Burn-E said:

This is bull s h i t.  It has nothing to do with homosexuality.  It has everything to do with gender dysphoria.  They are entirely different dispositions Alden.  This is a primary source of confusion on the conversations around this issue.

No, you don't see how I would think it's highly relevant.  You're making assumptions.  I don't entirely agree with Bork (..) but I do agree (..)

When I wrote that, I half-expected you to say you aren't lumping it all together. And I believe you aren't. Do you think everyone else in the discussion sees them separately? Maybe once they're asked the question, they'll separate it. But up until asked? Same with polling people in the street?

As for Bork, you brought it up, said it was relevant, and just said you agree with part of his views. So... that was as far as my assumptions went. Reasonable to make given the context. I didn't take some deep read on it and try to deduce your beliefs. I'm confused that you're pushing back on that bit.

2 hours ago, S8ET6 said:

Logged into FB on my train ride into work and had to laugh at the first post in my timeline:

I can reach across the isle on this one and say yep, that's ridiculous. It's like when people take issue with calling a group of people 'normal' as if it implies the other group is not. Yes, one group is normal and the other abnormal. And that's okay. But if the mainstream group isn't normal, then what is?

[Burn-E]

I gotta be honest Alden, I've been observing the way you approach these discussions and the word milquetoast comes to mind. Your detached attitude feels like "let's examine every side without really taking a position except one that allows the greatest freedom for all." You rather remind me of the students in that video.

[Fudge_Brownie]

54 minutes ago, Burn-E said:

I gotta be honest Alden, I've been observing the way you approach these discussions and the word milquetoast comes to mind. Your detached attitude feels like "let's examine every side without really taking a position except one that allows the greatest freedom for all." You rather remind me of the students in that video.

Oof. Some of the detached 'lets examine every side' is intentional. I'm glad I'm successful at that. I often play devils advocate too, for the sake of argument and to question myself. But remind you of the students in the video? I hate the idea of being associated with the general tone of that clip. I think I've made my opinion fairly clear, though I don't keep it as a constant thread. Maybe I need to improve on that. I'm not trying to straddle the fence to avoid having an opinion, if that's what you're getting. Part of the reason I've developed this habit is because I don't fall in to the typical classifications, and get pissed off when the conversation turns to "oh, he is pro or con-XYZ, he must be a liberal/conservative".

Maybe I can loop this back on track - The bible's a great work of fiction not to be applied literally as social law. Homosexuals are born that way, just as I was born heterosexual. Even if it is biblically wrong, I really doubt your god is going to punish anyone for it. Don't forget to love your neighbor too. I find it very easy to also believe there are homosexuals who think they were born as the wrong sex. These people would be transgender. Right or wrong, I don't see any social harm in operating under the assumption that is true. If I had kids, I'd be annoyed if people were teaching them the "you can be anything today, and something else tomorrow" gender fluidity stuff. I'd want it explained that 'there's rare cases where people feel (..)".

I think there's probably an unusually high number of people who explore a gender-confusion that are misguided. It's not very PC to say, but I bet there's a trend in those misguided people that there was past mental trauma, attention seeking behaviors, or a lack of guidance, or social circle that left them confused. I also think telling anyone who feels different that they're wrong, bad, sinful, deviant, etc etc makes them feel like they're bad people, and only makes them more likely to respond negatively. E.g. if someone's gay and their parents tried to beat it out of them, and their schoolmates hate them, and they move to the city and end up making friends at the local dragbar, there's high probability they're going to at least consider trying it. Maybe later realize that isn't for them. But I also believe at least some of the queens are queens at heart. I've heard that counseling is usually a prerequisite to getting sex change surgery. That's probably a good idea, though I'm very concerned it could be abused by socially conservative assholes trying to impose their views on others.

[Burn-E]

57 minutes ago, Fudge_Brownie said:

The bible's a great work of fiction not to be applied literally as social law.

I see you've been reading up on how to win friends and influence people  you're going to piss a ton of people off with that statement.

Funny thing is, the decalogue is the basis of most Western legal systems. All those who run around declaring you can't legislate morality fail to appreciate the place law has in establishing standards of behavior within society.  The standards are expected to exist outside of laws but when society begins to dive into the dregs of humanity only law can protect us from ourselves.

[Fudge_Brownie]

42 minutes ago, Burn-E said:

Funny thing is, the decalogue is the basis of most Western legal systems. All those who run around declaring you can't legislate morality fail to appreciate the place law has in establishing standards of behavior within society.  The standards are expected to exist outside of laws but when society begins to dive into the dregs of humanity only law can protect us from ourselves.

I get why it ended up being the basis, and agree that simmering it down, it still has some good basics. But I don't like the idea of trying to control or legislate morality. Only violence and harm to others. Hurt or steal from someone should remain illegal. But getting drunk at noontime and cheating on your wife? Good luck with that. That is a problem between the wife and the side girl. The law only becomes relevant when they attempt to undo their contractual union and divide assets.

[Yellow95]

On ‎4‎/‎29‎/‎2016 at 3:59 PM, Fudge_Brownie said:

 The law only becomes relevant when they attempt to undo their contractual union and divide assets.

Don't I know this!

[mattsk8]

On 4/28/2016 at 4:20 PM, Kevin. said:

Deuteronomy 17:2-5

Luke 19:27

Matthew 10:34

raised Christian, went to Four Square churches until I was 19

Those verses are telling you and me to kill people? IMO, if you were in church until you were 19 and that's what you took from it, you should try a different church.

On 4/29/2016 at 3:59 PM, Fudge_Brownie said:

I get why it ended up being the basis, and agree that simmering it down, it still has some good basics. But I don't like the idea of trying to control or legislate morality. Only violence and harm to others. Hurt or steal from someone should remain illegal. But getting drunk at noontime and cheating on your wife? Good luck with that. That is a problem between the wife and the side girl. The law only becomes relevant when they attempt to undo their contractual union and divide assets.

Don't you think it's ironic that you stated the only reason we should "legislate morality" is when it involves hurting or stealing from someone; then you said cheating doesn't fall under that category? I think I'd rather have someone relieve me of all my possessions than walk in on my wife and best friend. So based on that, why is cheating ok and stealing isn't? When is cheating not OK? Is it OK to cheat your way through college? What about lying? Where does the line between what is acceptable, and what's unacceptable get drawn and who decides?

[Kevin.]

I posted Bible verses that tell you to kill people just like you asked

 

 

I can post more incredibly insane bible verses if you wish, lots of crazy stuff in there

[mattsk8]

12 minutes ago, Kevin. said:

I posted Bible verses that tell you to kill people just like you asked

I can post more incredibly insane bible verses if you wish, lots of crazy stuff in there

I've read the bible many, many times. I can find verses too, like when God commanded Saul to slaughter all the men, women and children of the Amalekites; then God got mad at him when he didn't. But, these aren't verses telling me to kill anyone; and you really need to brush up on your comprehension skills if that's what they're telling you. Next we can argue about the order of creation and question how God created light before he created the sun. Or maybe then go on about how breeding animals in front of sticks doesn't seem to work for us to make them striped or spotted the way it did for Jacob.

Let me spare you the time. I already know where you stand, you think... "The Word of the Lord is foolishness". But I think "Every word of God is flawless; he is a shield to those who take refuge in him." So... we already know where this is going to end up.

There's plenty in the Bible that I don't understand, I can admit that. But I don't need to understand how and why, and I can promise you that while you may think you might, you don't have any understanding of existence and creation either. The difference between you and I is that I trust God, and I believe the Bible is "the Word of God". When I read something that doesn't make sense to me, I... "Trust in the Lord with all my heart, and lean not on my own understanding"; rather than dream up excuses for how and why.

[flyfishing3]

man you two are killing a good thread.

 

Keep YOUR religion out of my bedroom and out of my govt. 

[mattsk8]

14 minutes ago, flyfishing3 said:

Keep YOUR religion out of my bedroom and out of my govt. 

I'm not sure where you stand on belief in God Mike, but I would say the same to you whether you're atheist, agnostic, etc.

[Fudge_Brownie]

2 hours ago, mattsk8 said:

Don't you think it's ironic that you stated the only reason we should "legislate morality" is when it involves hurting or stealing from someone; then you said cheating doesn't fall under that category? I think I'd rather have someone relieve me of all my possessions than walk in on my wife and best friend. So based on that, why is cheating ok and stealing isn't? When is cheating not OK? Is it OK to cheat your way through college? What about lying? Where does the line between what is acceptable, and what's unacceptable get drawn and who decides?

Cheating is morally wrong in pretty much every scenario. I'm not sure why the law needs to have anything to do with it beyond your marriage contract. By hurt, I meant physically. Though I'm not sure how to approach emotional abuse of a child. That's not physical, but I think many can agree that the worst case scenario emotional abuse of a child needs action. The other 'gray area' I can think of is threats of physical harm. But I could see the argument that it doesn't need to be regulated.

I bet if we dig deep enough, there's more gray areas. But my overall point is that law should be nearly nonexistent when it comes to legislating one's personal choices. I should have defined 'hurt or steal' as 'physically harm, restrict their freedom, or cause damage/loss to someone's property'.