| Ethics & Morality A forum for the discussion and debate of ethics & morality open to all members. |
 | | 
9th November 2009, 09:19 AM
|  | Regular Member
36     
| | Join Date: 20th November 2007
Posts: 1,312
Blessings: 45,273,951
Reps: 21,035,414,649,071,584 (power: 21,035,414,649,077) | | Originally Posted by brightmorningstar  To Archer93,
that’s your opinion again and one this time I agree with.
Well you are saying a paedophile cant do want they want because they hurt people, I have heard some paedophiles who would disagree with you. Whilst I would agree with you its because paedophilia is against the word God, but according to the word of God same sex relations hurt people as well.
they are your observations, not shared by everyone.
Nope been through that.
Nope been through them in detail.
People can fool themselves or be mentally unstable enough to really believe what they want to believe. If you were to say 'the canals on Mars were made naturally through erosion' there will be people out there who disagree with you. But you would have solid scientific data on your side, and they won't.
There are often disagreements, the side with the evidence wins.
I've seen what you post as supporting that homosexual relationships are harmful. They've been debunked over and over again.
I've seen what you post as supporting that homosexual relationships are sinful. They've been debunked over and over again. Just read the site I linked to above?
If you have anything with which to counter the above site, please do present it.  |
9th November 2009, 09:29 AM
|  | My solace my terror, my terror my solace.
22     
| | Join Date: 20th April 2005
Posts: 11,605
Blessings: 36,889 My Mood 
Reps: 27,354,533,772,047,632 (power: 27,354,533,772,065) | | Originally Posted by brightmorningstar The Gregorian wrote…
Very well put and crucial to the discussion. The Biblical testimony condemns all of those and there is no consensus of scientific opinion that agrees that same sex attraction is any different from any other sexual attraction such as bestiality or paedophilia. So the issue is the Biblical testimony.
If someone sees the Biblical testimony as against what they feel urged and tempted to do, such as adultery, same sex relations, bestiality or paedophilia then they will likely see it as discriminatory.
Adultery: Spoken against in the Bible.
Same sex (sexual) relations: Spoken against in the Bible.
Bestiality: Spoken against in the Bible.
Pedophile: Spoken again... oh wait, I can't think of any case of this. I remember Jesus saying to love your neighbor, but that is about the only think the Bible says that can be used to say child molestation (not even pedophilia, but those who act on it) is wrong. Do you think God made an error and left out "Don't have sex with children," when He was listing all the dos and don'ts of sex back in the Old Testament? Simpilar explanation is that He doesn't have a problem with it as long as they follow all the other rules (so sorry NAMBLA, your still out due to homosexuality).
But please, don't let what the Bible says get in the way of what you think it does.
__________________ Jeremiah 1:5
"Before I formed you in the womb I knew you"
That is BEFORE, not WHEN.
Life starts before conception. Supporting a woman's right to choose to not fertilize an egg, giving her the ability to choose to let a life die, is pro-choice, not pro-life.
|
9th November 2009, 09:31 AM
| | My solace my terror, my terror my solace.
22
| | Join Date: 20th April 2005
Posts: 11,605
Blessings: 36,889 My Mood
Reps: 27,354,533,772,047,632 (power: 27,354,533,772,065) | | Originally Posted by brightmorningstar To Archer93,
Ok but the paedophile can feel the same way. You don’t seem to have answered the question which suggests your view should allow people to do what they want.
Well, his biggest problem is thinking that all pedophiles are child molesters. He is being an extreme bigot until he can separate those two, though I can't blame him with how the media tends to feed this bigoted view (both liberal and conservative media).
__________________ Jeremiah 1:5
"Before I formed you in the womb I knew you"
That is BEFORE, not WHEN.
Life starts before conception. Supporting a woman's right to choose to not fertilize an egg, giving her the ability to choose to let a life die, is pro-choice, not pro-life.
|
9th November 2009, 09:33 AM
| | My solace my terror, my terror my solace.
22
| | Join Date: 20th April 2005
Posts: 11,605
Blessings: 36,889 My Mood
Reps: 27,354,533,772,047,632 (power: 27,354,533,772,065) | | Originally Posted by Archer93 If a paedophile who never molested a child was treated badly, that also would be bigotry.
And which part of 'I don't approve of things that hurt people' comes across as 'people can do what they want'?
Is the very view that pedophiles are default to having hurt children, that it takes a special pedophile to not harm a child, bigoted? Some of the very first arguments I saw in this thread by those fussing at the OP as being a bigot equated the OP's mention of pedophila with child molestation. Equating an attraction with rape, at least at face value, is far more bigoted than just disproving of that attraction.
__________________ Jeremiah 1:5
"Before I formed you in the womb I knew you"
That is BEFORE, not WHEN.
Life starts before conception. Supporting a woman's right to choose to not fertilize an egg, giving her the ability to choose to let a life die, is pro-choice, not pro-life.
|
9th November 2009, 09:52 AM
| | Regular Member
36
| | Join Date: 20th November 2007
Posts: 1,312
Blessings: 45,273,951
Reps: 21,035,414,649,071,584 (power: 21,035,414,649,077) | | Originally Posted by lawtonfogle Is the very view that pedophiles are default to having hurt children, that it takes a special pedophile to not harm a child, bigoted? Some of the very first arguments I saw in this thread by those fussing at the OP as being a bigot equated the OP's mention of pedophila with child molestation. Equating an attraction with rape, at least at face value, is far more bigoted than just disproving of that attraction.
I think we're more or less on the same page here...
The sets 'paedophiles' (meaning 'adults who are sexually attracted to young children) and 'child molestors' (meaning adults who have had sexual contact with young children) can have quite a sizable overlap, but some paedophiles have not molested children. And sometimes children are molested by adults out of a motivation other than sexual.
I do try not to confuse the two terms.
And yes- equating a resisted attraction with rape is very unfair and inaccurate. |
9th November 2009, 09:52 AM
|  | Contributor
23  
 | | Join Date: 21st March 2005 Location: Bristol, UK
Posts: 15,592
Blessings: 50,320,653 My Mood 
Reps: 273,058,856,457,603,328 (power: 273,058,856,457,625) | | Originally Posted by The Gregorian ORLY? Perhaps you've seen something I haven't? Because every single time I bring up abiogenisis in an evolution debate, the evolutionists cry foul ball... because specifically "how it formed" or "how it got there" "is NOT part of the theory." (Even though it's the first step.)
And they're right, it's not part of the theory. Criticising evolution for not explaining where the first ancestor came from is like criticising gravity for not explaining where mass came from: it explains what mass does, not where it came from. That said, we still have a theory for explaining where it came from. Originally Posted by The Gregorian Secondly, the only time we've been able to artificially synthesize genetic material from inorganic material was in very specific conditions with absolutely no cosmic rays (meaning we would've had to have had a more effective atmosphere than we currently do... without the oxygen we currently have) and absolutely devoid of oxygen.
Even so, what they produced were parts of proteins, not DNA, and even then, they were backwards. As has been stated in other debates... this would be like taking a box of toothpicks... noticing they fall in a pattern that look like letters... lower case "L's" and upper case "i's" all over the place... sometimes a T or an X... You may posit that enough toothpicks thrown enough times may eventually spell a word, like "TILL"... then finally drawing the conclusion that if you throw the box just right, that box of tooth picks will land on the floor as a complete autobiography.
Given the scales involved, that's not a bad analogy. There were so many chemicals in such vast quantities for so long that it was inevitable that one would become self-replicating. Originally Posted by The Gregorian That is the difference between getting a couple backwards proteins... and DNA.
On the contrary, for every thousand 'backward' proteins, there's one 'right' protein. We know that, in Earth's early pre-biotic conditions, simple chemicals would form into simple monomers and amino acids, which in turn would form more complex polymers. Once polymers start to form, it's only a matter of time before self-replicating polymers just so happen to come together.
At the same time, we know that fats and lipids would form, and then come together in lipid bi-layers. Such bi-layers are permeable to monomers, but impermeable to polymers. Thus, monomers could come in, combine to form polymers, but then be stuck. More monomers could come in, so the ones with the self-replicating polymers had resources to replicate.
That, more or less, is the origin of the first cell. Monomers to polymers in micelles. Originally Posted by The Gregorian All tolerances due to the LOSS of receptor sites.
Nope. The E. coli and nylon-eating examples are accumulations of genetic material after generations of mutation. Human milk tolerance is due to the addition of genetic material that prolongs our previous weaning process, effectively lengthening the amount of time the body can drink milk. Originally Posted by The Gregorian Hereditary beneficial mutations coming from -additional- genetic information... not a loss of it.
Hardly. Entirely new traits and abilities don't form from the loss of genetic material, but from the accumulation of mutations. This article, for instance, presents a number of instances of new metabolic pathways evolving due to the addition of genetic material.
__________________ "I am a scientist... when I find evidence that my theories are wrong, it is as exciting as if the evidence proved them right."
- Stargate: SG1
"A scientific man ought to have no wishes, no affections, -- a mere heart of stone."
- Charles Darwin
"What can be asserted without proof can be dismissed without proof."
- Christopher Hitchens
"Protecting the sanctity of marriage against people who want to get married"
- Anonymous
Got a question about science?
To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
!
|
9th November 2009, 09:58 AM
| | Contributor
23
| | Join Date: 21st March 2005 Location: Bristol, UK
Posts: 15,592
Blessings: 50,320,653 My Mood
Reps: 273,058,856,457,603,328 (power: 273,058,856,457,625) | | Originally Posted by The Gregorian That's why I've tried to carefully state that I "disapprove" ... I don't discriminate. I've mentioned my former room mate who was flamboyantly gay, I have many bisexual friends, I even recently wore an outfit made by a transgendered friend of mine.
Well aren't you ticking all the demographic boxes. Originally Posted by The Gregorian I disagree with their choices, I disapprove with what I consider their sin... but I still love the sinner. I would never mistreat them. Although I don't refer to my transgendered friend as a "she." As much as he'd like... he's a dude. He's welcome to "feel feminine" and he's doing the hormone thing to grow boobs.... and he's a dandy person who's gone through a tough life... but I'm not going to call him sarah. Our of respect for him, I try to avoid gender-specific terms... but when it comes down to it... no... he's not a chick. No surgery will make him one.
Treating someone rudely, being mad at a person solely based upon their opinion, calling them names.... these are all mild forms of discrimination, and I don't approve of such tactics being used toward those who either approve of homosexuality, or disapprove of it.
Yes, if someone calls a person a "[wash my mouth][wash my mouth][wash my mouth][wash my mouth][wash my mouth][wash my mouth]" ... that's rude, discriminatory, and unnecessary. Coming back and calling them a "biggot" is on the same exact level. The gay person may say "well, he IS a biggot." ... the person with a different person may respond "well, he IS a [wash my mouth][wash my mouth][wash my mouth][wash my mouth][wash my mouth][wash my mouth]." ... doesn't make either one right. They may both disagree and disapprove... but when they start getting angry at each other over an opinion, that's what I would consider wrong.
If someone is acting like a [wash my mouth][wash my mouth][wash my mouth][wash my mouth][wash my mouth][wash my mouth], they shouldn't be surprised when someone calls them a [wash my mouth][wash my mouth][wash my mouth][wash my mouth][wash my mouth][wash my mouth].
Likewise, if someone acts like a bigot, they shouldn't be surprised when someone calls them a bigot.
It may be offensive to their sensitivities, but that's tough. Freedom of speech supersedes political correctness.
__________________ "I am a scientist... when I find evidence that my theories are wrong, it is as exciting as if the evidence proved them right."
- Stargate: SG1
"A scientific man ought to have no wishes, no affections, -- a mere heart of stone."
- Charles Darwin
"What can be asserted without proof can be dismissed without proof."
- Christopher Hitchens
"Protecting the sanctity of marriage against people who want to get married"
- Anonymous
Got a question about science?
To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
!
|
9th November 2009, 10:53 AM
| | My solace my terror, my terror my solace.
22
| | Join Date: 20th April 2005
Posts: 11,605
Blessings: 36,889 My Mood
Reps: 27,354,533,772,047,632 (power: 27,354,533,772,065) | | Originally Posted by Archer93 I think we're more or less on the same page here...
The sets 'paedophiles' (meaning 'adults who are sexually attracted to young children) and 'child molestors' (meaning adults who have had sexual contact with young children) can have quite a sizable overlap, but some paedophiles have not molested children. And sometimes children are molested by adults out of a motivation other than sexual.
I believe the size of the overlap is grossly exaggerated due to a number of reason. These include that non-offending pedophiles tend to keep very quiet and are only open to those closet to them, if at all. Thus, on a national level, we are only familiar with the pedophiles who do abuse. Also, society has a bias to blame pedophilia for child molestation more than it should, especially in cases where the children are too old for an attraction to them to be classified as pedophile (such as when a 30 year old man is attracted to a 15 year old girl, while illegal to act upon, this attraction is not pedophilia.
__________________ Jeremiah 1:5
"Before I formed you in the womb I knew you"
That is BEFORE, not WHEN.
Life starts before conception. Supporting a woman's right to choose to not fertilize an egg, giving her the ability to choose to let a life die, is pro-choice, not pro-life.
|
9th November 2009, 12:46 PM
|  | Senior Contributor
54 
| | Join Date: 22nd August 2005
Posts: 9,601
Blessings: 7,931,841 My Mood 
Reps: 137,728,672,736,575,984 (power: 0) | | To Archer93, People can fool themselves or be mentally unstable enough to really believe what they want to believe. If you were to say 'the canals on Mars were made naturally through erosion' there will be people out there who disagree with you. But you would have solid scientific data on your side, and they won't.
My point exactly, an opinion which is based on what the Bible says is on the side of God’s view. There are often disagreements, the side with the evidence wins.
well ultimately yes.
I've seen what you post as supporting that homosexual relationships are harmful. They've been debunked over and over again.
no they haven’t they have exposed the deception.
I've seen what you post as supporting that homosexual relationships are sinful. They've been debunked over and over again. Just read the site I linked to above?
Hardly, people can fool themselves or be mentally unstable enough to really believe what they want to believe, If you were to say homosexuality isnt, there will be people out there who disagree, but I would have solid Biblical text on my side, and they won't. As you said yourself the side with the evidence wins. |
9th November 2009, 01:08 PM
| | Regular Member
36
| | Join Date: 20th November 2007
Posts: 1,312
Blessings: 45,273,951
Reps: 21,035,414,649,071,584 (power: 21,035,414,649,077) | | Originally Posted by brightmorningstar To Archer93,
My point exactly, an opinion which is based on what the Bible says is on the side of God’s view.
well ultimately yes.
no they haven’t they have exposed the deception.
Hardly, people can fool themselves or be mentally unstable enough to really believe what they want to believe, If you were to say homosexuality isnt, there will be people out there who disagree, but I would have solid Biblical text on my side, and they won't. As you said yourself the side with the evidence wins.
The side with no evidence loses.
You have no evidence that homosexuality is harmful or that it is sinful, only the lies and distortions of people who can't or won't consider that a man-made assessment might be inaccurate.
It's as if their faith depends, not on the death and resurrection of Jesus, but on the assumption that 'arsenokoites' means 'people in same-sex relationships'.
Very odd. | | |
| Thread Tools | | | | Display Modes |  Linear Mode |
| | |
