Gay Pride Organization Files Complaint Against Local T-Shirt Company

[gnomon]

Plato's eternal forms is a good place to start.

Not at this time of night.

You really want to start with the concept of the perfect abstract ideal. That there is the idea of the sphere that is perfect. It itself is not a sphere and does not exist but it is the abstract concept of the sphere, the form of the sphere, that exists.

Can you relate this to the thread?

 

[stiggywiggy]

Personally, I think everyone should be proud of who and what they are, whether they were "born this way" or not.

Hear that, OJ????

 

[Wayte]

That's a good question.

For "goodness" or "evil" to exist, there must be an ideal for both or neither exists. For anyone to suggest the latter would be disingenuous because we all know different (philosophical amusements aside). It remains then what exactly is the ideal of each.

i would say trying to find an ideal to aspire to is rather limiting, especially considering many considerations or the good or badness of a thing often require context.

 

[SmellsLikeCurlyFries]

Hear that, OJ????

What's OJ got to do with this?

 

[Ernst Junger]

Not at this time of night.

You really want to start with the concept of the perfect abstract ideal. That there is the idea of the sphere that is perfect. It itself is not a sphere and does not exist but it is the abstract concept of the sphere, the form of the sphere, that exists.

Can you relate this to the thread?

The idea is these non-natural abstract ideals. The sphere is one of them. Of course, there are many non-mathematical ideals as well, but the sphere is one familiar to most lay people.

As i said, if you wish to discuss the eternal, its the best place to start.

although this thinking has rendered you into "essay" mode. Plato is very relevant for your day-to-day action

 

[EdwinWillers]

i would say trying to find an ideal to aspire to is rather limiting, especially considering many considerations or the good or badness of a thing often require context.

"Context" is an easy trap into which many fall. If context determines what's good and what's evil then there can be no ideal for either. And if no ideal can exist then neither can goodness or evil. Again, we know that isn't true, so context cannot be what determines good or evil. There must be an ideal for each.

 

[variant]

???? I have no idea what you're talking about. Christianity espouses ridiculing people??? Seriously, I don't get what you're trying to say here.

It does according to most Christians at least, they can't seem live and let live without the ridicule of homosexuals.

To quote from our friend in this thread:

And maybe, just maybe it's time someone turned the tide on these people who are falsely, and pride fully proclaiming perversion and degeneracy as "normal" and sued them for - oh, I don't know, hijacking a perfectly decent word in the English language ("gay") and corrupting its definition.

This is one of your representatives of christianity in this thread.

??? Again that simply makes no sense. How can I IGNORE something that is axiomatic to my "analogy," to use your word, said alleged analogy being the abuse people with birthmarks might recieve?

Your analogy was that people should not have pride in say "birthmarks" because they are born with them.

I explained to you that your analogy only works if people who have birthmarks are subject to ridicule demonization and the like from people who are entirely serious about their positions and stand up for them in even polite and serious society.

If a large portion of society were infantile to be abusive towards people with birthmarks then it would be problematic and people with birthmarks would be expected to take pride in themselves and reject such idiocy.

Regardless of who they are? No!!!!

Yes that is a bit broad. Well, those who don't harm others and are merely different in that they don’t live up to some social norm, have every right to feel pride in who they are.

 

[Ernst Junger]

Just proving you don't actually read what I write.

I think any "endgame" for society is unsustainable because society requires change at a more and more rapid pace and the entire idea of a thousand year society is a terribly bad idea (with very few logical paralells or examples that you can point to as "successful" societies).

Ah so you agree your society is not sustainable. That still answers my question.

 

[variant]

The idea is these non-natural abstract ideals. The sphere is one of them. Of course, there are many non-mathematical ideals as well, but the sphere is one familiar to most lay people.

As i said, if you wish to discuss the eternal, its the best place to start.

although this thinking has rendered you into "essay" mode. Plato is very relevant for your day-to-day action

So, let me get this straight...

Your using Plato’s forms and the ideals of spheres to uphold a barbaric moralist argument against homosexuals that is 2000 years outdated and objectively wrong?

 

[Panzerkamfwagen]

I guess no one cares about the Constitution.

 

[variant]

Ah so you agree your society is not sustainable. That still answers my question.

That’s fine. Show me a sustainable society?

If we value truth, as you say you do, then we don't use 2000 year old notions of what is right to overrule good empirical thought.

Which of us is really the one devoted to the truth if you are willing to defend the indefensible?

 

[Wayte]

"Context" is an easy trap into which many fall. If context determines what's good and what's evil then there can be no ideal for either. And if no ideal can exist then neither can goodness or evil. Again, we know that isn't true, so context cannot be what determines good or evil. There must be an ideal for each.

Not necessarily, it really depends on how broad or narrow and ideal you have. Something broad, like say "do no harm" leaves a lot of room for context. Whereas very specific ideals, like what alot of fundamentalists strive for, leaves very little grey area. That lack of grey area is very problematic, as life is far too complicated to simply govern by a very specific rulebook.

 

[stiggywiggy]

It does according to most Christians at least, they can't seem live and let live without the ridicule of homosexuals.

That's absurd. And unfounded. And not backed up with a thing.

To quote from our friend in this thread:

Nope. No ridicule there. Just a guy's honest opinion based on what he perceives as the biblical take on homosexuality. Jehovah did not ridicule Soddom and Gommorah when He destroyed them.

Your analogy was that people should not have pride in say "birthmarks" because they are born with them.

Well then, so much for your comment that I "ignored" the abuse of homosexuals, since it was crucial to the "analogy."

 

[variant]

I guess no one cares about the Constitution.

No one seems to care about your imaginary version I suppose.

What happened to all those "whites only" sighns?

 

[SmellsLikeCurlyFries]

I guess no one cares about the Constitution.

Who said that?

 

[Ernst Junger]

That’s fine. Show me a sustainable society?

If we value truth, as you say you do, then we don't use 2000 year old notions of what is right to overrule good empirical thought.

Which of us is really the one devoted to the truth if you are willing to defend the indefensible?

Feudalism is remarkably sustainable.

 

[SmellsLikeCurlyFries]

Feudalism is remarkably sustainable.

Which is why it's totally still practiced, right?

 

[Wayte]

Feudalism is remarkably sustainable.

Until the peasantry gets too uppity anyways.

 

[variant]

That's absurd. And unfounded. And not backed up with a thing.

Except direct quotes from this very thread and a huge back story of Christians targeting homosexuals for ridicule over the past century based on religious viewpoints?

Nope. No ridicule there. Just a guy's honest opinion based on what he perceives as the biblical take on homosexuality. Jehovah did not ridicule Soddom and Gommorah when He destroyed them.

Ridicule. That your religion stands as ridicule towards good people is a testament onto itself.

Well then, so much for your comment that I "ignored" the abuse of homosexuals, since it was crucial to the "analogy."

Just because you think it's right and good doesn’t mean it's not abuse.

Just because you think your right dosen't mean your not being abusive. The 'witches' burned at salem are still abused wether the townsfolk felt self ritous or not.

 

[variant]

Feudalism is remarkably sustainable.

Which is why it was destroyed utterly by us liberals.

More complex societys invariably destroy less complex ones, it's the part of liberalism you don't seem to understand, that all that scary change is actually going to steam roll you over wether you like it or not.