welcome to the fest
 
 FAQFAQ   SearchSearch   MemberlistMemberlist   UsergroupsUsergroups   RegisterRegister 
 ProfileProfile   Log in to check your private messagesLog in to check your private messages   Log inLog in 

The creator slumbers. 12/17/06
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3, ... 11, 12, 13  Next
 
Post new topic   Reply to topic    Sinfest Forum Index -> Sinfest
View previous topic :: View next topic  
Author Message
Samsally



Joined: 10 Jul 2006
Posts: 6461

PostPosted: Mon Dec 18, 2006 6:55 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Toteone wrote:
If you insist. (creates a new post instead)
^above

Uhhh... take a look at most modern, medieval and ancient civilizations.


I should have specified: All these things are MORE likely. It's not a crystall ball of course.


Wow, that says nothing. Show me examples.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Toteone



Joined: 18 Dec 2006
Posts: 18

PostPosted: Mon Dec 18, 2006 6:57 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

(Btw. u doubleposted.)

Hmmmm, taking all this a bit personal?
I'm not... anyway...

Rome, Greece, USA, Latin America, Pre-Colonial America, Europe, Africa, Asia, Australia... that's a decent number of case examples to start with (I'm not posting them as pro or neg. yet).

But shouldn't we wrap up health issues first?
.....

In a condensed form of argument:
Sexually transmitted diseases are much less likely to spread with monogamous partners. For all the much vaunted arguments of personal responsibility, people who partake in orgies are less likely to be careful, I'm not saying they can't be, but that's it's unlikely. So you win on personal health, I should have specified that as well earlier. But on a collective scale it is a very bad thing.

Also, gays of either gender are statistically proven to be less loyal to their mates. And by your own words, their anal tissue breaks. If they weren't having sex that won't lead to children in the first place they wouldn't be breaking each other's anal tissues would they?

We seem to operate on different levels.


Last edited by Toteone on Mon Dec 18, 2006 7:02 am; edited 1 time in total
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Major Tom



Joined: 09 Jul 2006
Posts: 7562

PostPosted: Mon Dec 18, 2006 7:01 am    Post subject: Re: Reasons why sexual orgies are a bad idea. Reply with quote

Toteone wrote:
Samsally wrote:
You're making a lot of false assumptions, you know. Nobody said they're 'unhealthy', and they wouldn't be if you took proper precautions. Nobody said you wouldn't be picky about who was involved, providing you the ability to avoid any sexually transmitted disease. Nobody said there wouldn't be prevention against pregnancy involved (good god, there are only a ton of ways to do that, now. Enough variety to use at least two forms of prevention at all times, if not more).


Orgies do not "degenerate societal cohesion", nor do they automatically make people -abandon their children- as you seem to assume it does. Trust issues are not breached if everyone involves understands that "Hey, I occationally partake in orgies." because people are perfectly capable of being honest about their sex lives.

The only arguments against orgies are either religious or dependant on your personal set of morals. By religious standards, orgies are probably sinful, frankly I don't care. All that about societal, moral, and personal is totally 100% disputable and dependant entirely on the parties involved.

Also, family units consisting strictly of a man, woman, and children is not a "prime fundament of all civilizations". I suggest you brush up on your knowledge of successful civilizations.



General, not specific.

-Explain why gay people suffer most from AIDS in the west. -Why broken families are more common among illegitimate children.


1) this is poorly phrased question. you can rework it, if you wish, so that it asks itself in an intelligible fashion, but there's really no need since it is obvious that your point is that being male and gay (since you are subsegmenting the AIDS populus by sexual preference and are likely just careless and not actually stupid enough to believe that lesbians are a particularly at-risk demographic) is evil and wrong and deserving of suffering because AIDS is a just dessert.

still, you need to explain why lesbians, literally, get off scott-free.

2) illigitimate children don't belong to a nuclear family unit...that's what the "illigitimate" moniker indicates.



ass
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Toteone



Joined: 18 Dec 2006
Posts: 18

PostPosted: Mon Dec 18, 2006 7:04 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

It's so cute how people always acribe their ideological counterparts to calling evil. I said I believe what I believe to be sexual immorality to be wrong... one could take it to evil... yes I believe that.
I also pointed out that sexual relations between homosexual men lead to AIDS.
I did not combine these points, to my knowledge.

Anyho, you're all proving yourselves as... if more lucid by text, as more childish and easy to anger.

Lesbians get off scot-free because they don't have as many juices and phallic protrusions, I know this does not conform to defending a 'they're evil and should be punished by God' argument, but I didn't make it in the first place.


Personally I believe AIDS is just another disease, not God's punishment and that sexual promiscousness is it's own punishment by logical circumstances.


Last edited by Toteone on Mon Dec 18, 2006 7:07 am; edited 1 time in total
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Major Tom



Joined: 09 Jul 2006
Posts: 7562

PostPosted: Mon Dec 18, 2006 7:07 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

without appropriate written context at to why you would assert that gay people "suffer most" from AIDS, the only context is via placement.

in this manner, you did, in fact, make that argument.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Toteone



Joined: 18 Dec 2006
Posts: 18

PostPosted: Mon Dec 18, 2006 7:09 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Well I have Asbergers so I tend to be point-by-point.

I inserted that gay men get AIDS a lot because it's a health argument. I don't remember connotating religious factors on to it, but maybe I did.

I also have ADHD so it might be garbled in with other words and arguments.


Ancient Semmitic Tribes: Monogamic and Polygamic
Ancient Greece: Promiscous
Rome: Mostly Monogamic
China: Mostly Monogamic
Medieval Europe: Monogamic
USA: Monogamic


Last edited by Toteone on Mon Dec 18, 2006 7:11 am; edited 1 time in total
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Major Tom



Joined: 09 Jul 2006
Posts: 7562

PostPosted: Mon Dec 18, 2006 7:11 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

i don't remember connoting religious importance to the point at all.

maybe you have a guilty conscience.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Toteone



Joined: 18 Dec 2006
Posts: 18

PostPosted: Mon Dec 18, 2006 7:13 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Well, religions are the main bastions of classifying evil. If I indeed said 'gay people have AIDS because they are evil' I would be evoking religion. I didn't say it anyway. I think it's a bit presumptious to 'know what God thinks' other then by the holy books per religion.

Philosophical morality does too, but not as much or as intensely.

...
Ummm, it's not really relevant but it would be a nice floor swipe (of an argument) if I was feeling guilty, but I don't so I suppose one might get back to calling me a Pharisee. Wink


Last edited by Toteone on Mon Dec 18, 2006 7:14 am; edited 2 times in total
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Samsally



Joined: 10 Jul 2006
Posts: 6461

PostPosted: Mon Dec 18, 2006 7:14 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Toteone wrote:
(Btw. u doubleposted.)

I was responding to a different post, so I made a new one. It is acceptable practice.

Quote:
Hmmmm, taking all this a bit personal?
I'm not... anyway...

I get horrified by ignorance, its not really taking it personal so much as being astounded at how poor your argument is. I wish WoC was here, he's so much better at this than me.

Quote:
Rome, Greece, USA, Latin America, Pre-Colonial America, Europe, Africa, Asia, Australia... that's a decent number of case examples to start with (I'm not posting them as pro or neg. yet).

Good start! Now this is where you... you know, go into detail to defend your argument.

Quote:
But shouldn't we wrap up health issues first?
.....

In a condensed form of argument:
Sexually transmitted diseases are much less likely to spread with monogamous partners. For all the much vaunted arguments of personal responsibility, people who partake in orgies are less likely to be careful, I'm not saying they can't be, but that's it's unlikely. So you win on personal health, I should have specified that as well earlier. But on a collective scale it is a very bad thing.

Prove to me that 'people who partake in orgies are less likely to be careful' because you're totally making a judgement about a decent sized group of people based on... god only knows what, an assumption, I'm guessing.

Quote:
Also, gays of either gender are statistically proven to be less loyal to their mates. And by your own words, their anal tissue breaks. If they weren't having sex that won't lead to children in the first place they wouldn't be breaking each other's anal tissues would they?

Statistically proven by -who-? Show me some resources here or something, because if its some batshit crazy group of fundies I'm going to laugh. Also, straight people get AIDS, too, in perfectly ordinary baby-making sex. Just because the percentages are fewer doesn't mean jack shit, because it still happens and it totally shoots your 'teh gays are being punished' argument out of the water.

Quote:
We seem to operate on different levels.

Mine seems to be a lot more accepting than yours. Funny, that.


Last edited by Samsally on Mon Dec 18, 2006 7:18 am; edited 1 time in total
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Samsally



Joined: 10 Jul 2006
Posts: 6461

PostPosted: Mon Dec 18, 2006 7:16 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Toteone wrote:
It's so cute how people always acribe their ideological counterparts to calling evil. I said I believe what I believe to be sexual immorality to be wrong... one could take it to evil... yes I believe that.
I also pointed out that sexual relations between homosexual men lead to AIDS.
I did not combine these points, to my knowledge.

Anyho, you're all proving yourselves as... if more lucid by text, as more childish and easy to anger.

Lesbians get off scot-free because they don't have as many juices and phallic protrusions, I know this does not conform to defending a 'they're evil and should be punished by God' argument, but I didn't make it in the first place..


If you didn't make that argument in the first place, then why did you even bring it up?... Now I'm just confused.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Toteone



Joined: 18 Dec 2006
Posts: 18

PostPosted: Mon Dec 18, 2006 7:19 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

(OK then. I was editing until I found someone posting something new. I think I made a final edit though.)

Hmmmm... I'd call it less of a 'poor argument' then a summary of wide-ranging arguments. I can defend my intelligence if I want, but I'm going to leave it for namecalling. I doubt I'm ignorant (people usually call me the opposite IRL, but who knows, maybe you have a point and I am not sufficiently knowledgeable about the issues in question), as I see it I have different sources and schooling then you (public & private & some religious) and have read different litterature through life.

While WoC is not here, you are, there are plenty of other people who're better then me on the other side of the argument.

...
Well I'd like to elaborate, but I'm still dealing with the health arguments.

Aaaaah, proof! Glad we could get into that.
I'll get proof but it might take some time, since I didn't bookmark the articles.



Hmmmm... if you're so accepting then why are you swearing and being all angry because someone is lecturing on their beliefs? Isn't it a oppertunity to make me more accepting. You don't seem very accepting yourself of me. Of course you could say that you don't need to be accepting of people who're not accepting, but isn't there this whole thing about not sinking to another person's level? Such as namecalling for instance?


Last edited by Toteone on Mon Dec 18, 2006 7:22 am; edited 1 time in total
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Zonedout



Joined: 27 Jul 2006
Posts: 236
Location: Los Angeles CA

PostPosted: Mon Dec 18, 2006 7:21 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

"Explain why gay people suffer most from AIDS in the west.."
ShhhhhhWAHT?
wow which fundamentalist told you that lie?
_________________

Remember Love others Love oneself
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Major Tom



Joined: 09 Jul 2006
Posts: 7562

PostPosted: Mon Dec 18, 2006 7:22 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Toteone wrote:
Well, religions are the main bastions of classifying evil. If I indeed said 'gay people have AIDS because they are evil' I would be evoking religion. I didn't say it anyway. I think it's a bit presumptious to 'know what God thinks' other then by the holy books per religion.


i don't believe that evil does not exist in the absense of a belief in god.

it's a weak assumption on your part and you should realize that you have committed the very error you have accused others of in this thread.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Toteone



Joined: 18 Dec 2006
Posts: 18

PostPosted: Mon Dec 18, 2006 7:22 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

I wasn't making that argument.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Toteone



Joined: 18 Dec 2006
Posts: 18

PostPosted: Mon Dec 18, 2006 7:24 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Toteone wrote:
Well, religions are the main bastions of classifying evil. If I indeed said 'gay people have AIDS because they are evil' I would be evoking religion. I didn't say it anyway. I think it's a bit presumptious to 'know what God thinks' other then by the holy books per religion.

Philosophical morality does too, but not as much or as intensely.

...
Ummm, it's not really relevant but it would be a nice floor swipe (of an argument) if I was feeling guilty, but I don't so I suppose one might get back to calling me a Pharisee. Wink


Here is the post in question. Note the underlining.
I think it's pretty clear that religions usually are the first and the most intense to call someone or something or some act as evil.

Philosophical morality does too, but not as much or as intensely.

Thus I did write that philosophical morality does classify things as evil, but are not usually as vigorous or intense about it.


Last edited by Toteone on Mon Dec 18, 2006 7:25 am; edited 1 time in total
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Display posts from previous:   
Post new topic   Reply to topic    Sinfest Forum Index -> Sinfest All times are GMT
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3, ... 11, 12, 13  Next
Page 2 of 13

 
Jump to:  
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum


Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2005 phpBB Group