Gen. Flynn lied concerning his pre-innauguration communications with Russia.

[Sparko]

Indeed, provided that the discrimination is equally applied to all, e.g. enforcing a dress-code at a posh restaurant.

Nope. He can say "Tassman, you smell bad. You are not allowed in my store" and that is perfectly legal.

Gay marriage is legal in the US therefore discrimination against it, e.g. by a cake-shop owner, is unlawful discrimination...as has been ruled in the courts on the basis of the Civil Rights Act of 1964.

http://aclu-co.org/court-rules-baker...st-gay-couple/

Nope. It was decided based on a local law:
Longstanding Colorado state law prohibits public accommodations, including businesses such as Masterpiece Cakeshop, from refusing service based on factors such as race, sex, marital status or sexual orientation.

The Civil Rights Act of 1964 does not protect homosexuals or marriage as a status. In fact in 1964, being homosexual acts were still illegal in most areas and gays certainly could not get married.

[Sparko]

You just admitted that morality keeps changing. You THINK it is for the "better" but that is you comparing the morals of today to your present values. I think they are getting worse using my values. It is a matter of perspective. I am sure pedophiles would say society has changed for the better if it is legalized. You, disagreeing with that will be considered an old fogey, a throwback and a bigot, just like we conservatives are for disagreeing with gay marriage today.

[Tassman]

But it's still consent, which refutes the original claim.



And it establishes that a minor can consent.

Certainly, but "informed consent" is what it's all about, i.e. understanding what's being consented to and it's the possible ramifications.

[Mountain Man]

But you don't have a problem with those societies where informed consent is not required, right? I mean, if your morality is based on social norms then your moral compass is necessarily fluid.

[Mountain Man]

On theism the you will necessarily run into a trilemma when trying to justify any ethical stance:

1. Morality is arbitrarily decided by god.
2. Morality is independent of god.
3. Make a circular argument.

You're really not very bright, are you?

Morality is simply the term we use to describe that which is consistent with God's character and nature. There's nothing arbitrary or circular about it.

[Tassman]

But you don't have a problem with those societies where informed consent is not required, right? I mean, if your morality is based on social norms then your moral compass is necessarily fluid.

Our morality is based upon the current mores of the Western world, including the requirement for informed consent. Whereas, in the tribal world of say ancient Israel...or even just 200 years ago in our society, the social mores were quite different, e.g. slavery was accepted, and women were legally chattels of men. Morality evolves as social values evolve.

[Tassman]

You're really not very bright, are you?

Morality is simply the term we use to describe that which is consistent with God's character and nature. There's nothing arbitrary or circular about it.

Nonsense! Morality is simply a code of behaviour accepted by a society to enable social cohesion. It's a survival thing for social species such as us. There's evidence that even the most primitive Stone Age tribes had regulated societies governed by codes of behaviour (i.e. morality) long before gods as we know them ever existed.

[Mountain Man]

Our morality is based upon the current mores of the Western world, including the requirement for informed consent. Whereas, in the tribal world of say ancient Israel...or even just 200 years ago in our society, the social mores were quite different, e.g. slavery was accepted, and women were legally chattels of men. Morality evolved as social values evolve.

And if morality "evolves" to accept pedophilia the way it has "evolved" to accept homosexuality, you'd be fine with that, right?

And what about other societies in the world today where informed consent is not regarded as a moral necessity? You don't have a problem with them, right?

Or do you think that Western culture is necessarily right and everybody else throughout history and the world today is wrong? That actually sounds rather bigoted, but maybe you're OK with that, too.

[Mountain Man]

Nonsense! Morality is simply a code of behaviour accepted by a society to enable social cohesion. It's a survival thing for social species such as us. There's evidence that even the most primitive Stone Age tribes had regulated societies governed by codes of behaviour (i.e. morality) long before gods as we know them ever existed.

I was answering The Stinker's question from within the context of theism since his question was asked within the context of theism, you idiot. To that end, your response is incoherent.

[Tassman]

And if morality "evolves" to accept pedophilia the way it has "evolved" to accept homosexuality, you'd be fine with that, right?

So desperate to cling to the erroneous belief that acceptance of homosexuality results in a slippery slop to pedophilia.

Morality has evolved in our society to accept homosexual relationships, because both parties are capable of giving informed consent. The same does not apply to minors and is therefore unacceptable. In short, all persons...including children...have equal rights of protection as per the Universal Declaration of Human Rights.

And what about other societies in the world today where informed consent is not regarded as a moral necessity? You don't have a problem with them, right?

See above.

Or do you think that Western culture is necessarily right and everybody else throughout history and the world today is wrong? That actually sounds rather bigoted, but maybe you're OK with that, too.

Do youReally! In what way is it superior?

[Sparko]

So desperate to cling to the erroneous belief that acceptance of homosexuality results in a slippery slop to pedophilia.

Morality has evolved in our society to accept homosexual relationships, because both parties are capable of giving informed consent. The same does not apply to minors and is therefore unacceptable. In short, all persons...including children...have equal rights of protection as per the Universal Declaration of Human Rights.



See above.



Do youReally! In what way is it superior?

So far you have not given any good reason why society won't "evolve" to allow pedophilia other than it goes against your values and you think society has the same values as you do.

I can tell you from experience that is not the case. Ask someone 50 years ago if society would ever allow gay marriage and they would be using the same arguments as you are right now: "No way! Sure society evolved to allow interracial marriages because that was the right thing to do. The same does not apply to gay marriage because homosexuality is not acceptable. blah blah blah"

[Bill the Cat]

Do youReally! In what way is it superior?

Divorce rates were far lower, poverty was far less prevalent, pollution was dramatically lower, gun violence was vastly lower... etc.

[Roy]

...poverty was far less prevalent, ...

While I can't claim to be an expert on 19th century America, that doesn't seem likely.

[Bill the Cat]

While I can't claim to be an expert on 19th century America, that doesn't seem likely.

There's plenty written on poverty in the 1800's.

Poor people coped in various ways, usually turning to organized relief only when less-public strategies failed. Believing, often correctly, that their poverty was temporary, poor people survived through small savings, rigid thrift, help from family members, odd jobs, debt, and aid from churches, fraternal associations, and trade unions.

[Roy]

There's plenty written on poverty in the 1800's.

That would suggest that there was plenty of poverty in the 1800s. Your comment suggests not that poverty was less prevalent, but that it was handled differently.