Marlon Bundo

[rogue06]

You bought five copies of the "protest" book, then thought about buying the original too. You may drop your pretense of neutrality. You may drop your pretense that the book was not intended to be offensive, too; Pence is well-known for his stance against homosexuality - therefore writing a book wherein his pet is imagined to be homosexual cannot be anything but offensive. Your bland definition of homosexual "love" can apply equally well to pedophilia, adultery, incest.... and you claim to have the moral high ground.

Frankly, I'm beginning to prefer Starlight's flamboyant opposition to your well-meaning non-confrontational habitual redefinition of words. I know where he stands on things. You, not so much.

In a way carpe reminds me of a polite Jorge what with having his own definitions for words that he thinks everyone should follow.

[rogue06]

I'm sure it will offend Pence. It will probably offend those who agree with Pence. It is not going to offend any of the rest of us who believe that stance is immoral seek to define deviancy down.

FIFY n/c

Pedophelia, no (see above). Adultery - maybe. I've spoken on that in another post. Incest, no. The reason there is different. First of all, incest is usually a form of pedophelia. But even when it is not, the chance for pregnancy and resulting likelihood of genetic problems makes the act morally problematic.

Look at how you approach this it appears that you would have no trouble with bestiality. Would you be this supportive of a "protest book" where Pence was wanting to have sex with the rabbit?

[seer]

Justifying an immoral stance on the basis of "god says so" does not make it moral, Seer - as odd as that sentence probably will sound to your ears.

Sheesh! But it is all relative in your world Carp, so this objection has no rational basis...

[seer]

Look at how you approach this it appears that you would have no trouble with bestiality. Would you be this supportive of a "protest book" where Pence was wanting to have sex with the rabbit?

Actually he doesn't have a problem with bestiality...

[carpedm9587]

In a way carpe reminds me of a polite Jorge what with having his own definitions for words that he thinks everyone should follow.

Out of morbid curiosity - what word?

[carpedm9587]

Look at how you approach this it appears that you would have no trouble with bestiality.

That would be correct - unless someone can show harm to the animal. The practice is to me, but it does not have a moral content.

Would you be this supportive of a "protest book" where Pence was wanting to have sex with the rabbit?

Umm...no. Since I find bestiality I probably would not buy the book or give it to friends. I also wouldn't buy a book called "Marlon Bundo wallows in feces and pees on other bunnies." Again - no moral content (unless the other bunnies don't want to be peed on), but

[carpedm9587]

Sheesh! But it is all relative in your world Carp, so this objection has no rational basis...

And you continue to confuse "rationality" with "subjectivity." You make this mistake a lot. There is nothing in the fundamental laws of reason that require the premises to be "objectively true." For an argument to be sound and valid, the premises must merely be true. Again, by example:

1) I do not like pizza
2) That restaurant only services pizza
3) Therefore, I should not go to that restaurant for lunch.

Perfectly rational. Well structures argument. One premise objectively true, one premises subjectively true. No problem.

[seer]

Circularity in reasoning implies that the conclusion is contained in the premises. My moral code is rooted in what I value and reasoning acting upon it. That is not circular. Your question was what gave it moral weight - that is what gives it moral weight. Perhaps my expression of that was less than clear, so I can understand your confusion.

It still comes back to what makes something moral - something is moral because you say it is moral.

Partly. Not completely. Ergo - you don't know. Waste of time.

So your moral sense is not largely the result of the timing and place of your birth? Something you had no control over?

It is not clear to me how pointing out your religious bigotry is itself a bigoted statement. You clearly are aligning all of Islam with the ravings of its most extreme members. It is roughly the equivalent of my equating all of Christianity with the ravings of the KKK at the height of its power (1920s). Such an equivalence would be unjust, and would be bigoted on my part. I would never do it - despite the claims of the KK that they are "following Christian teachings." The same holds true for extremist Muslims.

Of course you are a religious bigot Carp, that is self-evident. The only good Christians or Muslims are those who agree with you! The rest of us are "extreme."

Ahead of because they are futher along in shifting to acceptance of the LGBTQ community. And yes, because it aligns with my moral framework and the evolving framework of our society.

Right, arbitrary standards....

Bigotry should be called out for what it is, Seer. The reason for having it is irrelevant. When a group is being targeted for the nature of their being, good people do not stand by and let it happen unchallenged. It does not mean I hate you - it does not mean I would harm you in any way - it means I find your extreme words (e.g., degenerate sodomites) unacceptable and bigoted. You are welcome to challenge me on any view you find to be bigoted. Since I abhor bigotry, I will look at it. It's not clear to me where there is hypocricy in any of this.

Right and deeply immoral behavior like homosexuality should be called out for what it is too! And I abhor your religious bigotry! Now what?

[carpedm9587]

Actually he doesn't have a problem with bestiality...

Not exactly true. I find the practice repulsive...but I do not find it to have moral content unless someone can show the animal is being harmed. So sex between an adult male and a kitten - moraaly reprehensible. That cannot possibly happen without harm to the animal. Sex between an adult man and a cow? It is still - but if the cow ain't kicking...

[seer]

And you continue to confuse "rationality" with "subjectivity." You make this mistake a lot. There is nothing in the fundamental laws of reason that require the premises to be "objectively true." For an argument to be sound and valid, the premises must merely be true. Again, by example:

1) I do not like pizza
2) That restaurant only services pizza
3) Therefore, I should not go to that restaurant for lunch.

Perfectly rational. Well structures argument. One premise objectively true, one premises subjectively true. No problem.

1. I do like pizza (a lot BTW)
2. Vinnies serves the best in town.
3. Therefore, I should go to Vinnies for lunch.

So which one of us is right? Why is your syllogism more rational than mine?

[seer]

Not exactly true. I find the practice repulsive...but I do not find it to have moral content unless someone can show the animal is being harmed. So sex between an adult male and a kitten - moraaly reprehensible. That cannot possibly happen without harm to the animal. Sex between an adult man and a cow? It is still - but if the cow ain't kicking...

Right, you don't have a problem with bestiality, at least in principle. But why even bring harm into it? Even if the cow is kicking what is the big deal, we are just going to kill and eat it next week.

[carpedm9587]

It still comes back to what makes something moral - something is moral because you say it is moral.

Of course. Just as something is immoral to you because YOU say it is immoral. The fact that you have deferred your judgment to your interpretation of the book called the Bible doesn't change that a) it's your choice to defer, and b) it's your interpretation of that book that you use. You will have as much difficulty convincing me to follow that moral code as I will have convincing you. You would first have to convince me that obeying/folowing your god is of value - and then you would have to convince me that yur interpretation is the correct one.

So your moral sense is not largely the result of the timing and place of your birth? Something you had no control over?

My moral sense was informed by by upbringing, including family, religion, community, circle of friends, etc. It has since shifted in many ways from the form it took when I was younger. I couldn't even begin to say what percentage is derived from what influence. I know that, at any given time, individuals break from the social moral norm when their reason tells them to. Predicting when that woudl have happened and for what topic is essentially impossible. Would I have thought differently if born in a different place or time? Quite possible. Maybe even probable. But not definitively knowable - so a pointless debate (which you definitely seem to want to continue). The best you'll get from me, however, is "maybe." You cannot know, I cannot refute. Pointless.

Of course you are a religious bigot Carp, that is self-evident. The only good Christians or Muslims are those who agree with you! The rest of us are "extreme."

Your point is duly noted. I'm not. I do what all people do: identify actions that fall outside what my moral framework calls "moral" as immoral, whoever does it. When the basis of that action is a personal characteristic (e.g., skin color, gender, sexual orientation, etc.), I call it what it is: bigotry. I have no preference for or against Christianity or most other religions. I have a stance against particular actions and words - regardless of their basis.

Right, arbitrary standards....

Arbitrary means: based on random choice or personal whim, rather than any reason or system. Since my moral framework is neither random nor based on personal whim, it cannot be correctly defined as "arbitrary."

Right and deeply immoral behavior like homosexuality should be called out for what it is too! And I abhor your religious bigotry! Now what?

Now nothing. I didn't expect you to change your words or behavior simply because I called it out, Seer. But I am morally obligated to call out bigotry when I encounter it. So now you know what I think - and I know what you think - and life goes on. If you express a bigoted view again, I will probably call it out again. Eventually, hopefully, you will consider the harm you do with this mindset and language, and you will soften your rhetoric. I don't know how you actually treat these people in a one-on-one situation, but if that needs some softening too, I hope that happens too. I do not agree with Element and his view either, but he at least has chosen a course that does not denigrate or do harm to others. Your method of dealing with your view on homosexuality is what I am pointing out and objecting to.

[carpedm9587]

1. I do like pizza (a lot BTW)
2. Vinnies serves the best in town.
3. Therefore, I should go to Vinnies for lunch.

So which one of us is right? Why is your syllogism more rational than mine?

Yours is right for you. Mine is right for me. A rational argument does not mean it is universally true or right, Seer. It simply means it is sound (if correctly constructed) and valid (if it is based on true premises) so it can be used to guide choices.

[carpedm9587]

Right, you don't have a problem with bestiality, at least in principle. But why even bring harm into it? Even if the cow is kicking what is the bing deal, we are just going to kill and eat it next week.

Because in my moral framework - it is not moral to unnecessarily cause distress to a living thing. All animals eat, and we either eat living plants or living animals. That is part of the normal circle of life. But if I choose to kill that cow by skinning it while still alive, and then systematically cutting of choice cuts until the animal expires, I am needlessly causing pain and anguish and my moral code makes that an immoral act - largely on the basis of my valuing life and happiness and health and not limiting that to just humans. But if the cow is put down humanely, I have no moral proscription against it.

[seer]

Of course. Just as something is immoral to you because YOU say it is immoral. The fact that you have deferred your judgment to your interpretation of the book called the Bible doesn't change that a) it's your choice to defer, and b) it's your interpretation of that book that you use. You will have as much difficulty convincing me to follow that moral code as I will have convincing you. You would first have to convince me that obeying/folowing your god is of value - and then you would have to convince me that yur interpretation is the correct one.

I think you are making my point.

I know that, at any given time, individuals break from the social moral norm when their reason tells them to.

You are not making sense Carp. You were just arguing that things that conformed to social trends were "ahead" and things that did not were "behind" - morality. So if and when you buck a social norm by your own definition you are "behind" morally.

Your point is duly noted. I'm not. I do what all people do: identify actions that fall outside what my moral framework calls "moral" as immoral, whoever does it. When the basis of that action is a personal characteristic (e.g., skin color, gender, sexual orientation, etc.), I call it what it is: bigotry. I have no preference for or against Christianity or most other religions. I have a stance against particular actions and words - regardless of their basis.

And your religious bigotry is duly noted.

Now nothing.

Right there is nothing, we are all simply left with our moral opinions.