Planned Parenthood Perverting Our Kids!

[Psychic Missile]

What evidence are you speaking of? You can teach how to be protected from STD's without getting into every possible sexual deviation. Remember, this thread was about PP using 50 Shades of Gray as a course lesson for kids. Do you agree with that?

In a poll I linked 72% of parents believe that parents should be able to opt out their kids from sex ed. Do you agree with that? Because when my son was going to High School he could not opt out without losing credit for the whole social science course, and would have been held back. Do you see that as right?

Evidence on whether or not something is harmful. Bringing up homosexuality-specific STI concerns only helps and isn't time intensive, so there's no reason not to do it. This thread was originally about an advertisement for a group protesting nothing in particular. I have no idea if that PP training lecture encouraged educators to use 50 Shades as part of their lesson plan or if it was just a point of reference for the lecture attendants. Do you?

I do not agree that parents should be able to opt their kids out of sex ed in public schools. Doing so is a prioritization of the parent's needs over the child's. I have this opinion because I have seen no evidence of widespread incidence of inappropriate material, I have seen the results of lessons in protection, I have seen the need for instruction in anatomy and consent, among other sex ed topics, and I have seen people who are against sex ed instruction reveal their true priorities, which include marginalization of gay and trans children and promoting ignorance about protection use.

[Sparko]

Whenever someone accuses me of this, I run to the dictionary to see if I am off base. Merriam Webster defines "universal" as "including or covering all or a whole collectively or distributively without limit or exception." So when I say that I assess all activity by sentient beings everywhere by the same moral code, I am applying my moral code universally. In other words, all people, everywhere, should be assessing things as I assess them. If they do not, they are acting immorally. Seer is claiming that all people everywhere should adhere to his moral framework (his interpretation of the Christian framework that he has adopted).

You have to take the context of the conversation into account Carpe. When people are discussing morals and use "universal" they mean for all people, not just personally. You know this. This is your way to play games. I think people are tired of it. I know I am.

[seer]

Evidence on whether or not something is harmful. Bringing up homosexuality-specific STI concerns only helps and isn't time intensive, so there's no reason not to do it.

There is no reason to bring up homsexuality at all. If you have to bring up specific sexual behaviors, like anal, vaginal or oral you can do that without addressing orientation.

This thread was originally about an advertisement for a group protesting nothing in particular. I have no idea if that PP training lecture encouraged educators to use 50 Shades as part of their lesson plan or if it was just a point of reference for the lecture attendants. Do you?

Yes I linked it, it includes teaching to teenagers: https://www.yumpu.com/en/document/vi...hudson-peconic

I do not agree that parents should be able to opt their kids out of sex ed in public schools. Doing so is a prioritization of the parent's needs over the child's. I have this opinion because I have seen no evidence of widespread incidence of inappropriate material, I have seen the results of lessons in protection, I have seen the need for instruction in anatomy and consent, among other sex ed topics, and I have seen people who are against sex ed instruction reveal their true priorities, which include marginalization of gay and trans children and promoting ignorance about protection use.

There you go forcing your beliefs on the rest of us! So you don't actually believe in democratic representation, but rather tyranny of the minority!

[carpedm9587]

I follow the science, both biological and psychological...

Yes, though we we're all treated to a wonderful repetition of it in Charlottesville only a few months ago. Cross burnings, as you learned if you followed the links, are still actively used. And elements of racism continue to crop up in our culture. And the bigotry against the LGBTQ community is the modern day civil rights battle. It does not have anywhere near the degree of violence the civil rights era of the 1960s had, but there is still violence and still a struggle against iniquity.

So you are measuring everyone else's experience on the basis of your own? I would see that as more than a little narrow.

Since I have not shared those experiences - it is not clear to me how you can call them "exaggerated" or "made up."

Yes because we all know the flood gates will open and racist will flood the streets.

And I have no idea how you can stand being on the internet.

Well... usually I sit...

[carpedm9587]

Sorry Carp, really I didn't mean to insult you! ; )

I don't insult very easily, Seer. My general perspective is that harsh words and insults say more about the person using them than the person they are used against. It's why I prefer to avoid them myself.

Please Carp, your whole argument boiled down to defining what was trivial or not by what the majority thought. All through this debate you were saying things like: But your consistent use of things widely held as "trivial preferences" to compare to things widely held as "core values," is somewhat revealing of your agenda.

OK, I have responded to this several times, so you will think what you will think and further response doesn't seem warranted.

No Carp, people generally are not moral relativists, and whether that belief is tied to a truism or not, it is how people think. And you really are using a double standard - what if belief in universal moral truths is one of those "core" values that you speak of? You are trying to trivialise what others see as paramount. Doing the same thing you accused me of.

OK, so several points here. First, when I look around myself, I see a world full of moral relativists/subjectivists. You are one of them. I have pointed out (and you keep cutting out) that you are the one who subjectively "values god." You are the one who has subjectively decided to align your moral code to the code you believe is from this god. You are the one who subjectively believes this code is documented in the bible, but you then have to interpret the code, so you are subjectively aligning to the code as you have subjectively interpreted it. If/when you cease being Christian, your moral stance will likely realign to what you newly value. The same is true of every Christian, Muslim, Jewish, Hindu, or <insert religion X here> person I have ever met.

And if someone sees "universal moral truths" as a core value, then they are engaged in a circular moral chain. You see, moral codes are derived by determining which actions protect/enhance the things we value, and which attack/destroy/diminish what we value. You are trying to make the nature of the moral code the object of the valuing, which means we're building a moral code on the basis of the nature of the moral code? It makes no sense.

You have shown no such thing. Here is a God given universal truth - adultery is morally wrong. It is never right to bed another man's wife. How is that relative?

First, you cannot show that it IS god given. If it is, then it is god's subjectively derived moral code. You are an independent moral agent. You are free to decide to align with god's moral code, or to Fred's moral code, or to think it through for yourself. MOrality is ALWAYS subjective/relative to the individual. As for "universal," as I have noted before, anyone who derives THAT specific moral code as part of their moral framework will see it as universal: "bedding another mans wife is wrong" (interesting that you define it in those gender terms) will be seen as wrong for everyone everywhere. So if I "bed another man's wife," they will see my actions as "morally wrong" because they assess from the perspective of their own moral framework.

But that is false, both men made universal claims: wife rape is universally immoral, wife rape is universally mortal. Since you made the universal claim it is contradicted by another universal claim.

You are trying to use "universal" the way Sparko wants to. That's not what the word actually means. Each man sees their moral framework as universal - but no man can see their moral framework as "objective" or "absolute." If there was an objective moral code, then the two statements would be in contradiction. But each man is speaking from the framework of their own moral code (which is subjective/relative). So each man is correct from the perspective of their framework.

The situation is akin to two men observing a passing train. One man, standing on the train platform, says "that train is moving 50 MPH." The other, riding in a car traveling at 30 MPH parallel to the train says, "that train is moving 20 MPH." Both are right. Relative to their framework, that is indeed the speed of the train. You may say, "but the man on the platform is the correct one because the objective/absolute speed of the train is 50 MPH." No - it's not. If you make that argument, you would be arbitrarily choosing "relative to the surface of the earth" as your "absolute" or "objective" measure. But that is merely a convention. The train does not HAVE an absolute speed. Speed is always measured in relation to something else.

So it is with morality.

Not the point. I'm speaking of moral statements. Again, for instance, you can not claim that bigotry against gays is wrong, since statement is both true and false depending on opinion. You have successfully reduced all moral statements to absurdity.

I absolutely can clam that bigotry against gays is wrong. I can tell you why I hold that position, and how it aligns with what I value. If you believe bigotry against gays is NOT wrong, then we have a few choices to us. I can try to find out what it is you value that is the basis for that belief. I think I already know that: you value your god and you interpret the code in your bible to tell you that you have to take this position. I do not believe I have a prayer (pun intended) of convincing you not value your god, and I doubt a have a chance of convincing you to interpret your bible differently. So those approaches to getting you to shift your moral stance are not going to work. That takes "convince" off the table. That leaves us with "isolate/separate" and "contend."

Pointing out the bigotry of your position is simply my way of attempting to isolate the position. It may not work with many (most?) of the people here, but it is my hope that my arguments WILL be read by others who come here, and they will see the moral position from my perspective. I suspect you are hoping the same from yours. The more views like yours are relegated to the fringes, the more the core will grow in acceptance of the LGBTQ community. As for contending, I guess that will be limited to the ballot box.

And for reducing all moral statements to absurdity - you're back to Technique #1 - which we already know to be devoid of content.

[carpedm9587]

You have to take the context of the conversation into account Carpe. When people are discussing morals and use "universal" they mean for all people, not just personally. You know this. This is your way to play games. I think people are tired of it. I know I am.

If you are tired of exchanging views, Sparko, just disengage or put me on block. No one is required to read or respond to what I write.

As for universal, I see literally no difference between the two usages you are suggesting:

Sparko: believes everyone everywhere should be adhering to his moral code - which is the one he believes is "given by god"
Seer: believes everyone everywhere should be adhering to his moral code - which is the one he believes is "given by god"
Michel: believes everyone everywhere should be adhering to his moral code - which is the one he has derived from what he values

What differs is where our codes arise from - not who we think should be following it. Ultimately, we all believe our moral framework is "the right one." If we didn't, we'd have a different one.

[seer]

I don't insult very easily, Seer. My general perspective is that harsh words and insults say more about the person using them than the person they are used against. It's why I prefer to avoid them myself.

But I mistaked you for Charles - could there possibly be anything worse?

OK, I have responded to this several times, so you will think what you will think and further response doesn't seem warranted.

Right and by your words I showed that you were using the majority to make your point about what was trivial or not.

OK, so several points here. First, when I look around myself, I see a world full of moral relativists/subjectivists. You are one of them. I have pointed out (and you keep cutting out) that you are the one who subjectively "values god." You are the one who has subjectively decided to align your moral code to the code you believe is from this god. You are the one who subjectively believes this code is documented in the bible, but you then have to interpret the code, so you are subjectively aligning to the code as you have subjectively interpreted it. If/when you cease being Christian, your moral stance will likely realign to what you newly value. The same is true of every Christian, Muslim, Jewish, Hindu, or <insert religion X here> person I have ever met.

That makes no sense, I may subjectively believe that the law of noncontradiction is universal. So we can grasp and understand universal truths.

And if someone sees "universal moral truths" as a core value, then they are engaged in a circular moral chain. You see, moral codes are derived by determining which actions protect/enhance the things we value, and which attack/destroy/diminish what we value. You are trying to make the nature of the moral code the object of the valuing, which means we're building a moral code on the basis of the nature of the moral code? It makes no sense.

In my case, I see God as knowing what is best. And you use the same circular logic when you decide what is moral or not.

First, you cannot show that it IS god given. If it is, then it is god's subjectively derived moral code. You are an independent moral agent. You are free to decide to align with god's moral code, or to Fred's moral code, or to think it through for yourself. MOrality is ALWAYS subjective/relative to the individual. As for "universal," as I have noted before, anyone who derives THAT specific moral code as part of their moral framework will see it as universal: "bedding another mans wife is wrong" (interesting that you define it in those gender terms) will be seen as wrong for everyone everywhere. So if I "bed another man's wife," they will see my actions as "morally wrong" because they assess from the perspective of their own moral framework.

I don't expect you to agree on the existence of God, the point is His laws would universal, whether we subjectively accept it or not.

You are trying to use "universal" the way Sparko wants to. That's not what the word actually means. Each man sees their moral framework as universal - but no man can see their moral framework as "objective" or "absolute." If there was an objective moral code, then the two statements would be in contradiction. But each man is speaking from the framework of their own moral code (which is subjective/relative). So each man is correct from the perspective of their framework.

Oh please universal is universal. But you still are in contradiction, at best your moral claims are absurd.

The situation is akin to two men observing a passing train. One man, standing on the train platform, says "that train is moving 50 MPH." The other, riding in a car traveling at 30 MPH parallel to the train says, "that train is moving 20 MPH." Both are right. Relative to their framework, that is indeed the speed of the train. You may say, "but the man on the platform is the correct one because the objective/absolute speed of the train is 50 MPH." No - it's not. If you make that argument, you would be arbitrarily choosing "relative to the surface of the earth" as your "absolute" or "objective" measure. But that is merely a convention. The train does not HAVE an absolute speed. Speed is always measured in relation to something else.

So it is with morality.

No, the train is moving at a knowable absolute speed, not matter our relative framework.

I absolutely can clam that bigotry against gays is wrong. I can tell you why I hold that position, and how it aligns with what I value.

Right a circular argument.

If you believe bigotry against gays is NOT wrong, then we have a few choices to us. I can try to find out what it is you value that is the basis for that belief. I think I already know that: you value your god and you interpret the code in your bible to tell you that you have to take this position. I do not believe I have a prayer (pun intended) of convincing you not value your god, and I doubt a have a chance of convincing you to interpret your bible differently. So those approaches to getting you to shift your moral stance are not going to work. That takes "convince" off the table. That leaves us with "isolate/separate" and "contend."

Not the point Carp, the statement: "bigotry against gays is wrong" is trivial, since your opinion is trivial in light of the fact that the opposite opinion is just as important, real, and worthy as yours. The best could do at that point is to, once again, appeal to the majority. But we both know that is a fallacy.

Pointing out the bigotry of your position is simply my way of attempting to isolate the position. It may not work with many (most?) of the people here, but it is my hope that my arguments WILL be read by others who come here, and they will see the moral position from my perspective. I suspect you are hoping the same from yours. The more views like yours are relegated to the fringes, the more the core will grow in acceptance of the LGBTQ community. As for contending, I guess that will be limited to the ballot box.

But in your subjective world your opinion really does not matter, well to you I suppose, but it has no weight since there is no OBJECTIVE way to prove your opinion is right, it's just, well, your opinion.

And for reducing all moral statements to absurdity - you're back to Technique #1 - which we already know to be devoid of content.

Nonsense Carp, I showed why your moral claims are absurd. Again, for instance, you can not claim that bigotry against gays is wrong, since statement is both true and false depending on opinion. You have successfully reduced all moral statements to absurdity

[carpedm9587]

But I mistaked you for Charles - could there possibly be anything worse?

Well, I might have been confused for YOU...

Right and by your words I showed that you were using the majority to make your point about what was trivial or not.

No further comment. See my previous responses.

That makes no sense, I may subjectively believe that the law of noncontradiction is universal. So we can grasp and understand universal truths.

You do seem to like that phrase. But saying it makes no sense doesn't make it so. Accepting the truth of the law of noncontradiction and the truth of core mathematical principles is accepting an objective reality. Yes, at the end of the day, we all accept everything subjectively (by definition), but there is still an objective reality behind it. You have had experiences that for you "prove" there is a god. But you have never (as far as I know) experienced GOD directly, so you are subjectively interpreting your experiences and your feelings. Then the existence of a thing does not automatically mean you value it. Valuing god is a subjective choice. Since morality is built upon what we value, your morality is therefore also subjectively derived.

In my case, I see God as knowing what is best. And you use the same circular logic when you decide what is moral or not.

Actually I do not, and I have traced that path. Nor do you, actually - unless you start trying to make the argument that a core value can be "the existence of moral absolutes/universal." When you do THAT, you go all circular on us.

I don't expect you to agree on the existence of God, the point is His laws would universal, whether we subjectively accept it or not.

As I have noted, all sentient being see their moral codes as "the best" and "universal." As I said to Sparko:

• Sparko thinks his moral code is the correct one and all sentient beings are evaluated against it - he has aligned his with his interpretation of the "Christian" code because he values god
• Seer thinks his moral code is the correct one and all sentient beings are evaluated against it - he has aligned his with his interpretation of the "Christian" code because he values god
• Michel thinks his moral code is the correct one and all sentient beings are evaluated against it - he values various things and his moral code springs from those values.

The difference is how we derive our codes, not whether we see them a universal.

Oh please universal is universal. But you still are in contradiction, at best your moral claims are absurd.

No - for reasons I have already cited several times. You're back to Technique #1

No, the train is moving at a knowable absolute speed, not matter our relative framework.

Spoken like a true absolutist, and 100% wrong. Sorry, Seer, but your "absolute speed" is actually in reference to a particular framework: the surface of the planet. That is the convention we all use because it's where we live. In fact the speed of the train MUST be referenced against a framework or it is unknowable. There is no such thing as "absolute speed." Relativity tells us this and has for some time now.

Right a circular argument.

Then you are free to show the circularity thereof.

Not the point Carp, the statement: "bigotry against gays is wrong" is trivial, since your opinion is trivial in light of the fact that the opposite opinion is just as important, real, and worthy as yours. The best could do at that point is to, once again, appeal to the majority. But we both know that is a fallacy.

When did I say any of that? The opposite opinion is just as real as mine (assuming someone holds that position). It is not as important or worthy as mine. If I thought that for one second, I WOULD be in contradiction. And if I thought, for one minute, it was MORE important or MORE worthy than mine, then my moral view would immediately shift to that position.

You are working with some weird ideas, Seer.

But in your subjective world your opinion really does not matter, well to you I suppose, but it has no weight since there is no OBJECTIVE way to prove your opinion is right, it's just, well, your opinion.

It does matter - as you note - to me. The lack of an OBJECTIVE way to assess it is Technique #1 (yet again). Of course there is no objective way to measure it - the entire model is subjective. Really, Seer, you need a better argument than just repeating the definition of "subjective" over and over again. Yes, the blue car is not green. We all know that. But that doesn't mean that you've shown us that "not green" is a problem. Likewise, the subjective moral framework is not objective. We all know that too. Now make an argument for why that is a problem that is NOT just a repetition of the obvious.

And the insertion of "just" is a resort to Technique #2 (again).

Nonsense Carp, I showed why your moral claims are absurd. Again, for instance, you can not claim that bigotry against gays is wrong, since statement is both true and false depending on opinion. You have successfully reduced all moral statements to absurdity

You're back to Technique #1 (yet again). You haven't shown anything to be absurd. You just seem to think you have, because somehow you seem to think that repeating that subjective is not objective is actually an argument. Indeed, I think you've pretty much demonstrated that you aren't even 100% clear on what being "relative" means (i.e., the trains).

Look, Seer. In your world, there has to be this "fixed" thing against which everything else is measured. Without it, you appear uneasy. The very idea that "speed" is meaningless without a reference frame seems to make your mind ache. I don't think you truly understand the dynamics of a relative/subjective moral framework. I think you've been so indoctrinated into "it has to be absolute/objective that you cannot even begin to see that you don't have an argument. All you keep doing is repeating (in various forms) that subjective frameworks are not objective (Technique #1), throw words like "just" and "merely" or associate core values with pizza toppings (Technique #2), or appeal to the inevitable Nazis and Jewish children (Technique #3 with a hint of Technique #1).

Do you have ANY actual argument for your position?

[lilpixieofterror]

I follow the science, both biological and psychological...

Yes, though we we're all treated to a wonderful repetition of it in Charlottesville only a few months ago. Cross burnings, as you learned if you followed the links, are still actively used. And elements of racism continue to crop up in our culture. And the bigotry against the LGBTQ community is the modern day civil rights battle. It does not have anywhere near the degree of violence the civil rights era of the 1960s had, but there is still violence and still a struggle against iniquity.

So you are measuring everyone else's experience on the basis of your own? I would see that as more than a little narrow.

Since I have not shared those experiences - it is not clear to me how you can call them "exaggerated" or "made up."

Well... usually I sit...

[Tassman]

Nonsense, if schools did not teach sex ed, then no one's tenets would dominate.

The only tenet of concern is that kids have knowledge of sex and the different forms it can legitimately take. It is not beyond the ability of the education system to do this in an impartial way without imposing any values or particular tenets...religious or otherwise.

[seer]

Look, Seer. In your world, there has to be this "fixed" thing against which everything else is measured. Without it, you appear uneasy. The very idea that "speed" is meaningless without a reference frame seems to make your mind ache. I don't think you truly understand the dynamics of a relative/subjective moral framework. I think you've been so indoctrinated into "it has to be absolute/objective that you cannot even begin to see that you don't have an argument. All you keep doing is repeating (in various forms) that subjective frameworks are not objective (Technique #1), throw words like "just" and "merely" or associate core values with pizza toppings (Technique #2), or appeal to the inevitable Nazis and Jewish children (Technique #3 with a hint of Technique #1).

Do you have ANY actual argument for your position?

No Carp, this is the bottom line. If you are correct food choices are just as important or not depending on the subjective view of the person. So when you chide me for using that example, you are not doing it on logical grounds. You don't like having your "cherished values" compared to food choices - it trivialized your values. But that too is your opinion, no more right or worthy or true than the opinion that food is more important. Your values are important only because you hold them and find them important (circular). When pushed on this you appealed to a majority opinion (which you denied even though I quoted you directly). So in your defence you reverted to a fallacy. And yes, I do use words like "merely" and "just" because in the big picture your moral opinion and values are as trivial as the existence of our species, as trivial are your existence. Dust in the wind brother, all we are is dust in the wind. And all your pontificating won't change that fact.

[seer]

The only tenet of concern is that kids have knowledge of sex and the different forms it can legitimately take. It is not beyond the ability of the education system to do this in an impartial way without imposing any values or particular tenets...religious or otherwise.

Since when is it the responsibility of government schools to teach sex ed in the first place?

[guacamole]

Since when is it the responsibility of government schools to teach sex ed in the first place?

Since, no matter what grown-ups who aren't their parents say, the little buzzards hump like rabbits and cause more cross-generational misery.

[seer]

Since, no matter what grown-ups who aren't their parents say, the little buzzards hump like rabbits and cause more cross-generational misery.

Actually, growing up in the 50s and 60s we didn't actually hump like rabbits, getting to first base was a big deal.

[guacamole]

Actually, growing up in the 50s and 60s we didn't actually hump like rabbits, getting to first base was a big deal.

Possibly. The sexual revolution. What a gas.