Homophobic Trump...

[carpedm9587]

Because your challenge is meaningless. You are arbitrarily putting some people in groups based on their behavior, while arguing that other people who do a different behavior are not in a group. People who have sex with the same sex are "homosexuals" and you think it is wrong to be against that behavior because it is against an entire group of people. But you refuse to call all people who cheat on their spouses a group called "adulterers" - the fact is, you can make a group out of any behavior: Alcoholics, Drug Addicts, Gun enthusiasts, Trekkies, S&M, etc. -- if someone is against a certain behavior, that is not being bigoted against them, it is simply calling their behavior wrong. Some might indeed hate them, like the Westboro Baptists, but you claiming that just calling a behavior as sin makes it a hate crime or bigotry is actually YOU assigning an emotion to an entire group of people and calling them bigots. You are doing exactly what you are arguing we are doing.

But at this point, since you don't believe in any moral objectivity, it really doesn't matter to me how hypocritical or nonsensical your moral viewpoints are. They simply don't matter to anyone but yourself so we can safely ignore your whining.

You are conflating two issues. The "group" argument and the "genetics" argument. Concerning groups, yes, you can make a group out of any behavior - but your group is not about a behavior - it's about a type of person: homosexuals vs. heterosexuals. When you apply different rules to different groups whose membership is not optional, and the different rules cannot be linked to any underlying necessity related to that group, then you are engaging in a form of prejudice/bigotry. It is an act of hate, even if you "feel kindly" towards the poor people caught in this position.

The other issue was the challenge I posed. This challenge was to expose the fact that you are basing your moral framework on genetics, and nothing more. I can understand you not taking up the challenge. The logic is inescapable. You will not be able to determine if Perry and Jules sexual act is moral WITHOUT asking about their genetic make-up. That's the entire point. You have an act that is moral between Persons A and B but immoral between Persons C and D and the ONLY difference is their genetic make-up. Ergo - your morality is based on the genetics, not the act or anything else about the act.

You cannot name any other moral precept that you hold that is based like this. And this is exactly the basis for older moral precepts that have long been discarded as racist (e.g., a black man cannot marry or have sex with a white women, etc.). Yours is now "genderist" rather than "racist," but the underlying principle is the same. And there is no escaping this reality.

[seer]

We've gone around enough on this one. I'll let my previous posts stand.

But your point has no merit that I can see.

Both are human and, just to help a bit, they were married in the Episcopal Church.

Now you just moved the goal posts, you never specified what kind of genome. You asked for an example and I gave you one (a real world example BTW).

So perhaps you are in a quandary. If your biblical worldview does not allow for racist/ethnic, distinctions, does it allow for any other distinctions that are solely based upon the human genome? Give me one other example of a moral precept that is completely dependent for moral assessment on the genome of the actor(s). I don't think you will find one. This is the ONLY one. So, by definition, it is no different than a moral precept based on race - which is also genetically coded for.

I did, bestiality. But Carp, I don't accept your premise. Why should I accept your restriction? Why can't I make a moral claim base on genome of the actors? Even if I do this only for one class of peoples? And race is not behavior, we are speaking of behavior here. I am not basing this moral claim on a person's genome, but their behavior.

[Sparko]

You are conflating two issues. The "group" argument and the "genetics" argument. Concerning groups, yes, you can make a group out of any behavior - but your group is not about a behavior - it's about a type of person: homosexuals vs. heterosexuals. When you apply different rules to different groups whose membership is not optional, and the different rules cannot be linked to any underlying necessity related to that group, then you are engaging in a form of prejudice/bigotry. It is an act of hate, even if you "feel kindly" towards the poor people caught in this position.

The other issue was the challenge I posed. This challenge was to expose the fact that you are basing your moral framework on genetics, and nothing more. I can understand you not taking up the challenge. The logic is inescapable. You will not be able to determine if Perry and Jules sexual act is moral WITHOUT asking about their genetic make-up. That's the entire point. You have an act that is moral between Persons A and B but immoral between Persons C and D and the ONLY difference is their genetic make-up. Ergo - your morality is based on the genetics, not the act or anything else about the act.

You cannot name any other moral precept that you hold that is based like this. And this is exactly the basis for older moral precepts that have long been discarded as racist (e.g., a black man cannot marry or have sex with a white women, etc.). Yours is now "genderist" rather than "racist," but the underlying principle is the same. And there is no escaping this reality.

Again Carp, your criteria is your own, not mine, so your whole "genome" nonsense is nothing more than you telling me that I am wrong for saying "I prefer strawberry ice cream," because strawberries are red therefore I am a racist. Your arbitrary group delineations mean nothing. We are not discriminating based on genome but on behavior. I don't care if two women are having sex or two men. It is having sex with the same sex as yourself that is immoral. Because sex is designed to be between opposite sex. That is why there are two sexes. It is the behavior that we are calling immoral. I know you don't care what we say and are determined to find a way to characterize it as being about "genome" but truthfully, I don't care what you think. I know you are wrong.

[carpedm9587]

But your point has no merit that I can see.

Now you just moved the goal posts, you never specified what kind of genome. You asked for an example and I gave you one (a real world example BTW).

How exactly did I move the goalposts? I've given you no information that has anything to do with anyone's genome - except that they are both human.

I did, bestiality. But Carp, I don't accept your premise. Why should I accept your restriction? Why can't I make a moral claim base on genome of the actors? Even if I do this only for one class of peoples? And race is not behavior, we are speaking of behavior here. I am not basing this moral claim on a person's genome, but their behavior.

You continually conflating the two issues: behavior and genome. Your morality about homosexuality is based on genome - nothing more. I have shown this already. If the same act is moral for A and B, and immoral for C and D, and the only difference is their genome - then it is the genome that defines the morality - not the act. The act is the same for both sets of parties. So it cannot be the basis if the moral rule differs between the two.

And if you are free to create one set of moral rules for one group, and a different set of moral rules for another group - with their genome being the only difference, then you have no basis for making an argument against racist moral proscriptions either. After all, if you can change the moral rules on the basis of one part of the genome, who is to say you cannot on the basis of another part. So moral prohibitions against white marrying and having sex with black - you have no logical basis for saying "no - that is not right."

So - to sum up - you appear to accept that a moral prescription can be based entirely on the genome of the person involved. That is something I would reject, for all of the reasons stated.

[carpedm9587]

Again Carp, your criteria is your own, not mine, so your whole "genome" nonsense is nothing more than you telling me that I am wrong for saying "I prefer strawberry ice cream," because strawberries are red therefore I am a racist. Your arbitrary group delineations mean nothing. We are not discriminating based on genome but on behavior.

You cannot logically make that claim when the same behavior is moral for Person A and B and immoral for Person C and D, and the only difference is their genome. Your more logical path is to go the way Seer did and claim that moral codes CAN be based on genome alone. But then you open yourself to pretty much every racist and sexist moral principle that exists.

I don't care if two women are having sex or two men. It is having sex with the same sex as yourself that is immoral. Because sex is designed to be between opposite sex.

Which means you have to have XX and XY or the act is immoral. So the issue is the genome of the people involved, not the act. And "sex is designed to be between male female" just does not hold up under any form of scrutiny. Sex is sex. It is can be procreative, unitive, and pleasurable. That you force the definition into the first and ignore the other two is an arbitrary boundary you (and those who think like you) have created.

That is why there are two sexes.

This appears to be an appeal to "nature" - yet nature shows us a multitude of examples of same-sex behavior, throughout the animal kingdom. Whether or not you agree with me or care what I think is irrelevant. I am mostly focused on the argument and how it proceeds. If you are comfortable holding an inconsistent position, that is entirely your choice.

It is the behavior that we are calling immoral.

Because of the genome of the participants...

I know you don't care what we say and are determined to find a way to characterize it as being about "genome" but truthfully, I don't care what you think. I know you are wrong.

And yet you cannot logically make that case... so I submit that you are clinging to your "knowledge" in the face of evidence to the contrary.

[Sparko]

You cannot logically make that claim when the same behavior is moral for Person A and B and immoral for Person C and D, and the only difference is their genome. Your more logical path is to go the way Seer did and claim that moral codes CAN be based on genome alone. But then you open yourself to pretty much every racist and sexist moral principle that exists.



Which means you have to have XX and XY or the act is immoral. So the issue is the genome of the people involved, not the act. And "sex is designed to be between male female" just does not hold up under any form of scrutiny. Sex is sex. It is can be procreative, unitive, and pleasurable. That you force the definition into the first and ignore the other two is an arbitrary boundary you (and those who think like you) have created.

It was immoral before anyone knew what a genome was.

This appears to be an appeal to "nature" - yet nature shows us a multitude of examples of same-sex behavior, throughout the animal kingdom. Whether or not you agree with me or care what I think is irrelevant. I am mostly focused on the argument and how it proceeds. If you are comfortable holding an inconsistent position, that is entirely your choice.



Because of the genome of the participants...



And yet you cannot logically make that case... so I submit that you are clinging to your "knowledge" in the face of evidence to the contrary.

Your entire point of contention (genome) is illogical and irrelevant. Like in my example using the color red of the ice cream to call me racist.

Your more logical path is to go the way Seer did and claim that moral codes CAN be based on genome alone.

Isn't that exactly what makes incest immoral?

[seer]

You continually conflating the two issues: behavior and genome. Your morality about homosexuality is based on genome - nothing more. I have shown this already. If the same act is moral for A and B, and immoral for C and D, and the only difference is their genome - then it is the genome that defines the morality - not the act. The act is the same for both sets of parties. So it cannot be the basis if the moral rule differs between the two.

I have still have no idea what you are getting at. I base my the objection on the act. If it based on the genome, it is no different than basing it on the genome when it comes to human/animal sex. And so what if I'm selective? Why am I restricted to your criterion?

And if you are free to create one set of moral rules for one group, and a different set of moral rules for another group - with their genome being the only difference, then you have no basis for making an argument against racist moral proscriptions either. After all, if you can change the moral rules on the basis of one part of the genome, who is to say you cannot on the basis of another part. So moral prohibitions against white marrying and having sex with black - you have no logical basis for saying "no - that is not right."

But I am not basing my prohibitions on your criterion, I'm basing it on a Biblical worldview, which precludes racism, so yes racism is wrong. And in your relative worldview there is nothing preventing you from rejecting your present premises and replacing them or ignoring them.

So - to sum up - you appear to accept that a moral prescription can be based entirely on the genome of the person involved. That is something I would reject, for all of the reasons stated.

Correct, I have no problem rejecting bestiality solely on genomes.

[carpedm9587]

It was immoral before anyone knew what a genome was.

The same thing can be said for black/white prohibitions. Ignorance of the reality doe snot change the reality.

Your entire point of contention (genome) is illogical and irrelevant.

Yet you have not shown it to be so - you've merely asserted.

Like in my example using the color red of the ice cream to call me racist.

I don't believe I have ever called you "racist." What I said was your moral position leaves you unable to refute the racist - and creates a moral position that is rooted in the same logic as the racist. In this case, you are basically a "genderist" or "sexist," since your argument is based on the distribution of X and Y chromosomes.

Isn't that exactly what makes incest immoral?

As far as I can tell, incest is immoral because most cultures tend to create moral norms around an "ick" factor. Other than the possible harm that could come to offspring (so it is the harm that results, not the genome that would make the act immoral) - there is no logical argument against incest. Indeed - only one form of incest (mother/son) appears to be universally proscribed. Different cultures have different rules about what exactly constitutes incest, with some permitting first cousins to marry, while others view it as incest. Some permit half-siblings to marry, while others view it as incest. There are even cultures that permit father/daughter marriages.

I grew up in THIS culture, so I definitely have an response to incest - but no one has made a logical argument for it being a moral evil (outside of the risk to progeny). And the risk to progeny is not significant in one generation. It is only significant if a family line in-breeds continuously. But the same would be true of a small group of individuals (under 20) who never breed outside of their group. The closed group will create genetic issues down the road.

[Sparko]

The same thing can be said for black/white prohibitions. Ignorance of the reality doe snot change the reality.



Yet you have not shown it to be so - you've merely asserted.



I don't believe I have ever called you "racist." What I said was your moral position leaves you unable to refute the racist - and creates a moral position that is rooted in the same logic as the racist. In this case, you are basically a "genderist" or "sexist," since your argument is based on the distribution of X and Y chromosomes.



As far as I can tell, incest is immoral because most cultures tend to create moral norms around an "ick" factor. Other than the possible harm that could come to offspring (so it is the harm that results, not the genome that would make the act immoral) - there is no logical argument against incest. Indeed - only one form of incest (mother/son) appears to be universally proscribed. Different cultures have different rules about what exactly constitutes incest, with some permitting first cousins to marry, while others view it as incest. Some permit half-siblings to marry, while others view it as incest. There are even cultures that permit father/daughter marriages.

I grew up in THIS culture, so I definitely have an response to incest - but no one has made a logical argument for it being a moral evil (outside of the risk to progeny). And the risk to progeny is not significant in one generation. It is only significant if a family line in-breeds continuously. But the same would be true of a small group of individuals (under 20) who never breed outside of their group. The closed group will create genetic issues down the road.

I love your double standard, Carp. If we are against homosexual relations, it is "genome" even if nobody knew what a genome was. But if we are against incest, it isn't the genome, it's the ick factor.

So I guess if I think homosexuality is icky and that is why it is immoral, then you would be ok with it????

Your argument just got toothless.

[carpedm9587]

I have still have no idea what you are getting at. I base my the objection on the act.

No. Clearly you do not. The same act, as I have noted, is moral for Person A and Person B, but immoral for Person C and Person D - and the ONLY difference is the genome of the two persons involved. So you are basing it on the genome - not the act.

If it based on the genome, it is no different than basing it on the genome when it comes to human/animal sex.

My discussion was about human activities. You introduced bestiality, and I have already addressed that. As with incest, I have an response to it - but no one has been able to make a logical case for its immorality. If there is unnecessary harm to the animal, that would be a basis - but that has nothing to do with the genome.

So - like your proscription for homosexuals, you are basing the morality of an act on the genome of the participants. Ergo, you have little/no basis for countering someone else who does the same thing (e.g., black/white marriages).

And so what if I'm selective? Why am I restricted to your criterion?

You are only restricted to my "criteria" if your moral framework is rooted in logic. If it is not, then you can call anything you want moral or immoral. The result is an irrational moral framework.

But I am not basing my prohibitions on your criterion, I'm basing it on a Biblical worldview, which precludes racism, so yes racism is wrong. And in your relative worldview there is nothing preventing you from rejecting your present premises and replacing them or ignoring them.

I am aware that your morality is rooted in "following the herd," where the herd in question is the writings of a group of men who lived 2000-3500 years ago. As such, it is not a rational worldview because you cannot actually trace a logical line between the basis of your framework and the framework itself. All you can respond is "it's in the bible." So I am not surprised that you are comfortable with declaring one action immoral in one context on the basis of genome only, and then telling someone else they can't do exactly the same thing.

Correct, I have no problem rejecting bestiality solely on genomes.

That much is clear, with the resulting logical problems.

At the root, Seer, the problem is one of rational consistency. But a "follow the herd" morality has no rational consistency. If it is what the herd wants, then it is moral for you. If the herd says it is immoral - then it is immoral for you. Rationality is not involved - except in trying to fathom "what the herd meant."

[carpedm9587]

I love your double standard, Carp. If we are against homosexual relations, it is "genome" even if nobody knew what a genome was. But if we are against incest, it isn't the genome, it's the ick factor.

Actually, prohibitions against incest, bestiality, and homosexuality are all logically rooted in the same thing, the human genome. I don't think I have said anything other than that. It is why I do not have a moral prohibition against any of them. If I did - I would be inconsistent. I do not, so I am not. My culture has trained me to respond with "ick" to bestiality and incest, but I cannot rationally find a path to declaring it "immoral" so I don't. I am actually being perfectly consistent.

But you are not being consistent. You have three examples of things you base on the human genome, but when someone bases other moral precepts on the human genome, you say "wait - that doesn't work." If you can use the human genome for determining morality - why can't someone else? There is no rational basis for holding this inconsistent position.

So I guess if I think homosexuality is icky and that is why it is immoral, then you would be ok with it????

I don't thin ANY moral position should be based on "it's icky." I believe there has to be a rational basis for a moral position, and it needs to be consistently applied.

Your argument just got toothless.

I don't think so, but you are welcome to show how. Hopefully you'll do better than the tax discussion.


(sorry, I couldn't resist)

[Sparko]

Actually, prohibitions against incest, bestiality, and homosexuality are all logically rooted in the same thing, the human genome. I don't think I have said anything other than that. It is why I do not have a moral prohibition against any of them. If I did - I would be inconsistent. I do not, so I am not. My culture has trained me to respond with "ick" to bestiality and incest, but I cannot rationally find a path to declaring it "immoral" so I don't. I am actually being perfectly consistent.

So since pretty much every human being that has ever existed has based morals on "genome" - except YOU, I think your entire line of argument is wrong and irrelevant.

But you are not being consistent. You have three examples of things you base on the human genome, but when someone bases other moral precepts on the human genome, you say "wait - that doesn't work." If you can use the human genome for determining morality - why can't someone else? There is no rational basis for holding this inconsistent position.

Maybe because we aren't basing morality merely on genome as you keep implying. That just happens to be a characteristic of certain immoral acts. Something people did not even know about until less than 100 years ago. Which is why I keep saying your objections are illogical and irrelevant.

I don't thin ANY moral position should be based on "it's icky." I believe there has to be a rational basis for a moral position, and it needs to be consistently applied.

You want to apply the same basis to every moral position?

OK. The Bible. I base my moral principals on what God tells me they should be. It is rational, logical and consistently applied. Your turn. What is your rational consistent basis for your moral positions, other than that is what you want to believe?

[seer]

No. Clearly you do not. The same act, as I have noted, is moral for Person A and Person B, but immoral for Person C and Person D - and the ONLY difference is the genome of the two persons involved. So you are basing it on the genome - not the act.

But so what? Do you have something written in stone?

My discussion was about human activities. You introduced bestiality, and I have already addressed that. As with incest, I have an response to it - but no one has been able to make a logical case for its immorality. If there is unnecessary harm to the animal, that would be a basis - but that has nothing to do with the genome.

So - like your proscription for homosexuals, you are basing the morality of an act on the genome of the participants. Ergo, you have little/no basis for countering someone else who does the same thing (e.g., black/white marriages).

But Carp, you have no basis either for countering someone else who does the same thing with interracial marriage since they would have to accept your premises. But remember, you asked me for another example where I would have a prohibition based on genome, from my own worldview - I gave you one.

You are only restricted to my "criteria" if your moral framework is rooted in logic. If it is not, then you can call anything you want moral or immoral. The result is an irrational moral framework.

Tell me Carp, what rule of logic have I violated by not accepting your premise? I'm not speaking of your conclusion, but your premises. Be exact please.

I am aware that your morality is rooted in "following the herd," where the herd in question is the writings of a group of men who lived 2000-3500 years ago. As such, it is not a rational worldview because you cannot actually trace a logical line between the basis of your framework and the framework itself. All you can respond is "it's in the bible." So I am not surprised that you are comfortable with declaring one action immoral in one context on the basis of genome only, and then telling someone else they can't do exactly the same thing.

Right, but the point is my view does not allow for racism. And that was your point, that because I didn't follow your criterion therefore racism must follow. Of course that is false.

That much is clear, with the resulting logical problems.

It is only a logical problem if I accept your premises, if I don't, and I don't, there is no problem.

At the root, Seer, the problem is one of rational consistency. But a "follow the herd" morality has no rational consistency. If it is what the herd wants, then it is moral for you. If the herd says it is immoral - then it is immoral for you. Rationality is not involved - except in trying to fathom "what the herd meant."

Another falsehood, you are following the herd much more than I am in this culture. I believe there there is a design, a teleology for human sexuality, and my position is perfectly consistent with that presupposition.

[carpedm9587]

But so what? Do you have something written in stone?

Only basic logic and internal consistency.

But Carp, you have no basis either for countering someone else who does the same thing with interracial marriage since they would have to accept your premises. But remember, you asked me for another example where I would have a prohibition based on genome, from my own worldview - I gave you one.

On this you are correct. I failed to consider bestiality. But upon examination, it fails for the exact same reason: it is logically inconsistent.

Tell me Carp, what rule of logic have I violated by not accepting your premise? I'm not speaking of your conclusion, but your premises. Be exact please.

You inconsistently bound the "genome determines morality" principle - with no rational basis for doing so.

Right, but the point is my view does not allow for racism. And that was your point, that because I didn't follow your criterion therefore racism must follow. Of course that is false.

You are correct, Seer. I keep forgetting about the fundamental irrationality of your moral system. Since it is not rooted in reason, it can host multiple inconsistent positions and as long as it's "in the bible" you are correctly "following the herd."

It is only a logical problem if I accept your premises, if I don't, and I don't, there is no problem.

See above.

Another falsehood, you are following the herd much more than I am in this culture.

I think you will find that my moral positions are NOT rooted in "following the herd." If they were, I would probably have moral prohibitions against incest and bestiality. My moral positions are internally consistent, because they apply the same rules of reasons on the same underlying principles. Yours permits internal contradictions of all sorts because the only foundation is "what the book says."

I believe there there is a design, a teleology for human sexuality, and my position is perfectly consistent with that presupposition.

And yet none of this is something you can actually show to be true. So, essentially, your morality is to "follow the herd" as dictated by the pages of the Christian bible - which reduces to the writings of men who lived 2000-3500 years ago. It is not rooted in reason, as I noted - except in so far as you use reason to try to discern "what the writers meant."

[carpedm9587]

So since pretty much every human being that has ever existed has based morals on "genome" - except YOU, I think your entire line of argument is wrong and irrelevant.

And pretty much everyone based their view off the cosmos on Newtonian physics, until Einstein showed the limit thereof. "Following the herd" is simply not in my lexicon. If a thing makes sense, I adopt it. If it does not, I reject it. Period. My positions are based in considering the facts, and arriving at a conclusion. They are not based on "what the book says" or even "what most people say."

Maybe because we aren't basing morality merely on genome as you keep implying.

But you are. That part is inescapable. And it is interesting to me that you want to reject that principle. It's almost as if a part of you knows that declaring an act immoral solely on the basis of the genome of the participants is somehow not right. As I noted earlier, you would be better of simply embracing it - as Seer has done - and calling it for what it is.

That just happens to be a characteristic of certain immoral acts. Something people did not even know about until less than 100 years ago. Which is why I keep saying your objections are illogical and irrelevant.

You have not shown the to be either illogical or irrelevant, Sparko. And this particular argument is somewhat akin to saying that people's views which were rooted in a geocentric universe were perfectly right because they didn't KNOW that the universe wasn't geocentric. As I noted, ignorance of the fact does not change the fact. Prohibitions rooted in the genome were still rooted in the genome, even if people didn't know about genomes and couldn't articulate that concept. A prohibition that is rooted in the sex of the participants is fundamentally rooted in the genome of the participants, because that is what determines their sex. That early man didn't know that doesn't change the fact.

You want to apply the same basis to every moral position?

I think moral positions should be logically consistent.

OK. The Bible. I base my moral principals on what God tells me they should be. It is rational, logical and consistently applied. Your turn. What is your rational consistent basis for your moral positions, other than that is what you want to believe?

And that doesn't solve your problem, Sparko. It's akin to my saying, "my moral position is solid and rational because I base it on what my next door neighbor thinks is moral. I do that all the time, consistently, so my moral position is logical and consistent." The problem is that you have absolutely no idea what your neighbor uses as the basis for their moral position, so you cannot even begin to claim rationality. You are simply "following the herd," as I noted to Seer. Only, in your case, "the herd" is the writings of men dead some 2000-3500 years ago, who wrote in a different language, in a different culture, of which we have no surviving original copies, and for the most part don't even know who the authors were. To this I am sure you will respond, "but it's the word of god!" To that I can only note that you cannot show that this god actually exists, never mind that the writings YOU point to as "the divine word of god are any more so than the writings of any other religion.

You have a morality built upon hearsay piled upon vapors, Sparko. It is not how I tend to approach the world.