Forum

 
  Back to OzPolitic.com   Welcome, Guest. Please Login or Register
  Forum Home Album HelpSearch Recent Rules LoginRegister  
 

Pages: 1 ... 20 21 22 23 24 ... 27
Send Topic Print
Why R Homos and Greens so rude? (Read 13406 times)
Sir Spot of Borg
Gold Member
*****
Offline


WE ARE BORG

Posts: 19446
Brisbane
Re: Why R Homos and Greens so rude?
Reply #315 - Jun 14th, 2012 at 6:32pm
 
...


SOB
Back to top
 

Whaaaaaah!
I'm a 
nice person!
- edited by some unethical admin - you think its funny? - its a slippery slope
WWW PoliticsAneReligion  
IP Logged
 
Soren
Gold Member
*****
Offline



Posts: 20230
Re: Why R Homos and Greens so rude?
Reply #316 - Jun 14th, 2012 at 6:32pm
 
Sir Spot of Borg wrote on Jun 14th, 2012 at 6:12pm:
trying to insult me now. Why?

SOB



Because you are begging to be insulted with every single on of your 61 bloody daily post. You are an amazingly - what' the word? - stupid old bint. An absolute phenomenon on these boards, beating a large field by an incredibly large margin.

I have never, ever, ever, ever, ever, ever seen you say something that was just mildly silly. Never, ever, ever, ever. Ever.
Always a solid or I should say dense performance from you. Every time, 61 times a day. FD should notify the Guinness Book of Records.


Back to top
 

No one has the right not to be offended.
 
IP Logged
 
Sir Spot of Borg
Gold Member
*****
Offline


WE ARE BORG

Posts: 19446
Brisbane
Re: Why R Homos and Greens so rude?
Reply #317 - Jun 14th, 2012 at 6:37pm
 
Soren wrote on Jun 14th, 2012 at 6:32pm:
Sir Spot of Borg wrote on Jun 14th, 2012 at 6:12pm:
trying to insult me now. Why?

SOB



Because you are begging to be insulted with every single on of your 61 bloody daily post. You are an amazingly - what' the word? - stupid old bint. An absolute phenomenon on these boards, beating a large field by an incredibly large margin.

I have never, ever, ever, ever, ever, ever seen you say something that was just mildly silly. Never, ever, ever, ever. Ever.
Always a solid or I should say dense performance from you. Every time, 61 times a day. FD should notify the Guinness Book of Records.




you are a complete asshole (dumb and stupid too). I already told you thats an average. No idea of math either i expect. done maybe 20 today. Not that its any of your business. You have never ever ever ever ever ever spoken on topic. Only insults. And your sock too.

SOB
Back to top
 

Whaaaaaah!
I'm a 
nice person!
- edited by some unethical admin - you think its funny? - its a slippery slope
WWW PoliticsAneReligion  
IP Logged
 
MOTR
Gold Member
*****
Offline


Australian Politics

Posts: 6391
Re: Why R Homos and Greens so rude?
Reply #318 - Jun 14th, 2012 at 6:47pm
 
longweekend58 wrote on Jun 14th, 2012 at 9:14am:
MOTR wrote on Jun 14th, 2012 at 1:28am:
longweekend58 wrote on Jun 13th, 2012 at 8:06pm:
MOTR wrote on Jun 13th, 2012 at 7:26pm:
Those claiming some sort of equivalency between pedophilia and homosexuality are as offensive as a those who compare interracial sex to bestiality.


sigh. no one and I repeat NO ONE is comparing the two behaviours. they are comparing the supporting arguments and finding they are almost identical.

THAT IS THE ARGUMENT


It's a long thread, Longy, I might have missed the post, but I have yet to see you make this argument. I've seen you jump to this conclusion, but I've yet to see you make the argument. For the two arguments to be "almost" identical they would have to have "almost" identical premises. It's the implied premise I find offensive.


grandmaster and I have bothe been making the same point: that the arguments used in favour of gay marriage are the same that could be used in support of incest etc. Both of us are saying that the gay marriage arguments presented are so far, unpersuasive. You may beieve in gay marriage and clearly you do, but the arguments for it however are not very convincing beyong 'I support it'. And of course, that is your right. What we are saying is that dont pretend that your position is based on overwhelming argument. it isnt.


Again you are implying some sort of equivalency between homosexuality and incest. One is accepted by mainstream society, the other is not. The argument you are using could be used to outlaw homosexual acts not just marriages. We accepted homosexuality but we don't accept incest, so clearly we are capable of making a legal and moral distinction.

How about you pretend you are sitting a critical reasoning exam and outline your argument.
Back to top
 

Hunt says Coalition accepts IPCC findings

"What does this mean? It means that we need to do practical things that actually reduce emissions."
 
IP Logged
 
Sir Spot of Borg
Gold Member
*****
Offline


WE ARE BORG

Posts: 19446
Brisbane
Re: Why R Homos and Greens so rude?
Reply #319 - Jun 14th, 2012 at 6:55pm
 
MOTR wrote on Jun 14th, 2012 at 6:47pm:
longweekend58 wrote on Jun 14th, 2012 at 9:14am:
MOTR wrote on Jun 14th, 2012 at 1:28am:
longweekend58 wrote on Jun 13th, 2012 at 8:06pm:
MOTR wrote on Jun 13th, 2012 at 7:26pm:
Those claiming some sort of equivalency between pedophilia and homosexuality are as offensive as a those who compare interracial sex to bestiality.


sigh. no one and I repeat NO ONE is comparing the two behaviours. they are comparing the supporting arguments and finding they are almost identical.

THAT IS THE ARGUMENT


It's a long thread, Longy, I might have missed the post, but I have yet to see you make this argument. I've seen you jump to this conclusion, but I've yet to see you make the argument. For the two arguments to be "almost" identical they would have to have "almost" identical premises. It's the implied premise I find offensive.


grandmaster and I have bothe been making the same point: that the arguments used in favour of gay marriage are the same that could be used in support of incest etc. Both of us are saying that the gay marriage arguments presented are so far, unpersuasive. You may beieve in gay marriage and clearly you do, but the arguments for it however are not very convincing beyong 'I support it'. And of course, that is your right. What we are saying is that dont pretend that your position is based on overwhelming argument. it isnt.


Again you are implying some sort of equivalency between homosexuality and incest. One is accepted by mainstream society, the other is not. The argument you are using could be used to outlaw homosexual acts not just marriages. We accepted homosexuality but we don't accept incest, so clearly we are capable of making a legal and moral distinction.

How about you pretend you are sitting a critical reasoning exam and outline your argument.


Heh i got one of them to do that and they didnt like my response.

SOB
Back to top
 

Whaaaaaah!
I'm a 
nice person!
- edited by some unethical admin - you think its funny? - its a slippery slope
WWW PoliticsAneReligion  
IP Logged
 
Quantum
Gold Member
*****
Offline


Australian Politics

Posts: 2905
Re: Why R Homos and Greens so rude?
Reply #320 - Jun 14th, 2012 at 8:07pm
 
MOTR wrote on Jun 14th, 2012 at 6:47pm:
longweekend58 wrote on Jun 14th, 2012 at 9:14am:
MOTR wrote on Jun 14th, 2012 at 1:28am:
longweekend58 wrote on Jun 13th, 2012 at 8:06pm:
MOTR wrote on Jun 13th, 2012 at 7:26pm:
Those claiming some sort of equivalency between pedophilia and homosexuality are as offensive as a those who compare interracial sex to bestiality.


sigh. no one and I repeat NO ONE is comparing the two behaviours. they are comparing the supporting arguments and finding they are almost identical.

THAT IS THE ARGUMENT


It's a long thread, Longy, I might have missed the post, but I have yet to see you make this argument. I've seen you jump to this conclusion, but I've yet to see you make the argument. For the two arguments to be "almost" identical they would have to have "almost" identical premises. It's the implied premise I find offensive.


grandmaster and I have bothe been making the same point: that the arguments used in favour of gay marriage are the same that could be used in support of incest etc. Both of us are saying that the gay marriage arguments presented are so far, unpersuasive. You may beieve in gay marriage and clearly you do, but the arguments for it however are not very convincing beyong 'I support it'. And of course, that is your right. What we are saying is that dont pretend that your position is based on overwhelming argument. it isnt.


Again you are implying some sort of equivalency between homosexuality and incest. One is accepted by mainstream society, the other is not. The argument you are using could be used to outlaw homosexual acts not just marriages. We accepted homosexuality but we don't accept incest, so clearly we are capable of making a legal and moral distinction.

How about you pretend you are sitting a critical reasoning exam and outline your argument.


The reasons outlined in this thread for accepting homosexual marriage are;

1) it is discrimination to forbid people equality based on being different.
2) if it doesn't effect you personally, you don't have a right to object
3) if it doesn't hurt anyone and is between legally consenting people there is no grounds to object.
4) ones personal moral opinion is irrelevant. Just because someone disapproves or it violates their personal beliefs, is not justification for outlawing another's personal desires.


These have been the 4 reasons presented in this thread.

However, there are other forms of sexual relations that do not violate these 4 rules. For example, two brothers wishing to be married does not violate these 4 rules;

1) it is discrimination to forbid these two brothers equality based on them being different.
2) their relationship doesn't effect me personally.
3) their relationship doesn't hurt anyone and is between legally consenting people.
4) Just because I disapprove and it violates my personal beliefs, that is not justification for outlawing their wish to be married.


As yet, no one in this thread has given a suitable reason as to why incest in the above example is morally wrong and should not be accepted, while homosexuality is not wrong and should be accepted.

This does not mean that those arguing that homsexuality is wrong are claiming that homosexuality = incest. Just because two things are wrong does not make them equally wrong. But if one is to be classed as wrong while the other acceptable, there must be way by which to make that discernment.

However, those arguing for gay marriage have so far not been able to outline the criteria that is to be used for claiming that one form of sexual relationship is acceptable while the other is wrong, other than by personal opinion.
Back to top
 
 
IP Logged
 
Soren
Gold Member
*****
Offline



Posts: 20230
Re: Why R Homos and Greens so rude?
Reply #321 - Jun 14th, 2012 at 11:14pm
 
Sir Spot of Borg wrote on Jun 14th, 2012 at 6:37pm:
Soren wrote on Jun 14th, 2012 at 6:32pm:
Sir Spot of Borg wrote on Jun 14th, 2012 at 6:12pm:
trying to insult me now. Why?

SOB



Because you are begging to be insulted with every single on of your 61 bloody daily post. You are an amazingly - what' the word? - stupid old bint. An absolute phenomenon on these boards, beating a large field by an incredibly large margin.

I have never, ever, ever, ever, ever, ever seen you say something that was just mildly silly. Never, ever, ever, ever. Ever.
Always a solid or I should say dense performance from you. Every time, 61 times a day. FD should notify the Guinness Book of Records.



I already told you thats an average. No idea of math either i expect. done maybe 20 today.
SOB


SO tomorrow we will have 100, just so you can maintain your average of 60 per day?
What's the polite way of saying f***n' 'ell??


Back to top
 

No one has the right not to be offended.
 
IP Logged
 
MOTR
Gold Member
*****
Offline


Australian Politics

Posts: 6391
Re: Why R Homos and Greens so rude?
Reply #322 - Jun 15th, 2012 at 3:30am
 
What is the problem with the number of posts SOB makes a day. I don't get it.
Back to top
 

Hunt says Coalition accepts IPCC findings

"What does this mean? It means that we need to do practical things that actually reduce emissions."
 
IP Logged
 
MOTR
Gold Member
*****
Offline


Australian Politics

Posts: 6391
Re: Why R Homos and Greens so rude?
Reply #323 - Jun 15th, 2012 at 3:45am
 
Quantum wrote on Jun 14th, 2012 at 8:07pm:
MOTR wrote on Jun 14th, 2012 at 6:47pm:
longweekend58 wrote on Jun 14th, 2012 at 9:14am:
MOTR wrote on Jun 14th, 2012 at 1:28am:
longweekend58 wrote on Jun 13th, 2012 at 8:06pm:
MOTR wrote on Jun 13th, 2012 at 7:26pm:
Those claiming some sort of equivalency between pedophilia and homosexuality are as offensive as a those who compare interracial sex to bestiality.


sigh. no one and I repeat NO ONE is comparing the two behaviours. they are comparing the supporting arguments and finding they are almost identical.

THAT IS THE ARGUMENT


It's a long thread, Longy, I might have missed the post, but I have yet to see you make this argument. I've seen you jump to this conclusion, but I've yet to see you make the argument. For the two arguments to be "almost" identical they would have to have "almost" identical premises. It's the implied premise I find offensive.


grandmaster and I have bothe been making the same point: that the arguments used in favour of gay marriage are the same that could be used in support of incest etc. Both of us are saying that the gay marriage arguments presented are so far, unpersuasive. You may beieve in gay marriage and clearly you do, but the arguments for it however are not very convincing beyong 'I support it'. And of course, that is your right. What we are saying is that dont pretend that your position is based on overwhelming argument. it isnt.


Again you are implying some sort of equivalency between homosexuality and incest. One is accepted by mainstream society, the other is not. The argument you are using could be used to outlaw homosexual acts not just marriages. We accepted homosexuality but we don't accept incest, so clearly we are capable of making a legal and moral distinction.

How about you pretend you are sitting a critical reasoning exam and outline your argument.


The reasons outlined in this thread for accepting homosexual/interracial marriage are;

1) it is discrimination to forbid people equality based on being different.
2) if it doesn't effect you personally, you don't have a right to object
3) if it doesn't hurt anyone and is between legally consenting people there is no grounds to object.
4) ones personal moral opinion is irrelevant. Just because someone disapproves or it violates their personal beliefs, is not justification for outlawing another's personal desires.


These have been the 4 reasons presented in this thread.

However, there are other forms of sexual relations that do not violate these 4 rules. For example, two brothers wishing to be married does not violate these 4 rules;

1) it is discrimination to forbid these two brothers equality based on them being different.
2) their relationship doesn't effect me personally.
3) their relationship doesn't hurt anyone and is between legally consenting people.
4) Just because I disapprove and it violates my personal beliefs, that is not justification for outlawing their wish to be married.


As yet, no one in this thread has given a suitable reason as to why incest in the above example is morally wrong and should not be accepted, while homosexuality/interracial attraction is not wrong and should be accepted.

This does not mean that those arguing that homsexuality is wrong are claiming that homosexuality/interracial relationships = incest. Just because two things are wrong does not make them equally wrong. But if one is to be classed as wrong while the other acceptable, there must be way by which to make that discernment.

However, those arguing for gay/interracial marriage have so far not been able to outline the criteria that is to be used for claiming that one form of sexual relationship is acceptable while the other is wrong, other than by personal opinion.


Back to top
 

Hunt says Coalition accepts IPCC findings

"What does this mean? It means that we need to do practical things that actually reduce emissions."
 
IP Logged
 
MOTR
Gold Member
*****
Offline


Australian Politics

Posts: 6391
Re: Why R Homos and Greens so rude?
Reply #324 - Jun 15th, 2012 at 4:00am
 
The above argument could be used to argue against any subgroup you like. I've picked on interracial marriages because they have been banned under numerous jurisdictions in the past, as they were seen to be against the will of God. Our society accepts homosexual and interracial relationships, we do not accept incestuous relationships.
Back to top
« Last Edit: Jun 15th, 2012 at 4:05am by MOTR »  

Hunt says Coalition accepts IPCC findings

"What does this mean? It means that we need to do practical things that actually reduce emissions."
 
IP Logged
 
Sir Spot of Borg
Gold Member
*****
Offline


WE ARE BORG

Posts: 19446
Brisbane
Re: Why R Homos and Greens so rude?
Reply #325 - Jun 15th, 2012 at 7:10am
 
MOTR wrote on Jun 15th, 2012 at 3:30am:
What is the problem with the number of posts SOB makes a day. I don't get it.


For some reason its obsessed with everything i say/do

SOB
Back to top
 

Whaaaaaah!
I'm a 
nice person!
- edited by some unethical admin - you think its funny? - its a slippery slope
WWW PoliticsAneReligion  
IP Logged
 
Quantum
Gold Member
*****
Offline


Australian Politics

Posts: 2905
Re: Why R Homos and Greens so rude?
Reply #326 - Jun 15th, 2012 at 9:07am
 
MOTR wrote on Jun 15th, 2012 at 4:00am:
The above argument could be used to argue against any subgroup you like. I've picked on interracial marriages because they have been banned under numerous jurisdictions in the past, as they were seen to be against the will of God. Our society accepts homosexual and interracial relationships, we do not accept incestuous relationships.


So the argument is basically; what ever our society accepts makes it ok, and what it doesn't accept is wrong?

As far as I know our society currently does not accept homosexual marriage anymore than it accepts incestuous ones. Both are outlawed. You have not outlined an argument for why one should now be accepted while the other one shouldn't.





On a side note; I am somewhat confused as to why you took issue with people using incest as an example (because it was somehow offensive to compare it with homosexual marriage), when you have now done the same thing with comparing interracial marriage and homosexual marriage. To quote;

"For the two arguments to be "almost" identical they would have to have "almost" identical premises. It's the implied premise I find offensive."

Interracial is not the same gender (at the moment). The removal of gender from marriage is a much bigger barrier to overcome than the question of skin colour. In fact, incest is even a smaller barrier than homosexual marriage. We actually already allow relations to marry in our society today, it is just a question of how closely related these two people can be before it becomes wrong. (of course not everyone agrees on how close is too close, even if the law at the moment has set a line.)
Back to top
« Last Edit: Jun 15th, 2012 at 4:45pm by Quantum »  
 
IP Logged
 
MOTR
Gold Member
*****
Offline


Australian Politics

Posts: 6391
Re: Why R Homos and Greens so rude?
Reply #327 - Jun 15th, 2012 at 7:12pm
 
Quantum wrote on Jun 15th, 2012 at 9:07am:
MOTR wrote on Jun 15th, 2012 at 4:00am:
The above argument could be used to argue against any subgroup you like. I've picked on interracial marriages because they have been banned under numerous jurisdictions in the past, as they were seen to be against the will of God. Our society accepts homosexual and interracial relationships, we do not accept incestuous relationships.


So the argument is basically; what ever our society accepts makes it ok, and what it doesn't accept is wrong?

As far as I know our society currently does not accept homosexual marriage anymore than it accepts incestuous ones. Both are outlawed. You have not outlined an argument for why one should now be accepted while the other one shouldn't.


On a side note; I am somewhat confused as to why you took issue with people using incest as an example (because it was somehow offensive to compare it with homosexual marriage), when you have now done the same thing with comparing interracial marriage and homosexual marriage. To quote;

"For the two arguments to be "almost" identical they would have to have "almost" identical premises. It's the implied premise I find offensive."

Interracial is not the same gender (at the moment). The removal of gender from marriage is a much bigger barrier to overcome than the question of skin colour. In fact, incest is even a smaller barrier than homosexual marriage. We actually already allow relations to marry in our society today, it is just a question of how closely related these two people can be before it becomes wrong. (of course not everyone agrees on how close is too close, even if the law at the moment has set a line.)


I said homosexual relationships are accepted by our society, incestuous relationships are not.
Back to top
 

Hunt says Coalition accepts IPCC findings

"What does this mean? It means that we need to do practical things that actually reduce emissions."
 
IP Logged
 
MOTR
Gold Member
*****
Offline


Australian Politics

Posts: 6391
Re: Why R Homos and Greens so rude?
Reply #328 - Jun 15th, 2012 at 7:38pm
 
As for comparing homosexual relationships to interracial relationships, they are equally acceptable to me. Both are normal and entirely acceptable.
Back to top
 

Hunt says Coalition accepts IPCC findings

"What does this mean? It means that we need to do practical things that actually reduce emissions."
 
IP Logged
 
Bertram
Senior Member
****
Offline


Australian Politics

Posts: 255
Re: Why R Homos and Greens so rude?
Reply #329 - Jun 15th, 2012 at 9:00pm
 
gay wolf

Back to top
 

fluffy_white_dog.jpg (172 KB | 11 )
fluffy_white_dog.jpg
 
IP Logged
 
Pages: 1 ... 20 21 22 23 24 ... 27
Send Topic Print