|
| Thread: The Male Genital Mutilation Bill.... |  This thread is pages long: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 · «PREV / NEXT» |
|
baklava
Honorable
Legendary Hero
Mostly harmless
|
posted June 02, 2011 11:51 PM |
|
Edited by baklava at 23:56, 02 Jun 2011.
|
Quote:
@Baklava: Please note this is the OSM, not the Volcanic Wastelands.
Exposing yourself to a child and masturbating is illegal and immoral. Kidnapping a person and raping them on a satanic alter is illegal and immoral.
I am well aware of what this place is and believe I am discussing accordingly. Moderators will, doubtlessly, correct me if I'm wrong.
So back to our topic.
You haven't given me a single rational argument about what I asked you.
Why is exposing yourself to a child (that will not even remember it, as it is a baby, so there is no psychological trauma; and even if it was older, there would be no psychological trauma if it was raised in a religious Satanist family) and masturbating for religious reasons wrong? It's their religion, it harms no one, so where's the problem? To some Christians and atheists, it's wrong to cut off a part of your child's penis. But isn't it all in the best interests of the freedom of religion? Imagine if these satanists lived in America since its founding, and that they masturbated on their children for thousands of years.
Mind you, we're not talking about rape here. Only ejaculation. Sure, raping a child is illegal, and so is physical abuse. Yet there is an exception for this little physical abuse for religious reasons. Why wouldn't this little bit of sexuality concerning the child be added to the list of exceptions as well?
You can disagree - and I find myself in the position to beg for argumentation from your side which would both prove me wrong and remain consistent with the views you've expressed so far - but I can argue rather efficiently that ejaculating over your baby leaves absolutely no permanent trace on it, unlike circumcision which leaves quite a permanent disfigurement (not to mention the reduced feeling during sexual intercourse, for instance); I could also add that semen, in fact, contains large amounts of protein, so religiously feeding your baby a spoon or two of it would be physically beneficial. And after all, the child cannot enter into a full communion with Satan, the prince of darkness and exalted ruler of man (let's assume the satanists do not believe that the devil is evil), if it doesn't consume at least a spoonful of its father's semen.
So let me ask once again.
Please provide proper argumentation on why religious group masturbation on the baby would be wrong in the context of its parents' satanic creed, or admit your arguments on freedom of religion need to be seriously revised.
____________
"Let me tell you what the blues
is. When you ain't got no
money,
you got the blues."
Howlin Wolf
|
|
Elodin
Promising
Legendary Hero
Free Thinker
|
|
posted June 03, 2011 12:43 AM |
|
|
Quote:
6)I still ask myself why this is SO nessecairy to be done. No, "Because God told us so" is not a legitimate reason to me. Especially since prior to Abraham, circ is unheard off. So what about his ancestors, most notable of which is Noah? What about them?
"God said to" may not be a good reason for a person who is not a theist but to a person who wants to please God it is cinches the deal. A person can hardly be a follower of God and say "I don't give a **** what God says."
I already answered about Noah and earlier ancestors. God did not require circumcision of them. Circumcision was made a part of the covenant between God and Abraham and again part of the covenant between God and the nation of Israel under the Old Covenant.
@BAK
Quote:
You haven't given me a single rational argument about what I asked you.
Why is exposing yourself to a child (that will not even remember it, as it is a baby, so there is no psychological trauma; and even if it was older, there would be no psychological trauma if it was raised in a religious Satanist family) and masturbating for religious reasons wrong?
Yes I did. I said it is immoral. Morality is absolute.
If you can't see why getting a group together to masturbate on a child is wrong we really don't have enough of a moral base in common to discuss anything.
Quote:
Imagine if these satanists lived in America since its founding, and that they masturbated on their children for thousands of years.
The founding fathers would have executed them so the question is moot. The founding fathers were no liberal morons and would not have tolerated such evil practices and said "oh how nice it is that you masturbate on your children!" in the name of cultural diversity.
Quote:
Mind you, we're not talking about rape here. Only ejaculation.
Make a video of you and your friends the next time you masturbate on a child and take the video to the police and see if they agree with you that it is not illegal.
Quote:
Please provide proper argumentation on why religious group masturbation on the baby would be wrong in the context of its parents' satanic creed, or admit your arguments on freedom of religion need to be seriously revised.
Actually, you are misrepresenting my position.
Like I said when I replied to Corribus, "I've never said all religious practices should be allowed. I have in fact named things like child sacrifice that should not be allowed. Please don't misrepresent my positions."
Masturbating on a child is not only immoral, it is evil and should not be allowed.
|
|
Adrius
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
Stand and fight!
|
|
posted June 03, 2011 12:50 AM |
|
|
Quote:
Yes I did. I said it is immoral. Morality is absolute.
If you can't see why getting a group together to masturbate on a child is wrong we really don't have enough of a moral base in common to discuss anything.
That's not really a rational argument though, it's like saying something is "stupid" instead of explaining why.
And I'm sure you understand that Bak isn't arguing that it's RIGHT to actually ejaculate on your baby (god that feels weird to write... I bet the FBI are picking this up), he's just arguing that your logic doesn't seem to work out properly.
____________
|
|
mvassilev
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted June 03, 2011 01:04 AM |
|
|
Quote:
've never said all religious practices should be allowed. I have in fact named things like child sacrifice that should not be allowed.
So, what religious practices should and shouldn't be allowed? And who gets to decide that?
____________
Eccentric Opinion
|
|
Jabanoss
Promising
Legendary Hero
Property of Nightterror™
|
|
posted June 03, 2011 01:15 AM |
|
|
Personally I find circumcision on small babies to be kinda immoral. That's why it's so hard to makes laws about it.
____________
"You turn me on Jaba"
- Meroe
|
|
Fauch
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted June 03, 2011 01:23 AM |
|
|
Quote:
A Christian who wrongly thinks circumcision is still required but who does not practice circumcision would be sinning.
doesn't that contradict what you've said in other threads? about people not being christians because they are convinced god said some things and it's actually not true. it was about murder, the guy who murders because he think that god asked him to isn't a christian, so the guy who wrongly assume that circumcision is required isn't a christian either?
putting all conditioning aside, I'm not sure how you could claim that masturbating on a baby is immoral, evil or wrong in any way.
it doesn't harm him in any way, and I bet the only reason that leads you to think it's bad is your religious and social conditioning.
sex get condemned so much by religions, and even nowadays, when we are supposed to have become tolerant about the subject, many people still suffer rejection because they have unorthodox practices, even though it harms no one (take gays for example) I'm quite sure homosexuality have been deemed evil by many religions.
|
|
baklava
Honorable
Legendary Hero
Mostly harmless
|
|
posted June 03, 2011 02:35 AM |
|
Edited by baklava at 02:49, 03 Jun 2011.
|
Quote:
Yes I did. I said it is immoral. Morality is absolute.
If you can't see why getting a group together to masturbate on a child is wrong we really don't have enough of a moral base in common to discuss anything.
Oh no, El, you won't escape this that easy.
Morality is not absolute because you say so. There has to be a perfect reason behind every bit of morality that is absolute, or else it's no more than a set of currently socially acceptable ethical norms.
So give me that reason. Especially in your context of liberty.
I could say the same "that's immoral, morality is absolute" thing with you supporting slicing baby penises. Yet in your opinion, that's morally fine, and this is not. Why?
I must ask you to stay consistent with yourself. As of now, you're not.
What is it that makes something immoral?
Can something be immoral - and should people be prevented from doing it - if it does not hurt anyone?
Is something made immoral through tradition? Like, for instance, slavery and authoritarianism?
What about practicing what you preach - religious liberty to do what you like to your child as long as it doesn't hurt it "too much"?
About the founding fathers...
I thought the founding fathers would ban this practice, but... execute them? The founding fathers didn't execute people who practiced circumcision, so why would they do that to these folks? Would a baby get killed or hurt in some way? Or because their religion and culture said it's wrong to masturbate on a baby? That'd be religious murder. A hate crime, if you will. They weren't murderous, were they?
Quote:
Make a video of you and your friends the next time you masturbate on a child and take the video to the police and see if they agree with you that it is not illegal.
Ah, so now you're hiding behind the repressive police state measures that you're criticizing so much. How about Obama's socialists enforcing a bill that states it's mandatory to pay 30% of your income for public healthcare, what would the police do to you if you refused to pay it? Might makes right much? How exactly is police agreeing or disagreeing with me an argument?
Quote:
Actually, you are misrepresenting my position.
Like I said when I replied to Corribus, "I've never said all religious practices should be allowed. I have in fact named things like child sacrifice that should not be allowed. Please don't misrepresent my positions."
Masturbating on a child is not only immoral, it is evil and should not be allowed.
Child sacrifice involves murdering a baby. Masturbation does not.
Circumcision hurts a baby and leaves a permanent mark far more than masturbating on it.
It was logical to assume you'd be alright with it. In fact, the only one who's doing some misrepresenting here is you, misrepresenting the position you stated a few pages ago due to your religious bias against decent, hard working satanists.
You haven't said a single thing other than "that's how we roll" that would prove that masturbating on a baby is actually evil. In fact, you could use those same arguments to proclaim that masturbation of any sort is evil and illegal tomorrow. Or homosexuality. Some are convinced masturbation and homosexuality are the ultimate evil, and argument their positions no worse than you do. In fact, they're doing it slightly better than you do, since the Old Testament's pretty clear about stoning homosexuals but doesn't mention feeding your child a healthy spoonful of semen or two anywhere.
____________
"Let me tell you what the blues
is. When you ain't got no
money,
you got the blues."
Howlin Wolf
|
|
Corribus
Hero of Order
The Abyss Staring Back at You
|
|
posted June 06, 2011 06:13 PM |
|
Edited by Corribus at 23:26, 06 Jun 2011.
|
Well I think Bak won that little argument.
Let me sum up this thread neatly from my perspective.
Earlier in the thread, Elodin writes:
"If a person believes it is a requirement of his religion he should be able to practice it."
This quote was taken from page 2. So you can go there to see I'm not taking it out of context or anything. I think I can be forgiven for taking this to mean that Elodin believed that ANY perceived religious practice should be protected. Not surprisingly, he was challenged on this point by numerous other posters.
Then just a few posts ago, he writes:
"Like I said when I replied to Corribus, 'I've never said all religious practices should be allowed. I have in fact named things like child sacrifice that should not be allowed. Please don't misrepresent my positions.'"
Elodin has thus backed off his original statement, which is sensible of course because of its obvious logical ramifications. I never for once thought that Elodin would actually believe that EVERY religious practice should be allowed. (Even so, this interplay does show sloppiness and equivocation on Elodin's part.) However, even though that's been cleared up, we're still left with a little bit of a quandary. SOME religious practices should be allowed (like circumcision), while others should not (baby killing - ah, how it always comes back to baby killing).
The question I have, and apparently what others have as well, is this: what determines (and who determines) what religious practices should be allowed and which ones shouldn't? I've still seen no direct answer from Elodin on this point.
I could be wrong here but the only criteria used by Elodin that I can see is his (absolute) moral standard. The practices that should be allowed are those he agrees with or, at the least, those he does not find morally objectionable. Physical health benefits or lack of negative health consequences clearly don't come into play, which Bak cleanly demonstrated. Alleged spiritual benefits can't be objectively discussed since they can't be empirically verified, so they're not much help.
Unfortunately, for a discussion centered around what should be morally or legally allowed, a specific (absolute) moral standard isn't very helpful. For one thing, we're left with a case-by-case approach to deciding what practices are ok - assuming we all understand what the moral standard even is in the first place. To make a single person the absolute adjudicator of what is right and what is wrong - well, that just doesn't sit right with me, even if I agreed with his decisions. At the very least, matters of law need to be decided by some clearly defined, objective set of logical rules. Not that they always are, of course, but such matters of practicality clearly have no place in the OSM.
For the record, I've never come out specifically against male circumcision in this thread. In the US it's an accepted practice that will likely remain legal and will probably only ever cease through gradual and passive public abandonment (if ever). Aside from some technical points of infants' rights that might cause an armchair philosopher pause, it's so ingrained in our judeo-christian society that most people don't even think twice about it. It also has the benefit that it's for the most part benign. While I think trying to justify it as being healthy are something of a stretch, it clearly doesn't cause any long term harm. Female circumcision, on the other hand, does - and it's not a Christian practice besides - which is why it doesn't enjoy cultural acceptance here. Plus we Americans just love another reason to feel morally superior to Muslims.
What's acceptible and accepted from a practical standpoint is completely different from a logical solution to the greater question at hand, however, and the latter - I believe - is what were after here. Thus conflating the two questions will only sow confusion and make it harder to arrive at a satisfying solution to either one of them. No, I can't sit here and "prove" that circumcision should be forbidden, and nor do I necessarily think it should be. For that matter, I can't "prove" that killing babies should be forbidden either, insofar as it's impossible to "prove" a moral imperitive. (Ugh, that ugly word "prove" rears its ugly head again!) What I'm interested in here is to debunk this notion that some religious practices are objectively and logically copacetic while others are objectively and logically reprehensible. I don't think there's any way to defend that position without using an absolute - and therefore both personal and inscrutible - moral standard, although I don't doubt that some will try. 
|
|
Elodin
Promising
Legendary Hero
Free Thinker
|
|
posted June 06, 2011 06:49 PM |
|
Edited by Elodin at 18:53, 06 Jun 2011.
|
@Corribus
Well of course you think Bak won the debate. According to atheism masturbating on a child, raping a child and feeding a child healthy food are all equally moral things to do. Morality has no meaning in an atheistic world view because what is moral and what is immoral can be no more than someone's opinion.
I'll repeat one of the many questions your side has dodged. Oh, these questions I specifically asked you and Mvass to address[see my first post on page 4.]
"Is morality absolute? Is raping a baby always immoral? Justify your answers."
To use your method of arguing: Now, if you say raping a baby can be moral then you are a pervert and we can move on. If you say raping a baby is always immoral then you have admitted morality is absolute. So what is your answer?
More related questions your side has dodged:
"If the government passes a law saying everyone must kill and eat one of their children if they have children should parents obey the law? Is the law moral? Justify your answer.
If the government passes a law saying that every child must have his tonsils removed should parents take their children in to have the tonsils removed?"
Quote:
"Like I said when I replied to Corribus, 'I've never said all religious practices should be allowed. I have in fact named things like child sacrifice that should not be allowed. Please don't misrepresent my positions.'"
Elodin has thus backed off his original statement, which is sensible of course because of its obvious logical ramifications. I never for once thought that Elodin would actually believe that EVERY religious practice should be allowed. (Even so, this interplay does show sloppiness and equivocation on Elodin's part.) However, even though that's been cleared up, we're still left with a little bit of a quandary. SOME religious practices should be allowed (like circumcision), while others should not (baby killing - ah, how it always comes back to baby killing).
You are of course not telling the truth. You are taking what I said out of context.
Quote:
Quote:
I'm more interested in how you justify saying that male circumcision should be protected as a religious practice but female circumcision should not, when neither one of them are "commanded" by any religion.
Quote:
Me:
When did I say female circumcision should not be protected?
Circumcision is commanded in Judaism and Islam. Circumcision is commanded by certain Christian denominations although the New Testament itself says circumcision is not required of Christians.
If a person believes it is a requirement of his religion he should be able to practice it.
Clearly that discussion is about circumcision and my statement is about circumcision being able to be practiced. I have in fact stated many times that atheists should not be allowed to murder in the name of their religion, Muslim terrorists should not be allowed to murder in the name of Islam, and Satanists should not be allowd to sacrifice in the name of their religion. It is unfortunate that you continue to lie about my position.
Oh, you also dodged most questions that I asked, just like Mvass did. He did answer a few questions though. Bak steered clear of them for the most part.
Quote:
The question I have, and apparently what others have as well, is this: what determines (and who determines) what religious practices should be allowed and which ones shouldn't? I've still seen no direct answer from Elodin on this point.
I believe I asked you something like that and you dodged the question.
Quote:
Physical health benefits or lack of negative health consequences clearly don't come into play, which Bak cleanly demonstrated.
Really? The Center of Disease Control lists a number of health benefits of circumcision. I guess the US Dept of Health is just a bunch of "right wing religious nuts."
Quote:
Alleged spiritual benefits can't be objectively discussed since they can't be empirically verified, so they're not much help.
It is a religious practice. Yes, I know materialistic atheists are ignorant of spirituality but don't blame everyone else for that.
Quote:
To make a single person the absolute adjudicator of what is right and what is wrong - well, that just doesn't sit right with me, even if I agreed with his decisions.
That is pretty much what happens when some nutty bureaucrat seeks to impose his atheistic beliefs on everyone else by dictating that they can't circumcise their kids.
|
|
mvassilev
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted June 06, 2011 07:06 PM |
|
|
First, let me correct this mistake.Quote:
According to atheism masturbating on a child, raping a child and feeding a child healthy food are all equally moral things to do.
Atheism makes no statements about morality. Atheism is just the lack of belief in God. That does not imply holding any particular moral views, except rejecting "divine command". Atheism does not imply nihilism or moral relativism.
Quote:
"Is morality absolute? Is raping a baby always immoral? Justify your answers."
I believe morality is objective but situational - (some) values are objective, but how one should act according to them depends on the situation. For example, if you value your wife highly, and an ax murderer comes to your your door and asks if your wife is home, it would not be immoral to lie to him, because you value your wife's life higher than always being honest. On the other hand, if an employer asks you if you've ever committed a felony, it would be wrong to lie.
____________
Eccentric Opinion
|
|
Corribus
Hero of Order
The Abyss Staring Back at You
|
|
posted June 06, 2011 09:12 PM |
|
Edited by Corribus at 23:21, 06 Jun 2011.
|
Quote:
According to atheism masturbating on a child, raping a child and feeding a child healthy food are all equally moral things to do.
Elodin, is this honestly what you think atheists believe? Do you want to keep this civil, or not?
On to your various questions. Far be it for me to be accused of dodging questions! So here we go:
As for the question of moral absoluteness, I broadly agree with what mvassilev wrote, so there isn't much need for me to go into further detail unless you really want it.
Regarding your favorite rhetorical subject of baby raping, I cannot imagine a realistic situation where raping a baby would be a favorable choice, or even a moral one. Let me emphasize, however, that this does not mean that (a) I cannot imagine a situation where I would choose to rape a baby or (b) I think morality is absolute.
For (a), I could imagine a (ludicrously hypothetical) situation where a guy, call him John, would be forced to make a choice between raping a baby or some worse calamity, in which case raping a baby would be the preferred option. For example, a criminal says that if John doesn't rape the baby, the criminal will murder the baby. Or the criminal will murder John. In that case, is it moral for John to rape the baby? I suppose that depends on what you mean by "moral" - but I certainly think it would be the best solution for everyone, the baby included, if John raped the baby. Getting raped is far better for the baby than getting killed. Rather than speaking in terms of what is "moral" - a highly abstract term - I prefer to speak of what is "right" or "beneficial", and what is "right" or "beneficial" is highly contextual. It may be very easy to speak broadly of morality but I think it's much harder to attach a quality judgment to a certain action regardless of the situation. (Note also that this would not make John a "pervert", as you claim.)
For (b), first we are speaking of a single type of action, not morality in general. I could very well think that baby raping is immoral in all situations (even the above described ones) yet stealing is not. This would hardly make me a moral absolutist, then, even if I think baby raping is always wrong no matter the situation. Second, I could also think that baby raping is always wrong but acknowledge that, because morality is subjective, other people may feel otherwise. So yet again this is a situation where I could think baby raping is always immoral yet not be a moral absolutist.
In the end, therefore, I conclude that if you are going to use "my method of arguing", you're going to have to get a lesson or two in logic.
Regarding your question about government passing a law saying everyone must kill and eat their children:
I could stoop low and accuse you of playing "rhetorical games", very much like you do when I pose to you questions which try to expose inconsistencies in logic, but since I do recognize the value in such rhetorical styles, I'll play nice and answer. I do wish to point out the hypocrisy, however, as you frequently cry foul when other people put forward such questions to you. 
Beyond that -
First, asking whether a law is moral is sort of like asking whether a banana is happy. Laws aren't the type of things that can be moral or immoral - only human actions or choices can be labeled as such. So I'm not sure really how to answer such a nonsense question.
Second, what is legal and what are moral are two different things. If the government passes a law which mandates you do something which you find immoral, such as taking your tonsils out, you have two choices: do it anyway, in which case you compromise your honor, or don't do it, in which case you may go to jail. I suppose that choice rests with your personal commitment to your moral code, and your perceived risks of getting caught. You can always fight to change the law, of course, but if you don't comply you're a criminal. But maybe it's better to be a criminal here on Earth than go to Hell afterwards, eh?
So, speaking for myself - I would need more information to answer your questions here. Details like: What would be the punishment for noncompliance? How would the government be enforcing this? Why did the government pass this law? What are the pros and cons of compliance? These would all weigh into my decision to follow the law or try to get around it. Perhaps you make decisions differently, but I don't decide to do or not do something until I'm confronted with the need to make the decision. I might broadly believe that murder is wrong and that government laws against it should be followed, but there may be circumstances I cannot at this time foresee that would cause me to make an exception to this belief. Frankly, I think keeping one's options open is the better part of survival.
Quote:
You are of course not telling the truth. You are taking what I said out of context.
Not my intent. I only post my perceptions of what you wrote. That doesn't mean I'm not telling the truth. Why do you regard every misunderstanding or misreading of your posts as malicious? Put another way - do you really think I have cause to lie about what you said and intentionally try to deceive other people into misreading your posts? What would I gain from that?
So let me get this straight: your first statement was that if a person believes CIRCUMCISION (male or female) is a requirement of his religion, then he should be able to practice CIRCUMCISCION (male or female). Is this accurate?
If so, I'd urge you to be more careful with your pronouns, as such language can be ambiguous, and in the future if someone misinterprets what you posted I'd ask you to not jump to the conclusion that they are LYING or INTENTIONALLY taking what you said out of context. It seems silly to have to apologize for misunderstanding what you wrote, but I'm happy to do so if that's what happened.
Even so, this doesn't change the gist of my argument. I recognized that you did clarify the statement later on. You believe some religious practices are ok, but others aren't, yet you haven't offered any mention of how you separate one from the other. I think we're all waiting for an answer to this one.
Quote:
Really? The Center of Disease Control lists a number of health benefits of circumcision.
No, that's not what I meant. Please read my post more carefully. I'm not arguing that there aren't any health benefits to circumcision - I'm arguing that alleged health benefits don't apparently determine what religious practices are allowed and which ones are not.
Now, Elodin, I have done my best to answer your questions. I wish for you to answer one question of my own, directly and without equivocation. If you wish for me to also answer this question, I will do so, but I wish to hear your answer first.
The question is this.
If some religious practices should be allowed, and others should not, what criteria do you use to determine one set from the other? I do not want you to frame your answer by using specific examples. I want you to speak generally. If it makes it easier for you, pretend that there is a new religious practice emerging among fringe cults that you know nothing about. What information would you need to determine whether it should be allowed or not allowed?
|
|
moonlith
Bad-mannered
Supreme Hero
If all else fails, use Fiyah!
|
|
posted June 06, 2011 10:36 PM |
|
|
Quote:
Just for sake of argument, Elodin - do you condone the Muslim/African practice of slicing off female children's genetalia and sewing their vaginas permanently shut? (Also known as female circumcision in some circles.) After all, it's just a religious practice. Should parents be allowed to do this in the US?
Quite a difference between actually mutilating a female sex and ... not really mutilating a male sex. As far as I know circumcision is actually healthier. And it would seem better to have it done early so you don't actually have to experience that painful trauma when you're grown up.
|
|
mvassilev
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted June 06, 2011 11:39 PM |
|
|
Excellent post, Corribus. 
Corribus and Elodin:
My response is here. Discussion about moral absolutism should go in that topic.
____________
Eccentric Opinion
|
|
Lexxan
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
Unimpressed by your logic
|
|
posted June 06, 2011 11:45 PM |
|
|
Oh please guys, lets not degenerate this thread into an ethical clew of OT prattle about Moral Absolutism (or Absolute Morality) that has little to do with the topic in the first place.
____________
Coincidence? I think not!!!!
|
|
baklava
Honorable
Legendary Hero
Mostly harmless
|
|
posted June 07, 2011 12:27 AM |
|
Edited by baklava at 00:31, 07 Jun 2011.
|
I believe that baby rape, involving penetration that causes heavy physical damage, is wrong. I also believe that causing heavy non-sexual physical damage to a baby is equally wrong (as in, it can't really get much wronger than that). That's where we both agree, El. There you go.
Then again, you said causing a little physical damage to the baby is alright if it has health benefits and is for religious reasons. So why wouldn't we apply that to religious sexual motives, which don't even cause any of that physical damage, or long-term consequences? Such as the above-mentioned feeding your baby your own semen.
All in all, I never claimed there's no absolute morality. I am one hundred percent certain, however, that your morality cannot in any conceivable way be absolute, as it contains heavy logical flaws and God (or Satan, if you will) is smarter than that (except for the cut-your-baby's-penis bit, but I figure he's intelligent enough to know how much bureaucracy sucks so he left it to the humans).
Mind you that I didn't ask you anything about raping babies, and neither did you me, so your accusations that I'm not answering questions you posed to people who don't even share my opinions at some point in the past is completely out of place and excuses your - hm, lack of willingness to explain your position - rather poorly. I only asked you about ejaculating on babies for religious reasons, a practice that, I'll repeat it for the 8th time just to make sure, does not cause absolutely any physical harm whatsoever, and is actually rather healthy, and I wanted to hear a single rational reason as to why you'd oppose that while at the same time upholding the freedom to believe that you need to physically disfigure your baby in order for it to enter into a communion with God.
You repeatedly failed to provide such a reason and instead went to hide in those bushes over there where you capriciously waited for someone to say something else, so you could try to drag our conversation off course.
A retreat that spelled a victory for me, religious freedom and baby-masturbating satanists all around the globe.
____________
"Let me tell you what the blues
is. When you ain't got no
money,
you got the blues."
Howlin Wolf
|
|
moonlith
Bad-mannered
Supreme Hero
If all else fails, use Fiyah!
|
|
posted June 08, 2011 04:58 AM |
|
Edited by moonlith at 05:01, 08 Jun 2011.
|
Wow, Bak. Do you really need THAT much text to state the obvious and say Elodin is missing the points by several miles as usual and tossing in dozens of fallacies like he does 99% of the time?
You disappoint me.
Hell, I could do it in 3 words.
Just three. But I'd probably get another -QP for it. Damn flood protect..
So I'll PM it to you instead! 
|
|
baklava
Honorable
Legendary Hero
Mostly harmless
|
|
posted June 08, 2011 11:39 AM |
|
|
This isn't about Elodin anymore.
This is about faith.
This is about freedom.
This is about a man's right to masturbate on his baby.
Hell, son, this is about America.
____________
"Let me tell you what the blues
is. When you ain't got no
money,
you got the blues."
Howlin Wolf
|
|
TheBaron
Promising
Known Hero
dreamer of dreams
|
|
posted June 08, 2011 11:47 AM |
|
|
You mean we aren't supposed to masturbate on our babies?
Damn, better clean the little snow up then.
|
|
Corribus
Hero of Order
The Abyss Staring Back at You
|
|
posted June 09, 2011 04:03 PM |
|
|
Hey Bak -
Have you noticed a conspicuous lack of any attempt on Elodin's part to answer any of our questions? At this point, he can't even claim that it's because we don't answer his, so I can only conclude that he just can't come up with a decent answer.
Really, I only asked one simple question, which I'll repeat here:
If some religious practices should be allowed, and others should not, what criteria do you use to determine one set from the other?
I suppose that I have no other choice but to declare victory.
|
|
JollyJoker
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted June 09, 2011 04:22 PM |
|
|
I have no idea why Elodin doesn't answer this, but the answer is GLARINGLY obvious.
For Elodin all moral comes from God - GOD says what IS moral, and since God ordered the Jews circumcision, it's moral to do so. Period.
For every other religion - since God's orders, commandments, words and so on are STILL absolute - everything is allowed which doesn't violate God's words.
So baby sacrificing it out, except when Go explicitly calls for it. IF he did that, it would be moral to do so.
|
| |
|
|
