I really don't know why you should give a rat's ass about anything or anyone else's opinion....and I don't know why you would have a rat's ass to give but that's wholly your business.
I'm more inclined to be an independent thinker.
Acting in ignorance is not the same as independent thinking.
"The opposite of a fact is falsehood, but the opposite of one profound truth may very well be another profound truth." ~ Niels Bohr
But I've yet to act in ignorance so that simply doesn't apply to me.
But thank you for the update.
You said you don't know or care about all of the other opinions in this thread. Independent thinking is based on knowledge of the variables involved, imo, not ignorance of them. In this debate, you are apparently not very aware of the actual debate that has taken place. (okay, there was a lot of silly dancing thrown in there, too. ) Therefore, jumping in and not caring about the debate, itself, it would appear that you are interested in your own ego and displaying it, rather than a debate, discussion or interaction.
"The opposite of a fact is falsehood, but the opposite of one profound truth may very well be another profound truth." ~ Niels Bohr
You said you don't know or care about all of the other opinions in this thread. Independent thinking is based on knowledge of the variables involved, imo, not ignorance of them. In this debate, you are apparently not very aware of the actual debate that has taken place. (okay, there was a lot of silly dancing thrown in there, too. ) Therefore, jumping in and not caring about the debate, itself, it would appear that you are interested in your own ego and displaying it, rather than a debate, discussion or interaction.
Actually independent thinking is also based on forming one's own conclusions regardless of outside influence or impressions. I don't and did not need to know what any of you think on this subject to know what it is I think on this subject. Can you simply understand that and not be so waylaid by a few little words like "I don't care"? I think that you can.
Ego simply is. You'll display yours and I'll display mine accordingly...as we just have.
Actually independent thinking is also based on forming one's own conclusions regardless of outside influence or impressions. I don't and did not need to know what any of you think on this subject to know what it is I think on this subject. Can you simply understand that and not be so waylaid by a few little words like "I don't care"? I think that you can.
Ego simply is. You'll display yours and I'll display mine accordingly...as we just have.
It's fine to develop opinions on your own. To show blatant disregard for the variables of the debate and for fellow debaters involved in the debate seems not as much independent as anti-social to me. It's certainly your perogative to be so. If you notice people aren't well-responsive to your technique, you don't have to like it, and yet at least you'll understand the "why" of it.
"The opposite of a fact is falsehood, but the opposite of one profound truth may very well be another profound truth." ~ Niels Bohr
dharma69. I'm curious why don't respond to my reply which actually intended to continue the debate on the ethics of making the statement "homosexuality is immoral".
Instead, you got sucked into debating with Angelica a rather pointless discussion of wether or not there was hipocrisy in your post.
I necessarily have the passion for writing this, and you have the passion for condemning me; both of us are equally fools, equally the toys of destiny. Your nature is to do harm, mine is to love truth, and to make it public in spite of you. - Voltaire
It's fine to develop opinions on your own. To show blatant disregard for the variables of the debate and for fellow debaters involved in the debate seems not as much independent as anti-social to me. It's certainly your perogative to be so. If you notice people aren't well-responsive to your technique, you don't have to like it, and yet at least you'll understand the "why" of it.
Fair play, but the *variables* weren't overly important to me at the time of posting and they still aren't. And I was less interested (in this case) in debating anything than I was in simply stating my point and being done with it...as I still am. That's not anti-social. That's simply being direct.
I'm wounded that the whole 2 of you are so unresponsive to my *technique*.
And I'm well with understanding...especially if it goes both ways.
dharma69. I'm curious why don't respond to my reply which actually intended to continue the debate on the ethics of making the statement "homosexuality is immoral".
Instead, you got sucked into debating with Angelica a rather pointless discussion of wether or not there was hipocrisy in your post.
I did Ahnimus respond ...didn't I?
And not so pointless when people get their points across. Tiresome, but not so pointless.
And not so pointless when people get their points across. Tiresome, but not so pointless.
So you did. My apologies, I didn't see it.
Well, I actually agree that the freedom to speak shouldn't be limited. We should be able to say whatever we want, it should only be our intentions that are reviewed. If I intend to incite hatred against a group, then that would fall into hate speech. I'm not saying that we should criminalize it either. Maybe we can just demoralize the statement. I think humiliation is a good method of altering minds.
I necessarily have the passion for writing this, and you have the passion for condemning me; both of us are equally fools, equally the toys of destiny. Your nature is to do harm, mine is to love truth, and to make it public in spite of you. - Voltaire
Fair play, but the *variables* weren't overly important to me at the time of posting and they still aren't. And I was less interested (in this case) in debating anything than I was in simply stating my point and being done with it...as I still am. That's not anti-social. That's simply being direct.
I'm wounded that the whole 2 of you are so unresponsive to my *technique*.
And I'm well with understanding...especially if it goes both ways.
The first line in your entrance post said a lot in terms of the law of reciprocity. Have at it. To each their own.
"The opposite of a fact is falsehood, but the opposite of one profound truth may very well be another profound truth." ~ Niels Bohr
The king of anal and pointless conversations is calling out the queen? lol
Don't forget your anima, dude.
Yea, don't forget your Animus either :P
I necessarily have the passion for writing this, and you have the passion for condemning me; both of us are equally fools, equally the toys of destiny. Your nature is to do harm, mine is to love truth, and to make it public in spite of you. - Voltaire
It's animus. And I don't, hence the fact that I *try* to get along with people who have very similar yet antagonizingly different, opposing views. I recognize that when it's not working, I've got some animus issues. Just so long as when you criticize me, you realize you're looking in a mirror.
"The opposite of a fact is falsehood, but the opposite of one profound truth may very well be another profound truth." ~ Niels Bohr
It's animus. And I don't, hence the fact that I *try* to get along with people who have very similar yet antagonizingly different, opposing views. I recognize that when it's not working, I've got some animus issues. Just so long as when you criticize me, you realize you're looking in a mirror.
It's not animus when I'm referring to a proper noun.
I necessarily have the passion for writing this, and you have the passion for condemning me; both of us are equally fools, equally the toys of destiny. Your nature is to do harm, mine is to love truth, and to make it public in spite of you. - Voltaire
Well, I actually agree that the freedom to speak shouldn't be limited. We should be able to say whatever we want, it should only be our intentions that are reviewed. If I intend to incite hatred against a group, then that would fall into hate speech. I'm not saying that we should criminalize it either. Maybe we can just demoralize the statement. I think humiliation is a good method of altering minds.
Half of the battle is deciphering *intent* but I honestly think many are more inclined to just throw up the "I'm offended" sign than to allow for another to be human and dissent.
Half of the battle is deciphering *intent* but I honestly think many are more inclined to just throw up the "I'm offended" sign than to allow for another to be human and dissent.
Humiliation is workable.
Well, in Canada, at least. Some law concerning speech is entirely dependent on intention or percieved intention. If I state "I am going to kill you." it only becomes a death threat if you believed that I intended to kill you.
I have a problem with that exact model, for if my intention was not to kill you than all that is at fault is your perception of my statement. Although, I personally do not make such statements due to the possibility someone may interpret it as intent to harm.
So I think, we could certainly try to revise the law regarding hate speech, but it's ultimately in everyone's best interest to avoid using statements that could be interpreted as hate speech.
I think in this example it would have been more acceptable to suggest that homosexuality is not something that would exist in the normal human brain, so therefor it is a disorder of a sort and should be looked at as one. I'd be more inclined to side with that statement than suggesting that a behavior such as homosexuality is immoral. Then is it the behavior in question, homosexuality describes a primary sexual attracion, not neccisarily a behavior. Is it the sex drive or the behavior that is immoral? This statement is too open to criticism, he could be saying the drive is immoral which is beyond the control of homosexuals, if he's stating the behavior is immoral, then he should say it in a different manner with a plan of how to get his ideal results. I think simply stating "Homosexuality is immoral" serves only as a statement of hateful intent. Though I could be wrong.
I necessarily have the passion for writing this, and you have the passion for condemning me; both of us are equally fools, equally the toys of destiny. Your nature is to do harm, mine is to love truth, and to make it public in spite of you. - Voltaire
I think in this example it would have been more acceptable to suggest that homosexuality is not something that would exist in the normal human brain, so therefor it is a disorder of a sort and should be looked at as one. I'd be more inclined to side with that statement than suggesting that a behavior such as homosexuality is immoral. Then is it the behavior in question, homosexuality describes a primary sexual attracion, not neccisarily a behavior. Is it the sex drive or the behavior that is immoral? This statement is too open to criticism, he could be saying the drive is immoral which is beyond the control of homosexuals, if he's stating the behavior is immoral, then he should say it in a different manner with a plan of how to get his ideal results. I think simply stating "Homosexuality is immoral" serves only as a statement of hateful intent. Though I could be wrong.
I wouldn't color you right or wrong but I would tell you that you'd be entering even more *dangerous* societal territory for daring to suggest/imply that homosexuals aren't *immoral*, which is a word with it's own level of harshness...but instead they're afflicted with a mental/emotion/sexual injury.
Yikes.
But that's the nature of trying to view the workings of the cerebral with the eye of the rational. The circumstances of how those words came out of his mouth have suddenly became less important than his words...which, to me, don't ring of "hate speech". They're just the words of a man who merely said how he feels.
And a pointless conversation is impossible without participants.
I dub thee, Princess!
Actually, I was referring to myself as the "queen"....it's a bit of a private joke between myself and my animus, er, I mean Ahnimus. Sadly it probably doesn't make much sense to anyone else.
"The opposite of a fact is falsehood, but the opposite of one profound truth may very well be another profound truth." ~ Niels Bohr
Actually, I was referring to myself as the "queen"....it's a bit of a private joke between myself and my animus, er, I mean Ahnimus. Sadly it probably doesn't make much sense to anyone else.
I'm all for progress. I just don't think it's progress when we are not acting like we respect each other's views. In my interactions with know1, we've disagreed many times, but I don't recall him ever laughing at me. Maybe he is different with you. I felt he was being conscientious and well-intended in this thread for the most part.
at some level people have to understand the concept of "busting balls"... unfortunatley with the lack of physical communication the internet provides, things can be mis-interpreted. he has been posting for just as long as i have here, i think we can take some liberty with each other once in a while, without being to personal or over the top. trust me, if i met the guy i would shake his hand and have the utmost respect for him, i certainly would not refer to him as a sinner
And because you believe differently than know1 about premarital sex, it's hardly been determined as absolute law that your opinion connotes progress from his.
i have never claimed that my opinion is absolute law, i openly admit that i am wrong more than i am right. i believe his belief that pre-marital sex is a "sin" equals a belief that HIS opinion is absolute. having a "faith" does not make someone morally superior, which quite frankly, is how know1 comes off quite a bit.
This is why all opinions are equal.
i strongly disagree. i feel they are equal in the right to express, but they are not equal in terms of value or merit. an example i would give is Martin Luther King Jr. and the Grand Wizard of the KKK. i support their right to express their opinion, but one is obvioulsy superior in merit and value.
I find hypocrisy to be amusing, too, especially when we take the "morally superior" role calling out someone else's "moral superiority" in the name of progress.
again, i was not claiming to be "morally superior, he is the onle that claims pre-marital sex is a sin. and again, i am the first to admit that i have many flaws. i think you have it backwards on this one good friend.
You are right, though, calling another "full of it" is a right we should all reserve.
i hope more like minded people in positions of power have the bravery he does to come out and express his beliefs. because it is idiotic statements like this that help push these issues to the front, causing conversation and debate. ultimately leading to progress. so i would like to shake his hand, for helping the cause of progress, unkowingly.
at some level people have to understand the concept of "busting balls"... unfortunatley with the lack of physical communication the internet provides, things can be mis-interpreted. he has been posting for just as long as i have here, i think we can take some liberty with each other once in a while, without being to personal or over the top. trust me, if i met the guy i would shake his hand and have the utmost respect for him, i certainly would not refer to him as a sinner
i have never claimed that my opinion is absolute law, i openly admit that i am wrong more than i am right. i believe his belief that pre-marital sex is a "sin" equals a belief that HIS opinion is absolute. having a "faith" does not make someone morally superior, which quite frankly, is how know1 comes off quite a bit. i strongly disagree. i feel they are equal in the right to express, but they are not equal in terms of value or merit. an example i would give is Martin Luther King Jr. and the Grand Wizard of the KKK. i support their right to express their opinion, but one is obvioulsy superior in merit and value.
again, i was not claiming to be "morally superior, he is the onle that claims pre-marital sex is a sin. and again, i am the first to admit that i have many flaws. i think you have it backwards on this one good friend. couldnt agree more
You were laughing at him. He was being earnest. It came off as unfair to me.
"The opposite of a fact is falsehood, but the opposite of one profound truth may very well be another profound truth." ~ Niels Bohr
Comments
http://www.myspace.com/illuminatta
Rhinocerous Surprise '08!!!
But I've yet to act in ignorance so that simply doesn't apply to me.
But thank you for the update.
...signed...the token black Pearl Jam fan.
FaceSpace
http://www.myspace.com/illuminatta
Rhinocerous Surprise '08!!!
Ego simply is. You'll display yours and I'll display mine accordingly...as we just have.
...signed...the token black Pearl Jam fan.
FaceSpace
http://www.myspace.com/illuminatta
Rhinocerous Surprise '08!!!
Instead, you got sucked into debating with Angelica a rather pointless discussion of wether or not there was hipocrisy in your post.
I'm wounded that the whole 2 of you are so unresponsive to my *technique*.
And I'm well with understanding...especially if it goes both ways.
...signed...the token black Pearl Jam fan.
FaceSpace
And not so pointless when people get their points across. Tiresome, but not so pointless.
...signed...the token black Pearl Jam fan.
FaceSpace
So you did. My apologies, I didn't see it.
Well, I actually agree that the freedom to speak shouldn't be limited. We should be able to say whatever we want, it should only be our intentions that are reviewed. If I intend to incite hatred against a group, then that would fall into hate speech. I'm not saying that we should criminalize it either. Maybe we can just demoralize the statement. I think humiliation is a good method of altering minds.
Don't forget your anima, dude.
http://www.myspace.com/illuminatta
Rhinocerous Surprise '08!!!
http://www.myspace.com/illuminatta
Rhinocerous Surprise '08!!!
Yea, don't forget your Animus either :P
http://www.myspace.com/illuminatta
Rhinocerous Surprise '08!!!
It's not animus when I'm referring to a proper noun.
http://www.myspace.com/illuminatta
Rhinocerous Surprise '08!!!
Nice!
And a pointless conversation is impossible without participants.
I dub thee, Princess!
...signed...the token black Pearl Jam fan.
FaceSpace
Humiliation is workable.
...signed...the token black Pearl Jam fan.
FaceSpace
Well, in Canada, at least. Some law concerning speech is entirely dependent on intention or percieved intention. If I state "I am going to kill you." it only becomes a death threat if you believed that I intended to kill you.
I have a problem with that exact model, for if my intention was not to kill you than all that is at fault is your perception of my statement. Although, I personally do not make such statements due to the possibility someone may interpret it as intent to harm.
So I think, we could certainly try to revise the law regarding hate speech, but it's ultimately in everyone's best interest to avoid using statements that could be interpreted as hate speech.
I think in this example it would have been more acceptable to suggest that homosexuality is not something that would exist in the normal human brain, so therefor it is a disorder of a sort and should be looked at as one. I'd be more inclined to side with that statement than suggesting that a behavior such as homosexuality is immoral. Then is it the behavior in question, homosexuality describes a primary sexual attracion, not neccisarily a behavior. Is it the sex drive or the behavior that is immoral? This statement is too open to criticism, he could be saying the drive is immoral which is beyond the control of homosexuals, if he's stating the behavior is immoral, then he should say it in a different manner with a plan of how to get his ideal results. I think simply stating "Homosexuality is immoral" serves only as a statement of hateful intent. Though I could be wrong.
Yikes.
But that's the nature of trying to view the workings of the cerebral with the eye of the rational. The circumstances of how those words came out of his mouth have suddenly became less important than his words...which, to me, don't ring of "hate speech". They're just the words of a man who merely said how he feels.
...signed...the token black Pearl Jam fan.
FaceSpace
http://www.myspace.com/illuminatta
Rhinocerous Surprise '08!!!
...signed...the token black Pearl Jam fan.
FaceSpace
http://www.myspace.com/illuminatta
Rhinocerous Surprise '08!!!
I'll inherit Queen of Pointless!
I think I shall cue Freddie Mercury in my iTunes and let him serenade me with "God Save The Queen".
Excuse me while I powertrip.
...signed...the token black Pearl Jam fan.
FaceSpace
http://www.myspace.com/illuminatta
Rhinocerous Surprise '08!!!
i guess YOU'LL never get the chance to die for your country!
Wow, how disheartening. Something tells me I'll get over it, however.
i have never claimed that my opinion is absolute law, i openly admit that i am wrong more than i am right. i believe his belief that pre-marital sex is a "sin" equals a belief that HIS opinion is absolute. having a "faith" does not make someone morally superior, which quite frankly, is how know1 comes off quite a bit. i strongly disagree. i feel they are equal in the right to express, but they are not equal in terms of value or merit. an example i would give is Martin Luther King Jr. and the Grand Wizard of the KKK. i support their right to express their opinion, but one is obvioulsy superior in merit and value.
again, i was not claiming to be "morally superior, he is the onle that claims pre-marital sex is a sin. and again, i am the first to admit that i have many flaws. i think you have it backwards on this one good friend.
http://www.myspace.com/illuminatta
Rhinocerous Surprise '08!!!