Thread: Same sex marriage

Originally Posted by Maanaam

Oh, come on Switch, how can people have a discussion without disagreeing on both finer and larger points?
Pedantry? Come on.

Dont sweat the small stuff.

The larger points need to be resolved first. The fine print you can debate, once you've got the big bits sorted.

Originally Posted by Switch

Morally or ethically, not killing is a perfect number one.

At first glance, yes. But consider a community that has too many people...say a community trapped in a cave or stuck on an island. One lame person who is using the limited resources as much as anyone else but not contributing to the greater good. For the sake of the group as a whole (the community), the lame one needs to go.
Some would say that's right, he needs to be sacrificed, others would disagree despite some contributing community members dying from lack of resources. The community needs contributors for the sake of everyone.

Consider, too, that one day the Planet Earth community may need to face that same question.
So it's not self-evident that "Thou shalt not kill" is a moral or ethical truth.

Originally Posted by Switch

The fine print you can debate,

So it's not pedantic, just wrongly timed?
But I think I have shown in my last post above that it's not even in the fine print...thou shalt not kill is debateable.

Originally Posted by Maanaam

So it's not pedantic, just wrongly timed?
But I think I have shown in my last post above that it's not even in the fine print...thou shalt not kill is debateable.

Asked and answered.

Originally Posted by tomcat

...my argument is much more straightforward than looper's obfuscating nonsense: the wall separating religion and state should be solid and reinforced with a general opinion among the governed that within the bounds of a social contract that purports to establish peace and security and promote prosperity for all, no one, least of all politicians and religious professionals, has the right to tell another how to live...

Post of order Mr Chairperson.

1. The promotion of prosperity for all is an absurd Americanism.

2. Politicians are elected to pass legislation on how people should live in any well ordered society. Its probably part of your constitution.

Te answer in this case is simple. Just ban any politician from closing a political address with the words, "God bless America"

Originally Posted by tomcat

...my argument is much more straightforward than looper's obfuscating nonsense: the wall separating religion and state should be solid and reinforced with a general opinion among the governed that within the bounds of a social contract that purports to establish peace and security and promote prosperity for all, no one, least of all politicians and religious professionals, has the right to tell another how to live...

. Who could argue with that?
Oh wait...
On the point of gay marriage, yes, as a be-all and end-all governing principle for society, no.

Originally Posted by tomcat

...and Maanaam: we all know the lame/gay/old/unpleasant/ugly/teacher-as-opposed-to-doctor one has to die in that cave...or in that sinking boat...or on that desert island...or even Lost in Space...who dies, however, depends on who's doing the choosing...

You miss the point completely: The point was that the previous point is debateable and not a self-evident truth.

Originally Posted by Maanaam

The point was that the previous point is debateable and not a self-evident truth

...not when the answer is always the same...

Can you elaborate? In terms of people having a discussion and not detracting one-liners?

Originally Posted by Maanaam

Can you elaborate?

...yes, you're a pedantic, nitpicking, thin-skinned fuckweasel...not to put on too fine a point on it...

Originally Posted by Switch

But you are using your measure. Why is that the quantifiably correct one, and does it measure accurately?

True morality is the result of rational enquiry and agreement.

The key to progress of our species is agreeing on a global moral framework that is common to all members of our species.

Supernatural religious beliefs about gods being offended and afterlifes providing true reward (and therefore subjugating the importance of human life on earth) are incompatible with this future of morality.

I think it is quite possible for absolute moral truths to be reached by consensus which apply equally to all members the species in whatever corner of the planet they may be.

If this were not true then the future for a rational moral framework for the human race would look bleak.

I don't see any reason for this pessimism. Take any of the crimes common in Islamic countries listed earlier and try to provide an argument as to why they are not wrong in certain circumstances? I think you will be struggling. The best you can come up with would be 'in primitive cultures they simply don't know any better'.

So why then is it not true to say that it is 'objectively' wrong to commit any of these crimes?

Originally Posted by Maanaam

You just wrote"You cannot exculpate an entire religious movement just by pointing out that there are some good people who do good things." 2-way street. You can not demonise an entire religion by pointing out there are some nasty buggers in it.

You are assuming that a religion must either be exonerated completely or condemned completely. I am not suggesting that. I am saying that a religion can be quantifiably measured for moral worth by scrutinising its moral professions and measuring degree to which its adherents engage in morally unworthy actions based on their religion's instructions.

The amount of suffering and death caused by Islam in any given year can be measured objectively and Islam can be condemned to the degree that its instruction causes net measurable human suffering.

No reasonable person would try to say that Islam is not the primary offender among the world's major religions when it comes to causing human suffering and conflict, not least to gay men.

Originally Posted by tomcat

...yes, you're a pedantic, nitpicking, thin-skinned fuckweasel...not to put on too fine a point on it...

Oooo, natty old gay man hates being shown up and when he can't actually be a part of the discussion because he's got nothing to say but what he alone thinks is witty, has to resort to silly abuse.
Pouting and prancing much, Tom?

Originally Posted by Looper

You are assuming that a religion must either be exonerated completely or condemned completely.

No I'm not! You said an entire religion can not be exculpated because someone pointed out there are good guys. I said you can not demonise an entire religion (which you're doing) because there are some nasty nutters.
I am not exonerating nor condemning. You are.

Originally Posted by Looper

The amount of suffering and death caused by Islam in any given year can be measured objectively and Islam can be condemned to the degree that its instruction causes net measurable human suffering.

Word it like this: "The amount of suffering and death caused by a minority of adherents who misinterpret the instruction of Islam in any given year can be measured objectively" and I can't argue. And it makes your following words somewhat spurious.

Originally Posted by Looper

and Islam can be condemned to the degree that its instruction causes net measurable human suffering.

Originally Posted by Looper

No reasonable person would try to say that Islam is not the primary offender among the world's major religions when it comes to causing human suffering and conflict, not least to gay men.

That's a form of the appeal to authority fallacy.

Originally Posted by Looper

True morality is the result of rational enquiry and agreement.

...nonsense: all morality is subjective...

Originally Posted by tomcat

...nonsense: all morality is subjective...

Can you describe a situation where it is morally supportable to throw a gay man off a tall building because he is gay?

If not then it seems that throwing gay men off tall buildings for being gay is objectively morally wrong.

Originally Posted by Maanaam

I am not exonerating nor condemning. You are.

The key word you have missed in this misquote is 'completely'.

It is not possible to say a religion is completely OK because there are some good guys. It is equally not possible to say a religion is completely not OK because there are some bad guys.

It is however possible to measure the amount of tangible suffering caused (e.g. number gay men thrown off tall buildings) by a given religion in a given year and do the same for another religion in the same year and then rank them against each other. One being morally more repugnant than another in that regard.

You can then do the same for a whole set of key performance indicators (e.g. number of women stoned to death for adultery, number of women murdered for their family's honour, number of women shot in the head for trying receive an education etc.) and rank 1 religion against another on a set of these KPIs and then come up with an overall moral ranking of the 2 religions.

One will be measurably more repugnant than the other in objective terms.

Originally Posted by tomcat

nonsense: all morality is subjective

Correct. (Now that's the way to have a debate. Disagree and state your opinion. Keep it up, Tom )

Originally Posted by Looper

If not then it seems that throwing gay men off tall buildings for being gay is objectively morally wrong.

That's what's called the fallacy of bifurcation, also known as the black and white fallacy. If it's not this, it has to be that.
More imprtantly, it's talking about what is moral, a concept that, at least Tom and I say, is subjective and a matter of opinion.

Originally Posted by Looper

You can then do the same for a whole set of key performance indicators

There is where you go wrong in your reasoning. Performance indicators to whose standard? An extremist Imam might have a different set of KPI's.

And this is the crux of it all: Who sets the standards?

Originally Posted by tomcat

.poor maanaam has been reduced to fart-catcher status thanks to your befoggery

And then you couldn't resist. Tut tut. I had high hopes.

Originally Posted by tomcat

...nonsense: all morality is subjective...

That will baffle bigots.

Originally Posted by Maanaam

I had high hopes

...I feel your disappointment, dearest fuckweasel...

Originally Posted by tomcat

...if I were an ayatollah or an imam, I'm sure I'd have no problem justifying the action...

An ayatollah would no doubt resort to supernatural reasons for the crimes he condones.

As Christopher Hitchens said - That which can be asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence. Supernatural beliefs have no place in a rational discussion of morality.

A rational approach to morality involves providing evidence of the costs and benefits of an action by measuring the suffering and happiness caused by that action in order to come up with measurement of the worthiness of the action in moral terms.

It is wrong to murder a girl because her rape has supposedly brought shame on her family. It is wrong in absolute unequivocal terms. There is no justification.

If you cede reason to subjectivity and relativism then our species would have no moral rudder with which to navigate the waters of our global religion free future. There is no reason for this pessimism since morality is a tractable objectively measurable intellectual problem. Like any other intellectual challenge that we have encountered during our long journey from the African plains.

Originally Posted by Looper

An ayatollah would no doubt resort to supernatural reasons for the crimes he condones.

...and?...

Originally Posted by Looper

A rational approach to morality involves providing evidence of the costs and benefits of an action by measuring the suffering and happiness caused by that action in order to come up with measurement of the worthiness of the action in moral terms.

...utter nonsense...

Originally Posted by Looper

It is wrong to murder a girl because her rape has supposedly brought shame on her family.

...to you, yes...to her family, no: who are you to condemn what you abhor when your filthy habits may be seen by others as equally abhorrent...

Originally Posted by Looper

If you cede reason to subjectivity and relativism then our species would have no moral rudder with which to navigate the waters of our global religion free future.

...more nonsense...subjectivity and relativism have always ruled mankind: that's why heaven was created...to provide respite from the inanity of life...

Originally Posted by Looper

There is no reason for this pessimism since morality is a tractable objectively measurable intellectual problem.

...you're not listening...

Originally Posted by Looper

It is wrong to murder a girl because her rape has supposedly brought shame on her family. It is wrong in absolute unequivocal terms. There is no justification.

You use an example that you suppose is radical Islam-centric. Do you know that no Appalachian hillbillies don't have the same "moral" feelings about their sisters' virginity? Or Polynesians? Or Chinese hilltribesmen? You may be surprised.
And it all comes back to "whose morals"?

Originally Posted by Looper

by measuring the suffering and happiness caused by that action

I gave you an example of why that measurement is subjective and thus redundant.

^ Yes, yes, yes, yes, yes. Especially the last yes.