Should Governments regulate fraudulent religions?

…along with fraudulent charities. Sure… some of the money gets to the intended people, but millions are siphoned off as bonuses to those running these charities. How compassionate they really are!

You can’t do that! Who else would do the money laundering and tax evasions?! :laughing:

What bothers me about people leaping into labelling someone left or right is it is, basically, off topic. Deal with the points at hand. As someone who is not easily categorized, it is only more irritating. It is not because I do not like hearing the words, as you say, it is because your rage at the left or someone else’s rage at the right has no bearing on specific issues. Rant elsewhere. These days you cannot talk to anyone without suddenly finding all their bile at the other category. Further I think this binary, lump thining serves the people in power and that is why the split is being fed, people are pressured socially and via media to perfectly fit one or the other category and if they don’t both groups will be painting them with a broad brush and seeing them as stupid or clever monsters. Suddenly a discussion of a specfic issue falls into ad hom and hate about all the bad people on the other side of the divide have done to ruin the world. I don’t think that helps. The discussion. It adds as much as someone saying I remind them of their brother and how horrible their brother is. Well, maybe their brother is right about this issue and an asshole about everything else. Maybe both you are your brother are wrong, even though it seems like one must have one of two positions on an issue. And even if I am just like your brother or just like political faction X, I think it just distracts from the discussion to take a broad swipe at faction X. We’re not European football clubs meeting in the street after a match where all we need to know is which team someone is a fan of, let’s slug it out. And, again, I think the people with power are laughing all the way to the bank when we see only two possible categories and we slug it out with each other based on those two possible categories of humans. I express some of my thoughts and I get labelled a conspiracy theorist - which is correct but an irrational label - and then suddenly I must be anti-semitic, hate women and blacks and yes, be a right wing extremist. So suddenly there is this mushroom could in the air and we are coughing our way through that not focusing on the topic. If I defend Brexit, Lefty friends think I am a fascist. If I saw that homosexuality is natural, then I am a lefty making a naturalist fallacy, when no one mentions the one made by the person they consider on their team. Fuck all these boxes. And to me I see Zero Sum wanting to create a kind of puritanial society. Everything I do will be judged in terms of societally beneficial?..If I point out that that sounds like just another political correctness system, I am not saying he is a lefty - since he is not, but also because I don’t care - I just think it’s ironic and dangerous.

I was not passing moral judgment on it, Zero Sum was. I was not saying that homosexuality is good because animals do it. As far as anthropomorphizing, it used to be considered wrong and irrational in science to consider animals like us in terms of cognitive states, desires, intentions. But that began to erode a few decades ago and now we, in science, are not considered to have some completely different internal life around these patterns.

Sure, they like us use sex for a lot of things, just like human homosexuals and bisexuals and heterosexuals use sex for a lot of things, afftection included.

There are some scientists who still think that we cannot compare human and animal behavior, but we are dealing with homosexual sex, regardless of what it means to any individual animal. Animals will pair bond for life and have homosexual sex with their partners. Animals will for all sorts of reasons have sex with the same sex. Humans will have power based sexual relations and encounters. People have sex to let off tension, to feed their egos. Humans are more complicated so I am sure that there are additional facets to the homosexual sex. But what we have is the phenomenon of same sex sex ALL OVER THE ANIMAL KINGDOM. And that includes human animals. There is absolutely no reason to conclude that it is unnatural. Further ZERO focused on his disgust at the physical act between male homosexuals. That physical act occurs in nature in other species and in humans. I am still waiting for a reason not to consider it natural when it occurs in species like us, where someone could argue that the only reason it occurs is in damaged people psychologicaly or via culture (left wing promotion of homosexualiy or demasculization of men or…) AND it occurs in animals. Homosexual sex occurs in both groups. Long term affectionate even monogamous same sex relations occur in humans and other species. As far back in time as we know of we find it in humans. To me that mans it is natural. That does not make it good. But it does make it natural.

[qu

I argued it was natural. I did not say how society should be run. I said my feelings of revulsion say little about how a society should be run. I did not say that therefore homosexuality should be legal or considered moral. Again, I am countering Zero’s argument which was based on the naturalistic fallacy and on his revulsion. I focused on pointing out it was natural. I pointed out the problems with basing societal law on revulsion. If the only problem with homosexuality is that some people are revulsed or even most, I think that is poor reasoning. There are so many things that revulse me and it seems like other people are like me. I could have also added on that it was a naturalistic fallacy.

So let me get this straight you are arguing that activities that are not beneficial to the continutation or stability of the species are immoral? Who the hell passes that test, certainly not humans, none of them. Further it is not just that it happens in nature, it happens in nature often, part of minority norms, and in bonoboes even more than that. I can’t see that we actually need more people on this planet. Increasing population may not be a problem, but I cannot see how less births and slower increase int he population is problematic. Then if he didn’t mean natural, but really meant not beneficial, then I see no reason to even argue the point. Then the point should be homosexuality is not beneficial to society.

Of course its not the same repulsion. I was attacking his argument ad disgustium. Wanking to porn is going to disgust a lot of people also and that is much closer adn of course the religious right and feminists would consider that immoral. It’s not natural, in the sense that we cannot find it anywhere else in nature, it’s not why our dicks evolved, a ‘flashlight’ or tissues or whatever is artificial, it is not beneficial to society - though I could get creative and find reasons it might be, just as I could with homosexual sex. Sure, we should discriminate. For me revulstion alone is not enough to call things immoral. It is an incredible guide for me in determining what I want to do and what I want to avoid. I don’t think it is good ground for moral judgments. And I would raise to you and Zero the possibility that some things you both do would be repulsive to possibly even a majority of other people - even if some or most of them do it also, though their may be things they do not - and to question whether your own behavior would pass muster for being beneficial to society. I don’t know you at all. I have a better sense of Zero since I suspect I know him by other names. I might be wrong, but I think the must be beneficial to society criterion if aimed at him (and me for that matter, I am not shitting on him here) would mean he was immoral. That does not mean he is wrong, but I would want him to consider, if I as correct about this, if this criterion would be a good one to have, since it would mean he was immoral. (though actually if he is who I think he is, he doesn’t believe in morals).

Sure, that’s just basic common knowledge, but it’s not relevant, unless have a minority that has homosexul sex leads to stopping reproduction. I see no signs that is happening. If the population starts decreasing, well, OK, let’s take a look and see if there is a causal connection. But at a more abstract level, it seems like you are saying that we should only use our bodies in those ways that foster reproduction or improve the species. Do you really restrict yourself to that yourself?

I think it’s good you don’t want to make it illegal. But again, let’s look at this more abstractly. You are going to make anything that does not increase reproduction, socially unnaceptable? Masturbation, chastity, deciding not to have kids, having less sex, having just one kid. And does this mean that if I have liesure activities that do not benefit society or lead to increased reproduction they will be socially unacceptable? Sounds like a really judmental place. Not where I would want to be. I don’t want people trying to calculate the value to society of my actions and considering things they cannot justify as benefitting society socially unacceptable. It’s like high school was. Now it’s great that it won’t be turned into a legal issue, but it sounds like a place where one of those workaholic fathers is now the president. if it only applies to homosexuality, well, I’'ll be fine. But then I wonder why it would not be a more generalized criterion.

What else wuold be socially unacceptable in your ideal society? And you don’t need to mention things like pedophilia or rape, etc. I mean, what are we supposed to be always doing in your society such that not doing it or doing something that is not like that is bad?

Cause otherwise it sound rather puritanical. I am vary wary of conformism. I am wary of when it is decided what is the majority normal and then anything else is considered wrong. Of course there are things I am against that are minority activities - pedophilia - but there I see consent issues and abuse issues. But man, put me in a society where all my activities have to benefit society and be what normal (the majority of the) people do, fuck that’s a terrible place.

Through this whole thing, I don’t feel you actually address the points I made and also misread much of what I wrote. The bottom line is that what you are calling “homosexuality” in animals is your own interpretation of such, and you have provided NO proof or reasoning why we can validly interpret animal behaviour in terms of human behaviour. You are trying to frame the discussion based on a narrow and strictly literal interpretation of the word. As far as I can tell that interpretation of “natural” would include absolutely anything and everything as it is equating that the behaviour exists, therefore it is natural, surely you see why this is unhelpful for the discussion? So perhaps tell me what your delineation between natural and unnatural in the animal kingdom is; just what would constitute unnatural behaviour in say for example, the bonobos?

The point I’m trying to get at is talking about animals using the word natural in a strict literal sense is unhelpful as there is no such thing as unnatural in nature (duh) and since we are framing everything in terms of the human behaviour of homosexuality and as the strict literal definition describes a state that is in opposition to humanity, it is incorrect for you/us to then re-superimpose the animal “natural” on the human “natural”. Their behaviour is understood to serve very clear purposes (of what we do know), humans not so much. These are two very different things. You will have to provide some sort of context and proof if you want to link homosexual behaviour with positive impacts on society. Nebulous ideas about egos and tension will have to be backed with something that indicates homosexual behaviour is the best way to provide X to the species overall on balance (also risk v benefit).

One last point about sexual behaviour. You scoffed at my point about being beneficial to the continuation or stability of the species, but let’s be real for a second. Heterosexual activity provides a clear benefit to the continuation of the species. Please support homosexuality on the same basis.

I think that’s a poor read and just repeating points of yours I addressed. So I’ll drop discussing it with you.

I don’t think you read what I wrote, perhaps just skimmed it. My points were about the criterion itself. I’ll ignore you from here on out. Even if it’s because you are using a phone, you’re a waste of my time.

My point is you never addressed my points because you insist on framing the discussion to your benefit. I have now asked you some clear questions that should be easy to answer if your points are valid. Please don’t shy from the conversation, this the only way we can hope progress in society. But now you are getting derogatory. I think this says something about your argument.

You dismissed the fact that reasons are relevant. That is the problem.

Seriously. I can’t see your last post. I doubt it will matter to you, but get it: you got someone, who put in time responding to your points, to put you on IGNORE or foe as it’s called in this forum.

Well everyone, here we see the lefty mentality on display.

Dangerously childish, isn’t it?

Not everybody here is a leftist neo liberal.

Yes, sexual relations should only be used for reproduction but notice I said nothing against the use of contraceptives. Homosexuality should be restricted to private life where it belongs and transgenderism is a mental illness. If I could make homosexuality illegal I would however homosexuals have been around for thousands of years where it is unlikely that making it such would have any effect. Pedophiles should be executed publicly for display and rape is not excusable where that act should be punished.

Radical individualism as an ideology must be exterminated as all should revolve around collectivism of what is good for the whole of society and the nation state. There is no place for radical individualism within society or a nation.

Lol.

Western oligarchy and its NGO’s wouldn’t be able to function without their international front charitable organizations because if either was to disappear overnight they might actually have to contribute to society in paying taxes like everybody else. :open_mouth: 8-[

You have my “fact based” well defined, and yes, facts are key as compared to speculative nonsense or outright lies.

Regards
DL

You say gays act un-naturally, then show that we are naturally doing almost exactly what they do. #-o

You are good at showing your disgust, but not too good at justifying the just cause for your discrimination.

You showed your hate. Do you have any view love and on you denying gays the loving relationships and marriage that we all have a right to?

If gayness is not a natural condition as defined by their DNA, then nurture must be the cause, right?

So are you not hating the wrong party and should hate those who reared the children that way?

Regards
DL

“tautology”

A bit but I wanted to see who thought their religions were legitimate and truthful. I also wanted to allow for the religions that are knowledge and wisdom based like Buddhism and Gnostic Christianity.

So far, few deny that the supernaturally based religions are based on lies.

I agree that freedom of thought cannot be legislated but that freedom of actions are the culprit we can do something about when it is poorly directed.

If you tell a lie often enough, which is what they have said about religions, it becomes a fact and that is why constant or perpetual lying for money is fraud.

There is a gay discussion going on here that shows how the perpetual lie, — that gays should be discriminated against for being un-natural, has some thinking that those humans are somehow un-natural.

I like freedom of thought and speech and even preach hate, but I try to insure that I have a just cause for my discriminations. Biases are good, even the negative ones, as they are in us to protect us. They tell us who to love as well as who to hate.

Regards
DL

I hear you and hate that you and I have to pay the tax shortfall created by thieves who know how to play the system.

The crooks ain’t just confined to religions. Here are a few more crooks:
Rank Charity name… Total raised by solicitors …Paid to solicitors … % spent on direct cash aid
1 Kids Wish Network 137.9million 115.9 million 2.5%
2 Cancer Fund of America 86.8million 75.4 million 1.0%
3 Children’s Wish Foundation International 92.7million 61.2 million 10.6%
4 Firefighters Charitable Foundation 62.8million 53.8 million 7.4%
5 International Union of Police Associations, AFL-CIO 66.6million 50.4 million 0.5%
6 Breast Cancer Relief Foundation 63.9million 44.8 million 2.2%
7 American Association of State Troopers 48.1million 38.6 million 8.9%
8 National Veterans Service Fund 70.2million 36.9 million 7.8%
9 Children’s Cancer Fund of America 43.7million 34.4 million 4.6%
10 Children’s Cancer Recovery Foundation 38.5million 28.9 million 0.7%
11 Project Cure (Bradenton, FL) 53.8million 25.5 million 0.0%
12 Committee For Missing Children 26.6million 23.5 million 0.8%
13 Youth Development Fund 27.5million 22.6 million 1.0%
14 Association for Firefighters and Paramedics 24.0million 21.4 million 3.1%
15 Woman To Woman Breast Cancer Foundation 19.4million 18.2 million 0.3%
16 United States Deputy Sheriffs’ Association 25.6million 17.9 million 0.8%
17 National Caregiving Foundation 21.0million 17.4 million 3.2%
18 Vietnow National Headquarters 19.1million 16.7 million 2.8%
19 National Cancer Coalition 42.1million 16.4 million 1.3%
20 Operation Lookout National Center for Missing Youth 18.2million 14.7 million 0.0%
21 American Foundation For Disabled Children 15.8million 13.4 million 0.6%
22 Heart Support of America 31.4million 12.9 million 3.1%
23 Police Protective Fund 37.7million 12.2 million 0.7%
24 Veterans Assistance Foundation 12.4million 11.1 million 10.4%
25 Children’s Charity Fund 14.0million 10.3 million 2.4%
26 The Veterans Fund 12.6million 10.2 million 2.5%
27 Wishing Well Foundation USA 12.6million 10.1 million 4.3%
28 Disabled Police Officers of America Inc. 11.4million 9.5 million 2.3%
29 Disabled Police and Sheriffs Foundation 10.4million 8.9 million 1.0%
30 National Police Defense Foundation 10.6million 8.4 million 5.1%
31 Defeat Diabetes Foundation 12.7million 7.8 million 0.0%
32 American Association of the Deaf & Blind 10.3million 7.8 million 0.1%
33 Optimal Medical Foundation 7.8million 7.6 million 1.0%
34 Circle of Friends For American Veterans 9.3million 7.2 million 4.4%
35 United Breast Cancer Foundation 12.7million 7.2 million 6.3%
36 Reserve Police Officers Association 7.8million 6.9 million 1.2%
37 Children’s Leukemia Research Association 9.8million 6.8 million 11.1%
38 Disabled Police Officers Counseling Center 7.6million 6.4 million 0.1%
39 Shiloh International Ministries 7.7million 6.0 million 1.1%
40 Find the Children 7.4million 4.8 million 4.6%
41 Survivors and Victims Empowered 7.7million 4.8 million 0.0%
42 Firefighters Assistance Fund 5.7million 4.7 million 3.1%
43 Caring for Our Children Foundation 5.1million 4.4 million 1.6%
44 National Narcotic Officers Associations Coalition 5.0million 4.2 million 0.0%
45 Our American Veterans 2.6million 2.3 million 2.3%
46 Roger Wyburn-Mason & Jack M Blount Foundation For Eradication of Rheumatoid Disease 9.0million 1.9 million 0.0%
47 Hope Cancer Fund 2.1million 1.7 million 0.5%
48 Firefighters Burn Fund 2.0million 1.7 million 1.5%

Crooks all, and there ain’t nothing illegal about it.

Regards
DL

So you would stop man’s evolution and not seek the fittest minds to lead us.

You would you want a world of leaderless sheeple.

Einstein would be outlawed in your new world and the gay guy that broke germanise code and won the war for the West would have never gotten his job of helping win WWII.

You might want to re-think on outlawing our best minds.

Regards
DL

Your assumed righteous goal is the continuation of the species, but you haven’t remotely explained what that means nor even how its righteousness is justified because maybe the plan of nature is to not have us around one day and perhaps somehow that works out to be what is ultimately good; how are you to say otherwise? By what authority do you speak?

What’s ultimately good can ultimately only come from authority :wink:

Perhaps eating of the fruit of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil is, in fact, unnatural simply because it’s full of conceit! It’s not a tree that bestows knowledge, but a tree that, like alcohol, gives one the arrogance (balls, gall) to presume knowledge of right and wrong; that’s the sin!

So let’s say that moving-forward is an inspiring aspiration and by that we mean a robust population explosion! Well, if that’s our goal, then do we keep our women barefoot and pregnant every available ovulation cycle? Do we outlaw feminine celibacy? Ban homosexuality and abortion for the sake of keepin up with the rabbits? Maybe we can mechanize the whole process. No?

If we suspect that competitively large numbers of specimens is not the way forward, then how about restricting breeding to iq tests and all manner of contrived meritocratic struggle? And who decides that and from where does he get his presumption to be judge of what is good? The blind fool may well drive us into a ditch because “the road to hell is paved with good intentions.”

And that’s beside the point that once mass-breeding is determined unfavorable, then it’s no longer a function of numbers, but something else that determines “continuation of the species”. Really, we only need a handful of people to go on. Who cares if some weirdos stick their tallywackers in the wrong holes? It’s less competition for the straight guys.

What does your goal mean and how do you know how to get there?

If you’re insisting on proof for why homosexuality is inherently wrong, you must first provide proof that heterosexuality is inherently right, or that anything can be inherently right.

Human beings are social animals and no man or woman is an island. A majority of human beings are sheople, dumb, and ignorant which is why hierarchy exists to begin with as the smartest leads them. Einstein was an intellectual thief/plagiarist and was responsible for the Manhattan project in the application of nuclear weapons. Somebody should take a time machine in the past and erase his entire existence snubbing him out. As for the gay code breaker in a more ideal world the Third Reich would of been victorious in World War II. I want a society where there is no public influence of poofters. All the problems the west faces in civilization now is a direct result of world war II, we are still living in the consequences of its aftermath.