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
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.
Compare the number of death by nuclear bombs to the number of people saved by nuclear medicine and tell us if we have a net gain or a net lose.
You might also wonder why the world has been enjoying the best stats for death by violence, including war, than it has ever had, in part, thanks to M.A.D.
Most nuclear medicine exists for cancer which has skyrocketed because of our artificial environment we’ve created where there are cancer causing effects everywhere in our modern society but whatever.
Regards
DL
[/quote]
Most nuclear medicine exists for cancer which has skyrocketed because of our artificial environment we’ve created where there are cancer causing effects everywhere in our modern society but whatever.
[/quote]
And you did not even have to find the numbers that refuted your original claim, but whatever.
You seem to be agreeing with me here, but I was pointing out in part that the law is logic and reason based, and not simply fact based (whatever that would mean) which is not what you said previously.
But then you must be against contraception since it is for sexual relations not for reproduction. You should be against celibacy, porn should be a problem for you, masturbation, couples who stop having children and activities that limit reproduction - that is anything that reduces the number of children people have - everything from time consuming hobbies to too much focus on career and more. And since you found homosexual sex disgusting than disgust as guide could lead to all sorts of other shoulds. What other shoulds do you have that are based on disgust?
Yes, there was homosexuality, in high numbers, even when it was illegal and when the social punishments were unbelievably high. It was constantly denigrated in all media and nearly all social circles and condemned by the church. Nevertheless there was a significant part of the population that engaged in it, many of whom felt attraction for the same sex as far back as they could remember.
You seem to be agreeing with me here, but I was pointing out in part that the law is logic and reason based, and not simply fact based (whatever that would mean) which is not what you said previously.
[/quote]
If only logic and reasoned ruled us, there would not be fraudulent religions.
If the word fact is giving you a problem, I recommend the dictionary. I am not re-defining well defined terms.
you said that law was fact based and CONTRASTED the law, because of this, with processes bases on logic and reason. But the law also uses logic and reason. You presented something in a binary way, I disagreed. Do you agree that the law/courts use logic and reason and are not only fact based or do you disagree? I find with your posts that because you often do not integrate what I write in response, your responses only seem to respond to mine. 2) The word fact is certainly complicated, but that is not the main problem I am trying to understand what it would mean if a process (the law or courts in this case) was only fact based. I cannot see that working. YOu have to have logic and reason to connect the facts if you want to draw any conclusions. You have to have logic and reason to draw conclusions about probabilities, relevance and application of those facts in the context of determining responsibility, guilt, innocence, etc. A court without logic and reaon: The judge and lawyers state facts. No arguments, no connecting facts. No mounting arguments, no trying to demonstrate that the other lawyer’s argument is weak or does not make sense. No logical or reasoning in the way witnesses are interviewed and their suggestions are critiques for their logic and reason. No logical advice to the jury about how to work with testimony, physical evidence. No interviewing professional witnesses about how they drew conclusions. No preparations for court using logic and reason. The jury does not use reason and logic or even try to. They sit at the table and state facts to each other. Etc.
So, again, I don’t see your sense that law is fact based RATHER THAN logic and reason based as making sense. Now I realize to never stated that courts were like this, however you did present a dichotomy. Courts being fact based, rather than reason and logic based. I think that makes no sense.
