Should Governments regulate fraudulent religions?

[Greatest I am]

Should Governments regulate fraudulent religions?

https://www.google.ca/search?source=hp& ... CgTyqsYAOA

Fraud is a broad term that refers to a variety of offenses involving dishonesty or "fraudulent acts". In essence, fraud is the intentional deception of a person or entity by another made for monetary or personal gain. Fraud offenses always include some sort of false statement, misrepresentation, or deceitful conduct.

Most governments and countries have fraud laws of some kinds. They generally interfere with religious fraudsters only when physical harm is being done to our gullible citizens yet ignore the monetary theft that the fraudsters fleece from their victims. Prosperity ministries are the most flagrant of these immoral religions, but all religions based on demonstrable lies would be included in this question.

Our governments are quite good at acting against obvious fraudsters yet seem reluctant to protect our more gullible citizens when it comes down to religions.

Religions, to me, get a free pass to lie and steal all they can from victims, especially the older citizens even when governments know about the fraud.

I begin to see the inaction of governments on these religious fraudsters as a dereliction of duty.

Do you?

Regards
DL

[Zero_Sum]

Yes, starting with Judaism.

[Karpel Tunnel]

I begin to see the inaction of governments on these religious fraudsters as a dereliction of duty.

Do you?

Not a fan of the various religious organizations, but if the government went after them, they would be able to go after all not mainstream beliefs and the groups who believe them or explore them. We would have a state ontology. Which is just another religion. I'd rather they went after advertising in general. Top neuroscientists and top cognitive scientists making manipulative shit aimed at children regardless of parental choice - or you are creating unbelievable work for those parents who want to keep their kids away from it. Theft of services. Products are God, these days. And don't get me started on the pharmaceutical approach to not having emotions. Talk about fraud.

[Greatest I am]

Yes, starting with Judaism.

With all it's Christian and Muslim branches as they are all Abrahamic cults.

That would be a good start for sure.
It would sure serve gays and women who are presently denied full equality thanks to thee religious teachings of homophobia and misogyny.

Regards
DL

[Greatest I am]

I begin to see the inaction of governments on these religious fraudsters as a dereliction of duty.

Do you?

Not a fan of the various religious organizations, but if the government went after them, they would be able to go after all not mainstream beliefs and the groups who believe them or explore them. We would have a state ontology. Which is just another religion. I'd rather they went after advertising in general. Top neuroscientists and top cognitive scientists making manipulative shit aimed at children regardless of parental choice - or you are creating unbelievable work for those parents who want to keep their kids away from it. Theft of services. Products are God, these days. And don't get me started on the pharmaceutical approach to not having emotions. Talk about fraud.

If judges are allowed to go by the spirit of the law instead of the letter of the law with religions, what you want would likely follow.

Judges would want proof that the fraudsters are lying before giving a guilty verdict and that would mean that we would have to find a way around the logical fallacy and impossibility of showing that there is no God. They would have to accept that the fraudsters cannot possibly know anything of the supernatural.

That is tough as law is fact based and not logic and reason based and even atheists cannot prove with facts that God does not exist and that those who claim there is one are liars.

Regards
DL

Regards
DL

[Zero_Sum]

Yes, starting with Judaism.

With all it's Christian and Muslim branches as they are all Abrahamic cults.

That would be a good start for sure.
It would sure serve gays and women who are presently denied full equality thanks to thee religious teachings of homophobia and misogyny.

Regards
DL

I dislike all Abrahamic religions but that dislike has nothing to do with gays or feminism that I also have equal contempt for.

[Karpel Tunnel]

If judges are allowed to go by the spirit of the law instead of the letter of the law with religions, what you want would likely follow.

Judges would want proof that the fraudsters are lying before giving a guilty verdict and that would mean that we would have to find a way around the logical fallacy and impossibility of showing that there is no God. They would have to accept that the fraudsters cannot possibly know anything of the supernatural.

That is tough as law is fact based and not logic and reason based and even atheists cannot prove with facts that God does not exist and that those who claim there is one are liars.

And this is good, because dominant paradigms have always had holes in them and more. One you regulate people's beliefs about metaphysics and ontology - which, ironically, the various churches did and Muslim and Jewish clerics still do in many places - then you not only restrict freedom of thought and speech, you hinder the development of society. Racism would have been even harder to challenge, developments in science would have been even harder, challenges to all sorts of abuse would have been harder to challenge. People can buy all sorts of idiotic, health damaging products. Products even they themselves will say are silly pointless and unhealthy. If they have the freedom to do that, they should have the freedom to think, preach, argue for, discuss any philosophical or theological product that does not break the law. I would be happy to get rid of religious organizations being tax exempt, though. Any group I have been in, spiritual that is, did not have this luxury.

[Greatest I am]

Yes, starting with Judaism.

With all it's Christian and Muslim branches as they are all Abrahamic cults.

That would be a good start for sure.
It would sure serve gays and women who are presently denied full equality thanks to thee religious teachings of homophobia and misogyny.

Regards
DL

I dislike all Abrahamic religions but that dislike has nothing to do with gays or feminism that I also have equal contempt for.

What is your just cause for discriminating negatively against gays and feminists?

I will grant that we should all hate the more toxic forms of feminism, as well as changes that are toxic to our DNA, --- which controls the gay nature, that we all have within us.

That does not justify your level of dislike.

Please tell us your reasons.

Regards
DL

[Zero_Sum]

What is your just cause for discriminating negatively against gays and feminists?

I will grant that we should all hate the more toxic forms of feminism, as well as changes that are toxic to our DNA, --- which controls the gay nature, that we all have within us.

That does not justify your level of dislike.

Please tell us your reasons.

Regards
DL

Feminism is a demographic fertility nightmare and its negative effects has been a net loss on western civilization's population since the 1960's where women are increasing in number being completely childless. If a society doesn't breed it brings about its own self destruction and the annihilation of society itself. A childless society is a doomed society moreover the negative effect of feminism on men through reverse sexual discrimination in law and other areas of society is toxic especially by radical feminism.

I have no problem with women's rights and things of that nature, if feminism must exist it should value life, family,children, marriage, society, or the role of the state. If feminism must exist a new kind should be made but also allows women to retain their collective dignity.

For me homosexuality is unnatural, repulsive, disgusting, and a psychological disorder. I find nothing natural about two men having sexual intercourse anally with each other where human feces are released from. If individuals want to live in a nation without homosexuality or at the very least without its influence publicly they should be able to do. Homosexuality is also a net loss in population which is another demographic disaster.

[Karpel Tunnel]

For me homosexuality is unnatural

Except it isn't. It is present in hundreds of species, anything from higher primates to birds to a wide variety of mammals to species further away from us. It can include anything from occasional homosexual sex to life pairing. And let's make this very clear. These animals are not being influenced by cultural ideas. They are simply a part of nature, by definition making it natural. Yes, it tends to be a minority of each species though in bonobos lesbian sex is more common than anything else. I do not like how it is promoted but it is natural. I don't really like how heterosexual sex is promoted either, though that's either for capitalist ends or the products of very damaged humans ideas about what sex is. Human damage around sex is pretty much the norm. Would it be safe to say that in your national socialist state homosexual minorities would or would not be abused by the minority?

[Karpel Tunnel]

If judges are allowed to go by the spirit of the law instead of the letter of the law with religions, what you want would likely follow.

Judges would want proof that the fraudsters are lying before giving a guilty verdict and that would mean that we would have to find a way around the logical fallacy and impossibility of showing that there is no God. They would have to accept that the fraudsters cannot possibly know anything of the supernatural.

That is tough as law is fact based and not logic and reason based and even atheists cannot prove with facts that God does not exist and that those who claim there is one are liars.

I am not sure what you mean by fact-based. The law definitely uses reason and logic, in fact it cannot function without it. This does not mean they always reach correct conclusions, but deduction (from law, from evidence) is core. And logic and reason without facts is just math, so any other system would be problematic also. You can't decide much regarding the world with just logic and reason, you need to base it on experiences - hence science for example being an empiricism - hence observation and facts.

[Inconvenient Reality]

For me homosexuality is unnatural

Except it isn't. It is present in hundreds of species, anything from higher primates to birds to a wide variety of mammals to species further away from us. It can include anything from occasional homosexual sex to life pairing. And let's make this very clear. These animals are not being influenced by cultural ideas. They are simply a part of nature, by definition making it natural. Yes, it tends to be a minority of each species though in bonobos lesbian sex is more common than anything else. I do not like how it is promoted but it is natural. I don't really like how heterosexual sex is promoted either, though that's either for capitalist ends or the products of very damaged humans ideas about what sex is. Human damage around sex is pretty much the norm. Would it be safe to say that in your national socialist state homosexual minorities would or would not be abused by the minority?

This is either reductio ad absurdum or part of a dishonest ideology. Animals also hump humans, other animals and inanimate objects, are they cross species sexual or are objectofiliacs? The anthropomorphizing you are doing here is disingenouous or short sighted. We do not see any actual sustained "'homosexual" behaviour. The behaviour is normally sporadic and predictable based on other biological or sociological factors. We do not see measurable percentages of a population that can be regularly predicted, and from what I know every single case what humans would typically call animal "homosexuality" invariably involves sexual activity (we cannot ascribe "homosexuality" or any other human concept, emotion or thought processes to non-sexual same sex animal pairings, where/if they exist). This is not the case in humans, as many do not engage in sexual behaviour at all, or are engage in other paraphiliac behaviours. We haven't sufficiently explained the behaviour in humans yet, let alone animals.

Lastly your claim of "natural" should rightly draw dismissals based on usage of the naturalistic fallacy. Leftists (or leftist thought) for years used that argument against traditionalists. Except that the leftists themselves flip flop between biological and "identity" claims using the terms interchangeably, completely dependent on whether an ideological opponent chooses to use to attack based on biology or sociology. You are either claiming it is natural in which case you are making a biological claim and the burden of proof is on you, or you are making a sociological claim in which case it is nothing more than another "social construct" according to leftists, and therefore holds no universal merit. Proponents so desperately want it to be "normal" or "correct" behaviour no matter what that cognitive dissonance is the usual result. Hell, I didn't even argue the part where animals engage in other behaviour that in humans would be considered reprehensible on the highest order.

And we have not even touched on why even IF we could prove homosexuality had a biological basis that it should be regarded as "correct" or "normal" behaviour. Just because we are naturally (requires definition) inclined to behave in a certain way does not mean that it is beneficial to human society to do so. In fact, we could come to a conclusion that any behaviour that interferes with the survival or continuance of the species is "wrong", "incorrect" or "unnatural". I believe evolutionary psychology is the root of all religious beliefs, humans just lost track of (or deliberately obfuscated) the psychology behind the words.

[Karpel Tunnel]

This is either reductio ad absurdum or part of a dishonest ideology. Animals also hump humans, other animals and inanimate objects, are they cross species sexual or are objectofiliacs? The anthropomorphizing you are doing here is disingenouous or short sighted. We do not see any actual sustained "'homosexual" behaviour.

Incorrect. There is homosexual life pairing in some animals. In Bonobos, AS I WROTE, the majority of sex is lesbian sex. Sex between same sex animals, including primates, birds and many mammals other than primates. The old 'anthropomorphizing' label is weak now, because unlike 50 years ago we know that cognitive, emotional and interpersonal patterns did not appear ex nihilo in humans, but are present in other animals to a much greater degree than scientists were willing to admit in the middle of the last century. If bonoboes had sex with trees or objects as much as they have with the same sex and showed other behaviors related to affection with these pairings, well OK, but they don't. They do show affection, have sex, have it more with one other bonobo, even form longer term pairs, though they tend to be polyamorous - which, by the way, I don't think works well with humans,but I don't care about people learning that for themselves. But that is not the case. Some bird species have up to 19% of all pairing, longer term partnerships with sex, homosexual ones. It is happening in nature. It happens is hundreds of species. It is generally a minority activity/bonding, but a significant one.

Lastly your claim of "natural" should rightly draw dismissals based on usage of the naturalistic fallacy. Leftists (or leftist thought) for years used that argument against traditionalists. Except that the leftists themselves flip flop between biological and "identity" claims using the terms interchangeably, completely dependent on whether an ideological opponent chooses to use to attack based on biology or sociology. You are either claiming it is natural in which case you are making a biological claim and the burden of proof is on you, or you are making a sociological claim in which case it is nothing more than another "social construct" according to leftists, and therefore holds no universal merit. Proponents so desperately want it to be "normal" or "correct" behaviour no matter what that cognitive dissonance is the usual result. Hell, I didn't even argue the part where animals engage in other behaviour that in humans would be considered reprehensible on the highest order.

The naturalistic fallacy is absolutely irrevelent to my post. I simply said it was natural. Which it is. He said it was unnatural, which would also be a naturalistic fallacy, if he was correct, since it would be arguing that things that are not natural are bad. Whatever the subset is that is considered not natural, of the things humans do, it will include good things. If either of us was arguing a naturalistic fallacy, he was. I simply point out that he was incorrect. It is natural. And seriously, blah, blah, lefty this, lefty that. Who gives a shit. Lefties, righties are both pejorative terms, thinking with a checklist.

I hate seeing someone who is 'double jointed' do things I cannot do. It fucking freaks me out. When I see things done by someone 'like me' that I would not want to do, would not like, I often feel repulsion. That includes homosexual sex between men. With women it doesn't bother me because I am not in that picture, I don't automatically via mirror neurons identify. Who cares? My feelings of revulsion means very little about how a society should be run. Other feelings do indicate to me when things are fucked up. Repulsion can be present in those situations, but it is not the key factor or I'd want to outlaw people wearing spandex, most plastic surgery and selfies.

[Zero_Sum]

For me homosexuality is unnatural

Except it isn't. It is present in hundreds of species, anything from higher primates to birds to a wide variety of mammals to species further away from us. It can include anything from occasional homosexual sex to life pairing. And let's make this very clear. These animals are not being influenced by cultural ideas. They are simply a part of nature, by definition making it natural. Yes, it tends to be a minority of each species though in bonobos lesbian sex is more common than anything else. I do not like how it is promoted but it is natural. I don't really like how heterosexual sex is promoted either, though that's either for capitalist ends or the products of very damaged humans ideas about what sex is. Human damage around sex is pretty much the norm. Would it be safe to say that in your national socialist state homosexual minorities would or would not be abused by the minority?

Well other animal species practice other behaviors that we find horrendous or abhorrent where we don't practice those behaviors in the norm of human society. Understanding that, why is homosexuality tolerated or promoted? Why is it the exception? Heterosexual relationships is the underpinning of reproduction which is why it is promoted because society can't function at all without reproduction. This is just basic common knowledge here.

In my ideal society homosexuality would not be spotlighted, promoted, or be deemed socially acceptable. It wouldn't be illegal but it wouldn't be socially accepted publicly either.

Homosexuals shouldn't be allowed to adopt children either as I view that as child neglect or abuse.

I would also reclassify transgenderism as a mental illness that it is publicly making treatment or therapy available for those suffering from it. Changing or altering one's gender through surgery would be outlawed.

[Inconvenient Reality]

First I will address your scoffing at left v right. You can ignore the fact that generalizations can be accurate enough to work with, and are also a mechanism by which we can communicate without devolving into a semantic debate, but that doesn't invalidate them. Of course, anyone with a brain by now should understand that left v right is good for little more than generalizations, and in fact there are better ways we could describe the often false dichotomy. However, we know that certain agenda items are pushed and have their roots by certain factions, aloofness notwithstanding. Granted, it was probably unnecessary for me make the distinction because it too should be obvious to anyone with a brain. The problem is people who don't like hearing the words. Just because you have some crossover does not mean the distinctions don't exist, and just because you may or may not consider yourself X doesn't mean that the distinctions are meaningless.

Incorrect. There is homosexual life pairing in some animals. In Bonobos, AS I WROTE, the majority of sex is lesbian sex. Sex between same sex animals, including primates, birds and many mammals other than primates. The old 'anthropomorphizing' label is weak now, because unlike 50 years ago we know that cognitive, emotional and interpersonal patterns did not appear ex nihilo in humans, but are present in other animals to a much greater degree than scientists were willing to admit in the middle of the last century. If bonoboes had sex with trees or objects as much as they have with the same sex and showed other behaviors related to affection with these pairings, well OK, but they don't. They do show affection, have sex, have it more with one other bonobo, even form longer term pairs, though they tend to be polyamorous - which, by the way, I don't think works well with humans,but I don't care about people learning that for themselves. But that is not the case. Some bird species have up to 19% of all pairing, longer term partnerships with sex, homosexual ones. It is happening in nature. It happens is hundreds of species. It is generally a minority activity/bonding, but a significant one.

Describing such behaviour as "homosexual" is anthropomorphizing. As I put it to you, we do not simultaneously call animals objectofiliacs, paedophiles, incestuous or cannibals (except for strict definition) and pass none of the moral judgments with those things to the animals . WHAT YOU WROTE, is largely irrelevant to the point. You must also be aware that the Bonobo behaviour is not firmly associated with romance, attraction or sexuality, but social status and other facets of bonobo "society". Just like many, many, MANY other animals. In fact, even though the Bonobos are one of the few species that engage in sex for pleasure, the "homosexuality" is not the same for the aforementioned reasons. Even in animals that same-sex pair for life, it is still understood even by (what are most assuredly) the lefty scientists that all labelling of such animal behaviours as "homosexual, bi-sexual, trans-sexual" etc. is based on our human interpretation of those behaviours. DEFINITION = ANTHROPOMORPHIZING. Finally, the perceived homosexual behaviour of animals is not filtered through what we consider higher reasoning and conscious choice or analysis.

The naturalistic fallacy is absolutely irrevelent to my post. I simply said it was natural. Which it is. He said it was unnatural, which would also be a naturalistic fallacy, if he was correct, since it would be arguing that things that are not natural are bad. Whatever the subset is that is considered not natural, of the things humans do, it will include good things. If either of us was arguing a naturalistic fallacy, he was. I simply point out that he was incorrect. It is natural. And seriously, blah, blah, lefty this, lefty that. Who gives a shit. Lefties, righties are both pejorative terms, thinking with a checklist.

You are UNDOUBTEDLY committing the naturalistic fallacy, not because you made the claims yourself, but because your rebuke of them constitutes the same position as the naturalistic fallacy I am referring to. You denied it, then gave an example of the reciprocal, which you freely admitted was a naturalistic fallacy (even though an inversion of the original definition) and then proceeded to explain away the fallacy in terms of "how a society should run". Same. Thing.

The problem with GIAs comments is not what was said, but the interpretation of what was said. The word "natural" as used commonly in situations like this, does not necessarily mean "anything that happens in nature" but the more intuitive and functional definition of that which occurs within the borders of predictable human behaviour and specifically that behaviour which is consciously or unconsciously (evolutionary psychology) understood to be beneficial to the continuation or stability of the species, and reconciled with a risk/benefit analysis. Whether GIA intended it or not that is why the comments were qualified with words like "demographic disaster" and "intercourse anally with each other where human feces are released from". From these understandings, the association with "unnatural", "repulsive", "disgusting" as mentioned, are made. In this way, the Bonobos' behaviour is not "unnatural".

I hate seeing someone who is 'double jointed' do things I cannot do. It fucking freaks me out. When I see things done by someone 'like me' that I would not want to do, would not like, I often feel repulsion. That includes homosexual sex between men. With women it doesn't bother me because I am not in that picture, I don't automatically via mirror neurons identify. Who cares? My feelings of revulsion means very little about how a society should be run. Other feelings do indicate to me when things are fucked up. Repulsion can be present in those situations, but it is not the key factor or I'd want to outlaw people wearing spandex, most plastic surgery and selfies.

Filter this through the above paragraph. There is no reason to believe this is the same type of repulsion. You are failing to discriminate correctly, which is why anti-discrimination propaganda is so insidious. We are SUPPOSED to discriminate. Failure to do so doesn't make the basis of such not exist.

[Silhouette]

Fraudulent religions? Isn't that tautology?

"Edgy" but true statements aside, is the real question about whether all fraud is necessarily bad? Something I have been considering for a long time now is whether all useful things are based on deception. I wouldn't use religion as a very good example of this, but I do believe there is a certain utility to a successful religion (regardless of its specific style of narrative to elucidate a certain metaphorical kind of truth) beyond the obvious examples that you might expect to hear from one of its believers. The mere fact that it induces pseudo-kinship is particularly powerful, though I think there are far better ways to do this. All religion is a kind of psychotherapy. It's a primitive and bad kind, but I think it's a better classification of it than a primitive attempt at philosophy, science or truth-seeking.

Saying this, I want to be clear that most forms of fraud are performed in line with competitive and high risk/high reward strategies when within a social environment and do not benefit beyond a single individual or small scale syndicate. And a far better example of a cooperative strategy is faith in objective reason and logic. Every single person is a subject and has access only to the subjective, but the myth of the objective that minimises the immediacy of the subject is incredibly useful and valuable toward social concerns. I'm even using it right now with my suggestions of game theory terminology. However, reason and logic are particularly totalitarian - the implicit intention and goal is toward singular and absolute answers in a world where all is relative. But the form of the authority is far more useful than any Godhead or central concept in religion.

Perhaps a less difficult question would be about freedom of expression, or manifestations of freedom of thought and speech. Freedom of thought is not viable to police, though some religions at least try. Freedom of speech is mostly harmless so long as it isn't backed up with any action. But the notion that speech cannot affect ideas, and thus not attitudes and thus not behaviours is naive. Speech can escalate into highly damaging actions. Freedom of expression is the manifestation of freedom of thought, which is influenced by free speech - drawing a line is no clear task. You can police action based on (fraudulent) religions, whilst leaving speech about said religions untouched - and such policing is the totalitarianism at play here to counter the totalitarianism behind most, if not all religions. However, I have faith that objective reasoning is a far better dictator - and I support the education of critical thought and logical reasoning. Such a method, when respected, not only brings about technological advancements upon application to the physical world, but it also annihilates any threat of freedom to lie in your speech, and freedom to believe and even derive morality from myths. All beneficial potential from such authorities are achieved by the God of objective reasoning, and more, and without the demonstrable risk of terrible side-effects of belief in inferior Gods gone wrong.

[MagsJ]

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!

[Zero_Sum]

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?!

[Karpel Tunnel]

First I will address your scoffing at left v right. You can ignore the fact that generalizations can be accurate enough to work with, and are also a mechanism by which we can communicate without devolving into a semantic debate, but that doesn't invalidate them. Of course, anyone with a brain by now should understand that left v right is good for little more than generalizations, and in fact there are better ways we could describe the often false dichotomy. However, we know that certain agenda items are pushed and have their roots by certain factions, aloofness notwithstanding. Granted, it was probably unnecessary for me make the distinction because it too should be obvious to anyone with a brain. The problem is people who don't like hearing the words. Just because you have some crossover does not mean the distinctions don't exist, and just because you may or may not consider yourself X doesn't mean that the distinctions are meaningless.

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.

Incorrect. There is homosexual life pairing in some animals. In Bonobos, AS I WROTE, the majority of sex is lesbian sex. Sex between same sex animals, including primates, birds and many mammals other than primates. The old 'anthropomorphizing' label is weak now, because unlike 50 years ago we know that cognitive, emotional and interpersonal patterns did not appear ex nihilo in humans, but are present in other animals to a much greater degree than scientists were willing to admit in the middle of the last century. If bonoboes had sex with trees or objects as much as they have with the same sex and showed other behaviors related to affection with these pairings, well OK, but they don't. They do show affection, have sex, have it more with one other bonobo, even form longer term pairs, though they tend to be polyamorous - which, by the way, I don't think works well with humans,but I don't care about people learning that for themselves. But that is not the case. Some bird species have up to 19% of all pairing, longer term partnerships with sex, homosexual ones. It is happening in nature. It happens is hundreds of species. It is generally a minority activity/bonding, but a significant one.

Describing such behaviour as "homosexual" is anthropomorphizing. As I put it to you, we do not simultaneously call animals objectofiliacs, paedophiles, incestuous or cannibals (except for strict definition) and pass none of the moral judgments with those things to the animals .

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.

WHAT YOU WROTE, is largely irrelevant to the point. You must also be aware that the Bonobo behaviour is not firmly associated with romance, attraction or sexuality, but social status and other facets of bonobo "society".

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.

Just like many, many, MANY other animals. In fact, even though the Bonobos are one of the few species that engage in sex for pleasure, the "homosexuality" is not the same for the aforementioned reasons. Even in animals that same-sex pair for life, it is still understood even by (what are most assuredly) the lefty scientists that all labelling of such animal behaviours as "homosexual, bi-sexual, trans-sexual" etc. is based on our human interpretation of those behaviours. DEFINITION = ANTHROPOMORPHIZING. Finally, the perceived homosexual behaviour of animals is not filtered through what we consider higher reasoning and conscious choice or analysis.

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

You are UNDOUBTEDLY committing the naturalistic fallacy, not because you made the claims yourself, but because your rebuke of them constitutes the same position as the naturalistic fallacy I am referring to. You denied it, then gave an example of the reciprocal, which you freely admitted was a naturalistic fallacy (even though an inversion of the original definition) and then proceeded to explain away the fallacy in terms of "how a society should run". Same. Thing.

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.

The problem with GIAs comments is not what was said, but the interpretation of what was said. The word "natural" as used commonly in situations like this, does not necessarily mean "anything that happens in nature" but the more intuitive and functional definition of that which occurs within the borders of predictable human behaviour and specifically that behaviour which is consciously or unconsciously (evolutionary psychology) understood to be beneficial to the continuation or stability of the species, and reconciled with a risk/benefit analysis. Whether GIA intended it or not that is why the comments were qualified with words like "demographic disaster" and "intercourse anally with each other where human feces are released from". From these understandings, the association with "unnatural", "repulsive", "disgusting" as mentioned, are made. In this way, the Bonobos' behaviour is not "unnatural".

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.

Filter this through the above paragraph. There is no reason to believe this is the same type of repulsion. You are failing to discriminate correctly, which is why anti-discrimination propaganda is so insidious. We are SUPPOSED to discriminate. Failure to do so doesn't make the basis of such not exist.

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).

[Karpel Tunnel]

Well other animal species practice other behaviors that we find horrendous or abhorrent where we don't practice those behaviors in the norm of human society. Understanding that, why is homosexuality tolerated or promoted? Why is it the exception? Heterosexual relationships is the underpinning of reproduction which is why it is promoted because society can't function at all without reproduction. This is just basic common knowledge here.

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?

In my ideal society homosexuality would not be spotlighted, promoted, or be deemed socially acceptable. It wouldn't be illegal but it wouldn't be socially accepted publicly either.

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.

[Inconvenient Reality]

First I will address your scoffing at left v right. You can ignore the fact that generalizations can be accurate enough to work with, and are also a mechanism by which we can communicate without devolving into a semantic debate, but that doesn't invalidate them. Of course, anyone with a brain by now should understand that left v right is good for little more than generalizations, and in fact there are better ways we could describe the often false dichotomy. However, we know that certain agenda items are pushed and have their roots by certain factions, aloofness notwithstanding. Granted, it was probably unnecessary for me make the distinction because it too should be obvious to anyone with a brain. The problem is people who don't like hearing the words. Just because you have some crossover does not mean the distinctions don't exist, and just because you may or may not consider yourself X doesn't mean that the distinctions are meaningless.

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 has a for of 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.

Incorrect. There is homosexual life pairing in some animals. In Bonobos, AS I WROTE, the majority of sex is lesbian sex. Sex between same sex animals, including primates, birds and many mammals other than primates. The old 'anthropomorphizing' label is weak now, because unlike 50 years ago we know that cognitive, emotional and interpersonal patterns did not appear ex nihilo in humans, but are present in other animals to a much greater degree than scientists were willing to admit in the middle of the last century. If bonoboes had sex with trees or objects as much as they have with the same sex and showed other behaviors related to affection with these pairings, well OK, but they don't. They do show affection, have sex, have it more with one other bonobo, even form longer term pairs, though they tend to be polyamorous - which, by the way, I don't think works well with humans,but I don't care about people learning that for themselves. But that is not the case. Some bird species have up to 19% of all pairing, longer term partnerships with sex, homosexual ones. It is happening in nature. It happens is hundreds of species. It is generally a minority activity/bonding, but a significant one.

Describing such behaviour as "homosexual" is anthropomorphizing. As I put it to you, we do not simultaneously call animals objectofiliacs, paedophiles, incestuous or cannibals (except for strict definition) and pass none of the moral judgments with those things to the animals .

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.

WHAT YOU WROTE, is largely irrelevant to the point. You must also be aware that the Bonobo behaviour is not firmly associated with romance, attraction or sexuality, but social status and other facets of bonobo "society".

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.

Just like many, many, MANY other animals. In fact, even though the Bonobos are one of the few species that engage in sex for pleasure, the "homosexuality" is not the same for the aforementioned reasons. Even in animals that same-sex pair for life, it is still understood even by (what are most assuredly) the lefty scientists that all labelling of such animal behaviours as "homosexual, bi-sexual, trans-sexual" etc. is based on our human interpretation of those behaviours. DEFINITION = ANTHROPOMORPHIZING. Finally, the perceived homosexual behaviour of animals is not filtered through what we consider higher reasoning and conscious choice or analysis.

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

You are UNDOUBTEDLY committing the naturalistic fallacy, not because you made the claims yourself, but because your rebuke of them constitutes the same position as the naturalistic fallacy I am referring to. You denied it, then gave an example of the reciprocal, which you freely admitted was a naturalistic fallacy (even though an inversion of the original definition) and then proceeded to explain away the fallacy in terms of "how a society should run". Same. Thing.

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.

The problem with GIAs comments is not what was said, but the interpretation of what was said. The word "natural" as used commonly in situations like this, does not necessarily mean "anything that happens in nature" but the more intuitive and functional definition of that which occurs within the borders of predictable human behaviour and specifically that behaviour which is consciously or unconsciously (evolutionary psychology) understood to be beneficial to the continuation or stability of the species, and reconciled with a risk/benefit analysis. Whether GIA intended it or not that is why the comments were qualified with words like "demographic disaster" and "intercourse anally with each other where human feces are released from". From these understandings, the association with "unnatural", "repulsive", "disgusting" as mentioned, are made. In this way, the Bonobos' behaviour is not "unnatural".

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.

Filter this through the above paragraph. There is no reason to believe this is the same type of repulsion. You are failing to discriminate correctly, which is why anti-discrimination propaganda is so insidious. We are SUPPOSED to discriminate. Failure to do so doesn't make the basis of such not exist.

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).

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.

[Karpel Tunnel]

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

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 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.

[Inconvenient Reality]

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.

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.

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

[Karpel Tunnel]

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.

[Inconvenient Reality]

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

Dangerously childish, isn't it?