|
Post by kuraikiba on Mar 22, 2011 21:27:26 GMT
Could you have revived an older thread??
|
|
|
Post by Qwerty on Mar 22, 2011 23:50:46 GMT
Considering he posted January 8th, I daresay it was you that revived it, unless someone posted and deleted their post.
|
|
|
Post by kuraikiba on Mar 25, 2011 0:44:57 GMT
No, it had somehow resurfaced. They must have deleted the post.
|
|
|
Post by Qwerty on Mar 25, 2011 3:16:52 GMT
Hmm. And now let us let this thread die in peace. RIP, gay thread.
|
|
|
Post by kuraikiba on Mar 26, 2011 15:11:08 GMT
Lock?
|
|
|
Post by Qwerty on Mar 27, 2011 2:50:27 GMT
Definite no-lock. Debate threads aren't locked.
|
|
|
Post by GGoodie on Apr 6, 2011 2:40:00 GMT
or, at any rate, the same logic that can be shown to prove that infertility does not exist That's different. Infertility, for the most part, is not something one is born with. Usually it results from age, or a combination of diseases or other ailments that bring about complications and dysfunctions of the reproductive system. Homosexuality isn't like that. Anyways, since I seem to have lost this argument either way, let's move on to something else. Here's a nice little something I found on YouTube a while ago: What do you think? That guy's argument is quite flawed. By his reasoning, saying the phrase, "In principle..." means you are only including the definition or the norm, not any specific incidents. As he said, a worm in an apple is not part of the apple itself. I'll give him that, fine. However, I could say that, in principle, an infertile couple, which by definition can't reproduce, should not be allowed to get married. "In principle" does not just solo out the example he wants to use, homosexuals. There is nothing Wrong with Bro-Mance just don't shove it down our throats please. (No Sexual Meaning behind that) Ahh yes, much like heterosexuality is shoved down homosexuals' throats in everyday life, including practically all forms of media? We wouldn't want to make you feel uncomfortable your majesty. We'll just keep our relationships and lifestyles*ehem* in the closet so you don't have to see them. P.S. Sorry, I felt like debating and this was one of the only interesting ones.
|
|
|
Post by kuraikiba on Apr 10, 2011 17:27:13 GMT
How is this interesting?
Assuming a nihilist's viewpoint, sex, as is everything, is pointless due to the fact life is merely present for the sustaining of chemical compounds that comprise existence.
Assuming an atheist's viewpoint, sex is pointless as it doesn't impact the fact you just die and are removed from existence, indicating that the practice does not benefit you in any way that wouldn't be removed upon being removed from existence.
Assuming an evolutionist's viewpoint, sex in non-heterosexual form is meaningless as it does nothing to contribute to the sustaining of the human race of earth.
From an absurdist's standpoint, it only would make sense in the sense that it is by nature absurd to devote a process that was designed for reproductivity, as indicated by it's need for the sustaining of the human race, for a non-reproductive purpose, but it does not make sense outside the realm of the absurd.
From a theologist's standpoint, sex for purposes that do not achieve any substantial or lasting effect, such as reproduction, or sex for the purposes outside of what seems to be in vast majority status quo for humans is in itself pointless (Though one would say such theologist would be doubtlessly arguing by "Appeal to the majority". However, such accusations should be used lightly, as one would be using an "Argument from fallacy" fallacy as a counterargument. While this is mostly to be ruled out as No True Scotsman, such invites the Homunculus fallacy as their shield, per se).
From an if-by-whiskey standpoint, no conclusion can be satisfactory. From a traditionalist's standpoint, it is unnatural, since the vast majority does the opposite. From a pragmatist's standpoint, it is not logical as it fulfills no meaningful or practical purpose.
From a analytical standpoint, it is not logical as it does not have any apparent effect beyond the manipulation of hormones, a goal meaningless in itself, as it is something being devoid of logical foundation, and revolves around illogical emotions. From a biologist's standpoint, it is not sensible as no beneficial effect is to be gained and detriments are possible. From a gambler's standpoint, nothing is to be gained and everything can be lost (especially if nihilism or atheism hold true).
The question is: If it doesn't have any inherent value, logic, benefit, or reason, why follow it? The very standpoints that both GG and Temp come from are deeply rooted into assigning worthlessness upon it. Why, if their doctrines contradict them, would either support it? Why would someone follow something that no philosophical, logical, practical, or reasonable viewpoint supports? I, quite honestly, cannot see how anyone could see any value in this beyond something emotion or psychological, neither of which bend towards any form of reason or logic.
|
|
|
Post by Qwerty on Apr 10, 2011 20:06:37 GMT
As an atheist, an evolutionist, I must say you are quite wrong. You can apply that to anything, but you certainly can't state other people's viewpoints, and even if you have proven that sex is pointless, not only does it apply to heterosexuals as well but that entire post is one big appeal-to-majority. So what if atheists think sex is useless (Hint: They don't)?
|
|
|
Post by ganondorfchampin on Apr 10, 2011 20:35:35 GMT
The term atheist is a being misused here. An atheist is one who believes there are no gods, not someone who believes existence ends at death.
|
|
|
Post by Qwerty on Apr 10, 2011 21:19:00 GMT
Long story short. Kurai clumped everyone into a bunch of vague groups, took a wild (and in almost every case incorrect) guess about their opinion on sex, reverting to non-sequitor almost every single time, in an attempt to make sex appear pointless, and apparently that makes homosexuality a bad thing.
|
|
|
Post by Fringe Pioneer on Apr 12, 2011 20:53:34 GMT
Kuraikiba's rule-breaking post has been moved to the Trash Bin. That's infraction #1...
|
|
|
Post by Qwerty on Apr 12, 2011 22:51:49 GMT
Also, in response to his now-moved post: Eating ice-cream is only temporary satisfaction, too, yet I don't see people calling it pointless.
|
|
|
Post by GGoodie on Apr 12, 2011 23:02:46 GMT
The term atheist is a being misused here. An atheist is one who believes there are no gods, not someone who believes existence ends at death. Wrong. Theos = God/Religion Theist = One who believes in a god. (One with a belief in a god) A = without Atheist = One who does not believe in god. (One without a belief in a god.) Anyway, I would like to see Kurai's post. His one that came after mine was pretty much terrible, so I hope you don't mean that one. To quickly and frankly reply to that quite stupid post, I shall say this: Sex is meaningless. However, we enjoy it, it feels great, it releases more endorphins than any other activity, and it helps build bonds between people who are in love. Done.
|
|
|
Post by Fringe Pioneer on Apr 12, 2011 23:14:33 GMT
No, that one should have been preserved since that was before the rule was passed. He made one immediately after Reply #130, QwertyuiopThePie's post...
|
|
|
Post by Qwerty on Apr 12, 2011 23:40:33 GMT
I guess it's only fair that I don't respond to him when he cannot respond to me.
Also, Ggoodie, that's what he said. "People that don't believe in any god or gods".
Also, the origin of the word atheist is in fact a derogatory term used for those "Without God", which is what it means. Sorta like Godless.
|
|
|
Post by ganondorfchampin on Apr 12, 2011 23:42:53 GMT
The term atheist is a being misused here. An atheist is one who believes there are no gods, not someone who believes existence ends at death. Wrong. Theos = God/Religion Theist = One who believes in a god. (One with a belief in a god) A = without Atheist = One who does not believe in god. (One without a belief in a god.) Anyway, I would like to see Kurai's post. His one that came after mine was pretty much terrible, so I hope you don't mean that one. To quickly and frankly reply to that quite stupid post, I shall say this: Sex is meaningless. However, we enjoy it, it feels great, it releases more endorphins than any other activity, and it helps build bonds between people who are in love. Done. Isn't that what I just said?
|
|
|
Post by Fringe Pioneer on Apr 12, 2011 23:43:54 GMT
I was also confused by that...
|
|
|
Post by GGoodie on Apr 12, 2011 23:57:50 GMT
The term atheist is a being misused here. An atheist is one who believes there are no gods, not someone who believes existence ends at death. Atheist = One who does not believe in god. Very different. He says that atheists hold a believe and assert a claim, when in reality, they merely don't accept a claim. It's like this: You can say buttons are good, you can say buttons are bad, or you can not say anything at all. (Or say that they are neither, but there isn't really a equivalent to that in terms of belief.) Atheism would be the equivalent of anything that isn't saying buttons are good. (Both saying they are bad, and not saying anything)
|
|
|
Post by Fringe Pioneer on Apr 13, 2011 0:11:38 GMT
Ah, I understand the difference now.
Well, there are "gnostic" atheists who believe there can not be a deity, and agnostic atheists that do not believe there can be a deity. Of course, this gasoline-doused thread is about whether it is acceptable for an individual to be homosexually inclined, not what an atheist is...
|
|
|
Post by GGoodie on Apr 13, 2011 0:17:45 GMT
Ah, I understand the difference now. Well, there are "gnostic" atheists who believe there can not be a deity, and agnostic atheists that do not believe there can be a deity. Of course, this gasoline-doused thread is about whether it is acceptable for an individual to be homosexually inclined, not what an atheist is... Agnostic atheists do not believe there is a god. Gnostic atheists do not believe there is a god. Gnosticism has no effect on beliefs. Gnostic atheists claim to know there is no god. Also, to be more on topic. Because atheists hold no religions convictions, there is absolutely no ethical reason for an atheist to deny homosexuals the rights to do the same things as heterosexuals.
|
|
|
Post by Qwerty on Apr 13, 2011 0:54:24 GMT
Agnostic is just added to the religion to state that you feel that God can be neither proven nor disproven. Now, if said atheist is also a homosexual, then they should also be allowed to get married just like the heterosexuals can. In a non-religious manner of course.
|
|
|
Post by GGoodie on Apr 13, 2011 0:56:02 GMT
Agnostic is just added to the religion to state that you feel that God can be neither proven nor disproven. From what I can make from that, you are completely wrong. Please elaborate.
|
|
|
Post by Qwerty on Apr 13, 2011 1:27:57 GMT
Agnostic usually means someone feels God can neither be proven nor disproven. There are agnostic theists and agnostic atheists. Agnostic theists generally rely on Pascal's Wager or blind faith or something like that (but they do believe in him), and agnostic atheists generally refer a lot to Santa Claus (they don't believe in him due to lack of evidence). It's most certainly not wrong. Gnostic theists think God can be proven, gnostic atheists think God can be disproven (although they know perfectly well said proof will be completely ignored by the other side).
|
|
|
Post by GGoodie on Apr 13, 2011 1:35:26 GMT
You said the exact same thing I did .-.
Agnostic Theist = One who believes but doesn't know for sure Gnostic Theist = One who believes and knows for sure Agnostic Atheist = One who doesn't believe but doesn't know for sure (Most atheists) Gnostic Atheist = One who doesn't believe and knows for sure (Only contains those who believe there is no god)
|
|
|
Post by Qwerty on Apr 13, 2011 2:05:46 GMT
Yeah, I was just trying to clarify.
|
|
|
Post by Fringe Pioneer on Apr 13, 2011 20:16:26 GMT
Kuraikiba's rule-breaking post has been moved to the Trash Bin. That's infraction #2...
|
|
|
Post by kuraikiba on Apr 13, 2011 20:19:54 GMT
I had found out just afterwards what rule you were meaning. Sorry about that.
|
|
|
Post by Qwerty on Apr 13, 2011 22:32:26 GMT
For the record, I'm not counting the above post as participation in the debate.
|
|
|
Post by GGoodie on Apr 13, 2011 23:46:07 GMT
Can someone message me what his post was?
|
|
|