Objectivism doesn't deserve to be called a philosophy. Rand hated philosophers.
Supporting homosexuality is supporting human nature. That's a liberal ideology. In what way does liberal ideology go against any human nature? I mean, unless you mean the human nature to continue to deny something after it's been proven to be true.
No it is evidence of absence wherever evidence would be expected. This isn't suggesting that no gods could possibly exist but that any concept of a deity that one would expect to see evidence for (for example 99.999999999% of theists who are not deists) is showing thus the evidence of not existing.
I can't deny every god's existence with evidence but there are plenty of ideas of Gods which would make falsifiable claims. Even more that would be making claims where absence can be seen as evidence. Maybe not proof, but definitely evidence.
You're a moron Guitaristdog. Show me one source that you have. You don't have any! you're taking your own lazy behavior and pretending that I'm the one doing it. I gave you sources in the last debate and so did others. Not TYT or MSNBC, we gave you real sources! Go look at them or go find your own you dumbass!
Wrong. Once your personal belief that homosexuality is wrong enters into law it becomes bigotry. Don't wanna be called a hate monger, then keep it out of the law and live and let live.
Whether we want it to happen or not, it's gonna happen. Best to make laws and principles to keep everything in a controlled setting.
This is true, which is why it took the comments to confirm to most pro-equal rights people that they should boycott. As a response Fox News, Huckabee, and every homophobic pastor collaborated to make Aug 1st happen and pretended it was because of free speech. People in favor of free speech would just as soon support a groups right to boycott.
You are deserving of a point for proper trash talk sir. But I'm not in the mood now. Maybe later.
Wow, there's some sad cowards here who like to take away points but give no argument as to why. Would I even get to know if they chose me to be their enemy on this site?
Nudists - Yes I support them, but it as nothing to do with individualism. These particular societal taboos have been chosen and dictated by highly judgmental individuals who had no right to make such claims. If it wasn't vehemently fought by the offended to the point of throwing people in jail, I'm certain that an open vote would slowly but surly reveal the the majority is fine with nudity or doesn't care. Same goes for profanity. And it's not just a nudist's nature to be concerned with, it's everyone's nature. Taboos are an unhealthy part of human cultures.
Necrophiliacs - I caught that type of argument for cannibalism from you, but not for necrophiliacs. The same response from me applies. If the deceased offered their body it's fine, but I would add that someone should step in and stop the situation if there are serious health issues (necrophiliac and/or deceased weren't in their right minds when decision was made) with how long the necrophiliac is wanting to retain the body for sexual use or any other possible health issues that would result.
Should the state guarantee that people can perform such acts? No. But if you are comparing a guarantee to perform these acts with gay marriage then that would be a false analogy. Refusing to give homosexuals equal treatment under the law as it stands is not guaranteeing acts of homosexuality. The practice of homosexuality is already taken care of by the homosexuals themselves, not the state. Discrimination against them and shaming them through the law is what's in dispute. Also, you should try and be less offensive in your comparisons to homosexuals. It's obvious that you are associating an ick-factor to homosexuality by using examples which naturally (without any influence from culture) would engage a gag reflex in most human beings. This is not the case with Nudists and Homosexuals. All of your disgust towards those groups has been taught to you from an early age.
Drug Users - Yeah, they might "think that [their body's autonomy outweighs [their] responsibility to other people," but determining that is hardly a subjective value judgement. Doctors are capable of determining if a person is exhibiting a behavior out of personal choice or due to a symptom of a deeper issue.
For example, my girlfriend is bipolar, and when she's in a low state of mood she often wants to kill herself. I would never help her kill herself like that even though I know she's in a lot of mental pain. I always walk her through these episodes and I always help her get the treatment that she needs to get back to being stable and feeling that life is worth living. If there were no treatments available or reasonably possible, I would have to reconsider this stance and at least wait until a good stable mood before asking her seriously if she would want it all to end.
If she said 'no' in that state of mind, I'd continue to help her through the lows and not let her kill herself. Don't feel bad for me though, because it's actually pretty obvious when she's exhibiting symptoms, and she doesn't fight me much at all about wanting to kill herself. It's sad but it almost makes me laugh at how silly and childish her reasoning gets in that state of mind.
Alcohol isn't extreme, not by a long shot. Alcoholism is very real but rare amongst the general population. It's like driving, it's useful and safe enough for everyone to begin with a sort of earned right to it, but if they misbehave to a certain irresponsible extent with alcohol then they should be kept from it at all costs.
That's what good rehabilitation is for, and for certain drugs which are capable of being experienced without addiction and damage being inevitable, I would make the same argument. If we had descent rehabilitation programs (not 12 step) and descent health coverage for all who have mental health troubles, we could avoid nearly all of the problems that come with all recreational drug use and determine which recreational drugs are safe to use for fun and which drugs really take it too far. There is and will always be a rational line between the two.
Cannibalism - what I'm implying is wrong with cannibalism by that is that it's extremely unhealthy to the individual engaging in it and that it's potentially dangerous to others who come into contact with the cannibal. Look up how dead bodies effected the spread of the black plague. Again, please have the respect to stop comparing things to your ick-reaction to homosexuality. If you find something icky about homosexuality, let's zero in on that and why you feel that way.
"You make it sound like no sane person would generally advocate cannibalism, but this is a subjective moral judgment based on a societal taboo."
No, it's not. Or at least, only an idiot or a psychopath with a craving would make their decision based on taboo. We have a gag reflex that says "YOU WILL GET SICK IF YOU DO THIS!" which stops us, not a social taboo. The social taboo aspect of cannibalism only effects how harshly we are willing to punish someone for cannibalism. Ironically, our early instincts in this country were to sentence the individual to death. Why don't you see taboo as a sickness or at least a wrongful behavior?
I do not make judgments based on taboo. Taboo distracts us from the reality of the situation and makes us do worse things to justify why we think something is wrong. Cannibalism and drug use are dangerous for their own reasons, not because people feel like something is wrong with them. I accuse people who are against homosexuality of being unhealthy in their perspective of the matter.
Namely, there is a lot of information out there to show that it's healthier for homosexuals and homosexuality to be treated as a natural thing and that the taboo against homosexuality has done nothing but physical and emotional harm towards all people, even heterosexuals who have been forced to try too hard to convince others that they are in fact heterosexual.
There is no reason to evaluate if a a homosexual marriage is healthy and unharmful. Each one of the examples you've made have been false analogy, and I've already explained at length why they are false analogy. Please chose to either accept that they are false analogy or pick one and we'll deal with arguing about if it's a false analogy. I ask that you do this, because the length at which you are throwing fallacy after fallacy into your arguments is wasting both of our time. Just pick one and let's deal with that.
"That's my whole point, that there cannot be any real moral and societal foundations in a liberalistic society."
My counterpoint is that you can say the same of any claims to morality by the same argument. I don't think you've actually found a counterpoint to the liberal premise to morals that you are giving. But aside from that, to use that as justification for deontological claims to morality is an argument from ignorance, because by that argument your position is just as weak.
As an atheist, I can't reasonably make the argument that just because a God can't be proven to be consistent, therefore religious people get their morals from squirrels. That's an argument from ignorance. You should try reading The Moral Landscape, by Sam Harris. In philosophy, ethics have been talked about to death, making many counterpoints to many logical premises of what various people claim to be true ethics. Just because we don't have a system of what ethics is that we can agree on doesn't mean that we shouldn't engage in ethical action and discussion of ethical behavior.
There are plenty of grounds where all theories of ethical truth converge, and those positions are where preservation of the individual also leads to preservation of the group. The liberal stance on homosexuality is for your benefit as well as for the benefit of the greater society. What we can't get past is the taboo that keeps people from seeing that it's better for them.
Your examples are false analogies with Homosexuality for the same reasons that they are false analogies for Heterosexuality. Only Heterosexuality would be a fair comparison to Homosexuality.
Ok, so, same question about liberal ideology. Do you have a clear argument about what's wrong with it?
Actually, the majority of the poor are voting for none of those things mentioned. I'm poor but my reasons for wanting the top 2% to offer something for jobs and education comes more from a side of me that hated being held down in my own family as a kid. Idiots tend to be poor and they tend to be authoritarian and they also tend to be conservative. My parents are poor and hard working, and my parents are idiots.
I know this isn't Geeks vs Nerds, but you deserve a point for trash talk in my book.
Actually, a better third party would form and lead by skepticism and efficiency. The democrat party is outdated in it's idea of progressive stances. I'm thinking a Humanist Party might do the trick.
This is a very little unknown liberal politician I assume? I don't know who he is, but you know who he sounds a lot like? Bush.
I would argue that all people should have the right to vote, but they should be given a clear option to abstain and they should read and take a quiz on some objective facts regarding each issue. If they can't show a clear knowledge of the facts at let's say, a 70% success, then their vote for the issues they failed on the quiz shouldn't count. If you don't research an issue, you shouldn't vote. FYI, you can abstain on any ballot by leaving any issue blank that you aren't knowledgeable about.
I'm waiting for our family and friend structures to allow for tribal agreements and unions that offer babies to be had, raised, and adopted by anyone who wants them, as well as for large homes or apartment complexes that people share and live in and fuck as often as they'd like.
I'm not completely arguing from Ben's argument, but I feel I can answer the ethical concerns that you made here.
Nudists - There actually isn't any harm nor anything wrong that's done by nudists. There is however harm done to the society at large for holding on to these irrational taboos against sex, sexuality, and human genitalia. People deny their human nature and refuse to explore their bodies or even sometimes masturbate simply because of this taboo. Did you know that scientists have even revealed third trimester fetus's to masturbate?
Necrophiliacs - Here there is a harm that is done by the necrophiliac. Even if you would say that no harm is done to the deceased owner of the dead body, it can then be looked at as a form of damaging property which belongs to the next of kin or plot holders who agreed to keep the body in the ground for one reason or another. The point is that ethically, even in a utilitarian or consequentialist perspective, it amounts to having sex with someone else's property.
Drug users - Depending on the drug and the motivations, drug users can be seen as acting with suicidal behavior and in most cases they are not in their right minds. I would be for helping people commit suicide in a peaceful manner if they were honestly making the decision themselves, but there is also a relative line where a person cannot be seen as being in their right mind enough to not be stopped from self destructive behavior. Such issues can be dealt with in a matter that concerns that line in the same way that such is decided in hospitals for medical decisions.
Cannibalism - There are ethical cases where with or without permission, cannibalism was a person's only chance to survive. In those cases, as well as voluntary cases, the same argument for drug users can be made. Someone should just verify that decisions were made by people who were not losing their minds before allowing such things to take place.
The argument that you are making can easily be used on any and all behavior. That if you can't come up with ethical problems for all behaviors then you can't support (insert questionable behavior of choice). For example, we could say the same about heterosexual behavior.
It's an argument from ignorance. We don't know how to ethically condemn all questionable behaviors, therefore homosexuality must be wrong. Homosexuality only has to answer to the consequences of homosexuality. If you think it's bad, then the burden of proof is on you to explain what makes it bad.
What's wrong with liberals exactly? Could you describe what's wrong with liberals without parroting what neo-nazis would say about Jews? I mean can you really make an objective argument for what you're saying?
Soon enough you'll be able to expand your mind with extra parts and to surf the internet with your mind. Nothing boring about that.
Actually, Science supports the atheist position (doesn't prove, only supports) by the evidence that we don't see a deity or a sign of some form of spiritual essence where we would expect to find such things. The lack of evidence can sometimes be evidence if evidence would be expected to be there. The majority of theological claims would suggest that there would be at least some objective evidence to support them, but there are none.
I would lean on something more humanist or progressivist as being more important than majority rule, but not so much liberalism, though in this society, I think liberalism is more needed than what people assume to be the majority.
That said, I'm observing that either a majority is liberal or that liberal views are taking over the majority. It's not just with politics but with all issues. Political vote rigging through voter ID laws and misinformation in the cable media has led to it seeming like the liberal perspective is small or declining, but it's not.
I trust that in a true democracy, humanist views would take hold and lead everything. The ability to communicate is key, and a lot of conservative positions remain in favor of taboo and censorship on the main points that we need to talk about. Like a real sex education for adolescents. It would do a load of good to teach the philosophy of physics vs metaphysics as well IMHO.
The textbook definition of liberal describes someone who desires fast change within the society at large. You can pride yourself on your own ignorance and pretend that it's all a big game of us vs them, but you would still just be ignorant for it.
