|
Post by Bill Thompson on Nov 9, 2007 17:13:12 GMT -4
What are you talking about? I don't understand. What connection is there here? Are you saying that if a woman chooses to live as a lesbian, it is just as bad as if she has an abortion? You were arguing that the fact that a homosexual relationship prevents unwanted kids is a point in its favor. I countered that some very deplorable actions also prevent unwanted kids, but that this positive point isn't enough to make them moral acts. Preventing unwanted kids and kinda-sorta-could-be-argued-that killing them are light-centuries apart. I am more than shocked you draw such an analogy. Holy Cow!! Well, Jason, I have to say that that speaks for itself. I was the only straight guy working in an office in San Francisco. I guess I just built up a tolerance against it. I will let others comment on your statement. I recall those points were pretty easily brushed off as propaganda.
|
|
Jason
Pluto
May all your hits be crits
Posts: 5,579
|
Post by Jason on Nov 10, 2007 13:24:08 GMT -4
Preventing unwanted kids and kinda-sorta-could-be-argued-that killing them are light-centuries apart. I am more than shocked you draw such an analogy. You shouldn't be. If I ask you "what makes homosexual relationships moral" and you say "it prevents unwanted kids", then you must be arguing that prevent unwanted kids is a goal that makes acts moral, right? Therefore an argument that it obviously doesn't make all acts with this goal moral is a counterpoint to your original premise. Then you recall incorrectly. I maintain that my arguments are sound.
|
|
|
Post by Bill Thompson on Nov 13, 2007 0:26:27 GMT -4
Preventing unwanted kids and kinda-sorta-could-be-argued-that killing them are light-centuries apart. I am more than shocked you draw such an analogy. You shouldn't be. If I ask you "what makes homosexual relationships moral" and you say "it prevents unwanted kids", then you must be arguing that prevent unwanted kids is a goal that makes acts moral, right? Therefore an argument that it obviously doesn't make all acts with this goal moral is a counterpoint to your original premise. You use words like "argument" and "premise" as if this is just a game to you. There is no logical connection between killing children and lesbianism. Getting to ethics and brass tacks is more important than word play.
|
|
Jason
Pluto
May all your hits be crits
Posts: 5,579
|
Post by Jason on Nov 13, 2007 11:53:39 GMT -4
If there's no logical connection between preventing unwanted kids and homosexual behavior then why did you bring it up in the first place?
|
|
|
Post by Bill Thompson on Nov 13, 2007 21:56:05 GMT -4
If there's no logical connection between preventing unwanted kids and homosexual behavior then why did you bring it up in the first place? There is no logical connection between killing kids and homosexual behavior.
|
|
Jason
Pluto
May all your hits be crits
Posts: 5,579
|
Post by Jason on Nov 14, 2007 12:07:33 GMT -4
Then I'll ignore that you brought it up.
|
|
|
Post by Bill Thompson on Nov 14, 2007 14:46:54 GMT -4
Then I'll ignore that you brought it up. You kidding? You said that abortion and killing kids prevented unwanted kids.
|
|
Jason
Pluto
May all your hits be crits
Posts: 5,579
|
Post by Jason on Nov 14, 2007 15:49:40 GMT -4
You said that homosexuality prevented unwanted kids, and strongly implied that this was a reason for regarding homosexual behavior as moral. I said that other practicies that also prevent unwanted kids are not considered moral - abortion and infanticide (although some may argue with me on abortion) - therefore while preventing unwanted kids may itself be a laudible goal it obviously is not enough by itself to make a practice moral. Therefore citing it as a reason to consider homosexual behavior moral is invalid.
That's all I said. You seem stuck on the point.
|
|
|
Post by Ginnie on Nov 14, 2007 17:31:19 GMT -4
You said that homosexuality prevented unwanted kids, and strongly implied that this was a reason for regarding homosexual behavior as moral. I said that other practicies that also prevent unwanted kids are not considered moral - abortion and infanticide (although some may argue with me on abortion) - therefore while preventing unwanted kids may itself be a laudible goal it obviously is not enough by itself to make a practice moral. Therefore citing it as a reason to consider homosexual behavior moral is invalid. That's all I said. You seem stuck on the point. I don't blame Bill for being stuck on this point. If he said a knife is good for eating with, would you say they are bad because murders are committed with them? Bill, I don't believe in God. I am not religious. But I still think I can be really good, or really bad.I don't know exactly what you're saying. I guess it is going back to 'does good and bad exist, subjective, objective morality' and all that. I think in previous posts I've given example of good and bad. Man has established good guidelines of what is good and bad throughout the ages based on our experiences and the consequences of our actions. Now whether there is a divine law somewhere (an objective reality), I don't know. Examples of Bad? -killing my children because they wouldn't eat supper, that would be bad -cheating an invalid neighbour by taking advantage of her/his condition, I guess that would be bad -cheating on my hours that I work, in my case that would be bad -torturing my cats, that would be bad -belittling people who can't defend themselves, that would be bad -putting poison in the water system, that would be bad -blowing up my city, that would be bad -stealing my neighbours tools, that would be bad -stealing my neighbours wife, that would be bad -cheating on my wife, that would be bad -refusing to help a victim at an accident site, that would be bad in a lot of cases -for me, using bad language in front of my mother in law would be bad Do I need to go on? Now of course, I'm assuming these are all pieces of a subjective morality. Probably doesn't apply to everyone. I don't think I'm capable of going into a philosophical analysis of this right now. I guess you could come up with reasons why any of my examples might not be bad if they were committed by someone else, under certain conditions. e.g. killing is bad, but in wartime it might be necessary etc.Or in self-defense. You know what I mean? Swearing in front of my mother in law isn't bad because of the swearing itself, but because it would hurt her to hear it, and I care for her feelings. Maybe good and bad developed as an aid to our survival. Maybe it is so subjective as to not have a reality, as Jason might say: "It's only your opinion." In some cases, we do things that at the time seemed logical and fair, but in retrospect and hindsight looks foolish and hurtful. When you're younger you tend not to think of all the consequences of your actions and you may behave badly without knowing it. I wish that I had never drank in my life because it obscured and deformed my life for a few years and took away, instead of added to a better experience of life. Now, I mean drinking alcohol to the point of a drunken stupor, not just having a drink (which is fine with me), I'm speaking just for myself of course. I know this post isn't very elegant or sophisticated in its meanderings, and probably has a few holes in it, but hopefully my point is being made about what is bad.
|
|
Jason
Pluto
May all your hits be crits
Posts: 5,579
|
Post by Jason on Nov 15, 2007 12:09:15 GMT -4
I don't blame Bill for being stuck on this point. If he said a knife is good for eating with, would you say they are bad because murders are committed with them? No, because that's a different pattern of argument than the one I'm making here. The original argument is: 1. Method X acheives goal A2. Goal A is good. 3 Therefore method X is good. The counter-argument is: 1. Methods Y and Z also acheive goal A. 2. Methods Y and Z are not good. 3. Therefore not all methods of acheiving A are good. 4. Therefore being able to acheive goal A does not indicate a method is good. 5. Therefore method X is not necessarily good. Basically, the ends don't justify the means. Your knife example follows this pattern: 1. Method X can be used to acheive goal A2. Goal A is good. 3. Method X can also acheive goal B. 4. Goal B is not good. 5. Therefore method X is not good. It's a very different argument.
|
|
Jason
Pluto
May all your hits be crits
Posts: 5,579
|
Post by Jason on Nov 15, 2007 13:46:21 GMT -4
Also Ginnie you might want to cross-post your response to Bill back to the thread he made that post in.
|
|
|
Post by wdmundt on Nov 15, 2007 15:55:02 GMT -4
That is a grossly over-simplified and inaccurate version of the actual argument, however. Your “Goal A” fails to take into account that homosexuality does not produce embryos or fetuses, where your “negative” examples do. Homosexual acts can’t lead to the birth of unwanted children, where pregnancy can.
Many good things can be achieved through bad means, so you could argue that no means justify any ends. Peace is a good end. Complete genocide could create peace for the victorious side. Therefore, no method of achieving peace is necessarily good just because peace is good. But that method of argument misses the point.
The heterosexual sex act sometimes creates unwanted children. The homosexual sex act never creates unwanted children, at all, in any way shape or form. If the goal is to not create unwanted children, then the homosexual sex act is a good method.
|
|
Jason
Pluto
May all your hits be crits
Posts: 5,579
|
Post by Jason on Nov 15, 2007 16:20:46 GMT -4
That is a grossly over-simplified and inaccurate version of the actual argument, however. Simplified yes, of course. I was pointing out the basic pattern of the argument to contrast it with Ginnie's example which follows a different pattern. Not really inaccurate when compared to the actual argument that was being made, though. See below. Ah, now here's a criticism that has some merit to it. I agree with you that there is a moral difference between a "method" which would produce embryos, feuses, or babies before destroying them and one that never results in even a fertilized egg in the first place. It doesn't miss the point, because the point you proceed to make in your post was never made earlier. If someone had stopped to think about what I was actually saying instead of just switching to "outrage mode" they might have spotted that earlier. Actually the best method to prevent unwanted children is abstenence, not homosexual behavior. Homosexual behavior still has the risk of transferring STDs. Abstenance doesn't have that problem. The question then becomes, is preventing unwanted children a laudible enough goal to advocate abstenance?
|
|
|
Post by Ginnie on Nov 15, 2007 16:42:19 GMT -4
Also Ginnie you might want to cross-post your response to Bill back to the thread he made that post in. I'm getting lost in these threads. I'll have to straighten my head out.
|
|
|
Post by wdmundt on Nov 15, 2007 16:54:57 GMT -4
I’m not in “outrage” mode and I apologize if my post came off that way.
That is a different argument, entirely. If the argument is about sexually transmitted diseases, then abstinence is a very good solution. It is also completely unrealistic.
Abstinence goes against our basic human drives and is not a realistic solution to anything. Look where it got the Catholic Church.
|
|