|
|
| Orange Is the New Black actress vs. Homophobic moron preacher on uptown (M) train (1322327) | |
 |
|
| Home > SubChat | |
[ Post a New Response | Return to the Index ]
|
|
Page 1 of 4 |
|
|
| (1322327) | |
Orange Is the New Black actress vs. Homophobic moron preacher on uptown (M) train |
|
|
Posted by Gold_12th on Wed Nov 5 13:17:39 2014 The preacher got off @ 34 St. "This is not Sodom and Gomorrah" No one’s surprised that actress Lea DeLaria, who’s as outspoken as her Orange Is the New Black character Big Boo, decided to take a stand against a homophobic preacher in a New York subway car. “This is not why America’s in trouble,” said DeLaria, a trailblazing, openly gay stand-up comic before OITNB, in response to the man’s rant against gay people. “Religious fanatics are the reason America’s in trouble… You are the reason America’s in trouble.” The preacher didn’t seem to be fazed by DeLaria, but he was no match to DeLaria’s loud, non-stop rebuttals. “This is not Sodom and Gomorrah,” she said, speaking over him. “Even Sodom and Gomorrah is not Sodom and Gomorrah.” When the man finally exited the train, DeLaria shook her head and said,”Thank God,” as people applauded. “And notice I thanked God,” she quipped. http://time.com/3557628/lea-delaria-oitnb-subway-homophobic-preacher/ http://www.tmz.com/2014/11/04/orange-is-the-new-black-big-boo-subway-rant-bible-preaching-train-video/ |
|
|
| (1322328) | |
Re: Orange Is the New Black actress vs. Homophobic moron preacher on uptown (M) train |
|
|
Posted by Nilet on Wed Nov 5 13:48:21 2014, in response to Orange Is the New Black actress vs. Homophobic moron preacher on uptown (M) train, posted by Gold_12th on Wed Nov 5 13:17:39 2014. Orange Is the New Black actress vs. Homophobic moron preacher on uptown (M) train......as filmed by an idiot who doesn't know how to hold his phone in "landscape" orientation. |
|
|
| (1322329) | |
Re: Orange Is the New Black actress vs. Homophobic moron preacher on uptown (M) train |
|
|
Posted by JRR4 on Wed Nov 5 13:52:01 2014, in response to Orange Is the New Black actress vs. Homophobic moron preacher on uptown (M) train, posted by Gold_12th on Wed Nov 5 13:17:39 2014. Didn't read the links but just because someone speaks out against the gay lifestyle doesn't make them homophobic. I'm a Christian and know from God's word that the gay lifestyle is a sin and displeasing to God, as is any sin. That said, I believe in "love the sinner, hate the sin". I don't fear homosexuals but do know their actions ae morally wrong. There's a big diference. |
|
|
(Sponsored) |
iPhone 6 (4.7 Inch) Premium PU Leather Wallet Case - Red w/ Floral Interior - by Notch-It |
|
| (1322332) | |
Re: Orange Is the New Black actress vs. Homophobic moron preacher on uptown (M) train |
|
|
Posted by Nilet on Wed Nov 5 14:01:57 2014, in response to Re: Orange Is the New Black actress vs. Homophobic moron preacher on uptown (M) train, posted by JRR4 on Wed Nov 5 13:52:01 2014. Didn't read the links but just because someone speaks out against the gay lifestyle doesn't make them homophobic.Um, yeah, it kind of does. I'm a Christian and know from God's word that the gay lifestyle is a sin and displeasing to God, as is any sin. So when did you speak to God? That said, I believe in "love the sinner, hate the sin". I don't fear homosexuals but do know their actions ae morally wrong. Ah. You're not homophobic— you just believe that gay people are inherently evil simply by existing. Gotcha. Or at minimum, that gay people have a moral obligation to be lonely, miserable, and loveless because it's "morally wrong" for gay people to have the same relationships straight people do. |
|
|
| (1322333) | |
Re: Orange Is the New Black actress vs. Homophobic moron preacher on uptown (M) train |
|
|
Posted by fdtutf on Wed Nov 5 14:02:23 2014, in response to Re: Orange Is the New Black actress vs. Homophobic moron preacher on uptown (M) train, posted by Nilet on Wed Nov 5 14:01:57 2014. +1000 |
|
|
| (1322336) | |
Re: Orange Is the New Black actress vs. Homophobic moron preacher on uptown (M) train |
|
|
Posted by JRR4 on Wed Nov 5 14:20:28 2014, in response to Re: Orange Is the New Black actress vs. Homophobic moron preacher on uptown (M) train, posted by Nilet on Wed Nov 5 14:01:57 2014. When did I speak to God? Every time I pray and read His word. He's my Father, my Savior, and my best friend. Try it. It's not difficult.I believe gays are inherrently evil? Wrongo bongo. We are all sinners, it's by Christ's death and God's grace that we are forgiven. God detests habitual sin and people taking pride in it. Love the sinner but hate their sin. "It's "morally wrong" for gay people to have the same relationships straight people do." Not at all, it's only morally wrong to act on it. One man, one woman is what He intended. It's that simple. |
|
|
| (1322337) | |
Re: Orange Is the New Black actress vs. Homophobic moron preacher on uptown (M) train |
|
|
Posted by Nilet on Wed Nov 5 14:31:17 2014, in response to Re: Orange Is the New Black actress vs. Homophobic moron preacher on uptown (M) train, posted by JRR4 on Wed Nov 5 14:20:28 2014. When did I speak to God? Every time I pray and read His word.In that case, can I meet him? Can you send me some of his letters? Thus far, no one has ever actually managed to speak to the guy— every time I ask if I can meet him, they backtrack and claim they only "spoke" with him in a metaphorical sense, and the things he allegedly wrote were actually written by dudes who claim they were "inspired" by him but hadn't actually met him either. I believe gays are inherrently evil? Wrongo bongo. It's basically what you just said. We are all sinners, it's by Christ's death and God's grace that we are forgiven. What does Christ's death have anything to do with it? For that matter, what does "sin" have to do with morality? Why should it matter that this one guy doesn't like me? "It's "morally wrong" for gay people to have the same relationships straight people do." Not at all, it's only morally wrong to act on it. So you're saying it's not morally wrong for gay people to have romantic relationships as long as they don't have romantic relationships? Gay people are free to get married as long as they don't get married? You're not really making much sense here. One man, one woman is what He intended. It's that simple. And he told you this when? How would I verify he said this for myself? And why should I care what he wants anyway? |
|
|
| (1322338) | |
Re: Orange Is the New Black actress vs. Homophobic moron preacher on uptown (M) train |
|
|
Posted by Broadway Lion on Wed Nov 5 14:36:29 2014, in response to Re: Orange Is the New Black actress vs. Homophobic moron preacher on uptown (M) train, posted by JRR4 on Wed Nov 5 14:20:28 2014. No it is not that simple.1) Homosexuality is NOT a sin. 2) Immoral sexual behavior is a sin, and straights are just as guilty. 3) Gay men and women are created by God, ergo, God must have some reason for doing so. They *ARE* part of a natural family (mother, father, siblings), and there they have a loving and belonging relationship. 4) Two men, and or women, living together in chastity are NOT sinful, and it is none of your business or that of anyone else to challenge their chastity. We do not normally challenge the chastity men and women living together. It is not of anybody else's business. 5) Any person who flaunts an immoral sexuality is in grave sin be they gay or straight. 6) Any person who condemns another is in danger of the most grave of mortal sins. There is no redemption for a person who puts himself in the place of God. ROAR |
|
|
| (1322339) | |
Re: Orange Is the New Black actress vs. Homophobic moron preacher on uptown (M) train |
|
|
Posted by JRR4 on Wed Nov 5 14:40:44 2014, in response to Re: Orange Is the New Black actress vs. Homophobic moron preacher on uptown (M) train, posted by Nilet on Wed Nov 5 14:31:17 2014. "And why should I care what he wants anyway?" Because eternity is too long to be wrong. |
|
|
| (1322354) | |
Re: Orange Is the New Black actress vs. Homophobic moron preacher on uptown (M) train |
|
|
Posted by Nilet on Wed Nov 5 16:20:15 2014, in response to Re: Orange Is the New Black actress vs. Homophobic moron preacher on uptown (M) train, posted by JRR4 on Wed Nov 5 14:40:44 2014. When did I speak to God? Every time I pray and read His word.In that case, can I meet him? Can you send me some of his letters? Thus far, no one has ever actually managed to speak to the guy— every time I ask if I can meet him, they backtrack and claim they only "spoke" with him in a metaphorical sense, and the things he allegedly wrote were actually written by dudes who claim they were "inspired" by him but hadn't actually met him either. I believe gays are inherrently evil? Wrongo bongo. It's basically what you just said. We are all sinners, it's by Christ's death and God's grace that we are forgiven. What does Christ's death have anything to do with it? For that matter, what does "sin" have to do with morality? Why should it matter that this one guy doesn't like me? "It's "morally wrong" for gay people to have the same relationships straight people do." Not at all, it's only morally wrong to act on it. So you're saying it's not morally wrong for gay people to have romantic relationships as long as they don't have romantic relationships? Gay people are free to get married as long as they don't get married? You're not really making much sense here. One man, one woman is what He intended. It's that simple. And he told you this when? How would I verify he said this for myself? And why should I care what he wants anyway? "And why should I care what he wants anyway?" Because eternity is too long to be wrong. "Eternity" isn't really an issue, since I plan on being dead for most of it. So again, why should I care that some guy doesn't like gay people? Why should anyone? I've also taken the liberty of repeating some of the other questions you've neglected to answer. |
|
|
| (1322355) | |
Re: Orange Is the New Black actress vs. Homophobic moron preacher on uptown (M) train |
|
|
Posted by Nilet on Wed Nov 5 16:26:36 2014, in response to Re: Orange Is the New Black actress vs. Homophobic moron preacher on uptown (M) train, posted by Broadway Lion on Wed Nov 5 14:36:29 2014. 1) Homosexuality is NOT a sin.Indeed. 2) Immoral sexual behavior is a sin, and straights are just as guilty. "Immoral sexual behaviour" as in rape and harassment? You're right— if anything, straight people are more likely to commit it. 3) Gay men and women are created by God, ergo, God must have some reason for doing so. Citation needed. They *ARE* part of a natural family (mother, father, siblings), and there they have a loving and belonging relationship. Also spouses and parents, right? 4) Two men, and or women, living together in chastity are NOT sinful, and it is none of your business or that of anyone else to challenge their chastity. We do not normally challenge the chastity men and women living together. It is not of anybody else's business. Whether they're "chaste" in the first place isn't your business. 5) Any person who flaunts an immoral sexuality is in grave sin be they gay or straight. As in rapists? Or do you have some weird definition of "immoral sexuality" that isn't entirely a function of consent or the lack thereof? 6) Any person who condemns another is in danger of the most grave of mortal sins. There is no redemption for a person who puts himself in the place of God. So we can't lock up rapists? Or, for that matter, killers? Although I do recall that you call Al Gore an evil hypocrite— does that mean you have committed the most grave of moral sins? |
|
|
| (1322356) | |
Re: Orange Is the New Black actress vs. Homophobic moron preacher on uptown (M) train |
|
|
Posted by xtimx on Wed Nov 5 16:30:36 2014, in response to Re: Orange Is the New Black actress vs. Homophobic moron preacher on uptown (M) train, posted by JRR4 on Wed Nov 5 13:52:01 2014. So because of some book that has been changed and translated for 2,000 years? Fantastic reasoning. |
|
|
| (1322365) | |
Re: Orange Is the New Black actress vs. Homophobic moron preacher on uptown (M) train |
|
|
Posted by Broadway Lion on Wed Nov 5 17:21:24 2014, in response to Re: Orange Is the New Black actress vs. Homophobic moron preacher on uptown (M) train, posted by Nilet on Wed Nov 5 16:26:36 2014. Chastity includes sexual activity in a stable union. Call it marriage if you are a prune, call it two people living together if you wish. It is nobody else's business.No, It would be immoral to condemn another of an eternal judgment, The law has it in its power to condemn criminals even upto and including the death penalty. ROAR |
|
|
| (1322368) | |
Re: Orange Is the New Black actress vs. Homophobic moron preacher on uptown (M) train |
|
|
Posted by Nilet on Wed Nov 5 18:14:45 2014, in response to Re: Orange Is the New Black actress vs. Homophobic moron preacher on uptown (M) train, posted by Broadway Lion on Wed Nov 5 17:21:24 2014. Chastity includes sexual activity in a stable union. Call it marriage if you are a prune, call it two people living together if you wish. It is nobody else's business.So you're OK with gay marriage, and you're OK with premarital sex in a long-term relationship but not with, say, a one-night stand? No, It would be immoral to condemn another of an eternal judgment Well luckily, no one can impose "eternal" judgements, so it's moot. The laws of thermodynamics are quite clear on the subject of immortality. The law has it in its power to condemn criminals even upto and including the death penalty. The death penalty is immoral. |
|
|
| (1322371) | |
Re: Orange Is the New Black actress vs. Homophobic moron preacher on uptown (M) train |
|
|
Posted by New Flyer #857 on Wed Nov 5 19:02:30 2014, in response to Re: Orange Is the New Black actress vs. Homophobic moron preacher on uptown (M) train, posted by Nilet on Wed Nov 5 18:14:45 2014. The death penalty is immoral.What system of morality are you using and why is it the best? FWIW I too am against the death penalty. |
|
|
| (1322386) | |
Re: Orange Is the New Black actress vs. Homophobic moron preacher on uptown (M) train |
|
|
Posted by TerrApin Station on Wed Nov 5 19:47:39 2014, in response to Re: Orange Is the New Black actress vs. Homophobic moron preacher on uptown (M) train, posted by New Flyer #857 on Wed Nov 5 19:02:30 2014. He seems to think that it's ok for him to decide what is moral but not for someone else or a G-d to do the same. |
|
|
| (1322387) | |
Re: Orange Is the New Black actress vs. Homophobic moron preacher on uptown (M) train |
|
|
Posted by TerrApin Station on Wed Nov 5 19:48:16 2014, in response to Re: Orange Is the New Black actress vs. Homophobic moron preacher on uptown (M) train, posted by xtimx on Wed Nov 5 16:30:36 2014. It was changed? How so? |
|
|
| (1322407) | |
Re: Orange Is the New Black actress vs. Homophobic moron preacher on uptown (M) train |
|
|
Posted by Nilet on Thu Nov 6 00:53:14 2014, in response to Re: Orange Is the New Black actress vs. Homophobic moron preacher on uptown (M) train, posted by New Flyer #857 on Wed Nov 5 19:02:30 2014. It's a sort of social contract approach built on a utilitarianism kernel.Everyone wants to be happy (though everyone has a different definition of what that means). As such, the set of policies and actions that maximise total happiness are, on average, better for everyone. That's the basic idea of utilitarianism. On its own that leads to a few odd outcomes— sadism can be self-justifying as long as I hurt you less than I enjoy doing it. Most of this can be corrected by weighting the prevention of suffering higher than obtaining positive enjoyment, and by completely devaluing happiness derived from the suffering of others. Pure utilitarianism is also largely amnesic, meaning that it can't account for past actions and treats the happiness of a murderer as no less important than the happiness of a hero. This problem can be mitigated by mandating reciprocity— cause suffering, and your own happiness is devalued by that amount or a little more, allowing specific crimes to be addressed appropriately. Unfortunately, solving those theoretical problems doesn't address the practical problem of quantifying happiness, which is probably impossible— suffering is fairly easy to define since physical pain, sickness, emotional abuse, and so forth tend to be fairly universal, but happiness is different for everybody. However, this problem can be addressed by simplifying the moral system, sacrificing a little bit of efficacy for a lot of practicality. Specifically, replace "happiness" with "opportunity to pursue happiness." That means physical and political freedom, control over one's life to the extent practical, functional societal infrastructure, the ability to earn a decent living (or receive a reasonably comfortable living if unable to work) and so forth. Once everyone has been granted the opportunity to pursue happiness, it becomes an individual affair no longer subject to the domain of a moral system. Once the basics of a moral system are established, I'd add a few caveats to better prepare it for the complexities of the real world. First, I'd add an affirmative obligation to reduce unfairness as well as suffering, where "unfairness" occurs when two people have different abilities to pursue happiness or avoid suffering and this discrepancy is the result of blind luck uninfluenced by personal choices. If I got the promotion because I worked late and you took ten days off every month, that's not unfair but if I got the promotion because I'm white and you're black, that is unfair. If I get better job offers because I worked hard in college while you partied, that's not unfair but if I get better job offers because I was born in New York while you were born in Harare, that is unfair. If I'm rich and you're poor because I invented a cheap home teleport machine while you ate ding dongs and played video games, that's not unfair but if I'm rich and you're poor because my grandfather invented a cheap home teleport machine and your grandfather ate ding dongs and played video games, that is unfair. If I'm (reasonably) rich and you're poor because I work a decent job and you're severely disabled, that's also unfair (assuming the disability wasn't self-inflicted) and while it may be harder to mitigate, it should still be mitigated to the extent we are able. Second, I'd add a clause imposing an affirmative obligation to recognise that while we're all influenced by our environment, we are wonderfully plastic creatures which means that the appropriate response to transgressions against other people in violation of morality is to attempt to impose proper behaviour upon the transgressor— while this may require punishment (and in practice almost always will), a punishment itself is not "justice." The vast majority of criminals have a motive which can be removed through more effective means than simply trying to build enough prisons to offer a contrary motive. If someone is starving, giving him food will deter crime a lot more than threatening prison for stealing some. If someone believes that a god told him to kill people, teaching him that this god doesn't exist would be far more likely to deter him than threatening him with a prison he believes he'll never serve in anyway. A rapist is far more likely to be deterred by a culture which says women are not his property and attacking them is not acceptable than by a prison he can be fairly certain he'll never be sent to. Naturally, reform efforts will not always be successful— the starving man will likely forgo crime if he can earn a living legally, and the rapist might be scared off by a culture willing to put him in prison if it becomes necessary, but a would-be suicide bomber is unlikely to be deterred by evidence that his god doesn't exist and will dismiss anyone presenting such as a heretic, and some of people commit crimes entirely because of sadism or sociopathy not amenable to reform efforts or even on impulse without any reason at all. However, that the reform approach will not always be successful is not reason to permanently shun criminals. Third, I'd add a clause asserting the inherent supremacy of fact over fiction— that is, genuinely believing in a falsehood despite the facts being readily available is considered inherently harmful to a very small extent, resulting in a very small devaluation to the happiness of the willfully ignorant, thus justifying a few minor impositions even without direct harm arising from the ignorance. (That is, if you believe people only use 10% of their brains, you deserve the "suffering" you incur when people declare that you must only use 10% of your brain if you believe that malarky.) So under this moral system, the death penalty is immoral because (a) it violates the mandate to attempt to reform criminals, and (b) it violates the mandate to decrease unfairness and the prohibition on causing suffering when innocent people are wrongfully executed, which is guaranteed to happen because no court system nor any method for determining guilt will ever be perfect enough to prevent all wrongful convictions. As for why it's "best," well it means that statistically you'd be happiest overall for all values of "you," but that's kind of like asking why democracy is the "best" form of government— in theory, there is an optimal system much better than any other but we won't ever know what it is and this system offers a generally optimal balance of benefits and practicality given our limited knowledge and capabilities— that is, a balance between how much we'd like the outcome if everyone followed the system perfectly and how likely it is we'd get anywhere near that level of perfection. The perfect-outcome scenario is what I'd call perfect— everyone happier than any other system would allow. The likelihood of success probably isn't too great but it's a lot better than many other proposed systems— the obligations imposed may require cultural change on a large scale but nothing that violates essential human nature, and it's reasonably failure-tolerant; individual violations are self-correcting within the system and systemic violations don't cause complete failures, since an oppressed group being denied legal rights and moral consideration doesn't prevent the system from maximising the happiness of the oppressing group, nor does it prevent the system from maximising the happiness of an oppressed group to the extent possible given the oppression when that oppression is less severe than the complete denial of moral consideration. So why do you oppose the death penalty? What moral system do you use? |
|
|
| (1322408) | |
Re: Orange Is the New Black actress vs. Homophobic moron preacher on uptown (M) train |
|
|
Posted by Nilet on Thu Nov 6 00:55:52 2014, in response to Re: Orange Is the New Black actress vs. Homophobic moron preacher on uptown (M) train, posted by TerrApin Station on Wed Nov 5 19:47:39 2014. So what's your moral system then? How would you have us determine whether an action is right or wrong? |
|
|
| (1322411) | |
Re: Orange Is the New Black actress vs. Homophobic moron preacher on uptown (M) train |
|
|
Posted by Edwards! on Thu Nov 6 02:11:52 2014, in response to Re: Orange Is the New Black actress vs. Homophobic moron preacher on uptown (M) train, posted by JRR4 on Wed Nov 5 13:52:01 2014. Agreed.But,God also says "judge not..least ye be judged in the Same Manner you hold unto others..." |
|
|
| (1322413) | |
Re: Orange Is the New Black actress vs. Homophobic moron preacher on uptown (M) train |
|
|
Posted by Express Rider on Thu Nov 6 02:18:20 2014, in response to Re: Orange Is the New Black actress vs. Homophobic moron preacher on uptown (M) train, posted by Nilet on Wed Nov 5 16:20:15 2014. Because eternity is too long to be wrong."Eternity" isn't really an issue, since I plan on being dead for most of it. OK, coffee break over, back on your heads....... sorry, I just couldn't resist! |
|
|
| (1322414) | |
Re: Orange Is the New Black actress vs. Homophobic moron preacher on uptown (M) train |
|
|
Posted by Nilet on Thu Nov 6 02:22:12 2014, in response to Re: Orange Is the New Black actress vs. Homophobic moron preacher on uptown (M) train, posted by Express Rider on Thu Nov 6 02:18:20 2014. Hell doesn't have coffee breaks or standing in shit on one's head or otherwise— they were damned by the impetus to cut unnecessary spending, and the latest round of budget cuts have really dragged them over the coals. Metaphorically, that is. They can't afford literal hot coals. |
|
|
| (1322415) | |
Re: Orange Is the New Black actress vs. Homophobic moron preacher on uptown (M) train |
|
|
Posted by Express Rider on Thu Nov 6 02:28:53 2014, in response to Re: Orange Is the New Black actress vs. Homophobic moron preacher on uptown (M) train, posted by Nilet on Thu Nov 6 02:22:12 2014. "Hell doesn't have coffee breaks or standing in shit on one's head or otherwise"I've never been there so I wouldn't know. Did you find this info. in the Enquirer or the Daily Onion? |
|
|
| (1322417) | |
Re: Orange Is the New Black actress vs. Homophobic moron preacher on uptown (M) train |
|
|
Posted by Nilet on Thu Nov 6 02:36:16 2014, in response to Re: Orange Is the New Black actress vs. Homophobic moron preacher on uptown (M) train, posted by Express Rider on Thu Nov 6 02:28:53 2014. Nah, I spent all day condemned to flail helplessly in piles of paperwork because the main furnace broke down and they couldn't afford a rush job on the repairs, but it would be an absolute catastrophe if they didn't pay for them given how many debts and obligations are predicated on Hell freezing over. |
|
|
| (1322421) | |
Re: Orange Is the New Black actress vs. Homophobic moron preacher on uptown (M) train |
|
|
Posted by Express Rider on Thu Nov 6 02:56:12 2014, in response to Re: Orange Is the New Black actress vs. Homophobic moron preacher on uptown (M) train, posted by Nilet on Thu Nov 6 02:36:16 2014. re: given how many debts and obligations are predicated on Hell freezing over. LOL :) |
|
|
| (1322432) | |
Re: Orange Is the New Black actress vs. Homophobic moron preacher on uptown (M) train |
|
|
Posted by Broadway Lion on Thu Nov 6 07:56:29 2014, in response to Re: Orange Is the New Black actress vs. Homophobic moron preacher on uptown (M) train, posted by TerrApin Station on Wed Nov 5 19:47:39 2014. Decisions on Morality are handed down by god.We try to make sense of them, to understand them, and then make excuses for our own failures. We all decide for ourselves what is or is not moral, We are in grave sin when we apply our moral judgments to others. Only G-d is the judge, that is only G-d has the power to condemn. ROAR |
|
|
| (1322433) | |
Re: Orange Is the New Black actress vs. Homophobic moron preacher on uptown (M) train |
|
|
Posted by RIPTA42HopeTunnel on Thu Nov 6 08:02:36 2014, in response to Re: Orange Is the New Black actress vs. Homophobic moron preacher on uptown (M) train, posted by TerrApin Station on Wed Nov 5 19:48:16 2014. It was changed? How so?A handful of examples |
|
|
| (1322434) | |
Re: Orange Is the New Black actress vs. Homophobic moron preacher on uptown (M) train |
|
|
Posted by Broadway Lion on Thu Nov 6 08:04:14 2014, in response to Re: Orange Is the New Black actress vs. Homophobic moron preacher on uptown (M) train, posted by Nilet on Wed Nov 5 18:14:45 2014. So. If the death penalty is immoral, then clearly so also is abortion.ROAR |
|
|
| (1322435) | |
Re: Orange Is the New Black actress vs. Homophobic moron preacher on uptown (M) train |
|
|
Posted by RIPTA42HopeTunnel on Thu Nov 6 08:15:01 2014, in response to Re: Orange Is the New Black actress vs. Homophobic moron preacher on uptown (M) train, posted by Broadway Lion on Thu Nov 6 08:04:14 2014. So. If the death penalty is immoral, then clearly so also is abortion.That logic doesn't even work in the context of scripture. |
|
|
| (1322436) | |
Re: Orange Is the New Black actress vs. Homophobic moron preacher on uptown (M) train |
|
|
Posted by Broadway Lion on Thu Nov 6 08:15:31 2014, in response to Re: Orange Is the New Black actress vs. Homophobic moron preacher on uptown (M) train, posted by TerrApin Station on Wed Nov 5 19:48:16 2014. The words remained the same, at least on the original text. Our definition of these words has changed. People keep on translating scripture, trying to put it into an idiom that is readily understood by today's reader, yet they put their own interpretation on it as they go.God got smarter after that. The Koran has check-sums put there by Allah to protect it from alteration. Obviously, these only work in the Arabic, but then it is only valid as Koran in the Arabic, and all else is just a translation. |
|
|
| (1322438) | |
Re: Orange Is the New Black actress vs. Homophobic moron preacher on uptown (M) train |
|
|
Posted by Broadway Lion on Thu Nov 6 08:20:18 2014, in response to Re: Orange Is the New Black actress vs. Homophobic moron preacher on uptown (M) train, posted by RIPTA42HopeTunnel on Thu Nov 6 08:15:01 2014. How so? |
|
|
| (1322439) | |
Re: Orange Is the New Black actress vs. Homophobic moron preacher on uptown (M) train |
|
|
Posted by terRAPIN station on Thu Nov 6 08:21:35 2014, in response to Re: Orange Is the New Black actress vs. Homophobic moron preacher on uptown (M) train, posted by RIPTA42HopeTunnel on Thu Nov 6 08:02:36 2014. That's not the book we should be talking about. As such, that's not the book I assumed we were referring to. |
|
|
| (1322441) | |
Re: Orange Is the New Black actress vs. Homophobic moron preacher on uptown (M) train |
|
|
Posted by terRAPIN station on Thu Nov 6 08:23:19 2014, in response to Re: Orange Is the New Black actress vs. Homophobic moron preacher on uptown (M) train, posted by Broadway Lion on Thu Nov 6 08:15:31 2014. So then ask someone who speaks the language of the original text! Nothing has changed AFAIK. |
|
|
| (1322445) | |
Re: Orange Is the New Black actress vs. Homophobic moron preacher on uptown (M) train |
|
|
Posted by RIPTA42HopeTunnel on Thu Nov 6 09:11:21 2014, in response to Re: Orange Is the New Black actress vs. Homophobic moron preacher on uptown (M) train, posted by Broadway Lion on Thu Nov 6 08:20:18 2014. How so?The penalty for killing a person is the death penalty (Exodus 21:12), but the penalty for killing a fetus is a fine (Exodus 21:22). Therefore, the two aren't equivalent. |
|
|
| (1322446) | |
Re: Orange Is the New Black actress vs. Homophobic moron preacher on uptown (M) train |
|
|
Posted by RIPTA42HopeTunnel on Thu Nov 6 09:14:21 2014, in response to Re: Orange Is the New Black actress vs. Homophobic moron preacher on uptown (M) train, posted by terRAPIN station on Thu Nov 6 08:21:35 2014. That's not the book we should be talking about. As such, that's not the book I assumed we were referring to.That's the version primarily used by those who want to legislate "morality" based on its content. |
|
|
| (1322460) | |
Re: Orange Is the New Black actress vs. Homophobic moron preacher on uptown (M) train |
|
|
Posted by New Flyer #857 on Thu Nov 6 11:48:57 2014, in response to Re: Orange Is the New Black actress vs. Homophobic moron preacher on uptown (M) train, posted by Nilet on Thu Nov 6 00:53:14 2014. Thank you for your detailed post and for elevating the conversation a bit here.So my system is different. That everyone wants to be happy is true, but it is not necessary that a system of morality be based on that statement. As you point out, relying exclusively on that statement causes some outcomes that need correcting (hence your added clauses). But even if I step back and agree that the "pursuit of happiness" is a real thing -- that is, that there actually exists this non-material, non-quantifiable happiness to be pursued, and even go a big step further and say it should be pursued, that still leaves open the question of authority or reasoning for the added clauses. In your first clause, we recognize that the worship of happiness outright without anything else said is unfair for some people and so we need this clause. There is no reason at all why fairness is necessary, unless one recognizes in the individual some supernatural dignity (you can probably tell where I'm going with that). In your second clause, we recognize the need for correction for those who go too far. But who's to say when someone goes so far? Just about everyone's "pursuit of happiness" almost always takes away from my own, right? If I'm in traffic, those other cars are preventing me from where I need to go. But likewise a car can't just deliberately idle in the middle of the road. Who's to say when the line has been crossed though, from pursuing happiness legally to pursuing happiness illegally? Does that just come down to opinion? You mention education, but, for example, why isn't the woman the property of the rapist? Just because we all agree on it? What if a country decides not to agree on it? We may have to go back to that whole individual-dignity-from-above thing to reconcile it all. So you've probably already identified my own moral system, which is heavily related to a dignity that, if you don't want to use the supernatural realm, then at the very least is inherent in our nature. And so we would want to act in accord with that dignity. We would not deliberately take a life because it is not in our authority to determine that a life is worthless. But to avoid recognizing such dignity and instead make the "practical" goal the "pursuit of happiness," you have to come up with amendments that basically assign the dignity I'm starting with people may or may not agree on. I'm basically starting where you're finishing. You begin with happiness and correct it with recognizing the dignity of people. I begin with the dignity of people, and happiness comes after the fact. |
|
|
| (1322524) | |
Re: Orange Is the New Black actress vs. Homophobic moron preacher on uptown (M) train |
|
|
Posted by Edwards! on Thu Nov 6 21:47:08 2014, in response to Re: Orange Is the New Black actress vs. Homophobic moron preacher on uptown (M) train, posted by Broadway Lion on Wed Nov 5 14:36:29 2014. Wow...there's a lot going on here that Should be moved over to the other page.As for your comments on homosexuality, let's just say I do not agree with some of your statement. God hates the spirit of deception.. |
|
|
| (1322542) | |
Re: Orange Is the New Black actress vs. Homophobic moron preacher on uptown (M) train |
|
|
Posted by Nilet on Fri Nov 7 04:22:50 2014, in response to Re: Orange Is the New Black actress vs. Homophobic moron preacher on uptown (M) train, posted by RIPTA42HopeTunnel on Thu Nov 6 09:11:21 2014. Strictly speaking, the fine is the penalty for killing someone else's fetus without her permission. Obviously they didn't have access to modern abortion back then, but it's clear they regarded a fetus as the property of its father so they'd presumably be OK with abortion on the father's say-so without regard for what a woman herself wants.Or in other words, they'd be a typical American anti-choicer. |
|
|
| (1322543) | |
Re: Orange Is the New Black actress vs. Homophobic moron preacher on uptown (M) train |
|
|
Posted by Nilet on Fri Nov 7 04:22:52 2014, in response to Re: Orange Is the New Black actress vs. Homophobic moron preacher on uptown (M) train, posted by Broadway Lion on Thu Nov 6 08:04:14 2014. If the death penalty is immoral, then clearly so also is abortion.
|
|
|
| (1322544) | |
Re: Orange Is the New Black actress vs. Homophobic moron preacher on uptown (M) train |
|
|
Posted by Nilet on Fri Nov 7 04:22:54 2014, in response to Re: Orange Is the New Black actress vs. Homophobic moron preacher on uptown (M) train, posted by New Flyer #857 on Thu Nov 6 11:48:57 2014. Is the system actually different? It seems to me that you've offered a different chain of reasoning that leads to the same outcome.That everyone wants to be happy is true, but it is not necessary that a system of morality be based on that statement. Well morality will always require one subjective element— what do we value? Since happiness is the thing we all want, it seems like that's the thing we should value. As you point out, relying exclusively on that statement causes some outcomes that need correcting (hence your added clauses). But even if I step back and agree that the "pursuit of happiness" is a real thing -- that is, that there actually exists this non-material, non-quantifiable happiness to be pursued, and even go a big step further and say it should be pursued, that still leaves open the question of authority or reasoning for the added clauses. In your first clause, we recognize that the worship of happiness outright without anything else said is unfair for some people and so we need this clause. There is no reason at all why fairness is necessary, unless one recognizes in the individual some supernatural dignity (you can probably tell where I'm going with that). There's nothing supernatural about it. If the goal is to increase happiness overall, then fairness is necessary towards that goal. This is where the social contract aspect comes in. Imagine that people were created in some netherworld and then offered the choice of which real world they wanted to be born into. They were offered the choice of millions of worlds, identical in every respect except for the morality system used. In the netherworld, these individuals were perfectly rational but risk-averse and they did not know exactly where in their choice of world they'd be born - they could be born into a family of billionaire New Yorkers or a family of Peruvian subsistence farmers - and they would not know what might befall them in life, from lottery wins to catastrophes. Being rational, they would want to choose the world where their chances of success and happiness were the highest regardless of circumstances, so a world whose moral system requires fairness is a better bet— a more equal society means a lower risk of being impoverished and unhappy. A good moral system needs to work for everyone regardless of circumstances because if a large group of people are condemned to poverty by birth alone, they have no incentive to participate in the moral system, and if it is in the rational self-interest of a large group of people to flout a moral system then that system just isn't workable. In your second clause, we recognize the need for correction for those who go too far. But who's to say when someone goes so far? Just about everyone's "pursuit of happiness" almost always takes away from my own, right? If I'm in traffic, those other cars are preventing me from where I need to go. But likewise a car can't just deliberately idle in the middle of the road. Who's to say when the line has been crossed though, from pursuing happiness legally to pursuing happiness illegally? Does that just come down to opinion? You mention education, but, for example, why isn't the woman the property of the rapist? Just because we all agree on it? What if a country decides not to agree on it? We may have to go back to that whole individual-dignity-from-above thing to reconcile it all. So you've probably already identified my own moral system, which is heavily related to a dignity that, if you don't want to use the supernatural realm, then at the very least is inherent in our nature. And so we would want to act in accord with that dignity. We would not deliberately take a life because it is not in our authority to determine that a life is worthless. But to avoid recognizing such dignity and instead make the "practical" goal the "pursuit of happiness," you have to come up with amendments that basically assign the dignity I'm starting with people may or may not agree on. Well here's how I look at it. Science is objective. Something is true or it isn't— it's not subject to individual opinion. Morality always requires one subjective piece— we have to decide what we value, since "should" is only meaningful with respect to an end goal. However, once an end goal has been decided, the rest of morality is objective. If we all agree that we want X, then whether a particular policy or rule gets us closer to X is true or it isn't— it's not subject to individual opinion. I propose using happiness as the value of X because it's the lowest common denominator of human motivation; we all want it, and it's the only thing we want entirely for its own sake. If we agree on that X, then the rest is just science. Does proposing innate human dignity get us closer to X? Yes. So throw it in. That's why I said a supernatural explanation for human dignity is not required— human dignity is an emergent property of our mutual pursuit of happiness, much like how centrifugal force is an emergent property of Newton's laws of motion. Also, I'd very much like to thank you for your own post. I wasn't expecting a philosophical discussion to arise out of this thread. :) |
|
|
| (1322545) | |
Re: Orange Is the New Black actress vs. Homophobic moron preacher on uptown (M) train |
|
|
Posted by Nilet on Fri Nov 7 04:22:58 2014, in response to Re: Orange Is the New Black actress vs. Homophobic moron preacher on uptown (M) train, posted by Broadway Lion on Thu Nov 6 07:56:29 2014. Decisions on Morality are handed down by god.So what decisions has he made? Where did he say them? How do we authenticate that they actually came from him? And what makes him authorised to make the decisions in the first place? We all decide for ourselves what is or is not moral Wait, so you're a divine command theorist and a moral relativist? Only G-d is the judge, that is only G-d has the power to condemn. So we can't lock up murderers? Make up your mind! Also, why are you doing the "g-d" thing? I thought you were Catholic. |
|
|
| (1322546) | |
Re: Orange Is the New Black actress vs. Homophobic moron preacher on uptown (M) train |
|
|
Posted by Nilet on Fri Nov 7 04:23:00 2014, in response to Re: Orange Is the New Black actress vs. Homophobic moron preacher on uptown (M) train, posted by TerrApin Station on Wed Nov 5 19:48:16 2014. Copying errors over the centuries, for one thing. |
|
|
| (1322552) | |
Re: Orange Is the New Black actress vs. Homophobic moron preacher on uptown (M) train |
|
|
Posted by RIPTA42HopeTunnel on Fri Nov 7 06:09:00 2014, in response to Re: Orange Is the New Black actress vs. Homophobic moron preacher on uptown (M) train, posted by Nilet on Fri Nov 7 04:22:50 2014. Obviously they didn't have access to modern abortion back then, but it's clear they regarded a fetus as the property of its father so they'd presumably be OK with abortion on the father's say-so without regard for what a woman herself wants.Or in other words, they'd be a typical American anti-choicer. The whole argument is moot, since without modern abortion, attempting one at the time would have killed the mother. The fact that the Bible itself specifies that a fetus is inherently less "valuable" than a person kind of puts a damper on the religious argument for fetal personhood, though. |
|
|
| (1322561) | |
Re: Orange Is the New Black actress vs. Homophobic moron preacher on uptown (M) train |
|
|
Posted by TerrApin Station on Fri Nov 7 08:30:57 2014, in response to Re: Orange Is the New Black actress vs. Homophobic moron preacher on uptown (M) train, posted by Nilet on Fri Nov 7 04:23:00 2014. Such as? |
|
|
| (1322571) | |
Re: Orange Is the New Black actress vs. Homophobic moron preacher on uptown (M) train |
|
|
Posted by Broadway Lion on Fri Nov 7 10:02:19 2014, in response to Re: Orange Is the New Black actress vs. Homophobic moron preacher on uptown (M) train, posted by Edwards! on Thu Nov 6 21:47:08 2014. You cannot deceive God. If you are a gay couple living quietly together it is nobody's business than your own. You can put your trust in God's mercy and grace, that is sufficient.ROAR |
|
|
| (1322573) | |
Re: Orange Is the New Black actress vs. Homophobic moron preacher on uptown (M) train |
|
|
Posted by Broadway Lion on Fri Nov 7 10:09:15 2014, in response to Re: Orange Is the New Black actress vs. Homophobic moron preacher on uptown (M) train, posted by Nilet on Fri Nov 7 04:22:58 2014. "So what decisions has he made? Where did he say them? How do we authenticate that they actually came from him? And what makes him authorised to make the decisions in the first place?"The decisions that God has made are his own, He will let you know when He applies them to you. He does not pronounce his decisions for his mercy and grace is still in effect. YOU do not need to authenticate them, God knows that they are authentic, that is enough. Why or how is he authorized to make these decisions is moot if he is indeed God, and if he is not God, that is if there is no God, then the Hell with it. ROAR |
|
|
| (1322575) | |
Re: Orange Is the New Black actress vs. Homophobic moron preacher on uptown (M) train |
|
|
Posted by RIPTA42HopeTunnel on Fri Nov 7 10:26:41 2014, in response to Re: Orange Is the New Black actress vs. Homophobic moron preacher on uptown (M) train, posted by TerrApin Station on Fri Nov 7 08:30:57 2014. Such as?There's one letter at the beginning of Leviticus that's always a different size from the rest of them. |
|
|
| (1322577) | |
Re: Orange Is the New Black actress vs. Homophobic moron preacher on uptown (M) train |
|
|
Posted by New Flyer #857 on Fri Nov 7 10:49:05 2014, in response to Re: Orange Is the New Black actress vs. Homophobic moron preacher on uptown (M) train, posted by Nilet on Fri Nov 7 04:22:54 2014. Is the system actually different? It seems to me that you've offered a different chain of reasoning that leads to the same outcome.Yes, it's a different system that happens to lead to the same stance on the given issue (the death penalty). I hold that it is necessary to uphold the dignity of the human person over and above "the pursuit of happiness." And therefore, we would not start with happiness and then impose restrictions (represented by clauses) because we "noticed" that human beings have dignity, which is your method. Rather, we would start with human dignity and then explore what options such dignified human beings may have in order to live their lives well and as happily as possible. There is indeed a difference, just not one that affects the death penalty stance. Since happiness is the thing we all want, it seems like that's the thing we should value. Seems like it at first, but not necessarily. It is not intrinsically necessary that whatever is wanted is exactly what should be pursued. Very often something (such as happiness) simply occurs because something else was pursued. In fact, it is ironically very possible that happiness is best "obtained" by avoiding pursuit of it! However, so long as you and I both realize that happiness is an extremely ambiguous term, I'm willing to accept it and move on. There's nothing supernatural about it. If the goal is to increase happiness overall, then fairness is necessary towards that goal. I must disagree. What difference does it make (looking in from the outside) if some people are extremely happy while others are entirely unhappy if you have still increased overall happiness? Why does overall happiness depend on an even spread of it? There is no inherent reason for equality without it coming "from above." Nature in general follows the rule of "survival of the fittest." Why should we be any different as human beings? You absolutely must start with dignity (over and above happiness) in order to reconcile this. A good moral system needs to work for everyone regardless of circumstances because if a large group of people are condemned to poverty by birth alone, they have no incentive to participate in the moral system, and if it is in the rational self-interest of a large group of people to flout a moral system then that system just isn't workable. But then the question arises. . .why have a moral system at all? Is it necessary that we come up with one to begin with? How about just "everybody for themselves?" The very idea of a moral system assumes first and foremost a recognition of a certain dignity that is already there before the moral system is born. I propose using happiness as the value of X because it's the lowest common denominator of human motivation; we all want it, and it's the only thing we want entirely for its own sake. If we agree on that X, then the rest is just science. Does proposing innate human dignity get us closer to X? Yes. So throw it in. That's why I said a supernatural explanation for human dignity is not required— human dignity is an emergent property of our mutual pursuit of happiness, much like how centrifugal force is an emergent property of Newton's laws of motion. I have basic agreement with your treatment of an understanding of science. I do not agree, however, that happiness should be x, for reasons I partially give above. The dignity should be x, and happiness will come along. Human dignity either exists or it doesn't. If it doesn't exist, then why not just go to "survival of the fittest?" The happiness of those who survive will cover for those who don't. If it does exist, then it exists whether we remember to throw it into our moral system or not. In that case, it had to come from without. We need that dignity to tell us why our happiness indeed should be "pursued." Basically, we have dignity, we want happiness. Instead of starting with what we want, which is extremely ambiguous, we should start with what we believe we have, and see if that tells us how to proceed. We must believe in our dignity in order to have this moral system; it is not necessary to believe that happiness exists to be pursued though, in order to follow this system. (Not that we wouldn't be happy in the end). |
|
|
| (1322578) | |
Re: Orange Is the New Black actress vs. Homophobic moron preacher on uptown (M) train |
|
|
Posted by Dan Lawrence on Fri Nov 7 10:58:10 2014, in response to Re: Orange Is the New Black actress vs. Homophobic moron preacher on uptown (M) train, posted by Broadway Lion on Fri Nov 7 10:02:19 2014. You are totally correct!!!! |
|
|
| (1322579) | |
Re: Orange Is the New Black actress vs. Homophobic moron preacher on uptown (M) train |
|
|
Posted by New Flyer #857 on Fri Nov 7 11:19:12 2014, in response to Re: Orange Is the New Black actress vs. Homophobic moron preacher on uptown (M) train, posted by Broadway Lion on Fri Nov 7 10:02:19 2014. There's a lot of focus on community and caring for each other, even up to the point of correction, in the Bible, isn't there? The whole me-and-God-alone theme doesn't permeate as clearly to me when I look at it. |
|
|
|
|
Page 1 of 4 |
|
