spendius wrote:Shirakawasuna wrote:spendius wrote:Shirakawasuna wrote:Oh look, another unsupported assertion that Christianity is "our" moral basis. That's your entire point after all, spendius, and it's the one being challenged. Invoking it to prove your point is begging the question.
It's obvious.
Hahaha, yet another old canard from the tragically incorrect person. Incidentally, the people I usually see using that argument are 1) conspiracy theorists and/or 2) creationists.
I will counter its lack of substance with the level of response it deserves: nuh-uh.
There you go. I'm now " tragically incorrect" . How does one not concede the floor to such tripe. And what difference does it make what you "usually" see? You might not see so much and the door is open to what you don't usually see. 51% might validate "usually". And you might have subjective memory selection or you might just gob out any old thing that comes into your head to convince yourself you have answered a point.
Context restored again. It seems I messed up my reference: the tragically incorrect person was meant to be a generality, as in the general tragically incorrect person uses such canards. I do think that you're tragically incorrect, of course, but I say so more directly.
And what I "usually" see establishes some anecdotal support for my generalization, which you understandably didn't get (I admit to unclear writing on this point).
And no, the answer of "it's obvious" with nothing else to back it up is something I see exclusively from woo-types. I see claims of something being obvious used by everyone, but they usually back it up.
spendius wrote:Shirakawasuna wrote: ..but finding biblical support for one's bigotry against homosexuals is also very easy.
Not me. Not ever.
Shirakawasuna wrote:Ignoring the parts you don't like is easy, too. However, I'm going to appeal to numbers on this one just to illustrate how easy it is to justify one's antihomosexual beliefs using Christianity by pointing at the catholics and all the protestants who condemn homosexual marriage and homosexual activity. They certainly don't have to look hard to find both a long tradition of doctrinally-based discrimination and lines from the Bible which are very easy to interpret. In fact, one doesn't have to do much bible mining to come up with the simple argument of 1) homosexuals cannot marry and 2) sex outside of marriage is sinful. I see it trotted out all the time, in fact.
There are millions of others who condemn homosexual marriage besides Catholics and Protestants. From my experience the ones who don't condemn it are a tiny minority. Which well known scientific or humanist organisations publicly support it.
Same-sex marriage? Well, scientific organizations tend to keep them out of such issues unless there's a direct scientific imperative, like say Global Warming, but the APA has expilcitly endorsed gay marriage. As for humanist organizations, every one I can find supports equality with homosexuals and whenever they have explicit statements concerning same-sex marriage, they are supportive of equality. Some humanists oppose having a political stamp on marriage, however, so while they may not have explicit statements supporting same-sex marriage, they can still be strong supporters of allowing homosexuals to marry and establishing equality between homosexual and heterosexual marriage. So far, most of the organizations I've been checking out have very few official stances outside of organizing groups with other humanists...
Since you probably won't be happy without an example, here's
one and
another.
Now, you've made a stronger statement in saying that organizations which "don't condemn it" are a tiny minority and then ask me to cite some scientific or humanist ones... are you implying that a tiny minority of those groups don't condemn it, or just people in general?
spendius wrote:Shirakawasuna wrote: And "a fear of women"? Aren't you supposed to be arguing against holding bigoted views?
Since when has being realistic been classed as bigoted. Any bloke who doesn't fear women is a male chauvinist idiot heading for a fall. You need to define "women" beyond biology. Real women are terrifying.
Either you were really bad at writing the comment I replied to or you're trying to get out of it. Concerning homosexuals, you said, " Not for me. They can do what they like as long as nobody else is involved as far as I'm concerned. I think it's mainly fear of women but I accept that some men are born a bit feminine and some women are born, and often brought, up a bit masculine." You were obviously trying to explain what "mainly" led them to be homosexuals and pass it off as a fear of women. Now, perhaps you haven't talked to many gays or lesbians, but you might find that this is not why they're attracted to their own sex, *hint hint*.
spendius wrote:Shirakawasuna wrote:spendius wrote: They were not moral authorities. You just thought they were.
That's clearly not the case. I haven't considered any priest a moral authority so far as I remember.
The Obtuse Pedant Fallacy again. What you remember or have considered is neither here nor there. If we only discussed what you have considered or remember you are back to the one way megaphone.
Fixed your quote. Anyways, thanks for some more comedy.
You brought up the idea of knowing what my prior views were, you even left it in the quote (bad idea). I'll repeat it. "They were not moral authorities. You just thought they were". My reply is still quite accurate and yours hilarious - if you think what I have remembered or considered is "neither here nor there", then you probably shouldn't bring it up, eh?
spendius wrote: The argument against the moral authority of the priestly caste assumes that that authority not only exists but is powerful enough to have to be fought against.
It assumes that they are considered moral authorities.
spendius wrote: As to whether they are considered moral authorities, I thought we were speaking of Christianity's ownership of morality?
I have neither said nor implied that Christianity owns morality. All I have said is that Christian morality dominates the earth and will do so more and more. Is that really difficult for you to understand?[/quote]
Nah, you waffle on this issue. Sometimes Christianity is just like all other ideas concerning morality, just a system of morality (like you're saying now). Sometimes Christianity is forwarded as the only way to achieve a societal ethical basis. That's the ownership I'm talking about.
spendius wrote:Shirakawasuna wrote:Are priests not Christians[...]?
How would I know?
By having a rudimentary understanding of language and societies.
spendius wrote:Shirakawasuna wrote:spendius wrote: Is English your first language?
Of course. I also speak german and caught your rather stupid insult.
My,my--you are sensitive aren't you. No insult was intended. You will know when I insult you. It is a perfectly reasonable question given your username and the obvious fact that you speak a different language to me.
Haha, no insult intended? Yes, I'm sure "shithead" was meant to be endearing
. You're either vastly incompetent or lying.
spendius wrote: I only asked because I make allowances for A2Kers who are using English as a second language. When you accused aidan of being indignant you were obviously projecting.
I have no problems with you asking if english is my first language. I think it's fairly obvious that it likely is, though. Projecting, though? Nah. Your insult was rather stupid and I laughed at it
.
spendius wrote:Shirakawasuna wrote: Everyone is a victim of bigotry to some extent, but not me in particular to any significant degree.
I'm not. To become a victim you have to allow bigotry to affect you.
I somewhat doubt that. You've never been treated with negative prejudice due to affiliation with some kind of group, even implicit? You've never been treated like an irresponsible teenager or incompetent old fart due to your age? There are many direct effects bigotry has on a person whether they accept the criticisms or not.
