re: Proud of Garrett Temple

quote:

---

Just watch any discussion or debate, in real life or on the internet, and see the effects whenever someone lets slip the fatal words, "because it's wrong" or "it's the right thing to do".

---

I guess this is a fundamental difference in how we think. I do not think that "because it is wrong" or "it's the right thing to do" should be used as an end to a discussion. I think that constantly questioning right and wrong is a positive thing. Constantly questioning is how we progress toward fairness and justice. Accepting one person's absolute morality only ensures fairness and justice for that single person and his or her devout followers.

quote:

---

You are confirming and participating in the moral consensus by terming all these situations as involving "non-willing persons" and "aggressors".

---

You are correct. I am. I'll continue participate until I have been presented evidence that will cause me to think otherwise.

quote:

---

We decided decades ago (perhaps longer) that we would not allow the notion of hard and fast morality.

---

Yes, much longer. I argue that mankind has never adhered to a hard and fast morality as a whole. Sometimes one idea of morality is more widely adhered to than another (think Catholicism prior to the Protestant Reformation), but it is always contested.

quote:

---

Drugs? More tolerant. Sex? More tolerant. Homosexuality? More tolerant.

---

Stoning? Less tolerant. Burning witches? Less tolerant. Human sacrifice? Less tolerant. Laws prohibiting women from wearing pants? Less tolerant.

You see, moral evolution isn't the downward spiral that you might think it is.

quote:

---

About the only things that we have become less tolerant of are smoking, drunk driving, and straight white Christian men.

---

Ummm...we should be less tolerant of smoking and drunk driving. Those things kill people. And white Christian men are not being vilified. Take a look at Congress and every board room in the Fortune 500. WASP men are doing just fine. They get vilified when they try to tell the rest of us to act a certain way using "because it's wrong" as their only reason.

quote:

---

I guess this is a fundamental difference in how we think. I do not think that "because it is wrong" or "it's the right thing to do" should be used as an end to a discussion. I think that constantly questioning right and wrong is a positive thing. Constantly questioning is how we progress toward fairness and justice.

---

But this line of reasoning leads to only two possible conclusions: either there is an ultimate answer to the questions or there is not. If there is an ultimate answer, then the discussion must be susceptible of eventually legitimately ending with either "it's right" or "it's wrong." If there is no ultimate answer, then the questioning itself becomes moot because there can be no more value to the next answer than the one before it (since they are both equally infinitely far from the ultimate answer, which does not exist). Without an ultimate answer, there cannot even be a better direction for the answers to lead. More tolerance is just as legitimately questioned as more intolerance, unless there is an ultimate answer as to which is more right and which is more wrong, at least with regard to a specific issue.

quote:

---

I'll continue participate until I have been presented evidence that will cause me to think otherwise.

---

What about the evidence at an emancipation hearing? If a 15 year old successfully wins her emancipation, does that suddenly make the 19 year old who had sex with her the week before not an "aggressor"? Would your answer change if all of the evidence she presented was documentation of behaviours that took place before the sex occurred?

Point is that the "age of consent" hardly any less arbitrary or based in anything other than morality than the prohibitions on homosexuality. So the trend that has led to a legitimizing of homosexuality is almost guaranteed to lead to revisions in what was crudely termed "pedophile rights".

quote:

---

Stoning? Less tolerant. Burning witches? Less tolerant. Human sacrifice? Less tolerant. Laws prohibiting women from wearing pants? Less tolerant.

---

I believe I did specify, "other than intolerance," of which all of these are examples.

quote:

---

You see, moral evolution isn't the downward spiral that you might think it is.

---

Moral evolution never is. Moral devolution may well be, however. Whether it is or is not, and whether what we are seeing is in fact devolution rather than evolution, remains to be seen. But isn't it most likely that an informed, rational moral evolution would discover behaviours and practices among its society that are contrary to the general good and become more intolerant of them rather than less? Or do you truly believe that intolerance is the one true absolute evil that can always be safely eradicated and oppressed without fear of negative consequence?

quote:

---

And white Christian men are not being vilified.

---

Again, never said they were.

quote:

---

Take a look at Congress and every board room in the Fortune 500.

---

Yes, do that. Now compare it to, say, 1950. Has the trend been towards more gains for straight white Christian men, or less? I never said they had it bad, only that the tolerance towards them has trended downwards while tolerance of almost everyone else has trended upwards. It could very well be simply a "market correction" as they say, but that does not change the reality of the trends.

quote:

---

JohnnyU said "Then again, I am sure that many of your ancestors"...

---

One thing is certain, no one's direct ancestors were strictly gay.

quote:

---

Without an ultimate answer, there cannot even be a better direction for the answers to lead.

---

In the same way that biological evolution does not have a defined goal, neither does moral evolution. Evolution yields biological advantages, disadvantages and some mutations that can be classified as neither. Moral evolution has both advantages and consequences.

quote:

---

So the trend that has led to a legitimizing of homosexuality is almost guaranteed to lead to revisions in what was crudely termed "pedophile rights"

---

If the "trend" that you mention refers to rational thought applied to morality and law, you are correct. Laws on pedophilia will not probably not be exempt from change. History shows this. Just today I learned that in the 17th century, it was commonplace for nannies to masturbate teenage boys to help them sleep! Times, they are a-changin'.

quote:

---

I believe I did specify, "other than intolerance," of which all of these are examples

---

If those examples aren't good enough, I really don't know what you're looking for. But let's try this: homosexuality was once far more accepted than it is today. Between 1317 and 1789, historians were able to find 38 executions from homosexuality. That's 450 years in the brutal Middle Ages! (Tyranny of Pleasure - Guillebaud). Iran alone has executed over 4000 since 1979. The trend is not always toward more tolerance.

quote:

---

But isn't it most likely that an informed, rational moral evolution would discover behaviours and practices among its society that are contrary to the general good and become more intolerant of them rather than less?

---

One would like to think so, but it's not always the case, just as biological evolution doesn't always mutate toward increased survival. Over time, evolution passes on favorable traits for that environment. Over time, people will collectively establish the most fair and just system for that environment.

quote:

---

Or do you truly believe that intolerance is the one true absolute evil that can always be safely eradicated and oppressed without fear of negative consequence?

---

I never made the claim that intolerance is an absolute evil. Rather, I think that is your fear. I think you fear that everyone will be permitted to do whatever they wish without societal punitive consequence if a line is not drawn somewhere. And if not at homos in the NBA, where?

That line will be re-drawn several times in our lifetimes. Speak your mind if you have a reason to influence where that line is drawn. But you should have better arguments than absolute morality - "because it is wrong" or the slippery slope - "downward spiral to hell where nothing is sacred anymore." That rationale will be ignored, and will only yield bitterness.

quote:

---

Again, never said they were.

---

becoming less tolerant of ~ vilified
You're trying to sell me the victim card in favor of the world's most powerful race/gender. I'm not buying.

quote:

---

In the same way that biological evolution does not have a defined goal, neither does moral evolution

---

That's a fairly particular definition of "goal". While it is in one sense true that, as a non-sentient pattern, biological evolution does not have a motivational "goal"; it is also true that biological evolution as a pattern is defined by the successful dissemination of genetic material. Thus, it does indeed have a goal, one which the extermination of the species (for one clear example) would not achieve. Moral evolution would rationally be said to share as similar goal, as the successful dissemination of a shared set of mores. That goal is best served by propagation of the populations that share those mores. Thus, behaviours that serve to limit or negatively impact the survivability of those populations (like, say, condoning smoking) would tend to run counter to the goals of those mores.

quote:

---

Evolution yields biological advantages, disadvantages and some mutations that can be classified as neither. Moral evolution has both advantages and consequences.

---

You may be a more qualified expert than I, but I believe this is incorrect. Mutations can be disadvantages or neutral, but evolution as a process selects for (and thus produces) mutations which provide advantages. Blindness in raptors can be the result of a mutation, but it would not be the "product" of evolution since the blind bird's genetic material carrying the mutation for blindness would not be likely to survive.

quote:

---

If the "trend" that you mention refers to rational thought applied to morality and law, you are correct. Laws on pedophilia will not probably not be exempt from change. History shows this.

---

Which begs the question of why you would mock someone for suggesting this.

quote:

---

Between 1317 and 1789, historians were able to find 38 executions from homosexuality. That's 450 years in the brutal Middle Ages! (Tyranny of Pleasure - Guillebaud). Iran alone has executed over 4000 since 1979. The trend is not always toward more tolerance.

---

Couple of things here: One, I was talking about the trend of recent decades in the United States. I thought I had specified that, but if I hadn't then mea culpa. Two, the records of executions (for any reason) are likely to be more readily discoverable from the last 34 years than from an era between nearly 7 centuries ago and the creation of the United States.

But in the recent decades of societal development in the United States, the trend regarding behaviours and ideas has generally been towards more tolerance rather than less. And the only behaviours that are less tolerated on the basis of benefit to society are smoking and drunk driving. Drug abuse, obesity and promiscuity -- all behaviours with absolutely verifiable links to increased mortality and illness -- are significantly more tolerated than they were 40 or 50 years ago. Non-convictional nonconformity (i.e., being different for the sake of being different; as opposed to refusing to take part in an injustice, for example), irrational anti-nationalism, lack of self reliance and lack of motivational work ethic -- all with traceable current and historical ties to dysfunctions of both societies and the individuals -- are likewise more tolerated than they were historically.

Look at overeating, for example. Tolerance for obesity, for which overeating is a primary cause, is demanded in our society. This is despite the fact that it contributes to thousands of deaths a year, far more than even the most outlandish claims of smoking deaths. And yet, the behaviour of overeating does trigger an intolerance, but towards the manufacturers and distributors of the food like McDonalds. Shouldn't rational thought applied to morality lead to a generalized condemnation of the behaviour of overeating as immoral? But in our current society, it does not. This, among other examples, suggests to me that the current trend is not in fact one of rational thought applied to morality.

quote:

---

Over time, people will collectively establish the most fair and just system for that environment.

---

I would refer you to your own previous example of modern day Iran (as well as Nazi Germany, Soviet Russia, various genocidal campaigns across Africa and the Balkans, the extermination of the Native Americans, Native American slavery and genocide between nations, and a large portion of the rest of human history) to suggest otherwise. I would argue that fair and just, especially as those concepts are understood in our modern society, have had little to do with the moral evolution that has taken place in a great many places in a great many periods of human history. I believe evidence suggests that it is entirely possible that they do not have much more to do with the moral evolution taking place here and now.

quote:

---

I never made the claim that intolerance is an absolute evil. Rather, I think that is your fear.

---

Close. It is my fear that the label "intolerance" will become associated with absolute and irredeemable evil such that huge swathes of moral, political and social viewpoints can be suppressed with one sweeping brush stroke. My favorite reminder in the face of outrage against the very idea of intolerance is, "Intolerance of intolerance, is still intolerance." If we did not allow the expression of intolerance, we would risk missing important perspectives simply because our current political or moral culture perceived them as "intolerant".

quote:

---

But you should have better arguments than absolute morality . . . or the slippery slope

---

Oh, I do. They just don't apply to this issue in this instance. But the meta-discussion is (imo) important because the real slippery slope is not in the morality, but in the exercise of the cultural conversation. If we get into (or sink further into, depending on your viewpoint) the habit of populist fervor and buzzword/soundbite mentality suppressing rational and informed debate, we greatly increase the risk of trampling much more important issues under the boot of whichever moral or social viewpoint happens to be in favor in the future.

quote:

---

You're trying to sell me the victim card in favor of the world's most powerful race/gender.

---

Really, I'm not. I'm trying to point out a reality that is being ignored by the popular conversation.

If you think of it as an Cartesian graph, and straight white Christian men (white guys) were at 1000 in 1950 while blacks, gays, women, and other discriminated groups were at some varying negative value (say, -100). Over the last 60 years, we've seen those groups climb to -20, while white guys have dropped to 500. Now, that still leaves a huge disparity to overcome, but the reality is that one group is moving down, while virtually all other groups are moving up. If we are not allowed to acknowledge this reality, then how is the trend supposed to stop when all curves hit 0? And if we aren't being barred from acknowledging this reality, then why does it take so much discussion and debate just to get someone as rational as you to acknowledge it? Shouldn't the just and rational response be something like, "yeah, we are dragging them down while bringing everyone else up; and when everyone gets about even, we'll stop it"? What disturbs me is the pretense that it is not even occurring at all.

People say that faith is a weight put on Christians and that it stops what they could do. The exact opposite is true, it is so freeing to have the backing of God. Look man, no one is attacking you for not believing we're just defending ourselves. It doesn't make us close minded to say we don't agree with homosexuality, what makes people close minded is the inability and unwillingness to change. That being said, I won't be changing my mind about homosexuality, and that's because there is no argument you can make that makes me think it is natural. On top of that, isn't it a little closed minded to think that there is no higher power? Because every person I talk to that doesn't claim a faith, won't even hear a discussion about God. Y'all have a good day.

quote:

---

I don't dislike gay people, I just don't agree with their lifestyle. I have gay family members and I love them, but once again I will never support their lifestyle. Jesus created the New Covenant which is why the New Testament is the teachings that I live by. So no, Jesus isn't the only person to listen to, all the prophets of the New Testament are who you listen to. quote: King Joey I am not judging anyone by disagreeing with their lifestyle. It just saddens me to see people openly living in sin NO MATTER WHAT THE OFFENSE. Especially when these same people profess faith for God. Once again, you are to love everyone, but I do not have to love the decisions they make in life.

---

Lifestyle? What if being gay isn't a choice? Then the answer is that God made them that way. Gay people that I have spoken with have said it has made at the very least their younger years very difficult....so why would they choose to be gay?

quote:

---

Why can't pedophilles, rapist, beastility, and necrophilias use this exact same excuse.

---

All of these don't have two consenting parties. Terrible terrible examples.

By all means continue to live your life saying "ewww gaysss"

Most of those 82 countries are either in Africa or the Middle East.....certainly the gold standard of equality....

quote:

---

homosexuality is pretty disgusting to me.

---

That's what it sounded like to me.