Dunce Americans Created 18 years ago2006-04-08 11:58:23 UTC by satchmo

Candy = Justification

+I have no daughters. Thank goodness.

thank godness

I have extracted this from Kohlberg?s Stages of Moral Development:

As adults, we begin to understand that people have different opinions about morality and that rules and laws vary from group to group and culture to culture. Morality is seen as upholding the values of your group or culture.

Understanding your own personal beliefs allow adults to judge themselves and others based upon higher levels of morality. In this stage what is right and wrong is based upon the circumstances surrounding an action. Basics of morality are the foundation with independent thought playing an important role.

---

So with this in mind, it shows that the majority of the community at TWHL have high morals on the issues presented.
I believe that most people here would not bag someone who is gay, they make light hearted jokes but generally except the fact that a number of our society have their own sexual preferences wether it be male-male or female-female relationships, but the innocent child does not have the ability to make these moral judgements until well into puberty unless it is their culture. For example some native tribes deem it fit to share their 13 year old bride with the family or friends as an offering of friendship, while this is acceptable in that culture, we in our society/culture see Paedophilia as inappropriate behaviour...

So who's the odd one out here,..... unless you belong to the native tribe's culture? (didn't think they would have computers/electricity to communicate)

7th: If it's so clear that I have it all wrong, then what's RIGHT? What of what I've said is Wrong? You have not given any examples at all.

Go and read a textbook.

Incidentally... you're probably the most sordid person to ever post here.

PS: just stumbled upon this on El Reg.

I am actually a friend of nickelplate. I've known him for a few years at SnarkPit, and I know he's a decent and intelligent man.

He has presented a distorted version of himself at this thread. I played along, since I already know him. There are definitely differences in our opinions, especially in the arena of religious faith.

Unfortunately, most of us here don't have the benefit of knowing him before this thread.

Somehow, I have a knack of stirring up controversy, whether it's intended or not.

Well, native tribes are closer to nature than we computerized westerners.

seventth-monkey: I've read more textbooks than you can imagine.

And yes, I'm not always like this. I'm not usually one of those guys who disagrees with what everyone else says just to disagree. But if i were to make one point here, it would not be about homosexuality. What I'd like to get across is that just becaise someone is religious does not mean that they are blindly following their religion, and it does not mean that they are closed-minded. After all, I debated without citing a single religious reference. People who claim to be open-minded and who claim not to conform to society's paradigms are conforming to a different paradigm still. So many people who do this think that they must automatically contradict what the other side has to say.
Here is what I think: I think that life is either black or white. 0 or 1, true or false. That's logig. Therefore as a religious person I think that something is either right or wrong. NOW: keeping my religiousness out of the sexual preference debate, and assuming that we must not discriminate against any sexual preference, we could infer using my judgement that homosexuality is either completely right or completely wrong. AND if it IS right, then ALL sexual preferences are right because we cannot discriminate against any of them. AND pedophilia is a sexual preference, so by that system of reasoning it has to be right, because every other sexual preference is.
You are either for people's rights to have sex with whatever/whoever they want, or you are discriminating against SOMEONE... whether you discriminate against pedophiles, homosexuals or Bestialists it's still discrimination and intolerance. whether you are right to do so or not is up to a system of morals, which is what makes people closed-minded to other people's needs/wants/sexual preferences etc...

So, please don't think that I actually think pedophilia REALLY IS right in any way, but I could never tell anyone that I tihnk homosexuality is right either. And I don't even think they are the same things, or even curable diseases. (tohught they might be... sciendce has not found EVERYTHINg yet.)

You're a fully fledge mormon aren't you satchmo?

Just because someones faith means they are unable to accept something doesnt mean they are a bad person obviously, its just such an emotive subject. Saying that, comparing homosexuality to paedophilia is not far enough imo, i'd compare it to kidnap-rape-infanticide

edit - given that all your opinions are governed by the strict interpretations of your religion, there is little differerence between you and someone who is genuinely homophobic because they dont really understand it. You have tried to understand it but with the overarching word of the bible affecting everything you come across.

Mormons? They just wear funny hats and have sex with their daughters.

NARROW-MINDED BIGOT!!!!!!!!!!!!!! </sarcasm>

Not true or false, 0-1. Boolean. I sugges you read a book on computers.

seventth-monkey: I've read more textbooks than you can imagine.

Wow, great. I think you missed the point.

assuming that we must not discriminate against any sexual preference, we could infer using my judgement that homosexuality is either completely right or completely wrong. AND if it IS right, then ALL sexual preferences are right because we cannot discriminate against any of them

So, please don't think that I actually think pedophilia REALLY IS right in any way, but I could never tell anyone that I tihnk homosexuality is right either

Wow, way to argue yourself into a corner. So either all sex is wrong, or homosexuality... isn't sex?

he was running against his vice president? eh?

Just because you are 18 and can have sex legally with an older person, doesn't make you an adult at all. There are many people out there who should be considered children well into their twenties. Plus in other countries the age of consent is different.
I would say you are an adult when you stop growing.

Some people just can't stop growing though. They keep on growing into their fifties, until they're about 500 lb (226.79619 kg). Then they die from a massive heart attack.

And our ears and nose keep growing til we die, right?

Uhh...no.

Well, I've been hearing that for quite a long time, and after a quick google search, a lot of people have heard about it too. Something about our eyes being the same since birth and our ears and nose always growing.

"The will of the people is paramount!" - Arnold Schwarzenegger

Pepper: I teach a dual enrollment class on computers at a high school. Certified by high school as well as an acredited college. I know what I'm talking about, man.

Seventh-Monkey: that's not what I meant, you're missing the point. You either have to say that all sexual preferences are right or just heterosexuality. You may ask why only heterosexuality, it's because it is the only one that produces offspring.

Jobabob: I am different from some homophobic gay-hater. I don't hate gays or anyone. I just disagree with thier lifestyle.

A lifestyle implies complete freedom of choice. The homosexual lifestyle has inherent limitations and risks. There are crazies out there to kill them.

You're implying a similar scenario that they willingly choose such lifestyle, which could be life-threatening.

It's as if they walked into a restaurant, and the waiter hands them a menu. They pick "Let's see...is the special brain hemorrhage and being hacked to pieces?"

Waitor: "Yes indeed"

Gay: "What about not being able to marry?"

Waitor: "That's the chef's specialty".

Gay: "Then that's what I'll have."

Waitor: "Anything on the dessert list?"

Gay: "...yeah, I think I'll have the being castrated by religious gay bashers with my main course."

Seventh-Monkey: that's not what I meant, you're missing the point. You either have to say that all sexual preferences are right or just heterosexuality. You may ask why only heterosexuality, it's because it is the only one that produces offspring.

Not everything is so bipolar as you see it, unless you actually believe "you are for the president or you are a terrorist".

Anyway, bisexuality can produce offspring and surrogate mothers through IVF dont even have sex, evil!

Surrogate mothers and IVF participants do not display an IVF sexual preference. And sure bisexual PEOPLE can reproduce, but only through heterosexual sexual intercourse. You're such an argumentative dumbass, you just sit there and spout shite from your mouth. "oh, bisexuals can have babies!" yeah, can they do it with someone of the same sex? You're the type of person that gives humans a bad name. You don't seem to be able to... think. Yes, the PERSON is bisexual, but there are only the two types of sex that you can have with "consenting adults:" hetero and homo.

what about sodomy? oh thats for a new debate!

xyos212:
This is not a personal attack. However, I find it funny that you would be offended by someone judging you in a forum post; considering that you have done the same to many others. You misunderstood my point about the fight, but who cares. However, you cannot jump to conclusions about someone from a forum post. You said the same. At least we agree about that.
peace.

what about sodomy? oh thats for a new debate!

If it's with a male, it's homo. If it's with a female, it's hetero. Why don't you understand basic concepts like "boys and girls?"

I always thought that an Anus is an Anus regardless of who owns it.

Does one Anus have an adams apple?, does one Anus iron/cook clean/wash/make the beds and the other Anus go to the pub with its mates?

I didn't think they where gendor seperated

If it's with a male, it's homo. If it's with a female, it's hetero. Why don't you understand basic concepts like "boys and girls?"

What about asexual reproduction? What about people born with mutilated genitals, they are clearly scum!

with mutilated genitals, they are clearly scum!

you seen me in the showers again, rules me out!

Jobabob, when you see a person asexually reproducing, take a picture and send it.

Everyone- even with mutalited or malformed equipment- is either male o female. Even those with Klienfelters and Turner's syndrome are male OR female.

what about androgenous haemaphrodites?

even THEY are genetically "male" or "female" whether they look it or not.

but surely they should goto hell for being gender confused

uh, I guess if they want to go there, they can.

God really needs to clarify this bible thing, its far too vague, if he did that i'd worship him again

I'd invite Him over for tea if he comes to my apartment.

I refuse to capitalize any religious name, unless I have to in a school paper.

In my case it was due to correct sentence structure

God IS in your apartment, satchmo. He's behind the couch.

God really needs to clarify this bible thing, its far too vague, if he did that i'd worship him again

2000 years of human agenda and constant rewriting has pretty much made the bible nonsensical, I'm pretty sure it made sense as the first edition.
Its pretty fucking presumptious for people to correct the word of God!

Hmm.
This may be a terribly stupid question...But is there, or was there a original Bible? Like is there one Bible somewhere that all the others have been copied from?

I don't imagine it was written all in one go.

God IS in your apartment, satchmo. He's behind the couch.

Darn! No wonder I can't find Him. I never clean back there.

And the Bible was written by hundreds of people, over hundreds of years. Even the lowly scribes who copied the Bible frequently modify the content as they saw fit.

The bottom line is, the Bible was written by men (I am sure the religious majoritty did not allow the weaker gender to intervene in such important matter). In fact, many religious scholars agree that Jesus was probably a married man.

In fact, many religious scholars agree that Jesus was probably a married man.

Hard to beleive when Jesus didn't actually exist.

What the are you on about? Jesus Christ was a real person who went around preaching and whatnot. It's whether people chose to believe what he said or not that made them Christian or not. Only someone not knowledgable of basic world history wouldn't think that Jesus existed.

He's not real if i don't beleive he is. Argue about that.

Half-arsed theories of mine:

1. If 'e was real, he was obviously just somebody vaguely revolutionary.
2. His revival around Easter was some confused medical observation.

The bible is infallible because it SAYS its infallible, the stance is supposed to be that despite being written by fallible mortals it is still essentially the word of God. It has a good set of morals to live you life by and improve humanity but at the same time it tries to completely alienate and attack any kind of diversity and has a LOT of cray shit in its pages. While it may have been better back in the darker ages I think we as a society dont really need religion anymore, we are more than capable of living our lives without going mental because we dont think a giant man in the sky will judge us when we are dead. The belief that society would return to better times if we all went back to church is just nonsense.

The belief that society would return to better times if we all went back to church is just nonsense.

I'm not sure if it's from the act of going to church itself or just more people having the morals espoused in the Bible.

Thats what I meant, following the teachings of Jesus essentially is the christian 'moral code'

Is it only me or is freeman, religious freeman, and spikey blue hair freeman all argueing for 10 posts very funny