Conquer Club

bradleybadly wrote:you're a different kind of liberal here.

Typical Bill O-Reilly comment there...

Bradley it's not so much the line being redrawn as it is societies being forced to rethink what is right and what is wrong. You don't see us evaluating slavery these days, do you? Nope, because we are past that decision.

unriggable wrote:

bradleybadly wrote:you're a different kind of liberal here.

Typical Bill O-Reilly comment there...

Bradley it's not so much the line being redrawn as it is societies being forced to rethink what is right and what is wrong. You don't see us evaluating slavery these days, do you? Nope, because we are past that decision.

What, like under the Third Reich or in the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics, when all objective standards of morality were denied by the State?

Hey, what if your vaunted "society" once rethought that "hey, rape, why not?", or "ethnic cleansing: a fun day out for all the family!"? What then becomes of Animal Farm?

Napoleon Ier wrote:

unriggable wrote:

bradleybadly wrote:you're a different kind of liberal here.

Typical Bill O-Reilly comment there...

Bradley it's not so much the line being redrawn as it is societies being forced to rethink what is right and what is wrong. You don't see us evaluating slavery these days, do you? Nope, because we are past that decision.

What, like under the Third Reich or in the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics, when all objective standards of morality were denied by the State?

Hey, what if your vaunted "society" once rethought that "hey, rape, why not?", or "ethnic cleansing: a fun day out for all the family!"? What then becomes of Animal Farm?

Nappy, by "forced" I think unriggable means "forced by various processes taking place within the society itself", which can range from scientific discoveries or advances influencing our worldview or lifestyle to simply getting a different perspective on a matter. Oppressive regimes can fit in under "various factors" but I doubt they play a very large role in changes taking place in western societies at this time.

As for "objective moral standards", I doubt there is any truly objective moral standard, there are too many factors involved, killing infidels has been or is ok for most religious sects I can think of, it has changed in some of them. There are some relatively objective methods by which one can evaluate whether an action can be considered moral or not in general, but once you get into specifics you can always get the the opposite result.
Still, "hey, rape, why not?" Maybe because 50% of the population will be against it generally since they'll be the likeliest victims and you have no guarantee of getting the whole other 50% to join the pro-rape faction, in case you just want to go by the numbers. Then there's the chance that you'll run into the 2.10m tall body builder with a dick to make a horse envious who likes teenage schoolboys from France, and hey, rape's ok, your consent is not needed, hope you enjoy it as much as he does. The risk of becoming a victim yourself will outweigh any "benefit" you could get from it, and the other person might always decide to try and tell you they don't feel like being raped right there and then in no rather physical ways. If the majority of the population felt that forcing others to have sex with them if they don't want to is ok there's not much that could be done against it.
As for ethnic cleansing, it's happened, pretty often in fact, between tribes, religions, nations, language groups, you name it. I think it falls under the same category as "kill the infidels", "thou shalt not kill, except under these circumstances". This does not mean that I support ethnic cleansing or killing, but to me the fact that they have happened suggests that, given a certain world-view, there are circumstances under which the killing of a group of people other than your in-group can be condoned or even encouraged.

its an abomination and everyone knows its unnatural. they shall have their reward which they bring upon themselves as it is said in the bible...oops cough (aids) cough

THORNHEART wrote:its an abomination and everyone knows its unnatural. they shall have their reward which they bring upon themselves as it is said in the bible...oops cough (aids) cough

Please stay in Canada, we don't want you back here in the U.S.

THORNHEART wrote:its an abomination and everyone knows its unnatural. they shall have their reward which they bring upon themselves as it is said in the bible...oops cough (aids) cough

Yo Thorny, fancy going out with me and Oog to hunt some mammoth later? I hear that the guys in the cave by the pine-trees are having a bit of a painting get-together later and I figured we should take something with us...

Dancing Mustard wrote:

THORNHEART wrote:its an abomination and everyone knows its unnatural. they shall have their reward which they bring upon themselves as it is said in the bible...oops cough (aids) cough

Yo Thorny, fancy going out with me and Oog to hunt some mammoth later? I hear that the guys in the cave by the pine-trees are having a bit of a painting get-together later and I figured we should take something with us...

Snorri1234 wrote:

Dancing Mustard wrote:

THORNHEART wrote:its an abomination and everyone knows its unnatural. they shall have their reward which they bring upon themselves as it is said in the bible...oops cough (aids) cough

Yo Thorny, fancy going out with me and Oog to hunt some mammoth later? I hear that the guys in the cave by the pine-trees are having a bit of a painting get-together later and I figured we should take something with us...

Playing slippery semantics...

You have to admit that was a funny joke.

Napoleon Ier wrote:
Playing slippery semantics...

you an anti-semantic too !?

Snorri1234 wrote:You have to admit that was a funny joke.

Aye...I'll give mouseturd that much.

Zombie thread! Aaaah!

jiminski wrote:

Napoleon Ier wrote:
Playing slippery semantics...

you an anti-semantic too !?

I like.

Neoteny wrote:

jiminski wrote:

Napoleon Ier wrote:
Playing slippery semantics...

you an anti-semantic too !?

I like.

But not as good as the Darwin Valentine's Day card you posted. I still chuckle over that one.

Neoteny wrote:Zombie thread! Aaaah!

And I was the one who killed it.

THORNHEART wrote:its an abomination and everyone knows its unnatural. they shall have their reward which they bring upon themselves as it is said in the bible...oops cough (aids) cough

Cause AIDS never happens to heterosexual couples.

Skittles! wrote:Cause AIDS never happens to heterosexual couples.

or to white women who prefer the missionary position.

Too bad AIDS wouldn't exist without gay sex... oh wait... that's the truth
>_> snap!

In fact that's why we have most STDs. Don't believe me... go ask a doctor. I'm studying to be one...

I'm going to vote pro-"gay people are scary" and all the others, which were funny I might add.

My reasons:
- almost all gay people I know cause so much drama it hurts
- all this drama makes them less productive in working
- dirt old man and gay are the worst combination ever
- they force their beliefs on others

Yes, I said beliefs. Did you know their is an official cross-dressing day for elementary school kids. If that's not forcing beliefs down people throats than evolution is a legitimate scientific notation. Don't give me that "Christians do this business", because that is another topic.

Also, for your reference, there is no REAL evidence that proves the Bible wrong. To our current knowledge, it is a completely true historical account(s) of the early world.

This site probably isn't the best place to talk about not liking gay people.

I noticed... >_> <_<

Gay marriage is exactly like necrophilia, which is illegal I might add. If we give people the legal right to be married to and have sex with (which normally happens before sadly) someone who is not of the opposite sex, then who are we to say they can't be married to animals or dead corpses (just in case you didn't know they were dead) and have sex with them.

Gay sex and having sex with a corpse are on the same level of grotesqueness to me...

END OF LINE...

Nataki Yiro wrote:I noticed... >_> <_<

Gay marriage is exactly like necrophilia, which is illegal I might add. If we give people the legal right to be married to and have sex with (which normally happens before sadly) someone who is not of the opposite sex, then who are we to say they can't be married to animals or dead corpses (just in case you didn't know they were dead) and have sex with them.

Gay sex and having sex with a corpse are on the same level of grotesqueness to me...

END OF LINE...

Just because it's totally gross, ewwwwwwwwwwwwwww, doesn't mean that you should be able to make sweeping judgments of something that should be a strictly religious matter. If a church doesn't want to marry gays, fine. If they do, also fine. We can't make that decision for them because of freedom of religion.

Frigidus wrote:

Nataki Yiro wrote:I noticed... >_> <_<

Gay marriage is exactly like necrophilia, which is illegal I might add. If we give people the legal right to be married to and have sex with (which normally happens before sadly) someone who is not of the opposite sex, then who are we to say they can't be married to animals or dead corpses (just in case you didn't know they were dead) and have sex with them.

Gay sex and having sex with a corpse are on the same level of grotesqueness to me...

END OF LINE...

Just because it's totally gross, ewwwwwwwwwwwwwww, doesn't mean that you should be able to make sweeping judgments of something that should be a strictly religious matter. If a church doesn't want to marry gays, fine. If they do, also fine. We can't make that decision for them because of freedom of religion.

... But we can take children away from polygimists. Strange, that. I guess one's measure of religious freedom depends on the religion.

...

Uh...

::looks around::

BIGOTS!

::cackles and runs away::

You people sicken me. I won't get into why, because you aren't going to listen. Take it easy. Grow up. Get over yourself.

Nataki Yiro wrote:I noticed... >_> <_<

Gay marriage is exactly like necrophilia, which is illegal I might add. If we give people the legal right to be married to and have sex with (which normally happens before sadly) someone who is not of the opposite sex, then who are we to say they can't be married to animals or dead corpses (just in case you didn't know they were dead) and have sex with them.

Gay sex and having sex with a corpse are on the same level of grotesqueness to me...

END OF LINE...

There's a good argument against that, one than can be summed up in one word: consent

Animals and inanimate objects, such as corpses, can't give consent, therefor they cannot be married. A person who is homosexual can give consent, and consequently can be married.

Nobunaga wrote:... But we can take children away from polygimists. Strange, that. I guess one's measure of religious freedom depends on the religion.

There is significant differences between sex with corpses and sex with children. In the first place a corpse doesn't suffer "emotional" trauma. Child sexual abuse is exceptionally damaging to children on a variety of levels. Most polygamists who have been arrested sexually abuse children and recently are in such a state of communial relations that no child is potentially safe from abuse.