Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ETWolverine

DC,

I am curious. What is it that offends you about sadomasochistic sex practices? It's between two concenting adults isn't it? As far as they are concerned, they LIKE the pain. That would be their choice, wouldn't it? What makes that more offensive to you than gay sex?

I am not trying to support either gay sex or sadomasochistic sex. I am just trying to understand what your objection to one, but not the other, is. Aren't they both just examples of different lifestyle choices than the one you have chosen for yourself?

Elliot

---

Any attempt in philosophy to understand morality or evaluative thought generally leads subjectivism. The idea, in a word, is that values are “subjective,” that questions of value are not questions with “objective” answers. What they all have in common is the thought that there are no evaluative facts. So we are left with only pragmatics as a method for evaluating goodness, or badness of a thing or a course of action is not something that belongs to the world as it is in itself, independently of us.
I believe history has shown that it is pragmatically harmful to a society that holds to the belief that inflicting pain, or suffering is a good thing.

DC, now you're stepping out of the bedroom into bigger things, which isn't a bad thing. A state that supports sadistic behavior definitely is a bad thing, but S&M isn't national policy, it's a fetish indulged in by very few people.

I don't think people's sexual kinks are anything to be worried about. If anything, allowing S&M gets it out of their system! As the wolverine pointed out, as long as it's between consenting adults, who cares? Does somebody getting spanked really affect you that much?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by americangayboy

DC, now you're stepping out of the bedroom into bigger things, which isn't a bad thing. A state that supports sadistic behavior definitely is a bad thing, but S&M isn't national policy, it's a fetish indulged in by very few people.

I don't think people's sexual kinks are anything to be worried about. If anything, allowing S&M gets it out of their system! As the wolverine pointed out, as long as it's between consenting adults, who cares? Does somebody getting spanked really affect you that much?

---

I’m not sure that that is what wolverine had in mind. Never the less, the artist [not me] brought it out of the bedroom, just as activist brought homosexuality out of the bedroom not many years ago, and I don’t believe we can equate the two. However, by the artist bringing it out, and people accepting it as normal, we all enter a ‘slippery slope,’ just as we did with homosexuality.

Yeah I think that ET was beginning to illustrate the slippery slope argument. Is there any sexual activity to be taboo ?

Tom,

That is PART of where I was going with my point. However, I am also really just trying to understand DC's position on the issue from a logical point of view.

He essentially stated in his answer to me above that the position isn't logical but emotional... that any attempt to understand his position would require subjectivism rather than objectivism. Or to use other words, in order to understand his position, one would have to make a PERSONAL and SUBJECTIVE decision between what is right and what is wrong, rather than having an objective standard of right and wrong. This

In other words, Evan Sayet was right when he said that modern liberal thought eliminates any standards of what is right and wrong, good and bad, in favor of the "right to think and act differently from others" because such thoughts and actions are all equally valid and equally "right". This is the basis of moral relativism in a nutshell.

In any case, the point has been made. DC's position, while I respect it, is not based on either morality or logic, but rather on his subjective feelings and emotions vis-à-vis sadomasochistic sex and gay sex. That's fine. And at least he has the guts to admitt that. I respect him for that. A lot of guys (and girls) state their opinions on such issues as if they are completely logical, and when holes are punched through their "logic", they get defensive about it and start calling us homophobes and bigots. DC states quite openly that to understand his position requires subjective thinking and "pragmatism", and he's not afraid to admitt that. That takes guts.

Elliot

Sorry DC, I should've been more clear. I meant your taking the S&M out of the "bedroom" and putting it in the realm of society. I didn't mean that you single handedly made the country aware of S&M.

As for your comment on queer activists bringing gay sex out of the bedroom in the 60's, I want to remind you how it all got started. The gay-rights movement was the product of years of persecution. Gay men and women were often arrested just for gathering (you can read a little about the Stonewall riot of 1969). Before Stonewall, the GLBT community was quiet and scared and did, in fact, mind their own business.

I also want to talk about the "throwing it in my face" argument that I often hear. I think, and I may be wrong, that this argument is really about flamboyancy and willingness to disclose personal information. Flamboyantly gay men really make some straight men uncomfortable. I get that, and there's nothing I can do about it BUT, being flamboyant is being one's self, not throwing something in your face. Should I take it as you throwing your marriage in my face when you talk about your wife? I've had the experience that even when asked about my dating life, people (straight men in particular) get uncomfortable. Why is it okay for you to talk about your family/dating life, but I can't... even when asked about it? I think this is one of the most ignorant arguments there is in the GLBT realm. You're saying you hate us, but don't want to be pegged a hater.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ETWolverine

Tom,

That is PART of where I was going with my point. However, I am also really just trying to understand DC's position on the issue from a logical point of view.

He essentially stated in his answer to me above that the position isn't logical but emotional... that any attempt to understand his position would require subjectivism rather than objectivism. Or to use other words, in order to understand his position, one would have to make a PERSONAL and SUBJECTIVE decision between what is right and what is wrong, rather than having an objective standard of right and wrong. This

In other words, Evan Sayet was right when he said that modern liberal thought eliminates any standards of what is right and wrong, good and bad, in favor of the "right to think and act differently from others" because such thoughts and actions are all equally valid and equally "right". This is the basis of moral relativism in a nutshell.

In any case, the point has been made. DC's position, while I respect it, is not based on either morality or logic, but rather on his subjective feelings and emotions vis-a-vis sadomasochistic sex and gay sex. That's fine. And at least he has the guts to admitt that. I respect him for that. A lot of guys (and girls) state their opinions on such issues as if they are completly logical, and when holes are punched through their "logic", they get defensive about it and start calling us homophobes and bigots. DC states quite openly that to understand his position requires subjective thinking and "pragmatism", and he's not afraid to admitt that. That takes guts.

Elliot

---

You are right Elliot, I don’t accept either Bush or Osama Ben Laden’s view of morality, both are Bible based and that is only one small example of the grief and suffering that that sort of Morality has caused in the history of man.

What Evan Sayet doesn’t give us is the truth, and that is we do have a basis for determining morality, and that is based on the history of events through the flow of time.

DC, I don't understand what you're getting at. Does something have to be truthful to be legal? Does it have to be truthful to be moral? Just throwing it out there.

I do agree with you that Judeo-Christian morality is not an end all to the morality debate. I think religious texts often have good lessons, but by no means are they absolute. I think it's sick what people justify with the Bible or the Koran. Apparently, torture and mass murder are a-okay if done in the name of god. Also, it's somehow OK to crap on poor people as long as you don't support abortion, etc. I don't get it.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by americangayboy

DC, I don't understand what you're getting at. Does something have to be truthful to be legal? Does it have to be truthful to be moral? Just throwing it out there.

I do agree with you that Judeo-Christian morality is not an end all to the morality debate. I think religious texts often have good lessons, but by no means are they absolute. I think it's sick what people justify with the Bible or the Koran. Apparently, torture and mass murder are a-okay if done in the name of god. Also, it's somehow ok to crap on poor people as long as you don't support abortion, etc. I don't get it.

---

In philosophy what is true or false are propositions, statements that are representative of what is so, or not so, and what is at issue is whether the truth is absolute or if there is a possibility that it is not. Lawyers and judges do not trade in propositional truth-statements; rather, they deal in facts, evidence, arguments, and burdens of proof. The word “truth” only arises in American legal practice in two contexts: testimony under oath and the associated crime of perjury, and the defense to a charge of defamation (defamation requires that the statement be false). Fact-finding by the courts is not an attempt to determine “the truth” in some absolute sense, but to make a finding based on the weight of evidence actually admitted. Legal rulings by the courts do not decide the truth or falsity of legal claims; they apply existing case precedents and applicable statutes, if any, to the case at bar.

P.S. EDIT…American Law is based on pragmatics.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by americangayboy

Sorry DC, I should've been more clear. I meant your taking the S&M out of the "bedroom" and putting it in the realm of society. I didn't mean that you single handedly made the country aware of S&M.

As for your comment on queer activists bringing gay sex out of the bedroom in the 60's, I want to remind you how it all got started. The gay-rights movement was the product of years of persecution. Gay men and women were often arrested just for gathering (you can read a little about the Stonewall riot of 1969). Before Stonewall, the GLBT community was quiet and scared and did, in fact, mind their own business.

I also want to talk about the "throwing it in my face" argument that I often hear. I think, and I may be wrong, that this argument is really about flamboyancy and willingness to disclose personal information. Flamboyantly gay men really make some straight men uncomfortable. I get that, and there's nothing I can do about it BUT, being flamboyant is being one's self, not throwing something in your face. Should I take it as you throwing your marriage in my face when you talk about your wife? I've had the experience that even when asked about my dating life, people (straight men in particular) get uncomfortable. Why is it okay for you to talk about your family/dating life, but I can't...even when asked about it? I think this is one of the most ignorant arguments there is in the GLBT realm. You're saying you hate us, but don't want to be pegged a hater.

---

In the 60’s, I was in my 20’s. My wife and I lived in Laguna Beach, and near the corner of Haight & Ashbury, San Francisco during some of those times. Most of our friends were gay and they, for the most part, were very open in their behavior. We happened to be in the heart of West Coast activism because I was a painter, and she an activist poet. I say that only to point out that my knowledge of gay activism is first hand, and not from what I have read.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by shygrneyzs

If you would only use this site as an example of what professed atheists use as attacks against Christians or anyone who believes there is God, you would know there is no politeness.

---

Apparently you have blocked out all the posts from those lovely christians that condemn everyone who isn't like them and tell them how wrong they are.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Dark_crow

What Evan Sayet doesn’t give us is the truth, and that is we do have a basis for determining morality, and that is based on the history of events through the flow of time.

---

So there is an historical aspect to morality, is there? I tend to agree with that. However, there is a large part of our community that is trying to change all the historical norms of society and create a "new" sense of morality. Simply put, if "XYZ" was wrong throughout most of history, why has it suddenly become okay in the 20th and 21st centuries? If there is an historical component to morality, why is that historical definition of morality being ignored?

That is what Sayet is saying in his argument... we have thousands of years of history to define what is right, good and moral, vs. what is wrong, bad, and immoral. Along comes the "modern liberal" and says "Those old definitions no longer apply, we are in a new world, the old definitions never really worked anyway, they caused wars, poverty, etc. and we should ignore morality so as to make sure that nobody is 'right or wrong', just different, and in that way eliminate war, poverty, etc." So the whole historical component of morality is ignored by the modern liberal in favor of indescriminateness and moral equivalence. If anything, your statement that there is an historical component to morality strengthens Sayet's argument.

Again, not an accusation of you. I am just trying to understand your position. You say there is an historic component to morality. What is that component, and how do you reconcile your definition of morality with the definitions that have existed for the past (roughly) 5,000 years?

Elliot

Elliot

The only historical aspect of morality is Religious and that was the claim to infallibility. What Liberal epistemologists have done is say, no, morality is not made-up of infallible truths that are absolute for every society now and forever. Let me remind you that the Christian Left does not hold to that. So yes, the old definitions do not apply any longer except for folks like Osama Ben Laden and in America people who are of the same stripe. You read my justification regarding the acceptance of B&D so you must be aware that I don't hold to the concept of moral equivalence. That is no more than a Fundamentalist strawman. The historical morality that Paine espoused regarding human rights was based on reason and history, not some Scriptures.

What happened to being polite and respectful?

They were gunned down in a drive-by, the main suspects were rudeness and disrespect

I think it's a GREAT thing to reevalutate morality and tradition. Some "morals" are completely stupid, others not. Some things that are considered immoral are completely benign.

Should morality be up to individual discretion? I find that scary dangerous. For one person perhaps adultery is acceptable, yet another murder. How about stealing? Lying? I said, "lying?!" Oops! There goes the politicians (lol). But seriously, where does it end or better yet where does that lead? I prefer, above anything else, a system of conduct. Personally, although I may not be as traditional as others, I do recognize the Torah as that (Master) blueprint. But I realize that's not for everybody, more specifically non-Jews, but let's not forget that the Noachide laws and the Decalogue (Ten commandments) are used throughout most major societies to some degree as applied to everyone. Many justice systems around the world, even if loosely based, are examples. As for the original intent or thought of the US founding fathers, I think there must had been a mixed bag of ideas. For certain we had some inference religious thought, but on the other hand, the country ended up having to resolve it's on abusive immoral power when finally getting around to the Emancipation Proclamation a century later.



Bobby

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by BABRAM

Should morality be up to individual discretion?! I find that scary dangerous. For one person perhaps adultery is acceptable, yet another murder. How about stealing? Lying? I said, "lying?!" Oops! There goes the politicians (lol). But seriously, where does it end or better yet where does that lead?! I prefer, above anything else, a system of conduct. Personally, although I may not be as traditional as others, I do recognize the Torah as that (Master) blueprint. But I realize that's not for everybody, more specifically non-Jews, but let's not forget that the Noachide laws and the Decalogue (Ten commandments) are used throughout most major societies to some degree as applied to everyone. Many justice systems around the world, even if loosely based, are examples. As for the original intent or thought of the US founding fathers, I think there must had been a mixed bag of ideas. For certain we had some inference religious thought, but on the other hand, the country ended up having to resolve it's on abusive immoral power when finally getting around to the Emancipation Proclamation a century later.



Bobby

---

Your mind is a flower…your thoughts are the seeds…
The harvest can be either flowers or weeds…

Of course your morality is an individual discretion…so long as you have free will.

DC,

If "the only historical aspect of morality is Religious and that was the claim to infallibility", then what did yopu mean in your prior post when you said "we do have a basis for determining morality, and that is based on the history of events through the flow of time"? These two statements would seem to be contradictory. Can you please clear that up?

Quote:

---

What Liberal epistemologists have done is say, no, morality is not made-up of infallible truths that are absolute for every society now and forever.

---

Yes, that is what Sayet argues the liberals have done. But he takes it further by arguing that in order to accomplish that, modern liberals will "invariably choose wrong over right, bad over good and immoral over moral". (His words, not mine.) He uses examples of liberals who trash the troops as baby-killers and mass murderers while at the same time supporting the rights of terrorists held in Guantanimo, liberals who demand free speech for those who trash the Bible and religion in art while at the same time protesting statues of the Ten Commandments at court houses, liberals who demand higher taxes for the "rich" in order to "punish success" while supporting welfare programs that "reward failure", liberals who support sex education and free condoms for minors but decry any discussion of sexual abstinence as an option for those same minors, etc. In all of these cases and many others, modern liberals choose the path that is directly contrary to the historical norms of morality in favor of a stance that follows moral equivalence (all choices are equal and none are "good" or "bad").

So if we are to take Sayet's argument to its logical conclusion, modern liberal epistomology is no longer based on logic and a desire to find what is right and good, but rather it is based on a desire to eliminate morality as a concept and replace it with moral equivalence. It's not a bad argument, given the number of cases in evidence where that is the final outcome.

Elliot

Elliot

Hegel would not call it a contradiction; he would call it dialectic. We know the tree by its fruits, and however we judge the fruit, we cultivate it.

What Sayet argues against is a silly strawman that don't really exist. Certainly I have read accounts of people writing such nonsense as “the troops are baby-killers and mass murderers.”
To portray all liberals as having that sentiment is simply dishonest when it is quite clear that the great majority of liberals support the troops.

People have the right to trash the Bible and religion, (frankly I can't understand why people believe it, but hay, it's their right) protesting statues of the Ten Commandments at court houses is fine by me, it is unconstitutional to have them on government property.

Sure people demand higher taxes for the "rich," but it is not to "punish success," that would be counterproductive. I support sex education, free condoms for minors, and discussion of sexual abstinence as an option, so what, it sounds reasonable to me; especially in such places as Los Angeles, Detroit, and Atlanta. In all of these cases and many others, modern liberals choose the path that is directly contrary to the historical norms of Religious morality in favor of a stance that follows progress.

There's that moral equivalence strawman again; it is obvious as the hair on my head that Liberals do not believe all values to be equal.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Dark_crow

Your mind is a flower…your thoughts are the seeds…
the harvest can be either flowers or weeds…

Of course your morality is an individual discretion…so long as you have free will.

---

You reap what you have sown because you were given a life of free will. By what perimeters and whose standards do you abide by, your own?


Bobby