Page 25 of 25 FirstFirst ... 15232425
Results 241 to 247 of 247

Thread: Outspoken gay activist called back to active Army duty

  1. #241
    Hippie Hater
    texmaster's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    Dallas TEXAS
    Last Seen
    08-20-15 @ 01:17 AM
    Lean
    Very Conservative
    Posts
    3,969

    Re: Outspoken gay activist called back to active Army duty

    Quote Originally Posted by CriticalThought View Post
    That is why laws should be based on rational.
    Rational according to who?

    Can't you see the hypocrisy and uncharted narcissism in that statement?

    There was no rational behind sodomy laws so they were overturned. There is no rational behind denying two people of the same sex the right to a civil marriage. Whether or not it is a choice doesn't even come into play.
    You really are hopeless. Until you can understand your ideas of morality are not universal to all people you will never come to grips that your "live and let live" bs answer is based on YOUR morality nothing more.

    The arrogance is you pretending your morality is something everyone agrees with or that its the only "rational" point of view.

    It would be funny if it wasn't so sad.
    Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other.

    John Adams

  2. #242
    Sage
    CriticalThought's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Last Seen
    12-13-17 @ 08:36 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian
    Posts
    18,125

    Re: Outspoken gay activist called back to active Army duty

    Quote Originally Posted by texmaster View Post
    You really are hopeless. Until you can understand your ideas of morality are not universal to all people you will never come to grips that your "live and let live" bs answer is based on YOUR morality nothing more.

    The arrogance is you pretending your morality is something everyone agrees with or that its the only "rational" point of view.

    It would be funny if it wasn't so sad.
    I'm not saying it is universal. I'm saying I don't care how others live their lives.. As far as I'm concerned, you are perfectly free to be a controlling tyrant all you want as long as you aren't doing anything to hurt me or others. I'll live my life the way I choose, and as far as I am concerned, as long as I'm not hurting anyone or you, you have no basis to interfere in my life.

    See how that works. I'm only responsible for my own choices. I could give a **** how you live your life, because I don't think like you. I don't have to control others to be happy. I can be happy living my own life.

  3. #243
    Hippie Hater
    texmaster's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    Dallas TEXAS
    Last Seen
    08-20-15 @ 01:17 AM
    Lean
    Very Conservative
    Posts
    3,969

    Re: Outspoken gay activist called back to active Army duty

    Quote Originally Posted by CriticalThought View Post
    I'm not saying it is universal. I'm saying I don't care how others live their lives.. As far as I'm concerned, you are perfectly free to be a controlling tyrant all you want as long as you aren't doing anything to hurt me or others. I'll live my life the way I choose, and as far as I am concerned, as long as I'm not hurting anyone or you, you have no basis to interfere in my life.

    See how that works. I'm only responsible for my own choices. I could give a **** how you live your life, because I don't think like you. I don't have to control others to be happy. I can be happy living my own life.
    You just lied because you've already said you support changing the law for EVERYONE.

    You can't fall back on that when you want to change the law for everyone based on your interpretation of morality and most importantly, without being able to prove factual backing to your standpoint.


    You don't have a "live and let live" policy. You have a "live and let live the way I want it" policy towards the law.

    And your doubletake on pedophilia was truly classic. I've never seen anyone say they are for it and against it in the same breath. I take it thats why you didn't respond when I called you on it.
    Last edited by texmaster; 02-28-10 at 02:36 PM.
    Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other.

    John Adams

  4. #244
    Sage
    CriticalThought's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Last Seen
    12-13-17 @ 08:36 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian
    Posts
    18,125

    Re: Outspoken gay activist called back to active Army duty

    Quote Originally Posted by texmaster View Post
    You just lied because you've already said you support changing the law for EVERYONE.
    When did I say that? I only said I supported changing laws and policies that were harmful towards me. I'm not some sort of dictator who can push laws on other people. It takes elections and law makers to change the law. All I can do is vote for who I want to represent me. And that means it takes many, many people to change the law, not just me.

    You don't have a "live and let live" policy. You have a "live and let live the way I want it" policy towards the law.
    No, I advocate to change only laws that harmful to me or others. You don't listen very well.

    And your doubletake on pedophilia was truly classic. I've never seen anyone say they are for it and against it in the same breath. I take it thats why you didn't respond when I called you on it.
    Some people are comfortable in living in ambiguity and some are not. I don't know how many times I've met Christians who say they love homosexuals but hate the sin of homosexual behavior. I have a very similar stance to pedophilia because I consider it harmful, but as long a pedophile isn't acting on it, then I don't care.

  5. #245
    Hippie Hater
    texmaster's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    Dallas TEXAS
    Last Seen
    08-20-15 @ 01:17 AM
    Lean
    Very Conservative
    Posts
    3,969

    Re: Outspoken gay activist called back to active Army duty

    Quote Originally Posted by CriticalThought View Post
    When did I say that? I only said I supported changing laws and policies that were harmful towards me.
    If that were true then you would not be supporting changing the law for homosexuals which you clearly do. Don't make me look up your own quotes on this.

    I'm not some sort of dictator who can push laws on other people. It takes elections and law makers to change the law. All I can do is vote for who I want to represent me. And that means it takes many, many people to change the law, not just me.
    Bull****. You support changing the LAW. To change a law requires and argument and it requires facts to go along with that argument. Your personal moral viewpoint on homosexuals is not ground for changing law under your own philosophy.

    No, I advocate to change only laws that harmful to me or others. You don't listen very well.
    I listen fine. You just can't get your head around the fact that your definition of harmful is for you alone. When you change law it effects everyone so you cannot use your own moral judgment as an argument to change law. How is this so hard for you to understand?

    Some people are comfortable in living in ambiguity and some are not. I don't know how many times I've met Christians who say they love homosexuals but hate the sin of homosexual behavior. I have a very similar stance to pedophilia because I consider it harmful, but as long a pedophile isn't acting on it, then I don't care.
    Thats the whole damn point. You can't claim you support or are indifferent or whatever you want to call it about pedophilia then turn around and say if they act on it that is against the law. That is hardly "live and let live"

    The hypocrisy you are displaying is truly amazing. How you think you can support pedos but not the action of pedos is really a sight to be seen.

    Again, the entire point of that example is to prove your "live and let live" philosophy is a sham because you would impose laws against pedos who perform the act and your argument to justify this claim is based solely on your own moral judgment so you do not have a "live and let live" philosophy. You have a "live and let live under my moral code" philosophy which is exactly what you use for your argument on homosexuality.
    Last edited by texmaster; 02-28-10 at 05:46 PM.
    Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other.

    John Adams

  6. #246
    Sage
    CriticalThought's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Last Seen
    12-13-17 @ 08:36 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian
    Posts
    18,125

    Re: Outspoken gay activist called back to active Army duty

    Quote Originally Posted by texmaster View Post
    If that were true then you would not be supporting changing the law for homosexuals which you clearly do. Don't make me look up your own quotes on this.
    Please do. It's amusing how you are still trying to distort my words.

    Bull****. You support changing the LAW. To change a law requires and argument and it requires facts to go along with that argument. Your personal moral viewpoint on homosexuals is not ground for changing law under your own philosophy.
    I vote for officials who I feel will change laws that are harmful to me or others as I would hope you vote for officials who change laws you feel are harmful to you and others. That is what a citizen is suppose to do, and expanding anyone's freedom as long as it doesn't infringe on another man's freedom, increases the freedom of everyone.

    I listen fine. You just can't get your head around the fact that your definition of harmful is for you alone. When you change law it effects everyone so you cannot use your own moral judgment as an argument to change law. How is this so hard for you to understand?
    I know very well what hurts me and what doesn't hurt me is my own subjective experience. I never denied it. But what hurts you and doesn't hurt you is your subjective experience. It is the same for everyone. But neither one of us can change the law alone. It is only when several people agree that a law is harmful to us or others that we are able to change it. So I'm not sure why you are accusing me of "changing the law'. I have no such power. I only have the power to vote and if no one else agrees with me, then my vote is useless.

    Thats the whole damn point. You can't claim you support or are indifferent or whatever you want to call it about pedophilia then turn around and say if they act on it that is against the law. That is hardly "live and let live"
    Let me break it down for you. Pedophilia is a mental disorder. A person does not have to molest children to be diagnosed as a pedophile. Look it up in the DSM. I have no problem with a pedophile who does not molest children. His issues are his own to deal with and hopefully he seeks help for them. Where I draw the line is when he acts in such a way that is harmful to others. That is why I have said, over and over again, that as long as someone is not hurting someone else or me, I could care less how they live their lives.

    The hypocrisy you are displaying is truly amazing. How you think you can support pedos but not the action of pedos is really a sight to be seen.
    I don't really "support" pedos. I just don't care what pedos do as long as they aren't molesting children and effectively harming people. That is this thing called "tolerance". I know that somehow you don't have that capability, but that is really your problem, not mine.

    Again, the entire point of that example is to prove your "live and let live" philosophy is a sham because you would impose laws against pedos who perform the act and your argument to justify this claim is based solely on your own moral judgment so you do not have a "live and let live" philosophy. You have a "live and let live under my moral code" philosophy which is exactly what you use for your argument on homosexuality.
    I don't impose laws on anyone. I'm one man. I can't create or enforce laws by myself. I only offer my input on what I consider harmful and what I don't consider harmful by voting just like everyone else does. For some sad reason, you believe that homosexuality and gay marriage are harmful even though you can't provide much of an explaination for why. Whereas I can provide a detailed rational explaination for why pedophilia is harmful, supported by evidence. But alas, something tells me you wouldn't understand it anyways.

    But hey, it is amusing that are so uncomfortable with my ability to live without trying to control others that you are desperately trying to put me in the same box as you. Are you feeling a bit guilty? Sounds like a personal problem.
    Last edited by CriticalThought; 02-28-10 at 10:27 PM.

  7. #247
    Professor

    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    Nashville, TN
    Last Seen
    11-21-14 @ 03:20 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Slightly Liberal
    Posts
    2,120

    Re: Outspoken gay activist called back to active Army duty

    Quote Originally Posted by texmaster View Post
    If that were true then you would not be supporting changing the law for homosexuals which you clearly do. Don't make me look up your own quotes on this.



    Bull****. You support changing the LAW. To change a law requires and argument and it requires facts to go along with that argument. Your personal moral viewpoint on homosexuals is not ground for changing law under your own philosophy.



    I listen fine. You just can't get your head around the fact that your definition of harmful is for you alone. When you change law it effects everyone so you cannot use your own moral judgment as an argument to change law. How is this so hard for you to understand?



    Thats the whole damn point. You can't claim you support or are indifferent or whatever you want to call it about pedophilia then turn around and say if they act on it that is against the law. That is hardly "live and let live"

    The hypocrisy you are displaying is truly amazing. How you think you can support pedos but not the action of pedos is really a sight to be seen.

    Again, the entire point of that example is to prove your "live and let live" philosophy is a sham because you would impose laws against pedos who perform the act and your argument to justify this claim is based solely on your own moral judgment so you do not have a "live and let live" philosophy. You have a "live and let live under my moral code" philosophy which is exactly what you use for your argument on homosexuality.
    HUGE difference between the two points you guys are arguing:

    Your interpretation (i.e. current law and the constitutional amendments many are passing) restrict rights.

    To alter the laws to allow gays to serve in the military or to marry civilly doesn't restrict your rights or anyone else's.

    The Supreme Court (especially when it overturned Colorado's Amendment 2) specifically stated that to legally discriminate you MUST have rational proof that it is society's interest to do so.

    In other words - regardless of the moral back and forth the two of you have been taking part in - (a fair discussion; but irrelevant to the larger point) - legally, its imparted upon you to uphold the discrimination. You MUST provide rationale as to why you would restrict the rights of others, especially in light of the fact that your rights would not be altered in any way, shape, or form.

    You talk about the law being "imposed on everyone" - if the law were to require people to be gay; if the law forced people into same-sex marriages - you would have a point.

    No one is proposing that that I'm aware of.

Page 25 of 25 FirstFirst ... 15232425

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •