Page 80 of 91 FirstFirst ... 3070787980818290 ... LastLast
Results 791 to 800 of 901

Thread: Boy Scouts Banned By Alabama Pastor Greg Walker[W:220:563]

  1. #791
    King of Videos
    dirtpoorchris's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Location
    WA
    Last Seen
    Today @ 05:46 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian
    Posts
    7,008

    Re: Boy Scouts Banned By Alabama Pastor Greg Walker

    Quote Originally Posted by Taylor View Post
    Why would a libertarian say you're not allowed to hold negative opinions of others? That person (like you) would not have a libertarian moral outlook.

    Central to the libertarian philosophy is the idea of negative rights - e.g. your rights to life, liberty and property. These are not rights granted to you by others, but rights that can only be taken away. Libertarians don't recognize so-called positive rights - "the right to healthcare, the right to a living wage" - because they compel action and violate individual liberty.

    From a moral standpoint, a libertarian believes that people are ONLY morally obligated NOT to infringe on the rights of others. From a libertarian standpoint, it is immoral to push someone off of a cliff (you are depriving them of life). However, if they are hanging on the side, pleading for help - you are not morally obligated to provide assistance (though you may very well do so). That person put himself in danger and it would in fact be immoral to demand that you assist him (it infringes on your liberty).

    You seem to believe that this preacher has a moral duty to treat gay people as he would any other - in that a failure to perform that 'duty' justifies your condemnation. This is not a libertarian view. Whereas you believe in a minimalist government, at an individual level you do not subscribe to a minimalist moral theory. You do not believe in the "supremacy of individual rights and personal freedoms over and against any kind of authority" - instead subscribing to a non-governmental imposition of social norms upon those who would behave in a manner contrary to your wishes.
    A lot of that sounds good and I agree with. If someone was too scared to help somenoe clinging to a cliff I wouldn't blame them because they may get pulled down themselves. Although I would still think they are a despicable person for not trying. Noone is saying he CANT disallow gays. We are saying he shouldn't.
    I'm Finding it Harder to be a Gentleman, White Stripes ~ "You think I care about me and only me. When every girl needs help climbing up a tree."

  2. #792
    Sage
    Mach's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Location
    Texas
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 05:55 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Slightly Liberal
    Posts
    11,450

    Re: Boy Scouts Banned By Alabama Pastor Greg Walker

    Quote Originally Posted by Taylor View Post
    You seem to believe that this preacher has a moral duty to treat gay people as he would any other - in that a failure to perform that 'duty' justifies your condemnation. This is not a libertarian view. .
    Believing someone is immoral, wrong, a coward, etc., does not violate their individual rights, so it would be invisible to this arbitrary libertarian lens you're using.
    If you wanted government to imprison or kill the person who let the cliff-hanger drop, or you did it yourself, that would be in this context a violation of this libertarian ideal. If you just called them a coward and pathetic and you hated them for the rest of your life, where would that violate their individual rights?

  3. #793
    Engineer

    RabidAlpaca's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2012
    Location
    American in Europe
    Last Seen
    Today @ 02:46 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian - Left
    Posts
    14,567

    Re: Boy Scouts Banned By Alabama Pastor Greg Walker

    Quote Originally Posted by Taylor View Post
    Why would a libertarian say you're not allowed to hold negative opinions of others? That person (like you) would not have a libertarian moral outlook.

    Central to the libertarian philosophy is the idea of negative rights - e.g. your rights to life, liberty and property. These are not rights granted to you by others, but rights that can only be taken away. Libertarians don't recognize so-called positive rights - "the right to healthcare, the right to a living wage" - because they compel action and violate individual liberty.

    From a moral standpoint, a libertarian believes that people are ONLY morally obligated NOT to infringe on the rights of others. From a libertarian standpoint, it is immoral to push someone off of a cliff (you are depriving them of life). However, if they are hanging on the side, pleading for help - you are not morally obligated to provide assistance (though you may very well do so). That person put himself in danger and it would in fact be immoral to demand that you assist him (it infringes on your liberty).

    You seem to believe that this preacher has a moral duty to treat gay people as he would any other - in that a failure to perform that 'duty' justifies your condemnation. This is not a libertarian view. Whereas you believe in a minimalist government, at an individual level you do not subscribe to a minimalist moral theory. You do not believe in the "supremacy of individual rights and personal freedoms over and against any kind of authority" - instead subscribing to a non-governmental imposition of social norms upon those who would behave in a manner contrary to your wishes.
    A libertarian moral outlook is believing people have a right to do what they want as long as it doesn't effect someone else's right to do the same. Prevention of coercion between citizens. No matter how you try to whine about it, calling someone a douche is not coercing him or using violence.

    I now realize why you went off on this tangent: because you desperately wanted to avoid rebutting my initial statements, and wanted to go on some bizarre political personal attacks.

    I asked for sources, you had none, and I'm done being distracted from the topic. Goodbye.

    Quote Originally Posted by Mach View Post
    Believing someone is immoral, wrong, a coward, etc., does not violate their individual rights, so it would be invisible to this arbitrary libertarian lens you're using.
    If you wanted government to imprison or kill the person who let the cliff-hanger drop, or you did it yourself, that would be in this context a violation of this libertarian ideal. If you just called them a coward and pathetic and you hated them for the rest of your life, where would that violate their individual rights?
    Can you believe this clown actually believes libertarians can't think people are assholes? I really shouldn't have gone along with this troll for as long as I did. He can't refute anybody's points so he's making up insults.

    Quote Originally Posted by dirtpoorchris View Post
    A lot of that sounds good and I agree with. If someone was too scared to help somenoe clinging to a cliff I wouldn't blame them because they may get pulled down themselves. Although I would still think they are a despicable person for not trying. Noone is saying he CANT disallow gays. We are saying he shouldn't.
    We should all change our leans because apparently as a libertarian you can't have any negative opinions of anybody.

  4. #794
    Sage
    Mach's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Location
    Texas
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 05:55 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Slightly Liberal
    Posts
    11,450

    Re: Boy Scouts Banned By Alabama Pastor Greg Walker

    Quote Originally Posted by RabidAlpaca View Post
    Can you believe this clown actually believes libertarians can't think people are assholes? I really shouldn't have gone along with this troll for as long as I did. He can't refute anybody's points so he's making up insults.
    Let's be fair, I think he provided a clear claim followed by his precise justification, at least in that one post that's rare and welcome...we were easily able to identify his error that way. And further, I think Ayn Rand opened the door for such criticism, while not being a libertarian, the similarities at least in popular culture make it easy for many outsiders to believe all libertarians are also making the broad moral/ethical claims based on those beliefs like Rand did (in her context). But yeah, it's a very distinct thing in reality. I think in some ways liberty is the defense against just that, our emotions. While we may want to crucify the person who lets our friend drop to their death, we respect their life utterly and may even ironically die defending that very persons life, despite emotionally hating their guts. And really that's only in the ideal...in reality if everyone is not adhering to code of conduct (and they are not), a little violation here and there is reasonable, sadly.
    Last edited by Mach; 06-03-13 at 06:14 PM.

  5. #795
    Engineer

    RabidAlpaca's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2012
    Location
    American in Europe
    Last Seen
    Today @ 02:46 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian - Left
    Posts
    14,567

    Re: Boy Scouts Banned By Alabama Pastor Greg Walker

    Quote Originally Posted by Mach View Post
    Let's be fair, I think he provided a clear claim followed by his precise justification, he's a king not a clown!! And further, I think Ayn Rand opened the door for such criticism, while not being a libertarian, the similarities at least in popular culture make it easy for many outsiders to believe all libertarians are also making the broad moral/ethical claims based on those beliefs like Rand did (in her context). But yeah, it's a very distinct thing in reality. I think in some ways liberty is the defense against just that, our emotions. While we may want to crucify the person who lets our friend drop to their death, we respect their life utterly and may even ironically die defending that very persons life, despite emotionally hating their guts.
    I think Ayn Rand thought LOTS of people were douche bags.

    He's trying to compare thinking someone is an asshole or a bad christian is synonymous with wanting to have him hung in the streets. It's petty insults as a smoke screen to avoid a thoughtful response.

  6. #796
    controlled chaos
    Gaugingcatenate's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2013
    Location
    Formerly of the Southern USA, now permanently in the mountains of Panama
    Last Seen
    07-21-17 @ 02:52 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    8,159

    Re: Boy Scouts Banned By Alabama Pastor Greg Walker

    Quote Originally Posted by Hard Truth View Post
    The scientific theory of the origin of life has no rocks making decisions. The first thing to know about the theory is that the evidence suggests that the universe is extremely old and extremely large and the conditions on the extremely large number of planets varies greatly due to varying distance from their stars and the different chemicals found on each planet. The theory is that on one or more of these millions or billions or more planets the conditions were such that the chemicals at some point happened to form into a substance capable of being a building block for life. These chemical building blocks of life combined in various forms until self reproducing life was made. Over millions of years some of these self replicating simple form of life evolved into more complex life forms.

    In my view, this theory seems quite plausible when you consider the size and age of the universe.
    Bringing it down to the practical level, science should culminate in the practical... correct if in error, we classify a thing as to whether it belongs to one of three basic categories, animal, mineral or plant. Subtract animal and plant as being living ....that leaves exactly what (?) to somehow make the decisions? Pretty big decision, too, deciding to become a living thing.

    Rocks, of the three, right? Again, certainly not plants/animals.

    Granting there were plenty of opportunities for all this to occur, what's the actual science behind your theories? Both how, more importantly why? The science behind the why?

    Another how. How did these minerals-come-alive figure out how to use solar energy so seamlessly, efficiently? Life needs energy, rocks don't even need to move, except maybe by gravity...why would it reproduce, what created the mechanism to do so, and again, why would it? Too much complexity of purpose, too rudimentary stage figuring it all out even, seems the best we can do now is only mimic nature's best examples.

    All just came about, not only this big big life thing---from non life, but funny, everything, just coincidentally, was already magically in place, already here waiting to sustain that life once it decided to come into being somehow...because why? Just in that astronomical chance that life might come along, that had never come along before? What's the science behind that happening? And why? This wisdom to do this came from... where? Perhaps from "their" forefather minerals, grandfather rocks, handed that down [ way before the concept of hands ] to these new single celled whatevers that we surmise somehow occurred, on their own... .

    Every aspect of it becomes just more and more and more absurd once you start putting it under the microscope...laughable at times. Reminds me of the cartoon of a wizened caricature, chubby Einstein in three peice suit type, proudly displaying a massive equation filling up one of those old room-long blackboards with marks, white chalk symbols covering every inch of it ... with one slight interruption... at the end of the equation... where it says in parenthesis ( and then a miracle happened) then the equals sign = Life.

    So, my skepticism of your, if you actually believe in all that, deciding whether or not my "sky guy" or "sky gal" ...or whatever I may deduce to be our creator, this brain behind this whole shebang... is the lesser, well, I obviously have no faith in your perception proving itself to be the right one, so, we perceive things differently, I accept that you believe yours, yet certainly do not find yours to be any superior to mine as regards rigor of rationale. If I did, I would switch, weighing the best for society aspect in the balance of that decision as well.

  7. #797
    controlled chaos
    Gaugingcatenate's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2013
    Location
    Formerly of the Southern USA, now permanently in the mountains of Panama
    Last Seen
    07-21-17 @ 02:52 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    8,159

    Re: Boy Scouts Banned By Alabama Pastor Greg Walker

    Quote Originally Posted by RabidAlpaca View Post
    Hrm... Well, rocks have been around for about 13 billion something years, and they haven't evolved, so I'm not quite sure where you're getting that from.

    The fact that you deny evolution is about as silly as denying gravity. Both are "theories", yet both are supported by an unbelievably high amount of evidence. Your hypothesis has been supported with 'lack' of evidence to the contrary. The fact that you even file your evidenceless beliefs with that of the scientific process is quite troubling.

    I also like the "scientists can't create evolution in the lab" argument. It truly shows how clueless you actually are on evolution. First, it has occured in the lab. One of the many cases was fruit flies over 32 generations developing a low tolerance to oxygen conditions that would kill any normal fruit fly. [source]. Out of the lab is where the real evidence is, we see species changing, adapting, and evolving all the time.

    Genetic variance is a concept even you can't deny. You and your sibling may be strikingly different. He may be tall, you short, he has blonde hair, you have brown hair, maybe you have some qualities that don't match your family at all. These variations play a role to your survivability. If you're living in the wild, your brother, being taller or faster, would likely have a higher chance of outliving you, making the chance that he gets to procreate and you don't higher. His children will likely be slightly taller than your children. Pan this out over hundreds of millions of years, millions of generations, and certain genetic mutations will propogate themselves.

    We've proven this happens over, and over, and over again with extreme attention to detail. Though considering your complete lack of knowledge on what evolution even is, I expect this explanation to be completely in vain, as you will likely cover your ears, begin shouting "no no no no" and shove your head back in your bible.

    So seeing as how you've made your views clear about evolution, you must believe both of the following:
    - God is the ultimate trickster. He placed an insurmountable amount of evidence and fossil records in order to trick us into believing the exact opposite of what he wanted us to think.
    - The earth and mankind was created 6,000 years ago in the garden of eden, therefore there can be no evolution.

    Considering those two viewpoints, I don't think any amount of evidence or logic I could possibly present could make you see the light.




    I guess it's always easier to block someone rather than provide a thoughtful rebuttal of his hypothesis.

    Why exactly are you on a debate site right now?
    Sir, I think you may have become somewhat befuddled as to what exactly we are debating? Assumed you understood, my bad... totally.


    Origins. What I am talking about is that which was before, when there was what, nothing, absolutely not a thing.

    How did existence begin, what started it? In the utter absence of that knowledge... we do know there was and is space and rocks/suns/planets that existed, still exist.... We do know: There was space... and it was littered with many rocks without life. So, unless it was space becoming alive, then it must have been those darn rocks so deciding to live. Right?

    And we have not recreated life just creating itself all by itself in the lab, right? [ starting to get it now?]

    Besides...
    In no way did I ever deny that change over time occurs, that things adapt. That, indeed, is observable. Origins coming out of a primordial soup somehow, now that is different... and silly. Even you scoff at it when I take it back to its origins, the rocks.

    Oh, suggestion: ditch the alerts to me as to any troublesomenesses that might occur with you... give me your arguments, make them rational and persuasive, all that other = needless distracting fluff.

    Talking origins here, my man... knock knock...not change over time, as indicated, everyone believes in that, that is provable...

    You folks really go off the rails when getting into your scientific fantasies, those almost religious pronouncements by the titans of science ...fantasies masked as theories about what created the universe, "scientifically". No observable or testable nature to these theories, none, so they are only of the plain and ordinary "created" beliefs variety, just like everyone else's... you cannot, just by will, force it to be scientific... what you do have, mainly, is a bunch of scientists each having convinced each other of their own theory's plausible probability, at least to them.

    Again, origins origins... you are trying to argue change over time instead of arguing the evolutionary origins... how did this all come about, what created all this, and why? Scientifically? Just what is the science behind any of that. The scientific how and the scientific why?

    As regards why I am on debate now, mainly to learn, to force myself to do research into areas I am interested in, to perhaps convince others of the better validity of my viewpoints and ...

    Well, I guess you could include as one of my minor aims at this debate website is to feed the snarky their daily allotment of crow...sure hope you got your good choppers in...

  8. #798
    King of Videos
    dirtpoorchris's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Location
    WA
    Last Seen
    Today @ 05:46 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian
    Posts
    7,008

    Re: Boy Scouts Banned By Alabama Pastor Greg Walker

    Quote Originally Posted by Gaugingcatenate View Post
    Sir, I think you may have become somewhat befuddled as to what exactly we are debating? Assumed you understood, my bad... totally.


    Origins. What I am talking about is that which was before, when there was what, nothing, absolutely not a thing.

    How did existence begin, what started it? In the utter absence of that knowledge... we do know there was and is space and rocks/suns/planets that existed, still exist.... We do know: There was space... and it was littered with many rocks without life. So, unless it was space becoming alive, then it must have been those darn rocks so deciding to live. Right?

    And we have not recreated life just creating itself all by itself in the lab, right? [ starting to get it now?]

    Besides...
    In no way did I ever deny that change over time occurs, that things adapt. That, indeed, is observable. Origins coming out of a primordial soup somehow, now that is different... and silly. Even you scoff at it when I take it back to its origins, the rocks.

    Oh, suggestion: ditch the alerts to me as to any troublesomenesses that might occur with you... give me your arguments, make them rational and persuasive, all that other = needless distracting fluff.

    Talking origins here, my man... knock knock...not change over time, as indicated, everyone believes in that, that is provable...

    You folks really go off the rails when getting into your scientific fantasies, those almost religious pronouncements by the titans of science ...fantasies masked as theories about what created the universe, "scientifically". No observable or testable nature to these theories, none, so they are only of the plain and ordinary "created" beliefs variety, just like everyone else's... you cannot, just by will, force it to be scientific... what you do have, mainly, is a bunch of scientists each having convinced each other of their own theory's plausible probability, at least to them.

    Again, origins origins... you are trying to argue change over time instead of arguing the evolutionary origins... how did this all come about, what created all this, and why? Scientifically? Just what is the science behind any of that. The scientific how and the scientific why?

    As regards why I am on debate now, mainly to learn, to force myself to do research into areas I am interested in, to perhaps convince others of the better validity of my viewpoints and ...

    Well, I guess you could include as one of my minor aims at this debate website is to feed the snarky their daily allotment of crow...sure hope you got your good choppers in...
    The only plausible explanation is that we, in fact, do not exists. This is all just a dream within oblivion that lasts forever because it doesn't even really exists. A mockery of a spark in the dark nothingness that has nothing else to relate to so it just is because there is nothing else. Ya.. That didnt even make sense to me lol. A fleeting moment of nothing that seems infinite because of relativity, and there being nothing.
    I'm Finding it Harder to be a Gentleman, White Stripes ~ "You think I care about me and only me. When every girl needs help climbing up a tree."

  9. #799
    controlled chaos
    Gaugingcatenate's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2013
    Location
    Formerly of the Southern USA, now permanently in the mountains of Panama
    Last Seen
    07-21-17 @ 02:52 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    8,159

    Re: Boy Scouts Banned By Alabama Pastor Greg Walker

    Quote Originally Posted by dirtpoorchris View Post
    The only plausible explanation is that we, in fact, do not exists. This is all just a dream within oblivion that lasts forever because it doesn't even really exists. A mockery of a spark in the dark nothingness that has nothing else to relate to so it just is because there is nothing else. Ya.. That didnt even make sense to me lol. A fleeting moment of nothing that seems infinite because of relativity, and there being nothing.
    We definitely perceive things differently.

  10. #800
    Professor
    yobarnacle's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Last Seen
    10-26-14 @ 11:18 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    1,495

    Re: Boy Scouts Banned By Alabama Pastor Greg Walker

    Quote Originally Posted by dirtpoorchris View Post
    A lot of that sounds good and I agree with. If someone was too scared to help somenoe clinging to a cliff I wouldn't blame them because they may get pulled down themselves. Although I would still think they are a despicable person for not trying. Noone is saying he CANT disallow gays. We are saying he shouldn't.
    you and others miss the point.

    YOUR contention is it's "wrong" to disallow gays, and Christians say it's "wrong" to disallow our religious beliefs.

    You can say, gays should be served in public restaurants, but a church building is NOT a public building.
    It was purchased, maybe built, certainly maintained, by the congregation. it's PRIVATE property, and beyond you having ANY say in it's use.
    If you live long enough, you will live in a foreign country, because the past is foreign to the present. We lived differently then. The only constant is change!

Page 80 of 91 FirstFirst ... 3070787980818290 ... LastLast

Posting Permissions

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