Answered Questions Re: Miss California

[Pedersen]

I don't understand all the rules regarding slavery. I would have to ask someone more knowledgeable than myself about why some of the rules were in place. I remember reading about letting the husband go but keeping the wife and kids but I don't remember at the moment what the reason for it was.

In any case as a Christian I believe that Jesus lived a sin free life, and therefore he never advocated anything immoral.

define:rationalization: the cognitive process of making something seem consistent with or based on reason

With your above argument, you have chosen to rationalize your argument. I have given clear cut examples, I have devoted several hours to trying to show you that your fundamental argument is flawed.

In return, you make excuses, and rationalize away what I show you to allow you to maintain your comfort zone.

This, in turn, allows you to continue to discriminate against an entire class of people on the basis of your opinion being the right one.

I think how slaves are treated is more important than the fact that they were slaves. I don't want to re-institute slavery, in any form, today, so I don't really see the purpose of discussing it anyway. Anything Jesus or Paul said, I don't have a problem with.

define:sophistry: sophism: a deliberately invalid argument displaying ingenuity in reasoning in the hope of deceiving someone

You have chosen to state that slavery was moral, but is not today. Therefore the timeless, ineffable word of God has been transmuted from "Go ahead and do slavery" to "Whoa, fuck off. Slavery is bad, mmkay?" However, that's the only place where the timeless, ineffable word of God has been allowed to be transmuted, and mainly because you happen to agree with the change.

Your argument is based on shifting your truth around to fit your own desires, and then using sophistry and rationalization to explain away the discrepancies. You won't even admit to yourself that your arguments are completely invalid.

I don't believe that Paul was misogynistic.

Then you have never managed to read the letters from Paul. Try it sometime. The man was a misogynistic bastard whose sole use for women appeared to be as some sort of servant. And that was when he was in a good mood.

[Flyndaran]

...
I don't consider it a basic right to marry someone of the same sex.

So marriage isn't a basic right? Fortunately, your kind is becoming a minority. I hope you don't become a bitter old woman crying about how the world has all gone to hell.

[Rubystars]

define:rationalization: the cognitive process of making something seem consistent with or based on reason

With your above argument, you have chosen to rationalize your argument. I have given clear cut examples, I have devoted several hours to trying to show you that your fundamental argument is flawed.

In return, you make excuses, and rationalize away what I show you to allow you to maintain your comfort zone.

This, in turn, allows you to continue to discriminate against an entire class of people on the basis of your opinion being the right one.

I don't think homosexuals are healthy and normal. The desires they have are contrary to normal desires and while I don't blame them for having them, I do think to acknowledge and accept that as normal would also be doing them a disservice.

There's a movement out there now called Mad Pride, based, interestingly enough, on the gay movement's inspiration. They're trying to say that their mental diseases are normal too.

define:sophistry: sophism: a deliberately invalid argument displaying ingenuity in reasoning in the hope of deceiving someone

You have chosen to state that slavery was moral, but is not today. Therefore the timeless, ineffable word of God has been transmuted from "Go ahead and do slavery" to "Whoa, fuck off. Slavery is bad, mmkay?" However, that's the only place where the timeless, ineffable word of God has been allowed to be transmuted, and mainly because you happen to agree with the change.

I never said it was moral then but not moral now. I just don't seek to reinstate it. How many times in this thread and the other one have I had to start a sentence with "I never said"? It's impossible to debate with people properly if they don't read my posts and keep inserting convenient things in that I never actually said. I believe that's called setting up a strawman.

Your argument is based on shifting your truth around to fit your own desires, and then using sophistry and rationalization to explain away the discrepancies. You won't even admit to yourself that your arguments are completely invalid.

I have many names for people such as yourself. I'm sure you can guess what they are.

Then you have never managed to read the letters from Paul. Try it sometime. The man was a misogynistic bastard whose sole use for women appeared to be as some sort of servant. And that was when he was in a good mood.

A lot of things that I would see as benign you might see as misogynistic.

[BroomJockey]

I never said it was moral then but not moral now. I just don't seek to reinstate it.

Please tell me I've misread that, because it sounds like you're saying slavery, as long as you're really nice to your slaves, is perfectly fine.

[Nyoibo]

Someone's sex is an important part of who they are.

The hell it is, no one I have had as a friend has known what my sexuality is, or who I have sex with before they've become a very close friend, but they become my friend, not for who I might want to fuck, but because I'm a nice (well sometimes) person

Almost nobody in America or Europe before the last several decades would have thought of two men if you brought up the topic of marriage. The image that would have come to mind would have been a man and a woman.

Oh no, not a few decades in millenia of human civilisation.

I think that everyone has certain rights by virtue of simply being human

I don't believe that the right to marry someone of the same sex is something that someone has as their natural rights, and I don't believe society should give that right either.

Funny, I don't believe anyone has any rights just because they're human, I believe they have to earn those rights, but I don't expect everyone else to believe that, or expect the government to put that into law.

Would make for an interesting place to live though.

No, I don't. Quite frankly, I'd rather have an intellectual debate with a monkey at the local zoo. At least then my opponent will maintain intellectual consistency.

Bananas?

[iradney]

I don't think homosexuals are healthy and normal. The desires they have are contrary to normal desires and while I don't blame them for having them, I do think to acknowledge and accept that as normal would also be doing them a disservice.

Explain, then, the high number of homosexual relationships seen in the animal kingdom? After all, since everything was created by God...

I also fail to see how being attracted to another person, and loving another person (regardless of gender) is contrary to normal desires?

[Rubystars]

Please tell me I've misread that, because it sounds like you're saying slavery, as long as you're really nice to your slaves, is perfectly fine.

There are a lot of bonded conditions in existence today. Some of them are moral and some of them are immoral. One of the moral ones would be putting criminals into prisons, where they are basically wards of the state. They can't leave, they have to do work, and their food is rationed to them. I'm ok with that.

On earth things will always be unequal, there will always be people at different social levels, with different levels of ability, etc.

When it comes to being subject to God, all people are equal though.

[Rubystars]

Explain, then, the high number of homosexual relationships seen in the animal kingdom? After all, since everything was created by God...

I also fail to see how being attracted to another person, and loving another person (regardless of gender) is contrary to normal desires?

What happens in the animal kingdom is not held to the same standard. Humans have the ability to resist their animal instincts. A lot of avoiding sin means going against base, animal instincts.

[Rubystars]

The hell it is, no one I have had as a friend has known what my sexuality is, or who I have sex with before they've become a very close friend, but they become my friend, not for who I might want to fuck, but because I'm a nice (well sometimes) person

What does this have to do with someone's sex being an important part of who they are?

Oh no, not a few decades in millenia of human civilisation.

You're learning the sarcasm from Ped

Funny, I don't believe anyone has any rights just because they're human, I believe they have to earn those rights, but I don't expect everyone else to believe that, or expect the government to put that into law.

Would make for an interesting place to live though.

I do consider human beings to be on a different spiritual level than other animals.

[BroomJockey]

There are a lot of bonded conditions in existence today. Some of them are moral and some of them are immoral. One of the moral ones would be putting criminals into prisons, where they are basically wards of the state. They can't leave, they have to do work, and their food is rationed to them. I'm ok with that.

Remember all those conversations about "answering the question you want to, not the one that was put forward?" You did it again. The question was, rephrased to account for potiential "misunderstandings is; "It appears that your opinion is, as long as there isn't excessive cruelty, ownership of another human being is acceptable. Is this an accurate reading?"

Putting someone in to prison is not slavery. It is a temporary revocation of rights in punishment for a transgression against society's rules. Slavery is ostensibly permanent. A prisoner is not owned, they're still their own person. It is not analagous. Please answer with a clarification to the question at hand.

[Nyoibo]

On earth things will always be unequal, there will always be people at different social levels, with different levels of ability, etc.

Never thought I'd be one to invoke Godwins law but... Sieg Heil anyone?

What happens in the animal kingdom is not held to the same standard. Humans have the ability to resist their animal instincts. A lot of avoiding sin means going against base, animal instincts.

And no one does that, I'm sure you have sex, basic animal instinct, procreation, hmm another basic animal instinct, having friends, guess what... also a basic animal instinct. Non-basic instincts like eating anything other than what you need to survive, guess what Gluttony a deadly sin. Wanting something you don't have, that's both basic animal instinct and Envy.

I could go on but I'm engaging in my favorite sin, Sloth.

[Rubystars]

Remember all those conversations about "answering the question you want to, not the one that was put forward?" You did it again. The question was, rephrased to account for potiential "misunderstandings is; "It appears that your opinion is, as long as there isn't excessive cruelty, ownership of another human being is acceptable. Is this an accurate reading?"

Putting someone in to prison is not slavery. It is a temporary revocation of rights in punishment for a transgression against society's rules. Slavery is ostensibly permanent. A prisoner is not owned, they're still their own person. It is not analagous. Please answer with a clarification to the question at hand.

Slavery in the Bible was also often not permanent, though it sometimes was, depending on the circumstances. I'm not advocating for some horrible, evil, cruel thing. Even though slaves were, to a degree, treated as property, the masters did not have absolute control over them. For example, they were not allowed to kill them and they had to let them rest on Shabbat. If you want to know more, read the Wikipedia link I provided. I don't understand everything that's written in the Bible about it myself but I'm able to understand enough to know that it's not what comes to mind when we usually think of slavery.

In the ancient world slavery was a reality that wasn't going to disappear any time soon. Biblical regulations on it helped to keep it more humane than it would have been.

[Rubystars]

Never thought I'd be one to invoke Godwins law but... Sieg Heil anyone?

That really is being silly.

And no one does that, I'm sure you have sex, basic animal instinct, procreation, hmm another basic animal instinct, having friends, guess what... also a basic animal instinct. Non-basic instincts like eating anything other than what you need to survive, guess what Gluttony a deadly sin. Wanting something you don't have, that's both basic animal instinct and Envy.
I could go on but I'm engaging in my favorite sin, Sloth.

Again this seems to be that strawman problem I've been running into a lot. I didn't say that all instincts were bad. I said that a lot of avoiding sin involves supressing basic animal instincts. Not all animal instincts are bad though.

[Wingates_Hellsing]

At this point I think we need to nail down our definitions of 'normal'.

Ruby seems to think that normal means that which is most prevalent. So if something occurs 75% of the time that's normal and the rest of it is abnormal and bad because it's not the same as the normal stuff.

I myself as an evidence and therefore evolution kind of guy (because evolutions got craptonnes more proof than creation ever had) see that as a species we are wired to want those things that have made us successful. We eat at every opportunity, we screw at every opportunity, we want the things we don't have and want to keep the things we do have because these desires drive us to succeed.

In that line of thought I don't see it as anomalous at all that homosexuals want to have sex with people. If what they want just so happens to be someone who is the same gender as them, so what? Everyone likes different things so it's not surprising that this also applies to gender.

To me and many other people normal is any thing which occurs naturally. In the animal kingdom and throughout history we can see homosexual tendencies as naturally occurring, albeit in lesser quantities than heterosexual tendencies.

Furthermore Ruby, I haven't heard anything from you that doesn't fall in line with a person who is using the Bible in all of it's apparent 'glory' as backing to campaign against something you don't like. If the Bible's so great then thou shalt be stoning many a person to death each day for a great many things, if it's not, if it changes with the times than maybe it's time for you to accept that this is just the next out of date rule that needs to go.

[iradney]

What happens in the animal kingdom is not held to the same standard. Humans have the ability to resist their animal instincts. A lot of avoiding sin means going against base, animal instincts.

Funnily enough, one of the "base animal instincts" is to either kill or runaway from something you don't know - sound familiar??

Again this seems to be that strawman problem I've been running into a lot. I didn't say that all instincts were bad. I said that a lot of avoiding sin involves supressing basic animal instincts. Not all animal instincts are bad though.

Elaborate then - which animal instincts are "good" or "bad"?