Sexuality; What Are Your Views?

[Quiet One 15]

anyway, have to agree with MG, you've improve alot mate....

Could that be considered as a miracle?

[HotRod 0]

Well, he did'nt say you're stupid... Jem was just defending himself, take it from me, he did'nt really mean it THAT way.... and if someone say be more intelligent it means you're already intelligent, Jem had a problem with your attitude....

anyway, have to agree with MG, you've improve alot mate....

To tell you the truth mate, I don't take anything personally. And if someone has a problem with my attitude, that's just tough. I've tried to articulate my frustrations at certain individuals lack of comprehension and ended up calling them names like @$$ with no tail but in the context and the spirit in which I said these things, I really meant it. Picking on someone's intelect based on their english is not a new phenomenon, It happens everywhere - globally, all the time. And to be frank, it just makes me sick. I try to have discussions based on logic and when it leaves that arena, it becomes extremely difficult ...

Anyway, thanks for the compliment and to all on this forum: no hard feelings. I love you all

[BradSpeedMan 6]

Could that be considered as a miracle?

on a very serious note....close

hey Hotrod, English is also my second language

[Jem of the Shire 0]

This sounds like a juicy topic for discussion!

Now tell me jemstride, do you still need more time?

yes i may need a magnifying glass too.

by the way hotrod said someone called him stupid before I even came into this thread, it wasnt me who called him stupid!!

[funkejay 0]

To tell you the truth mate, I don't take anything personally. And if someone has a problem with my attitude, that's just tough. I've tried to articulate my frustrations at certain individuals lack of comprehension and ended up calling them names like @$$ with no tail but in the context and the spirit in which I said these things, I really meant it. Picking on someone's intelect based on their english is not a new phenomenon, It happens everywhere - globally, all the time. And to be frank, it just makes me sick. I try to have discussions based on logic and when it leaves that arena, it becomes extremely difficult ...

Anyway, thanks for the compliment and to all on this forum: no hard feelings. I love you all

Hot Rod, I'm the guy you called an "a## with no tail", and I wasn't offended. But let the record be very ****ing clear my friend, I never insulted your intelligence. I disagreed with your point of view, and respectfully tried to demonstrate why.

Don't make the mistake of accusing me of that type of nonsense. I take that much more seriously than being called silly names.

[pumpdoc 2]

It has nothing to do with intellect. English is the second language of many of the forum members. Some are more fluent than others. You have become more fluent in a matter of days. Just an observation.

Indeed..............

[Max Mosley 2]

Am I the only one to notice that HotRod's command of the English language is much greater today than it was yesterday? Just an observation.

Yes. Hot Rod's having a laugh with us methinks.

[Jem of the Shire 0]

Yes. Hot Rod's having a laugh with us methinks.

would someone be sad enough to pretend to be from eastern europe when actually he/she's from Peckham?

i believe him. for now

[Max Mosley 2]

It's the sort of silly, mischievous and hilarious thing I'd do. I remember him telling me his name was Hotnovic or something, so the girls just call him Hot! I mean, come on??? Whoever it is deserves the credit for their invention.

[BradSpeedMan 6]

Hot Rod, I'm the guy you called an "a## with no tail", and I wasn't offended....

Ouch!

HotRod, are you the villian or hero in this saga....

[funkejay 0]

You know HotRod, I didn't think it was appropriate for some members to insinuate that you might be stupid because you were struggling somewhat with minor grammer issues, and at first you had my sympathies. But then I noticed a trend. You are the one who insults people and calls them names when you don't agree with their point of view, then claim that your views are superior because you have some sort of divine insight.

In just a few minutes, I've found the following examples off just the last two pages:

You making my head pain. I not meet many stupid people but I will try to answer you.

I did't call you stupid but you're intelligent enough to know I implied it. However, do you know what status I hold in my community? I don't brag, neither do I have the need to disclose that to you. Since when did someone have to have a law degree or lack of one in order to be labeled stupid. No qualification can make a fool look otherwise. Who cares if sodomites pay higher taxes and have a higher salary bracket? I don't envy you or any other sodomite, trust me. You make it sound like an incentive to your being gay.

This is new knowledge to me, your being 'gay'. And I grieve. You must learn that some people in their humility know more than you. This is going to become a fact of life for you. And by the way, where I come from, lawyers are the biggest lying scambags on the face of the earth but I pray that you are different, that you are good, that you are honest .... And I pray that you convert from your sodomy.

Love isn't always kind. "The beginning of all Wisdom, is the fear of God". Now the fear that's playing in your little brain is not the fear that's demonstrated here. Go look up the meaning of 'fear' in its entirety. Has this added any value. If you have read my posts dear, especially the long ones, you will know in what context I cannot accept them. Why I denounce such behaviour! Why it is detestable to me! Why it is an abomination unto God! Don't think He's not loving because the fact that He is forgiving and gives you rules about how you should live your life is proof enough. If you repent and accept Jesus Christ as Lord and Saviour of your life, you're safe ...you're saved. And don't, then you're heading straight to hell!

Do you think I enjoy speaking to immature individuals like yourself. Frankly, I don't. If you read my arguments you will notice intelligence and reason threaded throughout and the reason we seem to be going in circles, is the fact that you haven't heard a thing I've said. You'll be more than sorry if you die in your 'homosexuality'. You can think that hell is a joke but trust me, I think you'll stop bragging. I tell you that sinning is't fun because sooner or later, guilt inevitably sets in.

QUOTE(HotRod @ Feb 6 2007, 10:04 AM) Hey jemstride. You must reading all 7 pages first and then coming back, OK. Maybe then you sounding intelligent.

It really seems quite hypocritical of you to complain that others on the forum have used the same tactic that you routinely resort to. I suggest you look up something called the ad hominem fallacy - it might give you some insight into why most people on this forum have come to simply ignore you.

Why?

You see, these are my opinions, you won't change them, just like I'm sure you won't change Mike's opinions, because we see things from different perceptions. A good illustration of this is my Asperger Syndrome. I see the world through completely different eyes and as a neurological disorder, that won't be changing any time soon. Most people see & speak to a person and immediately they make decisions on that person, from what mood they are in to trying to tell what they're reactions will be to what they are saying. I look at someone and that just doesn't happen, I do not have this innate ability and therefore I have to try and complete this process in a trial and error situation, because I won't give up. People are different funkejay. In the same way definitions are different and in the same way what is evil and moral changes from society to society, without one, you would not have the other, but IMO both exist. Both are fundamental to the way society operates. Evil, is the ability to injure and scar the defenceless, not the act, the ability, you may disagree, but nothing you will respond with, will make you change my view as you can not change my experiences in life and my experiences make me.

I'm not here to make others believe what I do, I've stated what I believe and gone into further detail when asked and have tried to show why others should not state that they know the 'right' way in life and the rest of us are therefore doomed. Changing someone's opinions on something through fear is one of the worst methods possible and the reason why I stopped believing in the first place.

Kay-zee, I don't see how your AS should have any effect on your belief system, so I don't see how that is relevant to a discussion on the definition of "evil" or "morals". I didn't ask you to tell me what you think qualifies as evil - I asked you to offer your definition of the concept. This is totally different, and is designed to provide both you and I with insight into how you actually percieve "evil", as opposed to simply applying that label to things which you find personally abhorent.

[pumpdoc 2]

would someone be sad enough to pretend to be from eastern europe when actually he/she's from Peckham?

i believe him. for now

You may be very close to the truth............

In fact I call bull$hit on HotRod, he's an imposter, you don't go from what was a futile atempt at the English language to complete mastery in the space of a few hours.........

[BradSpeedMan 6]

You may be very close to the truth............

In fact I call bull$hit on HotRod, he's an imposter, you don't go from what was a futile atempt at the English language to complete mastery in the space of a few hours.........

indeed

[Jem of the Shire 0]

indeed. Hotrod reveal your true identity! We wait with anticipation

[monza gorilla 1]

I don't.

[Kay 0]

Kay-zee, I don't see how your AS should have any effect on your belief system, so I don't see how that is relevant to a discussion on the definition of "evil" or "morals". I didn't ask you to tell me what you think qualifies as evil - I asked you to offer your definition of the concept. This is totally different, and is designed to provide both you and I with insight into how you actually percieve "evil", as opposed to simply applying that label to things which you find personally abhorent.

This isn't my 'belief' system though, we were originally, on the subject of 'defining' and my AS is very relevant to that, as it affects the way I define things in day to day life.

I've already offered my definition.

[jaq 0]

All what I have said is governed by my belief system. Can you accept me with all of my beliefs? Can you understand me and what I believe in? Can you love me for what I believe in?

Yes to question 1, yes to question 2 as long as you can understand in what i believe, and question 3, no I can not love you sorry. Maybe ask shumikoen. I believe he's on the same page as you.

[funkejay 0]

This isn't my 'belief' system though, we were originally, on the subject of 'defining' and my AS is very relevant to that, as it affects the way I define things in day to day life.

I've already offered my definition.

AS affects the way you perceive the physical world around you, I accept that. But that has nothing to do with how you might define "evil". It very well may affect how you perceive people, actions, or events, and therefore affect your opinion whether those people, actions, or events seem to be evil to you. Nevertheless, your perception of specific events has no affect how you define an abstract concept (i.e. "evil") becuase it exists seperate and apart from the physical world. As a result, you are as well equipped as anyone to offer a definition of that concept.

Instead, what you have offered me is not a definition of evil, you have merely given me an example of what you would label as evil. The two are entirely different.

For example, if you have a collection of items that share a specific characteristic as their single common denominator, you do not define that characteristic by merely providing a list (either partial or complete) of what falls within that category. As a result, by merely telling me what you think constitutes evil, you have failed to define what you mean when you use that particular label.

In other words, I don't want to know what you think is evil (nor do I care for that matter) - what I want to know is how do you define the concept? What do you actually mean when you use the word "evil"?

This can be a tremendously useful semantic exercise whenever we encounter words that we use routinely, in that it forces us to consider just exactly what we are trying to say when we use such labels. If you've never done it before, I invite you to do it now, as you may just learn something surprising though the exercise.

[Kay 0]

AS affects the way you perceive the physical world around you, I accept that. But that has nothing to do with how you might define "evil". It very well may affect how you perceive people, actions, or events, and therefore affect your opinion whether those people, actions, or events seem to be evil to you. Nevertheless, your perception of specific events has no affect how you define an abstract concept (i.e. "evil") becuase it exists seperate and apart from the physical world. As a result, you are as well equipped as anyone to offer a definition of that concept.

Instead, what you have offered me is not a definition of evil, you have merely given me an example of what you would label as evil. The two are entirely different.

For example, if you have a collection of items that share a specific characteristic as their single common denominator, you do not define that characteristic by merely providing a list (either partial or complete) of what falls within that category. As a result, by merely telling me what you think constitutes evil, you have failed to define what you mean when you use that particular label.

In other words, I don't want to know what you think is evil (nor do I care for that matter) - what I want to know is how do you define the concept? What do you actually mean when you use the word "evil"?

This can be a tremendously useful semantic exercise whenever we encounter words that we use routinely, in that it forces us to consider just exactly what we are trying to say when we use such labels. If you've never done it before, I invite you to do it now, as you may just learn something surprising though the exercise.

You've completely misunderstood my use of bringing up AS, you were talking to me as if I was saying what I was saying was 'right' and a 'tight' definition for all and I was using it as an example as to why there is no tight or right definitions of words as we add our own perceptions and sometimes can not even define words ourselves. For instance I was caught on the spot to define the word 'lie' and I could not for the life of me. I was not using it in direct context to defining 'evil' but defining in general.

I have said evil is the ability and not the action to harm something in some form (physically, emotionally, sexually) which is defenceless for no fundamental need or purpose. That is not an example, that is the be all and end all of evil in my opinion.

[funkejay 0]

I have said evil is the ability and not the action to harm something in some form (physically, emotionally, sexually) which is defenceless for no fundamental need or purpose. That is not an example, that is the be all and end all of evil in my opinion.

Kay_zee, I don't have time to explain right now how you've failed to understand my question, but I'm not going to give up on you. I will try later tonite when I hope to have more time.

[Autumnpuma 0]

No Mike, it is not the same thing.

It is illogical to argue that because science cannot prove a negative - i.e. that [G]od does not exist (which as you know is logically impossible), we are being close-minded by refusing to acknowledge the existence of something in the absence of proof that it does (this is properly known as the formal negative proof fallacy). It is only rational to draw such a conclusion. However, believing in something that is not capable of proof, or at least in the absence of such proof (i.e. the existence of [G]od) is an irrational belief - which, as I said before, is why it's called faith.....

For example, were I to accept your logic, then I would conclude by extension that if you insist that Santa Claus does not exist, you are being close-minded. For that matter, the refusal to believe anything that is not conclusively proven false (which again is logically impossible) would mean that we are being close-minded about everything we refuse to believe in.

And if you read my post carefully, you will see that at no point did I say that [G]od does not exist. I quite clearly stated that I simply do not believe in the existence of [G]od, though I am prepared to accept that the limitations of human knowledge make it impossible to know for certain. Conversely, I do not see a single theist on this site acknowledging that they might be wrong about asserting the truth of [G]od's existence, instead they argue that because the bible says something, it must be so.....

Forgive me for saying so, but I think I've already been far more generous on this issue than those on the other side of the debate.

But that's part of the problem Mike, as a growing number of biblical historians will concede. The predominance of evidence currently available suggests that the bible (i.e. the New Testament) was not written contemporaneously with Jesus' life. Furthermore, there is growing doubt that Jesus was even an historically accurate character, but rather that the gospels are an amalgam of stories about different prophets who were prominent at the time. As a result, there is increasing uncertainty that he ever even existed as a man, little own that he may have been the literal son of [G]od.

All of this casts considerable doubt on the claim that this 'proof' is capable of establishing the existence of [G]od.

While I may not have gone into great detail about it (again, remember that I am not a trained physicist), General Relativity theory not only describes the Big Bang origin of the universe, but also comments on what preceded it. It predicts that a Gravitational Singularity preceded the Big Bang, albeit with the assistance of Quantum Gravitation theory (which predicts particle energies that cannot be replicated with the use of currently available technology). So while there remain many unanswered questions, science is not quite reduced to the realm of myth insofar as the creation of the universe is concerned.

Even if it were however, the failure of science to adequately explain what preceeded the Big Bang is not proof of the possible existence of [G]od. That is a variation of the argumentum ad ignorantiam fallacy, where it is argued that a premise is false only because it has not been proven true. In this context the fallacy takes the following form: because there appears to be a lack of evidence for one hypothesis, another competing hypothesis is therefore considered proven.

Put another way, if your argument for the existence of [G]od depends on the failure of science to fully explain all aspects of the physical universe, then he/she only exists within the ever-diminishing gaps in human knowledge. Hardly seems the stuff of a supreme being....

Again, you are presupposing that the universe was created by someone or something. That is merely begging the question.

Start by trying to define what you mean by 'evil'. Or 'morals'. Once you've done that, I'll respond.

Schumikonen - don't you see that in order for me to be looking for [G]od, I first need to assume he exists? Arguing that I (or anyone else) should believe in [G]od simply because you do is the least persuasive argument you could ever possibly offer.

"Never try to reason the prejudice out of a man. It was not reasoned into him, and cannot be reasoned out."

Edit: some minor grammatical issues I originally overlooked

Well done Jay! I appreciate the respect you've shown for my right to believe in the irrational while at the same time expressing your fundamentally opposing view. That's a very hard thing for most people to do! Anyway, I still hold to my irrational beliefs as I see no problem with science describing the creation and religion describing the creator. If my reasons for believing in God aren't convincing to some, well, that's not my concern. I don't attempt to convert anyone, just express my thoughts on the subject.

I will have to say that I'm not surprised by the amount of athiests in the world, but I am surprised by the amount of people that don't believe in Santa Claus!! You should all be ashamed of yourselves!

[Quiet One 15]

Well done Jay! I appreciate the respect you've shown for my right to believe in the irrational while at the same time expressing your fundamentally opposing view. That's a very hard thing for most people to do! Anyway, I still hold to my irrational beliefs as I see no problem with science describing the creation and religion describing the creator. If my reasons for believing in God aren't convincing to some, well, that's not my concern. I don't attempt to convert anyone, just express my thoughts on the subject.

I will have to say that I'm not surprised by the amount of athiests in the world, but I am surprised by the amount of people that don't believe in Santa Claus!! You should all be ashamed of yourselves!

I must say I enjoy reading these posts immensely...kudos to all!!! These kind of debates separate this forum from the rest

About Santa Claus, I agree with you! After all, it's easier to believe in Santa than to believe in Lewis Hamilton *ducks and runsssss

[Autumnpuma 0]

I must say I enjoy reading these posts immensely...kudos to all!!! These kind of debates separate this forum from the rest

About Santa Claus, I agree with you! After all, it's easier to believe in Santa than to believe in Lewis Hamilton *ducks and runsssss

*looks around furiously* Where'd he go???

[Kay 0]

*looks around furiously* Where'd he go???

Gone to put some lead weights in his gloves.

[Kay 0]

Kay_zee, I don't have time to explain right now how you've failed to understand my question, but I'm not going to give up on you. I will try later tonite when I hope to have more time.

That's as far as I can understand it, I can't go any simpler than that in what I see as evil and I see it being in all - we all at times wish harm on others and then hypocritically say that we don't or try to justify it better than those who we criticise for harming. That's why I see people as having morals... it justifies how to react to a situation / what one can do. I have problems with misinterpreting things though, that is just the way my odd perception is.