Total Posts:267|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

Bestiality/Pedophila are same as Hetro/Homo

zoinks
Posts: 1,988
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/6/2014 3:06:09 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
I want to point out a key flaw in the argument that sexual desire is inherent and not a choice. This argument is not my personal argument, but merely using logical reasoning to point out the flawed arguments I see in this forum on a regular basis.

If this were true, it logically means since all sexual desires cannot be controlled and are not choice, then all sexual desires are EQUALLY not a choice.

This means those who have desires to commit bestiality or pedophilia are no different than those with heterosexual or homosexual desires.

Taking it one step further, if you are arguing it is a person's right to choose a partner they are attracted to, that same right extends to those attracted to animals, children, or whatever else.

Put simply: I find it surprising (and a bit disturbing) how many people's arguments in this forum logically show that they support bestiality and pedophilia.
The_Fool_on_the_hill
Posts: 6,071
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/6/2014 3:23:00 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
The Fool: I don't see pedophilia, or bestiality out as evils per say, in the sense that the perpetrator doesn't really have the intent on harming somebody, but rather relieving their own suffering which is caused by desire. It's more of a sickness really.

However homosexuality is between rational adults, and is not any more unhealthy than heterosexuality. It's not like were underpopulated.

Against The Ideologist

And no they are not possessed by demons.
<(XD)
"The bud disappears when the blossom breaks through, and we might say that the former is refuted by the latter; in the same way when the fruit comes, the blossom may be explained to be a false form of the plant's existence, for the fruit appears as its true nature in place of the blossom. These stages are not merely differentiated; they supplant one another as being incompatible with one another." G. W. F. HEGEL
zoinks
Posts: 1,988
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/6/2014 5:17:22 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 12/6/2014 3:17:19 PM, wsmunit7 wrote:
Troll Alert !!!!!!!!!!!

That's it - when someone posts something you disagree with but you have no argument against it, call them a troll.

*rolls eyes*
wsmunit7
Posts: 1,318
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/6/2014 5:22:56 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 12/6/2014 5:17:22 PM, zoinks wrote:
At 12/6/2014 3:17:19 PM, wsmunit7 wrote:
Troll Alert !!!!!!!!!!!

That's it - when someone posts something you disagree with but you have no argument against it, call them a troll.

*rolls eyes*

I am perfectly willing to let others judge by evaluating your history.
zoinks
Posts: 1,988
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/6/2014 5:25:35 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
The Fool: I don't see pedophilia, or bestiality out as evils per say, in the sense that the perpetrator doesn't really have the intent on harming somebody, but rather relieving their own suffering which is caused by desire.

Would you then say that everyone's sexual desires are akin to "relieving their own suffering which is caused" by that desire?

If not, what makes other sexual desires any different - logically speaking - from pedophilia or bestiality?

It's more of a sickness really.

Same type of question: Would you say all sexual desires are "a sickness"? If not, what makes other sexual desires any different - logically speaking - from pedophilia or bestiality?


However homosexuality is between rational adults, and is not any more unhealthy than heterosexuality.

First, not all cases of homosexuality are between adults.

Second, even if we ignore those cases, how do you propose to determine if the adults involved are, in fact, "rational" adults?

Third, you need to establish your premise regarding hetero and homosexuality being equally healthy.

Clearly there are potential health risks associated with both types of sexual activity; if you wish to argue those risks are equal, you'll need to back that argument up with more than just your say so.

It's not like were underpopulated.

If a condition doesn't exist, that doesn't preclude it from existence for all time.

Hypothetically, if we were underpopulated as a species, homosexuality would be seen as a severe negative to the goal of re-population. This is a moot point only so long as it is not necessary.

However, we CAN logically say that homosexuality does not directly promote the continuation of a species. At best, you could argue that it may indirectly have a positive impact, and while I've heard those arguments before, I find none very convincing.
zoinks
Posts: 1,988
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/6/2014 5:26:45 PM
Posted: 2 years ago

I am perfectly willing to let others judge by evaluating your history.

Yes, because reading what I post and responding to that is just ridiculous. That's not how discussion works at all.

*rolls eyes again*
The_Fool_on_the_hill
Posts: 6,071
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/6/2014 5:40:36 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 12/6/2014 5:17:22 PM, zoinks wrote:
At 12/6/2014 3:17:19 PM, wsmunit7 wrote:
Troll Alert !!!!!!!!!!!

That's it - when someone posts something you disagree with but you have no argument against it, call them a troll.

*rolls eyes*

+1
"The bud disappears when the blossom breaks through, and we might say that the former is refuted by the latter; in the same way when the fruit comes, the blossom may be explained to be a false form of the plant's existence, for the fruit appears as its true nature in place of the blossom. These stages are not merely differentiated; they supplant one another as being incompatible with one another." G. W. F. HEGEL
kbub
Posts: 1,377
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/6/2014 5:44:32 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 12/6/2014 5:40:36 PM, The_Fool_on_the_hill wrote:
At 12/6/2014 5:17:22 PM, zoinks wrote:
At 12/6/2014 3:17:19 PM, wsmunit7 wrote:
Troll Alert !!!!!!!!!!!

That's it - when someone posts something you disagree with but you have no argument against it, call them a troll.

*rolls eyes*

+1

Awwww :)
The_Fool_on_the_hill
Posts: 6,071
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/6/2014 6:26:21 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 12/6/2014 5:25:35 PM, zoinks wrote:
The Fool: I don't see pedophilia, or bestiality out as evils per say, in the sense that the perpetrator doesn't really have the intent on harming somebody, but rather relieving their own suffering which is caused by desire.

zoinks: Would you then say that everyone's sexual desires are akin to "relieving their own suffering which is caused" by that desire?

The Fool: Desire in itself, is a type of suffering. It's a type of hunger.

zoinks : If not, what makes other sexual desires any different - logically speaking - from pedophilia or bestiality?

It's more of a sickness really.

zoinks : Same type of question: Would you say all sexual desires are "a sickness"? If not, what makes other sexual desires any different - logically speaking - from pedophilia or bestiality?


The Fool: : : However homosexuality is between rational adults, and is not any more unhealthy than heterosexuality.

The Fool: What makes a desire suffering is what it never gets satisfied like unrequited love.

What makes a desire sickness is when it's maladaptive. In other words, when generally hurts the subject or somebody else overall.

e.g.
Most drug addictions, are maladaptive because the fulfillment of that desire inevitably harms somebody for the worst.

What makes a desire immoral, is when it is merely for the sake of harm. Like one who gets off, on the suffering of others.

zoinks: First, not all cases of homosexuality are between adults.

The Fool: Than that would fall under pedophilia. Pedophilia being the primary concern.

zoinks:: Second, even if we ignore those cases, how do you propose to determine if the adults involved are, in fact, "rational" adults?

The Fool: "What I mean by rational being is a being able to make well informed balance decisions. By balance decisions, I mean the ability to balance their beliefs, judgments and actions to correspond with their knowledge base. By informed decision, I mean, a decision based off a sufficient knowledge base."" The measure would be no more bitter than a measure that we use for coming-of-age.

This is correlated with brain development, as certain stimulus before the brain is fully developed, can cause maladaptive abnormalities.

zoinks: Third, you need to establish your premise regarding hetero and homosexuality being equally healthy.

The Fool: Sexuality in itself is not healthy or unhealthy, unless of course it is unfulfilled. As unfulfilled desire is a type of suffering.

What we ultimately want is fulfilled desire. So to have desire, which is also being fulfilled at the same time. Well-being depends upon living a life balance with both, desire and satisfaction.

zoinks: : Clearly there are potential health risks associated with both types of sexual activity; if you wish to argue those risks are equal, you'll need to back that argument up with more than just your say so.

The Fool: By equally healthy I mean to the best of our knowledge there is no disease which is caused by homosexual sex, any more or less, then heterosexual sex.

Perhaps 2000 years ago, when the Bible was written, one might have feared that homosexuality, would lead to under population, at a time where, whole populations could get wiped out in a war, or by a simple virus or bacteria. But despite there being homosexuals, that doesn't prevent a population from mating for the sake of reproduction, and also having sex with the same-sex for the sake of pleasure.

In a sense, having sex is perhaps is a misnomer. Perhaps we should call it making love.

zoinks:: If a condition doesn't exist, that doesn't preclude it from existence for all time.

The Fool: Just because dragons don't exist, doesn't mean there won't be dragons later. That type of reasoning doesn't help anybody.

zoinks:: Hypothetically, if we were underpopulated as a species, homosexuality would be seen as a severe negative to the goal of re-population. This is a moot point only so long as it is not necessary.

The Fool: As refuted already.

zoinks::: However, we CAN logically say that homosexuality does not directly promote the continuation of a species. At best, you could argue that it may indirectly have a positive impact, and while I've heard those arguments before, I find none very convincing.

The Fool: And so I hope you don't take it personal if I'm not convinced now.
<(89)

Against The Ideologist

And 1
"The bud disappears when the blossom breaks through, and we might say that the former is refuted by the latter; in the same way when the fruit comes, the blossom may be explained to be a false form of the plant's existence, for the fruit appears as its true nature in place of the blossom. These stages are not merely differentiated; they supplant one another as being incompatible with one another." G. W. F. HEGEL
The_Fool_on_the_hill
Posts: 6,071
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/6/2014 6:51:59 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 12/6/2014 5:44:32 PM, kbub wrote:
At 12/6/2014 5:40:36 PM, The_Fool_on_the_hill wrote:
At 12/6/2014 5:17:22 PM, zoinks wrote:
At 12/6/2014 3:17:19 PM, wsmunit7 wrote:
Troll Alert !!!!!!!!!!!

That's it - when someone posts something you disagree with but you have no argument against it, call them a troll.

*rolls eyes*

+1

Awwww :)

The Fool: When you don't address people's arguments, you give them justification to think that you're wrong.

Against The Ideologist
"The bud disappears when the blossom breaks through, and we might say that the former is refuted by the latter; in the same way when the fruit comes, the blossom may be explained to be a false form of the plant's existence, for the fruit appears as its true nature in place of the blossom. These stages are not merely differentiated; they supplant one another as being incompatible with one another." G. W. F. HEGEL
zoinks
Posts: 1,988
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/6/2014 8:49:25 PM
Posted: 2 years ago

The Fool: Desire in itself, is a type of suffering. It's a type of hunger.

Are we really arguing over the metaphysical here, or is this just an interesting side note?


The Fool: What makes a desire suffering is what it never gets satisfied like unrequited love.

So if a desire is satisfied, then it isn't suffering? Would your argument then be that our ultimate goal should be to satisfy our desires to therefore prevent such suffering?


What makes a desire sickness is when it's maladaptive. In other words, when generally hurts the subject or somebody else overall.

Two direct questions, then:

1. Would you classify bestiality as "maladaptive" - based on the description you provided here - even if both the human and the animal or animals in question appear to be willing partners in any sex acts that took place?

2. Would you classify pedophilia as "maladaptive" - based on the description you provided here - even if both the adult and the younger person appear to be willing partners in any sex acts that took place?

Secondary question to #2: Does age make a difference to you? If yes, what is the "cutoff" in your mind? Do you feel that your subjective cutoff should be the standard for everyone? What justification do you have for saying so?


What makes a desire immoral, is when it is merely for the sake of harm. Like one who gets off, on the suffering of others.

Question: One person is a sadist, the other a masochist. They are essentially yin and yang to one another, as both may enjoy their roles willingly by partnering with each other. Yet according to what you've just stated, such a partnership would be merely for the sake of harm on the part of one partner (as that is what hey get off on), and would therefore be immoral. Do you concur?


zoinks:: Second, even if we ignore those cases, how do you propose to determine if the adults involved are, in fact, "rational" adults?

The Fool: "What I mean by rational being is a being able to make well informed balance decisions. By balance decisions, I mean the ability to balance their beliefs, judgments and actions to correspond with their knowledge base. By informed decision, I mean, a decision based off a sufficient knowledge base."" The measure would be no more bitter than a measure that we use for coming-of-age.

I'm asking for the logical reasoning behind any of these reasons, not more reasons. How do you know someone is making balanced decisions? Isn't that subjective- what is "balanced" to you may not be to them or someone else? How do you know they have information necessary? And exactly what level is "necessary", as this appears to be yet another subjective term?


The Fool: By equally healthy I mean to the best of our knowledge there is no disease which is caused by homosexual sex, any more or less, then heterosexual sex.

According to at least some researchers (I dare say a majority), this isn't true.

In at least one case (AIDS) it is generally thought that some homosexual sex acts pose far greater risk of transmission of this specific disease than traditional heterosexual sex acts. Even recent findings back this up: http://healthland.time.com...


Perhaps 2000 years ago, when the Bible was written, one might have feared that homosexuality, would lead to under population, at a time where, whole populations could get wiped out in a war, or by a simple virus or bacteria.

Perhaps. Or perhaps other influences cause them not to be accepting of "deviant" sexual behaviors of many varieties, only one of which was homosexuality.

But despite there being homosexuals, that doesn't prevent a population from mating for the sake of reproduction, and also having sex with the same-sex for the sake of pleasure.

If a very small percentage of the population were homosexual (as appears to be the case from what we know in modern times), there probably isn't a population issue.

However, to see the potential extent of the problem, we can multiply the issue in a hypothetical.

To wit: Let us examine the case where 90+ percent of the population is homosexual and will absolutely not willingly have sexual intercourse with a member of the opposite gender, despite the potential consequences.

In this scenario, continuation of the species is entirely reliant upon less than 10 percent of the population. Should anything happen to those individuals, or should they not be able to reproduce in sufficient numbers, the species could be at risk. This is clearly not an advantage, from either an evolutionary or biological perspective.

Take it one step farther: What if everyone - the entire population - became homosexual and refused sexual intercourse with the opposite gender? Certainly the species is at its end, barring a paradigm shift in which everyone resorts to in vitro or other means of reproduction.


zoinks:: If a condition doesn't exist, that doesn't preclude it from existence for all time.

The Fool: Just because dragons don't exist, doesn't mean there won't be dragons later. That type of reasoning doesn't help anybody.

Not when it comes to dragons or other shot-in-the-dark instances, but when you use realistic hypothetical situations, it fits.


zoinks:: Hypothetically, if we were underpopulated as a species, homosexuality would be seen as a severe negative to the goal of re-population. This is a moot point only so long as it is not necessary.

The Fool: As refuted already.

With what? Because it is not necessary in reality, so any hypothetical situations are also simply dismissed, even if they realistically could occur?


zoinks::: However, we CAN logically say that homosexuality does not directly promote the continuation of a species. At best, you could argue that it may indirectly have a positive impact, and while I've heard those arguments before, I find none very convincing.

The Fool: And so I hope you don't take it personal if I'm not convinced now.

I'm not out to convince anyone of anything; I merely present the truth revealed by the use of logical reasoning.

If you can see that truth as well, great. If not, perhaps you will if you continue to seek it through logical reasoning.
1harderthanyouthink
Posts: 13,102
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/6/2014 9:13:36 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 12/6/2014 3:17:19 PM, wsmunit7 wrote:
Troll Alert !!!!!!!!!!!
"It's awfully considerate of you to think of me here,
And I'm much obliged to you for making it clear - that I'm not here."

-Syd Barrett

DDO Risk King
The_Fool_on_the_hill
Posts: 6,071
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/6/2014 9:37:57 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
Dust Eater
Part 2

The Fool: Desire in itself, is a type of suffering. It's a type of hunger.

zoinks: Are we really arguing over the metaphysical here, or is this just an interesting side note?

The Fool: I am, borrowing from Buddhist philosophy. But You need only look inside yourself.

Do you like to crave things, which you could never have? Most would rather have the desire to have sex, [if and only if] the desire to have sex can possibly be fulfilled.

But if one had the desire to have sex, and knew that it could never be fulfilled, we would rather not have the desire at all.

Perhaps that is not a good example for a conservative type, replace the "desire for sex " with the desire for chocolate. What I'm getting at is that the desire can be adaptive if it can be satisfied, and is not unhealthy.

And we don't mind having to desire, if and only if, there's a payback.

Be careful I use the word "satisfication",( which I made up myself), rather than the word "satisfied", because it suggest a constant active living process, rather than a dead one.

For a dead person doesn't desire, and is in a sense satisfied, but that's not what we really want, now is it.

The Fool: What makes a desire"suffering"is what it never gets satisfied like unrequited love.

zoinks: So if a desire is satisfied, then it isn't suffering?

The Fool: Desire is like an incomplete half, which itself, for the sake of itself is suffering. But a desire, which is synonymously being met, is satisfying.

That is why, pedophilia is a sickness, because they have to live with the desire which they in principle "ought "not fulfill.

zoinks: Would your argument then be that our ultimate goal should be to satisfy our desires to therefore prevent such suffering?

The Fool: You're starting to sound a little insincere. Perhaps it's not intentional. But I'm pretty sure, you're smart enough to have been able to answer your last two questions with the information given from my last post.

As for ultimate goal, I'm not sure, I'm not here to prove the meaning of life, but there are different desires and we surely recognize the morality in feeding the hungry, and making drugs so that people can enjoy a healthy sex life. I've already argued that it increases our overall well-being, and that is fundamental to moral reasoning and progress.

What makes a desire"sickness"is when it's"maladaptive. In other words, when generally"hurts"the subject or somebody else overall.

Two direct questions, then:

zoinks::1. Would you classify bestiality as "maladaptive" - based on the description you provided here - even if both the human and the animal or animals in question appear to be willing partners in any sex acts that took place?

The Fool: You forgot the rationality principle. (although I'm starting to doubt it)
In ethics, we only hold rational beings morally responsible, because they're the only ones we can expect to make informed balance decisions.

Now let's say, there involved a humanoid species that was rational, then maybe, we ought allow it. Just because it doesn't exist for now, or we don't know how to tell now doesn't mean we wont in the future the future. Right?
<(8D)

And maybe we will have to provide them with rights as well. Maybe.

zoinks::2. Would you classify pedophilia as "maladaptive" - based on the description you provided here - even if both the adult and the younger person appear to be willing partners in any sex acts that took place?

The Fool: I've given more than enough information for you to answer this question.
As defined by meant by rationality, gave examples of how we generally consider people rational, and explained that certain stimulus, such as sexual stimulus too young of an age, can cause maladaptive abnormalities. The whole point of having the concept of an adult, is simply a rough measure, we used to decide when one can make their own decisions, unless of course they're mentally disabled.

You're running away.

zoinks: Secondary question to #2: Does age make a difference to you? If yes, what is the "cutoff" in your mind?

The Fool: Adulthood, or "coming to age", is a standard we use in all cultures. We may disagree exactly where that is, but that doesn't mean we don't have an understanding of the range. Modern science, tells us that the brain development is complete at around 18 to 20. That's why, if a child makes it past 18 years old before starting to smoke cigarettes, the chances of taking up smoking later are very low. So that's a pretty good objective standard.

zoinks: Do you feel that your subjective cutoff should be the standard for everyone?What justification do you have for saying so?

The Fool: It's not a subjective standard. And I even give a scientific standard.

Just like, there may be disagreement where, one color becomes another color, but we do nonetheless recognize the general range, by the fact that we can tell the difference. Just like, we have a sense of masculinity and femininity, men and women, even though we would have a hard time picking out the specific aspects.

Just before you try and go there..
<(89)

Against The Ideologist

And 2

(To be continued)
"The bud disappears when the blossom breaks through, and we might say that the former is refuted by the latter; in the same way when the fruit comes, the blossom may be explained to be a false form of the plant's existence, for the fruit appears as its true nature in place of the blossom. These stages are not merely differentiated; they supplant one another as being incompatible with one another." G. W. F. HEGEL
The_Fool_on_the_hill
Posts: 6,071
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/6/2014 9:39:15 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
http://www.debate.org...
"The bud disappears when the blossom breaks through, and we might say that the former is refuted by the latter; in the same way when the fruit comes, the blossom may be explained to be a false form of the plant's existence, for the fruit appears as its true nature in place of the blossom. These stages are not merely differentiated; they supplant one another as being incompatible with one another." G. W. F. HEGEL
YamaVonKarma
Posts: 7,570
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/6/2014 9:54:42 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 12/6/2014 3:06:09 PM, zoinks wrote:
I want to point out a key flaw in the argument that sexual desire is inherent and not a choice. This argument is not my personal argument, but merely using logical reasoning to point out the flawed arguments I see in this forum on a regular basis.

If this were true, it logically means since all sexual desires cannot be controlled and are not choice, then all sexual desires are EQUALLY not a choice.

This means those who have desires to commit bestiality or pedophilia are no different than those with heterosexual or homosexual desires.

Taking it one step further, if you are arguing it is a person's right to choose a partner they are attracted to, that same right extends to those attracted to animals, children, or whatever else.

Put simply: I find it surprising (and a bit disturbing) how many people's arguments in this forum logically show that they support bestiality and pedophilia.

Considering my great grandmother was 13 when she was arranged to and married my 25 year old great grandfather, I am okay with "Pedophilia" as I believe the legal age of marriage and classification of peopphilia needs to be lower.

I'm also okay with bestality as who cares if someone wants to sleep with an animal? We have no problem eating them and hunting them for sport so why not make them our lovers.
People who I've called as mafia DP1:
TUF, and YYW
The_Fool_on_the_hill
Posts: 6,071
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/6/2014 10:23:23 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At Dust Eater
Part 3

The Massacre
The Fool::What makes a desire"immoral, is when it is merely for the sake of harm. Like one who gets off, on the suffering of others.

zoinks: Question: One person is a sadist, the other a masochist. They are essentially yin and yang to one another, as both may enjoy their roles willingly by partnering with each other.

The Fool: Keyword is "enjoy", which is the opposite of "suffering".
QED
<(89)

zoinks:Yet according to what you've just stated, such a partnership would be merely for the sake of harm on the part of one partner (as that is what hey get off on), and would therefore be immoral.

The Fool: I've known a few women who enjoy being physically roughed up. And I believe your equivocating, physical pain, with psychological suffering.

For example let's say somebody enjoys being spanked, "lightly whipped on the a-ss", that physical pain, for them, results in a magnification of psychological pleasure which overrides and surpasses the overall pain sensations. So what they enjoy is the psychological pleasure, that one is giving the other, or one is receiving from giving the other. And if there are two rational consenting adults, (not mentally handicapped, with the non-mentally handicapped) then all the best to them.

You should try it sometime. You might enjoy it.
<(8D)

Aids
zoinks:: Second, even if we ignore those cases, how do you propose to determine if the adults involved are, in fact, "rational" adults?

The Fool: "What I mean by rational being is a being able to make well informed balance decisions. By balance decisions, I mean the ability to balance their beliefs, judgments and actions to correspond with their knowledge base. By informed decision, I mean, a decision based off a sufficient knowledge base."" The measure would be no more bitter than a measure that we use for coming-of-age.

zoinks:: I'm asking for the logical reasoning behind any of these reasons, not more reasons.

The Fool: You're not only being rude, but being wrong as well. I gave my criteria for rationality, and then I defined those two criteria.

zoinks::How do you know someone is making balanced decisions?

The Fool: We cannot perfectly monitor what everybody thinking, And we are in perfect ourselves, that's why, we set a standard age to allow people to be their own agent.

zoinks:Isn't that subjective-

The Fool: Nope. No less objective than being an adult.

zoinks: what is "balanced" to you may not be to them or someone else?

The Fool: 1:1 Ratio.. Thus the term "rational"

zoinks: How do you know they have information necessary?

The Fool: Parenting and perhaps a mandatory education, And then hope for the best. The rest is inductive reasoning, relative to the topic at hand.

zoinks: And exactly what level is "necessary", as this appears to be yet another subjective term?

The Fool: It's a logical term. A necessary condition, versus a sufficient condition. Critical thinking anyone?

The Fool: By equally healthy I mean to the best of our knowledge there is no disease which is caused by homosexual sex, any more or less, then heterosexual sex.

zoinks: According to at least some researchers (I dare say a majority), this isn't true.

The Fool: It's not caused by homosexuality. There has always been homosexuality, and AIDS only a quarter-century old.

zoinks: In at least one case (AIDS) it is generally thought that some homosexual sex acts pose far greater risk of transmission of this specific disease than traditional heterosexual sex acts. Even recent findings back this up:"http://healthland.time.com......

The Fool: It's not because of Homosexuality. Men are generally more interested in casual sex, and are more promiscuous, than women. So gay males tend to have a lot more careless sex, than every other combination of genders. But is not particular to being Homosexual, there just as well individual heterosexuals, who have the same amount of careless sex as Male homosexuals, and so the same risk.

Black people tend to have more sex on average than white people. And Aids is a huge problem for black people, especially in Africa as well. So it's not particular to homosexuals.
QED

Against The Ideologist

And 3
"The bud disappears when the blossom breaks through, and we might say that the former is refuted by the latter; in the same way when the fruit comes, the blossom may be explained to be a false form of the plant's existence, for the fruit appears as its true nature in place of the blossom. These stages are not merely differentiated; they supplant one another as being incompatible with one another." G. W. F. HEGEL
wsmunit7
Posts: 1,318
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/6/2014 10:24:36 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 12/6/2014 5:25:35 PM, zoinks wrote:
The Fool: I don't see pedophilia, or bestiality out as evils per say, in the sense that the perpetrator doesn't really have the intent on harming somebody, but rather relieving their own suffering which is caused by desire.

Would you then say that everyone's sexual desires are akin to "relieving their own suffering which is caused" by that desire?

If not, what makes other sexual desires any different - logically speaking - from pedophilia or bestiality?

It's more of a sickness really.

Same type of question: Would you say all sexual desires are "a sickness"? If not, what makes other sexual desires any different - logically speaking - from pedophilia or bestiality?


However homosexuality is between rational adults, and is not any more unhealthy than heterosexuality.

First, not all cases of homosexuality are between adults.

And likewise not all cases of heterosexuality are between adults either. What are you attempting to imply by your statement?


Second, even if we ignore those cases, how do you propose to determine if the adults involved are, in fact, "rational" adults?

Third, you need to establish your premise regarding hetero and homosexuality being equally healthy.

Clearly there are potential health risks associated with both types of sexual activity; if you wish to argue those risks are equal, you'll need to back that argument up with more than just your say so.

It's not like were underpopulated.

If a condition doesn't exist, that doesn't preclude it from existence for all time.

Hypothetically, if we were underpopulated as a species, homosexuality would be seen as a severe negative to the goal of re-population. This is a moot point only so long as it is not necessary.

However, we CAN logically say that homosexuality does not directly promote the continuation of a species. At best, you could argue that it may indirectly have a positive impact, and while I've heard those arguments before, I find none very convincing.
The_Fool_on_the_hill
Posts: 6,071
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/6/2014 10:58:46 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
Dust Eater
Part 4

The Fool: Perhaps 2000 years ago, when the Bible was written one might have feared that homosexuality would lead to under population, at a time where whole populations could get wiped out in a war, or by a simple virus or bacteria.

zoinks: Perhaps. Or perhaps other influences cause them not to be accepting of "deviant" sexual behaviors of many varieties, only one of which was homosexuality.

The Fool: It's not really something which needs accepting, but something which is denied.

If I try to do something which is different from the norm, especially if it's none of anybody else's business, they are denying me the liberty to do that.

zoinks:If a very small percentage of the population were homosexual (as appears to be the case from what we know in modern times), there probably isn't a population issue.

The Fool: It's hard to see what they would've known back then, as, they also believed, that there were many gods, and gods amongst people, and monsters in the forest. The population size, very small back then, even the biggest cities, were not the size of small modern-day cities. Reproduction was very critical to the survival.

zoinks:However, to see the potential extent of the problem, we can multiply the issue in a hypothetical.

To wit: Let us examine the case where 90+ percent of the population is homosexual and will absolutely not willingly have sexual intercourse with a member of the opposite gender, despite the potential consequences.

In this scenario, continuation of the species is entirely reliant upon less than 10 percent of the population. Should anything happen to those individuals, or should they not be able to reproduce in sufficient numbers, the species could be at risk. This is clearly not an advantage, from either an evolutionary or biological perspective.

Take it one step farther: What if everyone - the entire population - became homosexual and refused sexual intercourse with the opposite gender? Certainly the species is at its end, barring a paradigm shift in which everyone resorts to in vitro or other means of reproduction.

The Fool: Refuted this already.

"But despite there being homosexuals, that doesn't prevent a population from mating for the sake of reproduction, and also having sex with the same-sex for the sake of pleasure."

Even if 100% of the population was homosexual, they can reproduce for the sake of survival. Were talking about rational human beings, not Panda bears.

Just because they don't enjoy sex with each other, doesn't mean they won't have sex, inseminate each other, for the sake of a greater good. Many homosexuals back then had normal families, but had homosexual lovers on the side.

zoinks:: If a condition doesn't exist, that doesn't preclude it from existence for all time.

The Fool: Just because dragons don't exist, doesn't mean there won't be dragons later. That type of reasoning doesn't help anybody.

zoinks::Not when it comes to dragons or other shot-in-the-dark instances, but when you use realistic hypothetical situations, it fits.

The Fool: all your hypothetical situations have been refuted indefinitely.

zoinks:: Hypothetically, if we were underpopulated as a species, homosexuality would be seen as a severe negative to the goal of re-population. This is a moot point only so long as it is not necessary.
The Fool: As refuted already.
zoinks: With what?

The Fool: "But despite there being homosexuals, that doesn't prevent a population from mating for the sake of reproduction, and also having sex with the same-sex for the sake of pleasure."

You must be very afraid, of the truth.

zoinks: Because it is not necessary in reality, so any hypothetical situations are also simply dismissed, even if they realistically could occur?

The Fool: No, but the burden of proof is on you a positive argument, before any decisions are to be made on that kind of hypothetical argument. At least before you can expect anybody else to take it seriously.

zoinks::: However, we CAN logically say that homosexuality does not directly promote the continuation of a species. At best, you could argue that it may indirectly have a positive impact, and while I've heard those arguments before, I find none very convincing.

The Fool: And so I hope you don't take it personal if I'm not convinced now.

zoinks: I'm not out to convince anyone of anything; I merely present the truth revealed by the use of logical reasoning.

The Fool: Good, I like that. All the better for you to recognize when you've been refuted.

zoinks: If you can see that truth as well, great. If not, perhaps you will if you continue to seek it through logical reasoning.

The Fool: May the truth set you free..

Against The Ideology

Acceptance is often the hardest part.
"The bud disappears when the blossom breaks through, and we might say that the former is refuted by the latter; in the same way when the fruit comes, the blossom may be explained to be a false form of the plant's existence, for the fruit appears as its true nature in place of the blossom. These stages are not merely differentiated; they supplant one another as being incompatible with one another." G. W. F. HEGEL
wsmunit7
Posts: 1,318
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/7/2014 12:33:07 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
Facts About Homosexuality and Child Molestation

psychology.ucdavis.edu/faculty_sites/rainbow/html/facts_molestation.html
neptune1bond
Posts: 400
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/7/2014 8:29:48 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
The problem here is in implying that just because sexuality might very possibly be inherent, that they are all morally equal when acted upon. Let's assume that we agreed that heterosexual desire, at least, is inherent. Well, even in this case we have decided as a society already that all heterosexual sex is not necessarily moral just because the desire is inherent. Say, for instance, a man and woman who are married have sex because they have sexual desire and decide to act on it and both people are consenting participants. Few people would consider this (in and of itself) as immoral. On the other hand, let's say that a man has sexual desire for a woman and decides to act on it. She also finds him attractive, but she is married to someone else and does not consent to sex with this man. He decides to follow his desire and simply rapes her. Few people would actually think that rape is moral under most circumstances and most people would agree that this rape was immoral considering the facts given. So, in other words, desire does not actually justify rape.

This also is true for pedophilia and bestiality, having a desire that does not stem from choice does not suddenly make everything related to that desire moral or we would have to agree that all rape as acceptable. Even if we agree that sexual desire is inherent rather than a choice, it doesn't really matter in regards to what is or is not moral and which things we have a right to enforce on all of society. On the other hand, the only reason that we might think that homosexuality between consenting adults is immoral in a way that heterosexuality is not mainly has to do with people's personal religious reasons. Unless a person agrees that one religion should have the right to enforce ALL of its beliefs on the entire population, it would be immoral to allow religion to enforce one or some of its beliefs on the rest of society. Why should any group of people have the right to dictate what people can or cannot do in their personal lives? If we agree that this should be allowed, then we should also outlaw pork because it isn't kosher, or outlaw drinking alcohol, or working on Sundays. Even though some people get sick from eating pork and some people can't handle their alcohol and make bad choices, it doesn't mean that we have a right to deny people the ability to make those choices for themselves. So, the disease excuse doesn't really hold up (especially because STDs also occur within heterosexual sex, so it really is a ridiculous argument anyways. If a person is worried about disease, then they should practice safe sex and simply refrain from promiscuous and indiscriminate sex. Easy as that).

As far as the reproductive argument goes, this doesn't really mean much either. For one thing, it isn't currently an issue. In fact, we are overpopulated, if anything. Either way, we cannot deny people their freedom to choose their own relationships because of some unfounded "potential" for a possible future where this might be an issue. If we could, then we should also refuse any relationships between people who can't have babies and people who are fertile which no one is actually arguing for. Even if there was some ridiculous future day where homosexuality was some kind of "threat" to propagation of the species, the fix is actually quite easy. Simply allow for men to donate their sperm to sperm banks and use it to impregnate women who want babies of their own or who are willing to be surrogates for men who want babies. Also use adoption to find homes for unwanted children. Problem solved! That wasn't that hard, now was it?
zoinks
Posts: 1,988
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/7/2014 9:52:46 AM
Posted: 2 years ago

That is why, pedophilia is a sickness, because they have to live with the desire which they in principle "ought "not fulfill.

Whether they "ought" to do so seems to be a subjective thing; please tell me from an objective standpoint why they "ought" anything.


zoinks::1. Would you classify bestiality as "maladaptive" - based on the description you provided here - even if both the human and the animal or animals in question appear to be willing partners in any sex acts that took place?

The Fool: You forgot the rationality principle. (although I'm starting to doubt it)
In ethics, we only hold rational beings morally responsible, because they're the only ones we can expect to make informed balance decisions.

I'm not asking a moral question. I'm asking if you consider the behavior "maladaptive".


Now let's say, there involved a humanoid species that was rational, then maybe, we ought allow it. Just because it doesn't exist for now, or we don't know how to tell now doesn't mean we wont in the future the future. Right?

How do you conclude the animal isn't being rational?


zoinks::2. Would you classify pedophilia as "maladaptive" - based on the description you provided here - even if both the adult and the younger person appear to be willing partners in any sex acts that took place?

The Fool: I've given more than enough information for you to answer this question.
As defined by meant by rationality, gave examples of how we generally consider people rational, and explained that certain stimulus, such as sexual stimulus too young of an age, can cause maladaptive abnormalities. The whole point of having the concept of an adult, is simply a rough measure, we used to decide when one can make their own decisions, unless of course they're mentally disabled.

So what's the answer to the question, then? Is pedophilia "maladaptive" or not?


zoinks: Secondary question to #2: Does age make a difference to you? If yes, what is the "cutoff" in your mind?

The Fool: Adulthood, or "coming to age", is a standard we use in all cultures. We may disagree exactly where that is, but that doesn't mean we don't have an understanding of the range.

Ranges are subjective - that's my point. Anything which is inherently subjective cannot be used as an arguing point in your favor.

Modern science, tells us that the brain development is complete at around 18 to 20.

Does it? I haven't heard anyone state this until now.

That's why, if a child makes it past 18 years old before starting to smoke cigarettes, the chances of taking up smoking later are very low. So that's a pretty good objective standard.

There are a lot of smokers out there - is it your opinion most of them took up smoking before age 18? Do you have any evidence to back this up?


zoinks: Do you feel that your subjective cutoff should be the standard for everyone?What justification do you have for saying so?

The Fool: It's not a subjective standard. And I even give a scientific standard.

No, it's just more subjectivity. I've seen no evidence from you why the standard you state should be applied across the board.


Just like, there may be disagreement where, one color becomes another color, but we do nonetheless recognize the general range, by the fact that we can tell the difference.

Yes, but we cannot say objectively when one color becomes the next because of the inherent subjectivity involved.

Just like, we have a sense of masculinity and femininity, men and women, even though we would have a hard time picking out the specific aspects.

Again, subjectivity.
zoinks
Posts: 1,988
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/7/2014 10:03:06 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
The Fool::What makes a desire"immoral, is when it is merely for the sake of harm. Like one who gets off, on the suffering of others.

zoinks: Question: One person is a sadist, the other a masochist. They are essentially yin and yang to one another, as both may enjoy their roles willingly by partnering with each other.

The Fool: Keyword is "enjoy", which is the opposite of "suffering".

Yet this flies in the face of what you've already said. Clearly one partner is using this merely for the sake of harming the other because they get off on the suffering of others. Just because the other one enjoys said suffering doesn't mean anything.


The Fool: I've known a few women who enjoy being physically roughed up. And I believe your equivocating, physical pain, with psychological suffering.

You previously made no distinction between the two, so I didn't apply one. I'm only questioning your premise, not devising one of my own.


zoinks:: I'm asking for the logical reasoning behind any of these reasons, not more reasons.

The Fool: You're not only being rude, but being wrong as well. I gave my criteria for rationality, and then I defined those two criteria.

Yet you haven't provided any logical reasoning. My asking for said logical reasoning isn't being rude; it's merely asking for something that should be easy to provide - assuming you believe your argument holds up to the scrutiny of logical reasoning.


zoinks::How do you know someone is making balanced decisions?

The Fool: We cannot perfectly monitor what everybody thinking, And we are in perfect ourselves, that's why, we set a standard age to allow people to be their own agent.

So then you don't know if someone is making balanced decisions, which means your argument from such is invalid.


zoinks: And exactly what level is "necessary", as this appears to be yet another subjective term?

The Fool: It's a logical term. A necessary condition, versus a sufficient condition. Critical thinking anyone?

Give me the criteria for establishing the difference and show how it is objective rather than subjective.


The Fool: By equally healthy I mean to the best of our knowledge there is no disease which is caused by homosexual sex, any more or less, then heterosexual sex.

zoinks: According to at least some researchers (I dare say a majority), this isn't true.

The Fool: It's not caused by homosexuality. There has always been homosexuality, and AIDS only a quarter-century old.

I never said homosexuality caused AIDS. We weren't talking about causation. We were talking about the differences in health between hetero and homosexual behavior.


zoinks: In at least one case (AIDS) it is generally thought that some homosexual sex acts pose far greater risk of transmission of this specific disease than traditional heterosexual sex acts. Even recent findings back this up:"http://healthland.time.com......

The Fool: It's not because of Homosexuality. Men are generally more interested in casual sex, and are more promiscuous, than women. So gay males tend to have a lot more careless sex, than every other combination of genders.

Perhaps. Even if true, that's not the only factor involved. Indeed, it is the nature of the sex acts themselves - specifically anal sex - which results in higher health risk vis a vis AIDS.

But is not particular to being Homosexual, there just as well individual heterosexuals, who have the same amount of careless sex as Male homosexuals, and so the same risk.

Again, it is not merely the careless sex but the nature of the act itself which poses health risks.


Black people tend to have more sex on average than white people.

I don't know if this is true or not. Can you provide some more information to back this up?

And Aids is a huge problem for black people, especially in Africa as well. So it's not particular to homosexuals.

Part of the problem with AIDS in Africa is the nature of the family traditions there, specifically, the tradition in which the brother or other male relative takes on caring for a dead man's wife - including sexually. This causes sexually transmitted diseases - including AIDS - to spread more rapidly than in areas where such traditions do not exist.

It is not comparable to how AIDS impacts homosexuals.
zoinks
Posts: 1,988
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/7/2014 10:04:11 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
And likewise not all cases of heterosexuality are between adults either. What are you attempting to imply by your statement?

First, I imply nothing. I state exactly what I mean.

Second, what is your point?
zoinks
Posts: 1,988
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/7/2014 10:14:34 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
zoinks: Perhaps. Or perhaps other influences cause them not to be accepting of "deviant" sexual behaviors of many varieties, only one of which was homosexuality.

The Fool: It's not really something which needs accepting, but something which is denied.

Denying a behavior which is seen as unacceptable is what human beings traditionally do to avoid the perceived consequences of such behaviors.


If I try to do something which is different from the norm, especially if it's none of anybody else's business, they are denying me the liberty to do that.

How do you determine whether or not is is "anybody else's business" - from an objective standpoint, not merely your feeling that this is the case?

After all, if your behavior has any discernible impact upon society as a whole or on other people, then it can be said to be "their business".



zoinks:However, to see the potential extent of the problem, we can multiply the issue in a hypothetical.

To wit: Let us examine the case where 90+ percent of the population is homosexual and will absolutely not willingly have sexual intercourse with a member of the opposite gender, despite the potential consequences.

In this scenario, continuation of the species is entirely reliant upon less than 10 percent of the population. Should anything happen to those individuals, or should they not be able to reproduce in sufficient numbers, the species could be at risk. This is clearly not an advantage, from either an evolutionary or biological perspective.

Take it one step farther: What if everyone - the entire population - became homosexual and refused sexual intercourse with the opposite gender? Certainly the species is at its end, barring a paradigm shift in which everyone resorts to in vitro or other means of reproduction.

The Fool: Refuted this already.

No, you haven't - that's why I took the time to point it all out. So please address the point.


"But despite there being homosexuals, that doesn't prevent a population from mating for the sake of reproduction, and also having sex with the same-sex for the sake of pleasure."

Even if 100% of the population was homosexual, they can reproduce for the sake of survival. Were talking about rational human beings, not Panda bears.

You're assuming that enough people would be "rational" enough to dismiss their own strong desires to perform an act they find repulsive just to continue the species - and I think that's quite a leap.

If reproduction were predicated upon something unpleasurable, the species would have no doubt died out long ago - as it would in a case where people find sexual intercourse to be unpleasurable.


Just because they don't enjoy sex with each other, doesn't mean they won't have sex, inseminate each other, for the sake of a greater good. Many homosexuals back then had normal families, but had homosexual lovers on the side.

How do you know they were homosexuals? Perhaps they were simply normal heterosexual people who decided to experiment sexually, including through homosexual sex acts?


The Fool: all your hypothetical situations have been refuted indefinitely.

Why? Because you've declared it as such? You have yet to address a single situation, much less hope to refute one.


zoinks:: Hypothetically, if we were underpopulated as a species, homosexuality would be seen as a severe negative to the goal of re-population. This is a moot point only so long as it is not necessary.
The Fool: As refuted already.
zoinks: With what?

The Fool: "But despite there being homosexuals, that doesn't prevent a population from mating for the sake of reproduction, and also having sex with the same-sex for the sake of pleasure."

Again, if we find something unpleasurable, we don't typically take part in that something.

zoinks: Because it is not necessary in reality, so any hypothetical situations are also simply dismissed, even if they realistically could occur?

The Fool: No, but the burden of proof is on you a positive argument, before any decisions are to be made on that kind of hypothetical argument. At least before you can expect anybody else to take it seriously.

I'm merely presenting you with a hypothetical to show the flaws in your reasoning. You're ignoring it because you don't want me to point them out.

zoinks: I'm not out to convince anyone of anything; I merely present the truth revealed by the use of logical reasoning.

The Fool: Good, I like that. All the better for you to recognize when you've been refuted.

Which makes it easy to see you have not managed to do so despite numerous claims that you have.


zoinks: If you can see that truth as well, great. If not, perhaps you will if you continue to seek it through logical reasoning.

The Fool: May the truth set you free..

It already has. I'm trying to help you see the same.
FaustianJustice
Posts: 6,224
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/7/2014 12:15:05 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 12/6/2014 5:25:35 PM, zoinks wrote:
The Fool: I don't see pedophilia, or bestiality out as evils per say, in the sense that the perpetrator doesn't really have the intent on harming somebody, but rather relieving their own suffering which is caused by desire.

Would you then say that everyone's sexual desires are akin to "relieving their own suffering which is caused" by that desire?


If not, what makes other sexual desires any different - logically speaking - from pedophilia or bestiality?

There isn't. Sexual desire is sexual desire.

It's more of a sickness really.

Same type of question: Would you say all sexual desires are "a sickness"? If not, what makes other sexual desires any different - logically speaking - from pedophilia or bestiality?

Sicknesses would infer some variety of detriment to the participants. Healthy sexual relationships rely on consent in which no reasonable harm is done to a person., failing that, its abuse.


However homosexuality is between rational adults, and is not any more unhealthy than heterosexuality.

First, not all cases of homosexuality are between adults.

... and? The same can be said of heterosexuality.

Second, even if we ignore those cases, how do you propose to determine if the adults involved are, in fact, "rational" adults?

...here we go....

Third, you need to establish your premise regarding hetero and homosexuality being equally healthy.

yup. Here we go. Consent, and non abusive.

Clearly there are potential health risks associated with both types of sexual activity; if you wish to argue those risks are equal, you'll need to back that argument up with more than just your say so.

Remember to exclude medical journals, those are ad populam, right?

It's not like were underpopulated.

If a condition doesn't exist, that doesn't preclude it from existence for all time.

Hypothetically, if we were underpopulated as a species, homosexuality would be seen as a severe negative to the goal of re-population. This is a moot point only so long as it is not necessary.

However, we CAN logically say that homosexuality does not directly promote the continuation of a species. At best, you could argue that it may indirectly have a positive impact, and while I've heard those arguments before, I find none very convincing.

.... and? If your concept of sexuality is based solely on the perpetuation of the specie, sure. But this would also include heterosexual acts that aren't for the population's benefit either as being a non-positive. Is that a correct assessment?
Here we have an advocate for Islamic arranged marriages demonstrating that children can consent to sex.
http://www.debate.org...
zoinks
Posts: 1,988
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/7/2014 2:01:14 PM
Posted: 2 years ago

If not, what makes other sexual desires any different - logically speaking - from pedophilia or bestiality?

There isn't. Sexual desire is sexual desire.

Then by virtue of the fact that you say all sexual desires are the same, relationships based upon pedophilia and bestiality should be seen by you no differently than those based on other sexual desires.

In other words, you are perfectly okay with pedophilia and bestiality. Correct? If not, how do you then justify saying all sexual desires are equal?


Sicknesses would infer some variety of detriment to the participants. Healthy sexual relationships rely on consent in which no reasonable harm is done to a person., failing that, its abuse.

How do you determine consent?

If an animal or a younger person is a willing participant, how would you go about establishing lack of consent (should you wish to do so)?


Second, even if we ignore those cases, how do you propose to determine if the adults involved are, in fact, "rational" adults?

...here we go....

Yes, whenever I invoke logical reasoning and you have no effective argument against it, that really bothers you.


Third, you need to establish your premise regarding hetero and homosexuality being equally healthy.

yup. Here we go. Consent, and non abusive.

How do you establish consent? Or that it is non-abusive?


Clearly there are potential health risks associated with both types of sexual activity; if you wish to argue those risks are equal, you'll need to back that argument up with more than just your say so.

Remember to exclude medical journals, those are ad populam, right?

It all depends upon how they are used.

That was your problem in the other thread - it wasn't the sources which were ad populum, as you mistakenly seem to believe, but rather it was YOUR USE of the sources which made YOUR ARGUMENT ad populum.

If your concept of sexuality is based solely on the perpetuation of the specie, sure.

If the species comes to an end, it all becomes moot, so yes I'd say the survival of the species matters.

But this would also include heterosexual acts that aren't for the population's benefit either as being a non-positive. Is that a correct assessment?

Being a non-positive, yes. Being a negative, no. There is a difference. There is no negative because two people of opposite genders engaging in other sex acts could lead to them engaging in acts which lead to reproduction.

However, homosexual acts could be a negative rather than a non-positive, as they discourage behaviors which would lead to reproduction. They absolutely do since you can't reproduce with someone of the same gender, so there is no homosexual sex act which will lead to one resulting in reproduction.
Greyparrot
Posts: 14,282
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/7/2014 2:22:29 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 12/6/2014 3:06:09 PM, zoinks wrote:
I want to point out a key flaw in the argument that sexual desire is inherent and not a choice. This argument is not my personal argument, but merely using logical reasoning to point out the flawed arguments I see in this forum on a regular basis.

If this were true, it logically means since all sexual desires cannot be controlled and are not choice, then all sexual desires are EQUALLY not a choice.

This means those who have desires to commit bestiality or pedophilia are no different than those with heterosexual or homosexual desires.

Taking it one step further, if you are arguing it is a person's right to choose a partner they are attracted to, that same right extends to those attracted to animals, children, or whatever else.

Put simply: I find it surprising (and a bit disturbing) how many people's arguments in this forum logically show that they support bestiality and pedophilia.

I support that pedophilia is uncurable as is homosexuality.

Homosexuality doesn't hurt kids though.
FaustianJustice
Posts: 6,224
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/7/2014 2:23:31 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 12/7/2014 2:01:14 PM, zoinks wrote:

If not, what makes other sexual desires any different - logically speaking - from pedophilia or bestiality?

There isn't. Sexual desire is sexual desire.

Then by virtue of the fact that you say all sexual desires are the same, relationships based upon pedophilia and bestiality should be seen by you no differently than those based on other sexual desires.

Newp. Not by a long shot. The desire is the same, not the practice.

In other words, you are perfectly okay with pedophilia and bestiality. Correct? If not, how do you then justify saying all sexual desires are equal?

Because desire and engagement of said desire are not the same.


Sicknesses would infer some variety of detriment to the participants. Healthy sexual relationships rely on consent in which no reasonable harm is done to a person., failing that, its abuse.

How do you determine consent?

... here we go... this should be pretty easy, but I think you are asking for argument sake. Remember how in the previous thread where you were saying your definition of sexuality yadda yadda yadda, except in cases of rape? There is your answer. That is what rape is, that is what a lack of consent involves.

If an animal or a younger person is a willing participant, how would you go about establishing lack of consent (should you wish to do so)?

Children can't consent to such an act by law, which is based around our understanding of the developing mind, they can't give an informed consent to such a thing, they don't fully understand it, or its consequences. With an animal... meh? Your guess is as good as mine, if no consent can be agreed on, then no engagement should be done.


Second, even if we ignore those cases, how do you propose to determine if the adults involved are, in fact, "rational" adults?

...here we go....

Yes, whenever I invoke logical reasoning and you have no effective argument against it, that really bothers you.

You aren't invoking logical reasoning. You are asking an obvious question, and calling it logical reasoning. The next step is to dismiss bodies of research on what constitutes 'rational', and frankly, you can dig that rabbit hole as deep as you like, I am not interested in following it.


Third, you need to establish your premise regarding hetero and homosexuality being equally healthy.

yup. Here we go. Consent, and non abusive.

How do you establish consent? Or that it is non-abusive?

You already know the answers to these questions, you used that answer as a stipulation in your definition of sexuality.


Clearly there are potential health risks associated with both types of sexual activity; if you wish to argue those risks are equal, you'll need to back that argument up with more than just your say so.

Remember to exclude medical journals, those are ad populam, right?

It all depends upon how they are used.

Second verse same as the first.

That was your problem in the other thread - it wasn't the sources which were ad populum, as you mistakenly seem to believe, but rather it was YOUR USE of the sources which made YOUR ARGUMENT ad populum.

One more time....


If your concept of sexuality is based solely on the perpetuation of the specie, sure.

If the species comes to an end, it all becomes moot, so yes I'd say the survival of the species matters.

Big if, is that how you base your sexuality on, though?

But this would also include heterosexual acts that aren't for the population's benefit either as being a non-positive. Is that a correct assessment?

Being a non-positive, yes. Being a negative, no. There is a difference. There is no negative because two people of opposite genders engaging in other sex acts could lead to them engaging in acts which lead to reproduction.

Could might maybe. Or, they might not. If they don't.... what does that mean about heterosexuality and homosexuality? Fellatio is negative. Sodomy is negative. Cunnilingus is negative. Masturbation is negative. These actions can be conducted by both sexualities, and reproduction doesn't occur. If its all equal, and acts that lead to reproduction are positive, there isn't a 'non positive' in all this. Your baseline is established: increase the specie.

However, homosexual acts could be a negative rather than a non-positive, as they discourage behaviors which would lead to reproduction. They absolutely do since you can't reproduce with someone of the same gender, so there is no homosexual sex act which will lead to one resulting in reproduction.

'discourage'? What heterosexuals decline sexual action based on the actions of other people? Their sexual actions have no bearing on anyone else's.
Here we have an advocate for Islamic arranged marriages demonstrating that children can consent to sex.
http://www.debate.org...
zoinks
Posts: 1,988
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/7/2014 9:17:25 PM
Posted: 2 years ago

Then by virtue of the fact that you say all sexual desires are the same, relationships based upon pedophilia and bestiality should be seen by you no differently than those based on other sexual desires.

Newp. Not by a long shot. The desire is the same, not the practice.

So how do you develop a distinction? Because you say so?


In other words, you are perfectly okay with pedophilia and bestiality. Correct? If not, how do you then justify saying all sexual desires are equal?

Because desire and engagement of said desire are not the same.

So then these various sexualities are not based on desire but upon action? Wait! You argue in another thread that action isn't relevant, only desire determines sexuality. So which is it?


... here we go... this should be pretty easy, but I think you are asking for argument sake.

No. I'm asking you to back up what you're saying with something more than your own say so.

Remember how in the previous thread where you were saying your definition of sexuality yadda yadda yadda, except in cases of rape? There is your answer. That is what rape is, that is what a lack of consent involves.

A rape is sex without consent, and consent is what to you, exactly?

Children can't consent to such an act by law, which is based around our understanding of the developing mind,

So another argument ad populum, then? Based on what others say, with nothing else to back it up?

they can't give an informed consent to such a thing, they don't fully understand it, or its consequences.

How do you know they don't understand? How do you determine that?

With an animal... meh? Your guess is as good as mine, if no consent can be agreed on, then no engagement should be done.

I wouldn't guess, I'd want to verify it. But you seem to favor wild guesses in the dark and setting your own arbitrary points for all of your opinions.


Yes, whenever I invoke logical reasoning and you have no effective argument against it, that really bothers you.

You aren't invoking logical reasoning. You are asking an obvious question, and calling it logical reasoning.

I'm asking the question to point out that your argument isn't logical. The question represents a hole in your argument.


Third, you need to establish your premise regarding hetero and homosexuality being equally healthy.

yup. Here we go. Consent, and non abusive.

How do you establish consent? Or that it is non-abusive?

You already know the answers to these questions, you used that answer as a stipulation in your definition of sexuality.

I don't know how you establish consent or lack of abuse. Your argument doesn't specify; I'm asking because it seems like you don't know your own argument.


That was your problem in the other thread - it wasn't the sources which were ad populum, as you mistakenly seem to believe, but rather it was YOUR USE of the sources which made YOUR ARGUMENT ad populum.

One more time....

Keep arguing ad populum and I'll keep calling you out for it.


Could might maybe. Or, they might not. If they don't.... what does that mean about heterosexuality and homosexuality? Fellatio is negative. Sodomy is negative. Cunnilingus is negative. Masturbation is negative. These actions can be conducted by both sexualities, and reproduction doesn't occur.

Those acts conducted by two heterosexuals can lead to reproductive actions. Those acts conducted by two homosexuals cannot.