California overturned gay-marriage ban today!

Post Reply New Topic

What kind of chili are you talking about?

By far the best kind of canned chili (the only worthwhile one, even) I have encountered is Wolf brand. I am saddened that it cannot be found in California. Back in Texas we could lie back on a warm summer day with a tall glass of this delicious chili, and drink to our hearts' contents (true whether you emphasize the first or second syllable of "contents").

I really don't care for the color orange, or screaming children, or excessive piercings and tattoos, or heterosexual PDA for that matter. Should I be able to stop other people from "pushing" that "aesthetic" on me?

Besides, what the heck even counts has "homosexual public displays"? How is gay PDA different than het PDA? Does holding hands count? A light kiss? Please, do let me know what regulations you have in mind. I admit I sometimes do the above with my opposite-sex partner, and I wouldn't want to impose any kind of unpleasant heterosexual PDA aesthetic on anyone.

You seem not to recognize that in this country, people have the right to free expression. If this includes the right for neo-Nazis to march in a town with a high proportion of Holocaust survivors--and the Supreme Court says that it does--then surely Adam and Steve doing exactly what Darla and Jimmy do is fair game. You don't like it, don't look.

Who are you to say what is a strong moral point , or not? In fact, how do you define moral? Morality can be defined as a preference (i.e Its immoral to have sex with underage children) by some people.

I want a proof of what makes a strong moral point. If you can't do this all objectively, delete post now!

Well, if he has stated that his reasoning is based upon his own personal preferences, not some transcendent moral structure, then it seems to follow, based upon most moral theories, that his point isn't a strong moral point as he doesn't really universalize the claim as most metaethical theories would demand of a moral structure valid for all people. I would really tend towards the definition of morality as transcendent, but usually allow for the preference based position on the grounds that most people will want to call their moral intuitions to be morality, whereas I would prefer not to but find forcing everyone to function with my terminology to be such a hassle as to not be worth it from my own perspective. Such terminology is not really one that I'd prefer as it confuses things significantly, but I still use it for communication's sake, as most individuals are not so hyper concerned with the semantics as they are concerned with what they tend to perceive to be the meanings.

Look at these metaethical theories: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Meta-ethic ... l_theories These are the choices known to exist.

Moral realism demands something deeper than a preference, so therefore realist theories are eliminated. Error theories deny the existence of morality, therefore they are eliminated. Divine command and ideal observer theories are not invoked in this instance, therefore they are eliminated. Cultural relativism would demand cultural support, the poster does not invoke that and instead uses terms such as "I". Individual subjectivism then would be the only thing remaining, and that does not work because it essentially boils down to the same thing as an error theory on a theoretical level, so no strong moral point could be invoked by that because of the lack of universal acceptability. Not only that, but if we do not take my attack on individual subjectivism seriously, we can just look to the poster's own connotations, which aren't even strong given that "want" is a mild term of desire that is less than "need" or "must have" and it applies to things as mundane as ice cream, which tends not to show strong preference. We can argue that the poster was using understatement, however, a parsimonious view of the accepted facts would suggest that they aren't and there are no additional premises that I am aware of that would cause any of us, or at least myself, to assume that this is understatement.

All of that said and done, I cannot "prove" this as you seem to request out of your bastardly idiocy and ridiculous folly. However, I can attempt to interpret evidence in a manner that would likely appeal to most parties present. As well, I hardly need to delete my own post even if it did not meet up to your standards so long as it was well thought out and accounted for any issues they may be involved on this topic.

Just like you seem to do. I thought it doesn't matter where something originates, as the criticism is still valid? Don't like it when the tables are turned, huh? All of a sudden, you don't like it when you're own relativistic reasoning is used against you. Suddenly your reasons are good enough, but my utilitarian ones aren't.

Ah arbitrary reasons. As Dostoevsky explained, whats so great about reason?

Last edited by Kalister1 on 17 May 2008, 10:00 am, edited 3 times in total.

Kalister, you can't just say, "Ad hominem," and expect to win. Just saying "I win!" doesn't decide anything.

He does it. The bottom line is, he doesn't like his relativistic reasoning turned against him. Suddenly he crys foul.

There is the difference in what I "seem to do", I very rarely attack people with my views and mostly attacked you for your dogmatism. Your attack and my attack are very different. You held to your ethics, I slid back into metaethics and tried to make an appeal to commonly accepted premises held by participants on this matter. I insulted you though because you acted with relatively explicit purpose to be an as*hole. My reasons ARE better than your reasons, just as metaethics is more fundamental than ethics. Oscuria has an ethical system and you do too, how do you break things down then? You have to appeal to something beyond a particular ethical system, something you did not attempt to do at all.

The great thing about reason is that it is a commonly accepted belief in this thread.


Kalister, no, I do not use ad hominem attacks as a major force often. I insult people if I feel that they deserve it but mostly I tend to take a rather reason based approach. The bottom line is that you are a jerk and a thick-headed one at that. My "relativistic reasoning" is hardly relativistic at all and certainly rational as it is rational to the point of skepticism and a seeking of truth through more basic premises that are closer to home. I did not cry foul so much as I recognized what your true purpose was and thought poorly of it. Frankly, we could have technically had a discussion on the validity of oscuria's reasoning or something of that nature if your efforts were not towards pettiness as they obviously were.

In fact, why don't you actually identify the premises within that you have specifically identified in my reasoning that you do not like rather than attempting a "reductio ad postmodernism" on me as another poster eloquently put it. So far you did not like my statements on value which I later sought to clarify to make a distinction between objective value and subjective value, with the former not existing but the latter certainly existing. For the most part though, I see you attempting to mischaracterize me through a label and then dismiss me though that label, which is NOT logical argumentation, and if you hold yourself to that standard then you need to stick to it as to be consistent, and if you do not hold yourself to that standard/are not consistent, then why attack me? You have no reason to do so, and you don't accept a postmodern framework, so that cannot be your justification.

Perhaps you might be surprised a little that I feel a similar way about what is shown on TV.


well, disrespectful not sure, it depends I guess on their intention, but I understand feeling uncomfortable with that, I also feel uncomfortable with a couple showing their affection if they are next to me, although if they are far then, not much problem, but they shouldn't complain if I stare

Your reasons aren't better than my reasons. I seek to defend the gay people who are ACTUALLY IN THIS THREAD, while you just want to walk around like king of the hill. You question everything to make yourself seem intellectual superior, and for no reason other than that.

They weren't. What is "obvious" isn't what is. Again , you're being hypocritical. You say what seems isn't, yet use that as an argument yourself. Your logic is flawed.

I don't label you. You obviously just want to be skeptical to the point of absurdity. So fine, if you want to use that argumentation, prepare to have it thrown right back at you.

I only answered some of the points, because you seem to want to just have your ego inflated. Thats fine. Take it or leave it.

lol, you're like the gestapo to the gays. Verbally abusing people who don't agree with your ideology.

Iron Man was a decent movie. I actually liked it. One of the rare times I go to a movie and enjoy it. If you haven't you should watch it.


And you're right, people in public shouldn't complain when they're in a private moment.

People should not have private moments in public. Many aspects of modern society have become too permissive IMO.

Better than being a homophobe. But thanks , I'll take that as a compliment.

You can call me a homophobe if you like. I don't care if you think I'm a homophobe.

Well, gay people IN THIS THREAD can defend themselves, or at least should learn how to from probably both my perspective and yours. Heck, they don't even NEED defense from all that is happening in this thread as NOBODY is making ANY strong proclamation. If some fool were arguing natural law I would clamp down upon him/her. If another were trying strongly to proselyte using crude tactics, I would attack that person. Heck, if you want to know my underlying bias, then I'll tell you, I am going to defend things in a very individualistic libertarian manner, meaning that everybody has a right to think whatever the hell they want whether it is sexist, racist, homophobic, tolerant or whatever, but the issue is whether or not I can crush their general principles for "society should do X or Y". If you look at my underlying bias in such a manner then you'll see a much clearer picture of why I may seem so "relativistic" at one point or another and can take so many varying sides in so many different conflicts.


It was obvious from the context. I am not being hypocritical at all as I never stated as a general rule "What seems isn't in all cases for all people", but rather perhaps using "most" in both people and cases. The logic isn't flawed at all as one can use my logic correctly.


HA!! ! You don't label me? You have done so enough times in this thread where the statement seems questionable if not dishonest. I don't necessarily go to the point of absurdity though and I have not been trying to do so in this thread. In fact, I only accept the thought of skepticism to absurdity in cases where it defends the tolerance of views I like to maintain.

Perhaps I only do, but still, why is that right or wrong in a discussion? My answer is that it isn't. My second answer is that nobody else's motives are or can be purer. My third answer is that my approach can still bear fruit as I only explore the grey when I think that it needs to be explored, just as all others use methodologies for their own purposes.