disorder of assumption

The Off-Topic forum for anything non-LDS related, such as sports or politics. Rated G through PG-13.
Amore
God
Posts: 1090
Joined: Wed Sep 03, 2014 10:27 am

Re: disorder of assumption

Post by Amore »

Brad Hudson wrote:homosexuality is perverse because I think anal sex is icky.

Why do you think anal sex is icky, Brad?
You wrote that, nobody else.
Is it because of emotional reasoning - you just don't like it?
Or have you had experience of a doctor calling it icky poop (feces) exit... or did he/she simply warn you of anal fissures, anal cancer, colon rupture and bacterial infection, as risks of anal sex?

User avatar
Res Ipsa
God
Posts: 9748
Joined: Fri Oct 05, 2012 5:37 pm

Re: disorder of assumption

Post by Res Ipsa »

Amore wrote:
Brad Hudson wrote:homosexuality is perverse because I think anal sex is icky.

Why do you think anal sex is icky, Brad?
You wrote that, nobody else.
Is it because of emotional reasoning - you just don't like it?
Or have you had experience of a doctor calling it icky poop (feces) exit... or did he/she simply warn you of anal fissures, anal cancer, colon rupture and bacterial infection, as risks of anal sex?


Try again. Your reading compression is a bad as your reasoning.
​“The ideal subject of totalitarian rule is not the convinced Nazi or the dedicated communist, but people for whom the distinction between fact and fiction, true and false, no longer exists.”

― Hannah Arendt, The Origins of Totalitarianism, 1951

User avatar
Res Ipsa
God
Posts: 9748
Joined: Fri Oct 05, 2012 5:37 pm

Re: disorder of assumption

Post by Res Ipsa »

There are a million different human behaviors that increase the chance of injury, sickness, or death. You want to know one of the riskiest, unnatural behaviors: driving. Driving a car is not natural. And it causes orders of magnitude more deaths in the U.S. than HIV. Here are some other risky behaviors: mountain climbing, skydiving, eating poorly, not getting enough exercise, not getting a measles vaccination. Yet, Amore singles out one of these behaviors as a perversion. She singles out one as worth of moral condemnation, shaming, belittling. Why do we think that is?

You know what's risky in terms of sexual behavior? Sex with men. Both men and women increase their odds of getting STDs dramatically by having sex with men. Obviously, sex with men is a mental illness and a pervasion that must be stopped.
​“The ideal subject of totalitarian rule is not the convinced Nazi or the dedicated communist, but people for whom the distinction between fact and fiction, true and false, no longer exists.”

― Hannah Arendt, The Origins of Totalitarianism, 1951

User avatar
just me
God
Posts: 9070
Joined: Mon Mar 22, 2010 3:46 pm

Re: disorder of assumption

Post by just me »

Straight sex is super risky. All sexual contact comes with some risk. Oh well. Most humans go for the sex anyway. The important thing to do is teach those risks to our youth so they are prepared to make those decisions for themselves. All types of sexual contact have benefits, as well, by the way.

The natural/unnatural argument is pointless, because either way the anti-gay argument loses.

The thing is, it is wrong to keep equal rights from any group of people just because you don't like what they do.

Marriage has risks, too, but we still let straights get married. We could talk about some unquestionably unhealthy choices that we allow adults to make like cigarette use.

The argument that children and teens are going to just turn gay or change their sex or gender identity because of the "Gay Agenda" shows a total lack of understanding human sexuality, sex and gender. Telling LBGT kids that it is okay for them to be themselves is a GOOD and healthy thing. Pretending gay doesn't exist isn't going to prevent kids from being born gay. But it will harm their mental health and could prevent them from gaining the tools they need to navigate a healthy life.

If you are so concerned about the ass health of society maybe you should take out some public service announcements or something because gay men are not the only ones with risk in the asshole department. Do you know what pregnancy and delivering a baby can do to your ass, god, do you know what it can do to your vagina!?! Why aren't you worried about vagina health?
~Those who benefit from the status quo always attribute inequities to the choices of the underdog.~Ann Crittenden
~The Goddess is not separate from the world-She is the world and all things in it.~

User avatar
just me
God
Posts: 9070
Joined: Mon Mar 22, 2010 3:46 pm

Re: disorder of assumption

Post by just me »

Brad Hudson wrote:
You know what's risky in terms of sexual behavior? Sex with men. Both men and women increase their odds of getting STDs dramatically by having sex with men. Obviously, sex with men is a mental illness and a pervasion that must be stopped.


I'm such a perv. :lol:
~Those who benefit from the status quo always attribute inequities to the choices of the underdog.~Ann Crittenden
~The Goddess is not separate from the world-She is the world and all things in it.~

Gunnar
God
Posts: 5559
Joined: Sat Aug 11, 2012 12:17 am

Re: disorder of assumption

Post by Gunnar »

Amore wrote:First you claim it's absurd that homosexuality in humans is justified by comparing human behavior to behavior of wild animals.
Now, you're stating that wild animals should not be compared to humans.
Which is it that you're attempting to argue?

Don't put words in my mouth. I never claimed either of those positions. I only pointed out that what other species do or don't do has little or no bearing on what humans ought to do or not do, and can't be logically used as justification for either condoning or condemning human homosexuality.
No precept or claim is more deservedly suspect or more likely to be false than one that can only be supported by invoking the claim of Divine authority for it--no matter who or what claims such authority.

“If you make people think they're thinking, they'll love you; but if you really make them think, they'll hate you.”
― Harlan Ellison

Gunnar
God
Posts: 5559
Joined: Sat Aug 11, 2012 12:17 am

Re: disorder of assumption

Post by Gunnar »

Brad Hudson wrote:There are a million different human behaviors that increase the chance of injury, sickness, or death. You want to know one of the riskiest, unnatural behaviors: driving. Driving a car is not natural. And it causes orders of magnitude more deaths in the U.S. than HIV. Here are some other risky behaviors: mountain climbing, skydiving, eating poorly, not getting enough exercise, not getting a measles vaccination. Yet, Amore singles out one of these behaviors as a perversion. She singles out one as worth of moral condemnation, shaming, belittling. Why do we think that is?

You know what's risky in terms of sexual behavior? Sex with men. Both men and women increase their odds of getting STDs dramatically by having sex with men. Obviously, sex with men is a mental illness and a pervasion that must be stopped.

You know, there really is something to that . I am a confirmed heterosexual male, and not only do I find it hard to imagine myself enjoying sex with another male, I sometimes find it a bit hard to imagine why even a woman would necessarily prefer sex with a male (particularly some males I have met) to sex with another woman. Nevertheless, I am grateful that my wife prefers me over someone of her own sex as a sexual partner.

As for anal sex, I can easily understand why someone might be turned of and disgusted by it, and I don't think that it is necessary for satisfactory and enjoyable sex, whether homosexual or heterosexual.
No precept or claim is more deservedly suspect or more likely to be false than one that can only be supported by invoking the claim of Divine authority for it--no matter who or what claims such authority.

“If you make people think they're thinking, they'll love you; but if you really make them think, they'll hate you.”
― Harlan Ellison

User avatar
SteelHead
God
Posts: 8246
Joined: Mon May 16, 2011 7:40 pm

Re: disorder of assumption

Post by SteelHead »

You know, somebody who thinks that human sex is some how intrinsically different than animal sex....... has issues.

News flash. Humans are animals.
It is better to be a warrior in a garden, than a gardener at war.

Some of us, on the other hand, actually prefer a religion that includes some type of correlation with reality.
~Bill Hamblin

EAllusion
God
Posts: 17547
Joined: Tue Dec 04, 2007 6:39 am

Re: disorder of assumption

Post by EAllusion »

subgenius wrote:
EAllusion wrote:Typing on a keyboard is an "unnatural" use of one's fingers in the same sense that homosexual sex is unnatural. It does not follow that sex must be procreative to be either natural or ethically permissible. The latter is widely rejected even among people who dislike homosexuals. Sexual contact serves a variety of functions, from emotional bonding to comfort to fun, and those aren't illicit because they fail to be aimed at procreative ends.

There should be a warning attached to your post...about the danger to brain cells, as many were lost reading it.

But please....explain why sexual contact has a positive emotional consequence...but explain it given your previous stance(s) on how unreliable, weak, feeble, and laughable emotions are.
yep
waiting on that resolution

EAllusion cherry picking begins in 5...4...3...2...


Feel free to quote me.

User avatar
honorentheos
God
Posts: 10370
Joined: Wed Feb 03, 2010 11:17 pm

Re: disorder of assumption

Post by honorentheos »

There's a part of me that wants to think the fact the DSM-V moved from the previous Gender Identity Disorder to Gender Dysphoria might influence Amore's thinking. The change reflecting that the mental health concerns reside with the distress one might feel due to cultural pressures, etc., rather than the actual difference between one's gender identity and one's "plumbing" being the disorder. But then, before I decide to expand on that I reflect that Amore makes me think of what it may be like to bump into a lawyer away from their office - at a bar, let's say - and they assume an opposing view just for the sake of having a friendly debate. So, I'm not so sure it could influence Amore's thinking as I'm not so sure Amore is presenting her own views so much as building and defending a position for sport.
The world is always full of the sound of waves..but who knows the heart of the sea, a hundred feet down? Who knows it's depth?
~ Eiji Yoshikawa

User avatar
subgenius
God
Posts: 12770
Joined: Thu Sep 01, 2011 6:50 am

Re: disorder of assumption

Post by subgenius »

SteelHead wrote:You know, somebody who thinks that human sex is some how intrinsically different than animal sex....... has issues.

News flash. Humans are animals.

so now you are saying that animals are having sex for their emotional well-being?....look at this poor troubled salmon, all they want is validation....oh no! a bigoted bear!

Image
Seek freedom and become captive of your desires...seek discipline and find your liberty
I can tell if a person is judgmental just by looking at them
what is chaos to the fly is normal to the spider - morticia addams
If you're not upsetting idiots, you might be an idiot. - Ted Nugent

User avatar
subgenius
God
Posts: 12770
Joined: Thu Sep 01, 2011 6:50 am

Re: disorder of assumption

Post by subgenius »

Brad Hudson wrote:There are a million different human behaviors that increase the chance of injury, sickness, or death. You want to know one of the riskiest, unnatural behaviors: driving. Driving a car is not natural. And it causes orders of magnitude more deaths in the U.S. than HIV. Here are some other risky behaviors: mountain climbing, skydiving, eating poorly, not getting enough exercise, not getting a measles vaccination. Yet, Amore singles out one of these behaviors as a perversion. She singles out one as worth of moral condemnation, shaming, belittling. Why do we think that is?

You know what's risky in terms of sexual behavior? Sex with men. Both men and women increase their odds of getting STDs dramatically by having sex with men. Obviously, sex with men is a mental illness and a pervasion that must be stopped.

Yes, driving is risky but it has obvious and meaningful benefits that merit that risk.
And yes, eating poorly is a risk that has no real benefit except to Con-Agra...but none of those human behaviors are asking for taxpayer subsidy of social validation.
Well, except it is arguable with health care is it not? You think it is right for your health care premium to go up so that a glutton can get health care to continue his gluttony? - if so, then no wonder you support SSM.
Do you support heroin addiction? Alcoholism?

I mean obviously you have an issue with other people's sense of priorities and i feel bad for you over that...it must be frustrating to have other people not think something is as important as what you think is important...or even for the same reasons.
I know a solution
you should demean them and insult their reasoning for holding the opinion they hold...that will convince them, won't it?

hey looky there...is that irony humping your leg? (left a little hypocrisy on your shoe there)
Seek freedom and become captive of your desires...seek discipline and find your liberty
I can tell if a person is judgmental just by looking at them
what is chaos to the fly is normal to the spider - morticia addams
If you're not upsetting idiots, you might be an idiot. - Ted Nugent

User avatar
SteelHead
God
Posts: 8246
Joined: Mon May 16, 2011 7:40 pm

Re: disorder of assumption

Post by SteelHead »

Some animals do. Look at the behavior of the great and lesser apes.

But in terms of mechanics.... We are mammals.
It is better to be a warrior in a garden, than a gardener at war.

Some of us, on the other hand, actually prefer a religion that includes some type of correlation with reality.
~Bill Hamblin

User avatar
honorentheos
God
Posts: 10370
Joined: Wed Feb 03, 2010 11:17 pm

Re: disorder of assumption

Post by honorentheos »

subgenius wrote:
Brad Hudson wrote:There are a million different human behaviors that increase the chance of injury, sickness, or death. You want to know one of the riskiest, unnatural behaviors: driving. Driving a car is not natural. And it causes orders of magnitude more deaths in the U.S. than HIV. Here are some other risky behaviors: mountain climbing, skydiving, eating poorly, not getting enough exercise, not getting a measles vaccination. Yet, Amore singles out one of these behaviors as a perversion. She singles out one as worth of moral condemnation, shaming, belittling. Why do we think that is?

You know what's risky in terms of sexual behavior? Sex with men. Both men and women increase their odds of getting STDs dramatically by having sex with men. Obviously, sex with men is a mental illness and a pervasion that must be stopped.

Yes, driving is risky but it has obvious and meaningful benefits that merit that risk.
And yes, eating poorly is a risk that has no real benefit except to Con-Agra...but none of those human behaviors are asking for taxpayer subsidy of social validation.
Well, except it is arguable with health care is it not? You think it is right for your health care premium to go up so that a glutton can get health care to continue his gluttony? - if so, then no wonder you support SSM.
Do you support heroin addiction? Alcoholism?

Interesting.

Conflating homosexuality (an innate characteristic) with volitional activities is a common problem with those who hold your position, sub. I doubt anyone will convince you otherwise. But just so you know.

And I literally LOL'd at the argument you have with health care premiums going up because of some people's gluttony, as you claim, without consideration other people's lifestyle choices impacted the premiums we all paid long before the PPACA. On top of that, it wasn't that long ago health care premiums were rising at an alarming rate, year over year, to feed another kind of gluttony...the primary reason the PPACA was a campaign issue in 2008. I know, I know, too many campaign cycles in the past...all we need to remember about '08 is that was the year America elected the anti-Christ, right?

hey looky there...is that irony humping your leg? (left a little hypocrisy on your shoe there)

Irony is such a horny bastard. Seems he's making the rounds around the room. ;)
The world is always full of the sound of waves..but who knows the heart of the sea, a hundred feet down? Who knows it's depth?
~ Eiji Yoshikawa

EAllusion
God
Posts: 17547
Joined: Tue Dec 04, 2007 6:39 am

Re: disorder of assumption

Post by EAllusion »

It doesn't matter that driving is a volitional activity and homosexual orientation is not. (Homosexual sex is, but that's neither here nor there.) The problem is that homosexual sex, like driving, has obvious benefits that justify its risks for homosexuals. The idea that any risk = morally wrong, to be avoided, etc. is defeated by the analogy.

User avatar
honorentheos
God
Posts: 10370
Joined: Wed Feb 03, 2010 11:17 pm

Re: disorder of assumption

Post by honorentheos »

EAllusion wrote:It doesn't matter that driving is a volitional activity and homosexual orientation is not. (Homosexual sex is, but that's neither here nor there.) The problem is that homosexual sex, like driving, has obvious benefits that justify its risks for homosexuals. The idea that any risk = morally wrong, to be avoided, etc. is defeated by the analogy.

I think it does, though it makes the issue much more muddy in ways that Amore is taking advantage of in the case of her argument. At least in the case of discussing it with those like subgenius because it is a distinction with a difference as to what justifies the supposed risks over the motive for engaging in the so-called risky behavior.

I read Amore as making multiple arguments. One was to argue that innate conditions such as professionally recognized mental illnesses do not justify society enabling people who have them. The argument from risk is a secondary one, and exactly the type I think a lawyer would use to confuse a jury on an issue. I'm not convinced she is arguing her own beliefs so much as setting up a "legally-defensible" argument and seeing how the left-leaning board members respond to it. Not unlike what you used to (still? don't know) do on the MAD board playing an apologist and testing other's reasoning for their positions even when you didn't hold the underlying beliefs.

Anyway, my opinion is that the simple demonstration that "risk = moral wrong is false" alone doesn't address the opposing point. That being he differentiated between risky behaviors that he feels are beneficial to society and individuals, and then those that are self-destructive but may be perceived as beneficial by the individual. This seems to make his argument more about what is truly beneficial risky behavior rather than what is only deemed beneficial by the individual. But society may view it differently. How to distinguish between these categories? Or even more, when ought society to step in and interfere with what may broadly be seen as self-destructive but to the individual seems to have benefits that outweigh any risk potential? Of all of us, I'm sure you have the best grasp on the messiness that comes with evaluating where the line is here. When we chose between individual liberty and socially imposed restrictions on behaviors that may be "harmful" to society, we enter terrain that Amore seems to have recognized isn't as easy to traverse as binary right or wrong. I think that is where Amore has placed part of the argument and sub is riding the obvious issues it creates. One has to concede to some degree that society operates in complex and often inconsistent ways. We encourage some risky behaviors with benefits and allow many that are self-destructive in favor of individual liberty. But not always.

By presenting the argument that homosexuality is an innate characteristic, rather than a volitional activity, it places it in a category for evaluation in accordance with the issues outlined above that opens it up for attack in some ways (those employed by Amore for example) while it simply removes many of the attempted analogies used by sub that are generally recognized as self-destructive and volitional behaviors in addition to being risky.
The world is always full of the sound of waves..but who knows the heart of the sea, a hundred feet down? Who knows it's depth?
~ Eiji Yoshikawa

User avatar
Res Ipsa
God
Posts: 9748
Joined: Fri Oct 05, 2012 5:37 pm

Re: disorder of assumption

Post by Res Ipsa »

honorentheos, I think you give Amore's argument, such as it is, far too much credit. Rather than an actual argument, she strings together a gish gallop of factoids that have a single thing in common: to portray gay folks as scary or disgusting. It is, literally, a homophobic argument. I see no recognition whatsoever in her posts that the terrain is difficult in any way. I see absolute binary thinking -- although the thinking is confused and self-contradictory.
​“The ideal subject of totalitarian rule is not the convinced Nazi or the dedicated communist, but people for whom the distinction between fact and fiction, true and false, no longer exists.”

― Hannah Arendt, The Origins of Totalitarianism, 1951

Amore
God
Posts: 1090
Joined: Wed Sep 03, 2014 10:27 am

Re: disorder of assumption

Post by Amore »

Very rarely am I speechless, but I am now... :eek:

How in this informative world, can anybody deny the means by which they came to exist?
Didn't anybody ever sit you down and explain sex - and how babies are conceived?
Did you ever look at an anatomy book - or just look at yourself naked and learned how things worked and fit?

I'm really curious if you guys that entertain special "rights" based on "certain" sexual substitutes, have consciously realized you've been brainwashed by a new herd, or if it's subconscious.
If I suck my thumb, what rights do I get?

User avatar
Res Ipsa
God
Posts: 9748
Joined: Fri Oct 05, 2012 5:37 pm

Re: disorder of assumption

Post by Res Ipsa »

Oh noes!! Not the gay agendez!!!! The horror!!!!!!! Hide the wimmenz!!! Hide the babyz!!!! Oh the horror.

I rest my case.
​“The ideal subject of totalitarian rule is not the convinced Nazi or the dedicated communist, but people for whom the distinction between fact and fiction, true and false, no longer exists.”

― Hannah Arendt, The Origins of Totalitarianism, 1951

User avatar
canpakes
God
Posts: 8394
Joined: Wed Dec 07, 2011 12:54 am

Re: disorder of assumption

Post by canpakes »

Amore wrote:Very rarely am I speechless, but I am now... :eek:

How in this informative world, can anybody deny the means by which they came to exist?
Didn't anybody ever sit you down and explain sex - and how babies are conceived?
Did you ever look at an anatomy book - or just look at yourself naked and learned how things worked and fit?

I'm really curious if you guys that entertain special "rights" based on "certain" sexual substitutes, have consciously realized you've been brainwashed by a new herd, or if it's subconscious.

Just passing by; Hello, Amore!

What special rights were you referring to?


Amore wrote:If I suck my thumb, what rights do I get?

The right to a wet thumb. : )

User avatar
subgenius
God
Posts: 12770
Joined: Thu Sep 01, 2011 6:50 am

Re: disorder of assumption

Post by subgenius »

SteelHead wrote:Some animals do. Look at the behavior of the great and lesser apes.

But in terms of mechanics.... We are mammals.

So...you are saying there is a "part" of ourselves that is not mechanics???...
you know, the first step is admitting it.
:biggrin:
Seek freedom and become captive of your desires...seek discipline and find your liberty
I can tell if a person is judgmental just by looking at them
what is chaos to the fly is normal to the spider - morticia addams
If you're not upsetting idiots, you might be an idiot. - Ted Nugent

Post Reply

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Doctor Steuss and 15 guests