LGBT Rights & Issues Thread, V4

[Socialist Nordia]

Go on. But first put those goalposts back where you found them, since I notice you've gone from "rights" to "human rights", which makes me suspect you're going to start pointing at any society that didn't have a bill of rights or UDHR style document codified in law, rather than societies that actually had no concept of things like property rights and the right to life.

North Korea, Hoxhaist Albania, and a few others would be good examples, but I intended to mean human rights from the beginning, since LGBT rights are considered more under that idea. My mistake.

Because every country should follow North Korea's example, right?

[United Marxist Nations]

There are those that disagree with rights.

Let me ask you a question, would it be immoral if I acted on my intense hatred of the promiscuous and firebombed a nightclub? I would say so, but, why? Where does this morality come from? The metaphysical is the only reasonable answer for an objective morality, otherwise, there is no reason not to carry out every impulse in your mind, except for the repercussions made by the dictatorship of men.

Those who disagree with human rights are usually dictators, insane, overzealous, or neo-nazis.

I would say to answer you: it is immoral because it involves killing citizens/members of society, as well as likely innocent people, which is immoral because that interrupts their given rights to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. There is nothing metaphysical about it. It is harming society, it is harming/killing people, and it interrupts people's rights. That's where the morality comes from. It is subjective on a case by case basis, based upon what rights are violated and such. There is no objective morality, and there is no 'metaphysical' nature to concern you.

Or simply countries that disagree with the common definitions.

Why is harming society bad? Why is harming people's rights bad? Give me a straightforward answer.

[Vaquas]

Go on. But first put those goalposts back where you found them, since I notice you've gone from "rights" to "human rights", which makes me suspect you're going to start pointing at any society that didn't have a bill of rights or UDHR style document codified in law, rather than societies that actually had no concept of things like property rights and the right to life.

North Korea, Hoxhaist Albania, and a few others would be good examples, but I intended to mean human rights from the beginning, since LGBT rights are considered more under that idea. My mistake.

Yes, because North Korea is just a shining example of a perfectly functioning society.

[The V O I D]

Go on. But first put those goalposts back where you found them, since I notice you've gone from "rights" to "human rights", which makes me suspect you're going to start pointing at any society that didn't have a bill of rights or UDHR style document codified in law, rather than societies that actually had no concept of things like property rights and the right to life.

North Korea, Hoxhaist Albania, and a few others would be good examples, but I intended to mean human rights from the beginning, since LGBT rights are considered more under that idea. My mistake.

Anyone who thinks of North Korea as a functioning society should not be allowed anywhere near political debates, let alone be allowed for their preferred government type to exist.

Those who disagree with human rights are usually dictators, insane, overzealous, or neo-nazis.

I would say to answer you: it is immoral because it involves killing citizens/members of society, as well as likely innocent people, which is immoral because that interrupts their given rights to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. There is nothing metaphysical about it. It is harming society, it is harming/killing people, and it interrupts people's rights. That's where the morality comes from. It is subjective on a case by case basis, based upon what rights are violated and such. There is no objective morality, and there is no 'metaphysical' nature to concern you.

Or simply countries that disagree with the common definitions.

Why is harming society bad? Why is harming people's rights bad? Give me a straightforward answer.

Countries which disagree with the common definitions are by definition violating human rights in most cases. Human rights are, essentially, absolute. That's why there was the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and a few other documents by the UN, to sort of clarify it.

Harming society is bad because it stands in the way of societal progress; if we let everyone murder, rape, etc. whenever they wanted to, and had no means of governing law or intervening, humanity as a whole wouldn't progress; there'd be no way for people to live their lives.

Harming people's rights is bad because it inherently harms the person involved, in most cases. A person told they aren't allowed to love, marry, etc. who they want to for no real good reason (religion doesn't count as a 'real good reason') is going to become depressed. Depression means they cannot enjoy life; it also effectively harms society by virtue of making the person less productive because they are depressed.

[Anywhere Else But Here]

Go on. But first put those goalposts back where you found them, since I notice you've gone from "rights" to "human rights", which makes me suspect you're going to start pointing at any society that didn't have a bill of rights or UDHR style document codified in law, rather than societies that actually had no concept of things like property rights and the right to life.

North Korea, Hoxhaist Albania, and a few others would be good examples, but I intended to mean human rights from the beginning, since LGBT rights are considered more under that idea. My mistake.

>North Korea
>Functioning just fine
I win.

[Nature-Spirits]

Rights are perfectly reasonable. If you had no rights, you could own no property, could do nothing but be a slave to whoever or whatever entity owns you, etc.

Rights are reasonable. Religion is not. Since there can be no compromise, we must go with the reasonable option.

Also, it is 100% necessary to be reasonable. If you won't reason and actually give valid logic aside from "my pwecious gawd feefees" or "muh rewigion" or "muh maoraulitee!", then you have no argument to start with.

None of what you said makes rights reasonable. They are a spook, just like property. They do not exist metaphysically, but only as a social contract.

Why must we go with the "reasonable option"?

Rights are no more a spook than your god, if you really want to go down that route. They don't exist physically, but they sure have an effect on humans' social interactions.

Why is harming society bad? Why is harming people's rights bad? Give me a straightforward answer.

Harming society is bad because most of us generally agree that having a cohesive society is mutually beneficial for almost everyone involved. Harming people's rights is bad because it compromises their wellbeing, their happiness and safety, which is the whole point of having a society. No, there's nothing objectively right about any of that, but there's nothing objective about your religion, either, so you can't very well argue that without being rather hypocritical.

[United Marxist Nations]

North Korea, Hoxhaist Albania, and a few others would be good examples, but I intended to mean human rights from the beginning, since LGBT rights are considered more under that idea. My mistake.

Anyone who thinks of North Korea as a functioning society should not be allowed anywhere near political debates, let alone be allowed for their preferred government type to exist.

Or simply countries that disagree with the common definitions.

Why is harming society bad? Why is harming people's rights bad? Give me a straightforward answer.

Countries which disagree with the common definitions are by definition violating human rights in most cases. Human rights are, essentially, absolute. That's why there was the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and a few other documents by the UN, to sort of clarify it.

Harming society is bad because it stands in the way of societal progress; if we let everyone murder, rape, etc. whenever they wanted to, and had no means of governing law or intervening, humanity as a whole wouldn't progress; there'd be no way for people to live their lives.

Harming people's rights is bad because it inherently harms the person involved, in most cases. A person told they aren't allowed to love, marry, etc. who they want to for no real good reason (religion doesn't count as a 'real good reason') is going to become depressed. Depression means they cannot enjoy life; it also effectively harms society by virtue of making the person less productive because they are depressed.

Why is societal progress good, and why is harming the person bad?

[Linux and the X]

Let me ask you a question, would it be immoral if I acted on my intense hatred of the promiscuous and firebombed a nightclub? I would say so, but, why?

WTF? "Why is firebombing bad?" That's really your argument?

How many times does this happen a week.

Depends if someone makes a post that grabs my attention. Usually doesn't happen too often because I'm mostly inactive ITT.

You're one of the most active posters in this thread even after saying you were leaving.

[United Marxist Nations]

None of what you said makes rights reasonable. They are a spook, just like property. They do not exist metaphysically, but only as a social contract.

Why must we go with the "reasonable option"?

Rights are no more a spook than your god, if you really want to go down that route. They don't exist physically, but they sure have an effect on humans' social interactions.

Why is harming society bad? Why is harming people's rights bad? Give me a straightforward answer.

Harming society is bad because most of us generally agree that having a cohesive society is mutually beneficial for almost everyone involved. Harming people's rights is bad because it compromises their wellbeing, their happiness and safety, which is the whole point of having a society. No, there's nothing objectively right about any of that, but there's nothing objective about your religion, either, so you can't very well argue that without being rather hypocritical.

I do think that God objectively exists, I just think that you can't necessarily prove it; however, if we don't accept something as an objective basis of morality, then we cannot agree on any system of morality being correct. In my opinion, the only thing that could provide that basis, is a supreme being.

[The Princes of the Universe]

Can we all just cut out the shitposting please?

[Renewed Imperial Germany-]

Rights are no more a spook than your god, if you really want to go down that route. They don't exist physically, but they sure have an effect on humans' social interactions.


Harming society is bad because most of us generally agree that having a cohesive society is mutually beneficial for almost everyone involved. Harming people's rights is bad because it compromises their wellbeing, their happiness and safety, which is the whole point of having a society. No, there's nothing objectively right about any of that, but there's nothing objective about your religion, either, so you can't very well argue that without being rather hypocritical.

I do think that God objectively exists, I just think that you can't necessarily prove it; however, if we don't accept something as an objective basis of morality, then we cannot agree on any system of morality being correct. In my opinion, the only thing that could provide that basis, is a supreme being.

Ya know why we can't find a universal objective basis for morality? Because morality's bunk.

[Vaquas]

Those who disagree with human rights are usually dictators, insane, overzealous, or neo-nazis.

I would say to answer you: it is immoral because it involves killing citizens/members of society, as well as likely innocent people, which is immoral because that interrupts their given rights to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. There is nothing metaphysical about it. It is harming society, it is harming/killing people, and it interrupts people's rights. That's where the morality comes from. It is subjective on a case by case basis, based upon what rights are violated and such. There is no objective morality, and there is no 'metaphysical' nature to concern you.

Or simply countries that disagree with the common definitions.

Why is harming society bad? Why is harming people's rights bad? Give me a straightforward answer.

It really devolves into a moral issue.
Morally, the destruction of free social order is unacceptable, as its existence is the source of many freedoms gifted to the public, freedoms which the majority of people hold dear and are grateful for. I would objectively and without malice presume that from your position, Morality is a concept that you don't accept or fully accept, at least as *it is presented by society.
Therefore, the entire argument stemming from your question would be irrelevant and pointless because we'd be working from two completely bases of what is inherently true.

[United Marxist Nations]

I do think that God objectively exists, I just think that you can't necessarily prove it; however, if we don't accept something as an objective basis of morality, then we cannot agree on any system of morality being correct. In my opinion, the only thing that could provide that basis, is a supreme being.

Ya know why we can't find a universal objective basis for morality? Because morality's bunk.

Then, I ask you, in relation to our topic, why should I support LGBT rights?

[The V O I D]

Anyone who thinks of North Korea as a functioning society should not be allowed anywhere near political debates, let alone be allowed for their preferred government type to exist.



Countries which disagree with the common definitions are by definition violating human rights in most cases. Human rights are, essentially, absolute. That's why there was the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and a few other documents by the UN, to sort of clarify it.

Harming society is bad because it stands in the way of societal progress; if we let everyone murder, rape, etc. whenever they wanted to, and had no means of governing law or intervening, humanity as a whole wouldn't progress; there'd be no way for people to live their lives.

Harming people's rights is bad because it inherently harms the person involved, in most cases. A person told they aren't allowed to love, marry, etc. who they want to for no real good reason (religion doesn't count as a 'real good reason') is going to become depressed. Depression means they cannot enjoy life; it also effectively harms society by virtue of making the person less productive because they are depressed.

Why is societal progress good, and why is harming the person bad?

Societal progress is good because it allows for humanity to expand in things such as technology, wealth, etc.

Harming the person is bad because it can make them unable to enjoy the benefits of society as well as making it so that they are less productive.

[Nature-Spirits]

Rights are no more a spook than your god, if you really want to go down that route. They don't exist physically, but they sure have an effect on humans' social interactions.


Harming society is bad because most of us generally agree that having a cohesive society is mutually beneficial for almost everyone involved. Harming people's rights is bad because it compromises their wellbeing, their happiness and safety, which is the whole point of having a society. No, there's nothing objectively right about any of that, but there's nothing objective about your religion, either, so you can't very well argue that without being rather hypocritical.

1) I do think that God objectively exists, I just think that you can't necessarily prove it; 2) however, if we don't accept something as an objective basis of morality, then we cannot agree on any system of morality being correct. 3) In my opinion, the only thing that could provide that basis, is a supreme being.

1) You know what that sounds like? That sounds like the most antiscientific bullshit I've ever heard.

2) How about "whatever's best for everyone's wellbeing"? How about "whatever keeps society in a good condition"?

3) Why must we derive morality from a "supreme being"? I mean, honestly, there are so many examples of functioning multicultural, multifaith and/or secular societies I could point to, in which not everyone agrees on the "metaphysical", but everyone mostly agrees on morality. How does that work out if morality can only be derived from religion?

[United Marxist Nations]

Why is societal progress good, and why is harming the person bad?

Societal progress is good because it allows for humanity to expand in things such as technology, wealth, etc.

Harming the person is bad because it can make them unable to enjoy the benefits of society as well as making it so that they are less productive.

Why are those things good and bad?

[The V O I D]

Ya know why we can't find a universal objective basis for morality? Because morality's bunk.

Then, I ask you, in relation to our topic, why should I support LGBT rights?

Because you should want for people to be happy, enjoying life and being productive members of society, rather than depressed, not-enjoying life and being unproductive members of society?

[The V O I D]

Societal progress is good because it allows for humanity to expand in things such as technology, wealth, etc.

Harming the person is bad because it can make them unable to enjoy the benefits of society as well as making it so that they are less productive.

Why are those things good and bad?

Do I have to bring out kindergarden definitions? Because it seems like you're really having trouble getting it.

[Nature-Spirits]

Ya know why we can't find a universal objective basis for morality? Because morality's bunk.

Then, I ask you, in relation to our topic, why should I support LGBT rights?

You know what? At this point, I don't even give a fuck if you support LGBT rights. I just want you to stop actively opposing them.

[Renewed Imperial Germany-]

Ya know why we can't find a universal objective basis for morality? Because morality's bunk.

Then, I ask you, in relation to our topic, why should I support LGBT rights?

Cause everything tends ta run more smoothly when the government isn't running around and lifting up everyones bedsheets n' making chicks drop their pants in public, ya know?

[Vaquas]

Then, I ask you, in relation to our topic, why should I support LGBT rights?

You know what? At this point, I don't even give a fuck if you support LGBT rights. I just want you to stop actively opposing them.

Profanity destroys arguments, though I agree with you.

[United Marxist Nations]

1) I do think that God objectively exists, I just think that you can't necessarily prove it; 2) however, if we don't accept something as an objective basis of morality, then we cannot agree on any system of morality being correct. 3) In my opinion, the only thing that could provide that basis, is a supreme being.

1) You know what that sounds like? That sounds like the most antiscientific bullshit I've ever heard.

2) How about "whatever's best for everyone's wellbeing"? How about "whatever keeps society in a good condition"?

3) Why must we derive morality from a "supreme being"? I mean, honestly, there are so many examples of functioning multicultural, multifaith and/or secular societies I could point to, in which not everyone agrees on the "metaphysical", but everyone mostly agrees on morality. How does that work out if morality can only be derived from religion?

1) It's not meant to be scientific, I'm not trying to prove anything.
2) Why, though? I used to think that too, but I just can't believe that anymore.
3) Subconscious influence of the common culture.

[Anywhere Else But Here]

Why are those things good and bad?

Do I have to bring out kindergarden definitions? Because it seems like you're really having trouble getting it.

This looks like it's going to be a proper, grown-up conversation.

[Nature-Spirits]

Societal progress is good because it allows for humanity to expand in things such as technology, wealth, etc.

Harming the person is bad because it can make them unable to enjoy the benefits of society as well as making it so that they are less productive.

Why are those things good and bad?

Because "good" and "bad" are defined subjectively, and hey, it just so happens that most people have decided that happiness is "good" and oppression -- which leads to unhappiness -- is "bad". Who'd o' thunk it?

Now please, do tell: Why is your god good?

[United Marxist Nations]

Why are those things good and bad?

Do I have to bring out kindergarden definitions? Because it seems like you're really having trouble getting it.

At a basic level, why is anything good or bad? How do you get those ideas. I don't mean "desirable or undesirable", I mean "Good or bad".