LGBT Rights & Issues Thread, V4

[Nature-Spirits]

Why should we care if religion was banned?

I dunno, because preventing people to believe something is kinda like what Hitler and others did?

Or... Y'know it could create a huge civil rights issue?

But no, you're all for civil rights.

I'm pretty sure she was just turning the question around to give UMN some perspective on what he was actually saying.

And actually, it's funny you mention Hitler, since he also actively exterminated LGBT people. Funny how that works out.

[United Marxist Nations]

Why should we care if religion was banned?

I dunno, because preventing people to believe something is kinda like what Hitler and others did?

Or... Y'know it could create a huge civil rights issue?

But no, you're all for civil rights.

The question was rhetorical...

[Xadufell]

I dunno, because preventing people to believe something is kinda like what Hitler and others did?

Or... Y'know it could create a huge civil rights issue?

But no, you're all for civil rights.

>The point



>Your head

>Your thought








>How much I care

[Xadufell]

I dunno, because preventing people to believe something is kinda like what Hitler and others did?

Or... Y'know it could create a huge civil rights issue?

But no, you're all for civil rights.

I'm pretty sure she was just turning the question around to give UMN some perspective on what he was actually saying.

And actually, it's funny you mention Hitler, since he also actively exterminated LGBT people. Funny how that works out.

Yeah, because he banned a religion and killed a lot of certain groups of people?

[Anywhere Else But Here]

>The point



>Your head

>Your thought








>How much I care

Well that's a mature way of acknowledging your mistake. Also, it doesn't really make visual sense.

[Renewed Imperial Germany-]

>The point



>Your head

>Your thought








>How much I care

I mean, usually when people get triggered without reading the rest of the thread they something like, ya know, "my bad," or "oops!" or even "I dun goof'd lol." But thats none a my business.

[The V O I D]

I'm pretty sure she was just turning the question around to give UMN some perspective on what he was actually saying.

And actually, it's funny you mention Hitler, since he also actively exterminated LGBT people. Funny how that works out.

Yeah, because he banned a religion and killed a lot of certain groups of people?

Fun fact: Hitler had plans to get rid of the other religions, likely even Christianity, shortly after the 'war was won', as well as fully implement extermination against all who didn't fit his Aryan German model.

[Vaquas]

Can we just move on from this and end what is clearly more of a general philosophical debate than one pertaining to LGBT Rights & Issues?

[Xadufell]

>Your thought








>How much I care

Well that's a mature way of acknowledging your mistake. Also, it doesn't really make visual sense.

I know I made a mistake, but I also brought up a valid point.

And apparently you don't get that by me putting the ">How much I care" lower down means that I care very little.

[Anywhere Else But Here]

Well that's a mature way of acknowledging your mistake. Also, it doesn't really make visual sense.

I know I made a mistake, but I also brought up a valid point.

And apparently you don't get that by me putting the ">How much I care" lower down means that I care very little.

You didn't really bring up a point, since you confrontationally agreed with what RIG was saying.
I understood that you were saying you didn't care, but the actual visual doesn't work.

[Xadufell]

>Your thought








>How much I care

I mean, usually when people get triggered without reading the rest of the thread they something like, ya know, "my bad," or "oops!" or even "I dun goof'd lol." But thats none a my business.

None of my business either

[Vaunyrus]

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"?

No one gives a flying duck about the metaphysical except for you and your supposed 'god' (who can't be proven existent anyway), which has a lot of disagreement among the faith overall (due to variable churches, interpretations, etc). The rest of what you said about it is irrelevant; they exist because of a social contract, sure, but it is a general consensus and agreed upon by much of the world.

Uh, I dunno, because going with the unreasonable option makes you insane?

On that topic, what gives Mankind the authority to determine right and wrong. Please remove the argument of "muh maorulitee" and "duh zoshal contrak". Those are human constructs and as believable as your shitty edge on religion.

[Neutraligon]

No one gives a flying duck about the metaphysical except for you and your supposed 'god' (who can't be proven existent anyway), which has a lot of disagreement among the faith overall (due to variable churches, interpretations, etc). The rest of what you said about it is irrelevant; they exist because of a social contract, sure, but it is a general consensus and agreed upon by much of the world.

Uh, I dunno, because going with the unreasonable option makes you insane?

On that topic, what gives Mankind the authority to determine right and wrong. Please remove the argument of "muh maorulitee" and "duh zoshal contrak". Those are human constructs and as believable as your shitty edge on religion.

Because we are the ones effected by those decisions.

[Soldati Senza Confini]

No one gives a flying duck about the metaphysical except for you and your supposed 'god' (who can't be proven existent anyway), which has a lot of disagreement among the faith overall (due to variable churches, interpretations, etc). The rest of what you said about it is irrelevant; they exist because of a social contract, sure, but it is a general consensus and agreed upon by much of the world.

Uh, I dunno, because going with the unreasonable option makes you insane?

On that topic, what gives Mankind the authority to determine right and wrong. Please remove the argument of "muh maorulitee" and "duh zoshal contrak". Those are human constructs and as believable as your shitty edge on religion.

Humans have the authority to determine right and wrong because we're the ones who have to live with said moral codes.

"God" may be invoked for theocratic moral codes, but they don't necessarily affect the deity which we speak of, as they are more of "divine" commands more than actual concensus among people.

[Vaunyrus]

On that topic, what gives Mankind the authority to determine right and wrong. Please remove the argument of "muh maorulitee" and "duh zoshal contrak". Those are human constructs and as believable as your shitty edge on religion.

Because we are the ones effected by those decisions.

Nice concession. By that logic, religion must be infallible, as well as social contract, lest humans be immoral and apathetic.

[Vaunyrus]

On that topic, what gives Mankind the authority to determine right and wrong. Please remove the argument of "muh maorulitee" and "duh zoshal contrak". Those are human constructs and as believable as your shitty edge on religion.

Humans have the authority to determine right and wrong because we're the ones who have to live with said moral codes.

"God" may be invoked for theocratic moral codes, but they don't necessarily affect the deity which we speak of, as they are more of "divine" commands more than actual concensus among people.

Incorrect. Everything a human does affects all species on Earth. By your argument, we are either immoral beasties, morons, or a swimming pool filled with ignorant fuckery.

[Soldati Senza Confini]

Because we are the ones effected by those decisions.

Nice concession. By that logic, religion must be infallible, as well as social contract, lest humans be immoral and apathetic.

Just because the social contract and religion are the two ways in which morality arises, it does not mean that they are infallible methods of measuring morality, or what is right and wrong. They are simply two theories that explain why people behave the way they do, and they both have a strong correlation with peer pressure and people's expectations.

People kill in the name of a religion, as well as in the name of the social contract.

[Soldati Senza Confini]

Humans have the authority to determine right and wrong because we're the ones who have to live with said moral codes.

"God" may be invoked for theocratic moral codes, but they don't necessarily affect the deity which we speak of, as they are more of "divine" commands more than actual concensus among people.

Incorrect. Everything a human does affects all species on Earth. By your argument, we are either immoral beasties, morons, or a swimming pool filled with ignorant fuckery.

While everything a human does affects all species on Earth, humans only care about themselves. Our moral codes only take into consideration what is beneficial for us, not other species. As much as you'd like to argue the point, in the end, every moral code created by humans is anthropocentric. Our moral codes do not apply to, say, dogs, because they are not human. We respect the dogs, but in dire need, an animal is an animal. We have less reservations about killing a dog for self-preservation than we would a human.

And if that's what you believe that, by my argument, we are immoral beasts, morons, or a swimming pool filled with ignorant fuckery, well, I'm not the one who's suggesting it.

[Neutraligon]

Because we are the ones effected by those decisions.

Nice concession. By that logic, religion must be infallible, as well as social contract, lest humans be immoral and apathetic.

Why does religion and "the social contract," something I not mentioned, have to be infallible? That is a very nice non-sequitur.

[Vaunyrus]

Nice concession. By that logic, religion must be infallible, as well as social contract, lest humans be immoral and apathetic.

Why does religion and "the social contract," something I not mentioned, have to be infallible? That is a very nice non-sequitur.

Because you've yet to prove it isn't. I'm simply suggesting no ideology can be correct as we are the one's who create and impose.



Basically, our thoughts and feeling are only moral by perception, and as we determine our thoughts and feelings morality cannot exist, because it is something unique to each of us.

[Neutraligon]

Why does religion and "the social contract," something I not mentioned, have to be infallible? That is a very nice non-sequitur.

Because you've yet to prove it isn't. I'm simply suggesting no ideology can be correct as we are the one's who create and impose.



Basically, our thoughts and feeling are only moral by perception, and as we determine our thoughts and feelings morality cannot exist, because it is something unique to each of us.

What do you mean I have yet to prove it isn't. I have made no claim to infallibility, if you are claiming that something is infallible it is up to you to show it is so.

Correct, individual morality is in the end simply opinion. As a social species we tend to share certain base moralities, although this is not always the case, and are thus able to live with each other.

[Communist Xomaniax]

The social contract is a way of peacefully governing people and working to minimize stepping on each other's toes, to everyone's benefit. This is as opposed to say, divine right, or rule by religious decree, which folks like UMN advocate. All of which require mutual agreement and sheer force of arms to maintain.

Or my personal favorite: You harm me, I kill you, torch your property, and kill anyone vaguely likely to seek vengeance. I call it the antisocial contract, but admittedly it's a placeholder.

"Metaphysical" is essentially a nonsense word that essentially boils down to "touchy-feely stuff that I agree with", and unless the "metaphysical" schtick can be shown to better people's collective lives in a measurable way, which it can't, it should be rightfully regarded as a spook and thrown onto the ash heap of history.

Homophobic policies do not increase literacy rates, the average lifespan, average wealth, better the living conditions of mankind, solve the energy crisis, decrease infant mortality, etc. There is no tangible, measurable benefit to homophobia in society, and no reason to maintain them. Thus those who buy into and advocate for those spooks must find alternative means through which to rationalize their irrational beliefs, thus enters the metaphysical. "Oh, it doesn't matter that restricting gay people's civil rights isn't making our society any better, it feels good. It's what's right. It says so right here in this grimoire of apocalyptic desert scrawlings!"

When it comes to deliberately making an entire group's lives harder, and giving them a separate, lesser set of rights, the only thing that should be taken into account is a raw cost-benefit analysis. Homophobia loses every time.

[Soldati Senza Confini]

Why does religion and "the social contract," something I not mentioned, have to be infallible? That is a very nice non-sequitur.

Because you've yet to prove it isn't. I'm simply suggesting no ideology can be correct as we are the one's who create and impose.



Basically, our thoughts and feeling are only moral by perception, and as we determine our thoughts and feelings morality cannot exist, because it is something unique to each of us.

Then religion and the social contract are not "infallible". Infallibility suggests that they are not fallible, that is to say, they are not up to discussion or error.

Our thoughts and feelings are moral by perception, but social mores and what society deems right and wrong stems from an aggregate of individuals. If we all decide tomorrow to put babies on spikes as a society because it is the right thing to do with babies, then putting babies on spikes would be the moral thing to do by concession.

[Soldati Senza Confini]

"Metaphysical" is essentially a nonsense word that essentially boils down to "touchy-feely stuff that I agree with", and unless the "metaphysical" schtick can be shown to better people's collective lives in a measurable way, which it can't, it should be rightfully regarded as a spook and thrown onto the ash heap of history.

Homophobic policies do not increase literacy rates, the average lifespan, average wealth, better the living conditions of mankind, solve the energy crisis, decrease infant mortality, etc. There is no tangible, measurable benefit to homophobia in society, and no reason to maintain them. Thus those who buy into and advocate for those spooks must find alternative means through which to rationalize their irrational beliefs, thus enters the metaphysical. "Oh, it doesn't matter that restricting gay people's civil rights isn't making our society any better, it feels good. It's what's right. It says so right here in this grimoire of apocalyptic desert scrawlings!"

When it comes to deliberately making an entire group's lives harder, and giving them a separate, lesser set of rights, the only thing that should be taken into account is a raw cost-benefit analysis. Homophobia loses every time.

Everything that is a human construct, even your cost-benefit analysis is metaphysical. Metaphysical simply is that beyond the physics of the matter.

Why are literacy rates important, or the average lifespan, average wealth, the living conditions of all mankind and not just some? Why is it important to solve the energy crisis, or decrease infant morality rates, or for that matter, the concept of equal rights?

All of these things are metaphysical valuations at their core. They're not material, tangible things.

As for raw cost-benefit analysis, you do realize that this could be used to rationalize slavery or the holocaust if one was diligent enough to prove that slavery and genocide provide more benefits to the dominant group than costs, correct? Consequentialism, at its basic, can justify something like genocide because it can justify the harms of the few at the expense of the benefit of the many.

Homophobia in this regard doesn't lose out if it can be proven that the suffering and denial of rights of the few can be justifiable for the peace of mind and preservation of societal order for the majority. Which can be proved, but I'd rather not bother with it because I am not homophobic, but needless to say, consequentialism falls short in many areas.

[Vaunyrus]

Because you've yet to prove it isn't. I'm simply suggesting no ideology can be correct as we are the one's who create and impose.



Basically, our thoughts and feeling are only moral by perception, and as we determine our thoughts and feelings morality cannot exist, because it is something unique to each of us.

Then religion and the social contract are not "infallible". Infallibility suggests that they are not fallible, that is to say, they are not up to discussion or error.

Our thoughts and feelings are moral by perception, but social mores and what society deems right and wrong stems from an aggregate of individuals. If we all decide tomorrow to put babies on spikes as a society because it is the right thing to do with babies, then putting babies on spikes would be the moral thing to do by concession.

Yes, but because morality cannot be proven right or wrong neither can belief systems because they are entirely based opinions. Nobody on this thread can present to me a factual reason why LBGT Rights must occur because no matter what it boils down to what you think, feel and believe rather than fact. Saying thousands commit suicide each year is a fact, however, that simply gives reason to your opinion. By that same logic I can simply say more humans can be made.

Morals are infallible in any form because you cannot possibly prove undeniably that one thought supercedes another.