|
Attention: Year 2009 is here
Wishing a very Happy New Year to all members of FFI. Our new and improved site is ready. To visit main site, click at faithfreedom.org and to visit our new forum, click at forum09.faithfreedom.org and register again. Do not worry about your old forum posts and PM, everything is saved here till 31st December, 2008 for future references.
|
| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
Agaricus
Joined: 14 Jul 2005
Posts: 11191
Location: Britain
|
 Posted: Mon Mar 06, 2006 8:23 pm Post subject: |
 |
|
Fine. I say what I think, and any other layers of meaning or hypothetical projections become exercises in sophistry. I prefer to deal with issues as they are, be it a subjective or objective interpretation.
The initial idea of this thread was about Sina's comments about morality. Two pages back, you started to provide some interesting arguments concerning "morality" which have their own validity.
Your questions, as quoted above, seem to be claiming that what I say is subjective. On the issue of teaching - no matter how objective a curriculum may be, teachers are not infallible deities, and are bound to inject their own subjectivities into facts and data.
I am not taking this "personally" any more than how it is presented. I speak what I think, based on what I have seen, read or experienced, though obviously it appears my reasoning and thinking have little validity in this debate.
_________________
Extremism is the loser's revenge on society
I reserve the right to make public any PMs sent to me. Be warned! |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
Kendrick Morris
Joined: 21 Feb 2006
Posts: 8
|
| Posted: Mon Mar 06, 2006 8:31 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Pornography is the fantasy of sexual illusion with images.
Prostitution is the fantasy of sexual illusion with the flesh.
Homosexuality is the fantasy of sexual illusion with self-identity.
Image becomes flesh becomes self.
Outwardly formed people have no innocence left. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
ScienceRules
Joined: 14 May 2005
Posts: 1908
|
| Posted: Mon Mar 06, 2006 8:35 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Kendrick Morris wrote: |
Homosexuality is the fantasy of sexual illusion with self-identity. |
Give me a break, Kendrick whoever you are. I would love for you to be attracted to your own sex for awhile and see what it feels like. Also, what gay people do is not that much different than what heterosexuals do, I wish you could get that through that thick skull of yours.
_________________
"It's not the destination, it's the journey." |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Agaricus
Joined: 14 Jul 2005
Posts: 11191
Location: Britain
|
| Posted: Mon Mar 06, 2006 8:38 pm Post subject: |
|
|
And what the hell is "innocence"? "Outwardly formed people"?
_________________
Extremism is the loser's revenge on society
I reserve the right to make public any PMs sent to me. Be warned! |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
crazy canuck
Joined: 20 Mar 2004
Posts: 6391
|
| Posted: Mon Mar 06, 2006 9:38 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Kendrick Morris wrote: |
Pornography is the fantasy of sexual illusion with images.
Prostitution is the fantasy of sexual illusion with the flesh.
Homosexuality is the fantasy of sexual illusion with self-identity.
Image becomes flesh becomes self.
Outwardly formed people have no innocence left. |
Correct , looking at pornography can involve fantasy about sexual acts.If that whats you mean.
Prsotitution on part of John is real sex in flesh , its not sexual illusion. One has to pay real money, cant tell prostitute that it was all illusion and he wont pay for just illusion 
Homosexual act on part of two sex partners is real for them not illusion of sex.
I dont know why you use word illusion here. Come out and say that all three acts are sins in eyes of God. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Dan-Cannon
Joined: 19 Feb 2004
Posts: 3144
|
| Posted: Mon Mar 06, 2006 10:06 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Agaricus wrote: |
| Fine. I say what I think, and any other layers of meaning or hypothetical projections become exercises in sophistry. I prefer to deal with issues as they are, be it a subjective or objective interpretation. |
That is your choice. But if you respond to me, then bear in mind that i defend the way things should be as i see them, not as you see them.
Issues always end up becoming what they are. No brain surgery there. But the question is whether we continue to let it go along the same lines, and still expect to have a rational complaint if they go the way we don't like them to go.
The simple fact is that the current style of education is the logical consequence of subjective teachers stuffing their ideals down the throats of people's children.
Objective subjects are a benefit to everybody. But when you once condone ideological sermonizing by teachers, you cannot be honest and start objecting once the sermonizing deals with ideological issues you don't happen to agree with. (to void misunderstanding, the "you" i'm referring to here is people in general, not you specifically)
That is why i have a problem with subjective issues being taught to next generations. It introduces a slippery slope you may never be able to stop while still being honest about it.
| Quote: |
| The initial idea of this thread was about Sina's comments about morality. Two pages back, you started to provide some interesting arguments concerning "morality" which have their own validity. |
But you didn't like where it started leading, i presume (tell me if i'm wrong).
So the question is whether you don't because i am wrong, or simply because it is convenient to stop liking the validity of my arguments because you personally just don't like the logical consequences of them.
But that is not even here nor there. I have said from the beginning i am open to the suggestion i may come to the wrong logical conclusions. But if that is the case, it better be based on the same objectivity and rationality of the arguments that you did like. Using rational arguments is not like a train to hop on and get off once you see you may not like the destination.
Believe me, i'm actually getting a bit fed up with this particular discussion about objective morality, but i cannot as long as i discuss it compromise on it. That would be intellectually dishonest.
| Quote: |
| Your questions, as quoted above, seem to be claiming that what I say is subjective. On the issue of teaching - no matter how objective a curriculum may be, teachers are not infallible deities, and are bound to inject their own subjectivities into facts and data. |
Yes, and they would be immoral for doing so, and it is immoral that parents have to pay tax money for public education, as long as teachers in public schools are allowed to get on an ideological pulpit.
But let's face facts, the curriculum itself is hardly objective.
So whether a teacher 'slips' is not so much an incident these days, as it is practically institutionalized.
We are talking about a situation where geography teachers are sermonizing ideologically about America, Bush, capitalism, multiculturalism etc.
This is not something that "just" happens. It is the result of an introduction of teacher preaching on ideological issues, and it all getting on a slippery slope, where we now see colleges/universities and even high schools serve practically as indoctrination camps.
Although thankfully, students do not seem to be as receptive as these teachers might hope.
| Quote: |
| I am not taking this "personally" any more than how it is presented. I speak what I think, based on what I have seen, read or experienced, though obviously it appears my reasoning and thinking have little validity in this debate. |
you have taken it personally, because rather than judge the content of my post, you are attacking my perceived "motives" (setting traps) for making them. By doing so you are practicing ad hominem.
Again, you could have told i am wrong, and WHY i am wrong, but you chose to see ghosts by pretending i was setting traps for you to fall in.
I think that qualifies as taking my posts 'personally'.
_________________
Islam is anti-infidel, therefor i am anti-Islam. - Dan Cannon.
I am the greatest minority in the world: an individual. - David Gulbraa.
Last edited by Dan-Cannon on Mon Mar 06, 2006 10:16 pm; edited 1 time in total |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Dan-Cannon
Joined: 19 Feb 2004
Posts: 3144
|
| Posted: Mon Mar 06, 2006 10:14 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Sparky,
I had my response to the third part of your post finished, but something went wrong when i tried to copy/paste it into the forum, and i've lost the whole thing.
So if you want, just respond to the previous two posts i wrote to respond to you.
_________________
Islam is anti-infidel, therefor i am anti-Islam. - Dan Cannon.
I am the greatest minority in the world: an individual. - David Gulbraa. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Agaricus
Joined: 14 Jul 2005
Posts: 11191
Location: Britain
|
| Posted: Mon Mar 06, 2006 10:54 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Hi Dan-Cannon
There is an element of personal apprehension on my part. But it is less personalised than an alarm bell ringing about a debating technique, which is one that states a few basic premises, and then has a second wave to follow.
Do you really think in Britain that teachers or the curriculum could be improved, though? In Britain we have had poor teaching for those who eventually train to become teachers since the 1960s.
Even a well-informed teacher has to spend a larger amount of effort trying to maintain discipline than teach well, when there are no effective sanctions against misbehaviour. Kids who should be expelled are allowed back into classrooms by PC education authorities and school boards.
But believe me, I am not engaging in ad hominem attack. Ad hominem innuendo, perhaps. When I do decide to personally go on the offensive, I am blunt, offensive and rude.
But I thought at one stage I was going to get a psychological "analysis", which I have been treated to before.
I am pretty straightforward, and what I think or believe is what I think or believe, and I am more open and honest about where I come from, and where I stand, than many on this forum.
Attempting to analyse and reanalyse my own reasoning or viewpoint, when I say what I mean, becomes, eventually, its own kind of ad hominem riposte.
But on the issues discussed, objectivity is only an ideal, a standard, and not always a fact of life in practice.
I used to work for the Inner London Education Authority in the early 1980s, dealing with Adult Education for 16-25 year olds, many of whom were not "qualified", but needed skills to become employed.
The amount of dogma which was foisted upon the courses we ran was pathetic. The people at education advice centres would go on a Union training scheme, wasting London tax-payers money, to be told dogmatic crap like "Only white people can be racist, because racism is about power". Black trainers would emerge from these indoctrination sessions and rub my white nose in these dogamatic idiocies, and then one would hear the same people talking about "pakistanis". (Damn, on an edit - the word-filter has sensibly removed the racist term which was employed, rendering sense into gibberish)
I do not engage in debates based on too much hypothesis. It is interesting to extrapolate what the end products of a line of thought can theoretically lead to, but I prefer to deal with pragmatism, and what is evidential, rather than philosophising.
On the gay issue - I do not agree that it is immoral to stage a parade or carnival, but if it engages others to witness semi-naked bodies and other extremes, then it is.
It is not immoral to be homosexual, but a homosexual can have immoral homosexual behaviour.
Morality, of itself, is the most subjective issue to discuss, as it is like beauty or madness, all in the eye of the beholder.
On issues of philosophy, I hold a deliberately Philistinic approach. If a philosophical viewpoint cannot be written on the back of a cigarette packet, it is too remote from real life for me to engage in.
So as this debate seems to be like a Platonic dialogue, it is starting to literally go above my head, fascinating though some of your social observations have been.
Maybe my viewpoint is too simplistic. Earlier on in the thread I tried to inject a few factual perspectives about homosexuality, but at that point, the world and his wife wanted to sound off about their own little Utopian visions, and had no interest in facts.
You have brought some interesting styles of questioning and analysis to this argument, and managed to revive it after it had run out of energy.
But I can only deal with a few issues at a time. When bombarded with rhetorical questions, I have the option of shutting up, and being accused of not following through on the debate, or answering every single point, and becoming too stretched from the other things I am trying to do this evening.
My intellect can only handle things which relate to my own abilities to assimilate information.
_________________
Extremism is the loser's revenge on society
I reserve the right to make public any PMs sent to me. Be warned! |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Kendrick Morris
Joined: 21 Feb 2006
Posts: 8
|
| Posted: Mon Mar 06, 2006 11:20 pm Post subject: |
|
|
[quote="crazy canuck"]
| Kendrick Morris wrote: |
Pornography is the fantasy of sexual illusion with images.
Prostitution is the fantasy of sexual illusion with the flesh.
Homosexuality is the fantasy of sexual illusion with self-identity.
Image becomes flesh becomes self.
Outwardly formed people have no innocence left. |
Correct , looking at pornography can involve fantasy about sexual acts.If that whats you mean.
Yes, this illusion is the transfering of images, the placing emotions of how you feel about those images and how you would like them to feel about you, and jerking off.
After effects: chaffed loins and disrespectfully looking for the sexual parts of women at work. Even under a hijab. Free dressing women are seen as a threat lest 'they' tempt you to look at them, and they can see right through you.
Prsotitution on part of John is real sex in flesh , its not sexual illusion. One has to pay real money, cant tell prostitute that it was all illusion and he wont pay for just illusion
This illusion is paying for the ride whilst thinking about your pornographic image and blocking out the real person you're having sex with. (Else you 'fall in love' and become their sex slave).
After effects: Less money, and loathing for the women in the work place. Independent women are seen as a threat for they do not need you or your kind, and they can see right through you.
Homosexual act on part of two sex partners is real for them not illusion of sex.
This illusion swaps the part of the female onto yourself and now you're seeking fulfillment through the image of a man (but you can't for any man who finds you attractive has the female in them too).
After effects: Sore posterior and self loathing and everything becomes sexualized in the work place. Inuendo abounds! This distraction is the fear is of innocence, and innocent people see right through you. Now you have a problem with everybody.
So my point is, if you no longer have a conscience, those that do are a great threat. For they see you as you really are: a confused and corrupted child. Such a threat makes people cajole and tempt others through exposure to filth in the guise of "education". An upset child can be violated thus attached by allegence of a shared secret. This is human psychology.
The nature of the human mind has darkened. And yes the Bible refers to this in it's religious language of destroying the inner-light, but in my speak, it is the removal of the conscience.
I see you.  |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Dan-Cannon
Joined: 19 Feb 2004
Posts: 3144
|
| Posted: Mon Mar 06, 2006 11:58 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Hi Agaricus,
Let me state that i get a different feeling from your latest post than your previous posts. Maybe it is in my head, but it seems through your latest post that you agree with me more than your previous posts may have indicated.
I want to give some responses.
| Agaricus wrote: |
| There is an element of personal apprehension on my part. But it is less personalised than an alarm bell ringing about a debating technique, which is one that states a few basic premises, and then has a second wave to follow. |
Which in itself does not have to be bad, so long as it is primarily aimed at arguments, rather than the people making them.
If i were to "set traps" they would be to snare you in logical fallacy, and not to attack your character.
| Quote: |
Do you really think in Britain that teachers or the curriculum could be improved, though? In Britain we have had poor teaching for those who eventually train to become teachers since the 1960s.
Even a well-informed teacher has to spend a larger amount of effort trying to maintain discipline than teach well, when there are no effective sanctions against misbehaviour. Kids who should be expelled are allowed back into classrooms by PC education authorities and school boards. |
There are a lot of things that could be said about the quality of education. And i have my own idea of how they could be solved (competition, give parents a choice), but i continue to say that social issues have no place in class unless they are about that which concerns all, and not some interest group.
Children should be taught facts, not indoctrinated ideals.
| Quote: |
| But I thought at one stage I was going to get a psychological "analysis", which I have been treated to before. |
Not unless it can be directly linked to the nature of your arguments, or to be precise, their possible inconsistency when dealing with issues that are obviously personal.
| Quote: |
| But on the issues discussed, objectivity is only an ideal, a standard, and not always a fact of life in practice. |
No it isn't. But that is why i try to show (in this case) that it should be.
You see, i happen to think i know what is, ultimately, the root problem of every deliberate evil perpetrated in the history of mankind. It is a matter of deduction.
All you have to ask is, what should a world (or society) be based on, in order to prevent it, rationally speaking.
I can wax about subjective issues and most of the time i do, but i was called upon by Sparky to respond to any earlier discussion with him about Objective morality, and that is the sidetrack i've been involved in, in this thread.
Regardless of all my own subjective opinions, my core "ideology" (which is more a lack of it), is something that would be based on what would resemble objective morality. I'm not in the habit of unveiling it constantly, for the simple reason that either people don't understand it, disagree with it ideologically (because they are collectivists), because they are dogmatic, or think it is down right unrealistic.
Subjective morality, unlike what i would hope, will most likely always be seen as the "universal" morality, and as such it will always be the cause for conflict, persecution and bloodshed.
That is the fact of life. It is a constant waiting for the next genocide, the next totalitarianism, the next war, the next persecution etc.
But just because it will probably always be seen as the "universal" morality, doesn't mean i agree with it, nor promote it.
Precisely because i see it as either the cause of the problems, or as something impossible to agree upon because it is based on subjectivities.
| Quote: |
| On the gay issue - I do not agree that it is immoral to stage a parade or carnival, but if it engages others to witness semi-naked bodies and other extremes, then it is. |
I totally agree here. That is precisely why i explained that the morality of such parades would be dependent on the circumstances.
I won't be caught on making a blanket statement on such parades being either 'moral' or 'immoral'. It depends on the reasoning behind it, and the behavior of participants.
| Quote: |
| On issues of philosophy, I hold a deliberately Philistinic approach. If a philosophical viewpoint cannot be written on the back of a cigarette packet, it is too remote from real life for me to engage in. |
Here is Objective morality on the back of a cigarette packet:
"Live your life to the fullest and seek happiness (not harmful momentary pleasure). Do not infringe on another's individual rights to do the same."
Only when people ask for detailed explanations and answers to specific examples can such a philosophy be drawn out.
| Quote: |
| So as this debate seems to be like a Platonic dialogue, it is starting to literally go above my head, fascinating though some of your social observations have been. |
People cannot accept the simpleness of it, because they are too cemented into their own subjective moralities. They draw out the discussion by naming examples and demanding satisfactory answers. They are almost literally asking me to give a viable alternative to God.
When something simple cannot be understood or accepted, the details get really complicated and it can get to be too much.
THat is why i've asked people in this thread to try to use their own rationality, and not to come up with specific examples too much but merely stick to the concept.
When you understand the concept, you can do your own work to apply it to specific examples.
Cheers.
_________________
Islam is anti-infidel, therefor i am anti-Islam. - Dan Cannon.
I am the greatest minority in the world: an individual. - David Gulbraa. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Agaricus
Joined: 14 Jul 2005
Posts: 11191
Location: Britain
|
| Posted: Tue Mar 07, 2006 12:04 am Post subject: |
|
|
To be honest, Dan,
I am rather in awe of your intellectual rationality, and it is perhaps well-sustained on a higher plane than I can manage.
But I cannot disagree with it, as your arguments make absolute sense.
"Live your life to the fullest and seek happiness (not harmful momentary pleasure). Do not infringe on another's individual rights to do the same."
That is a pretty cool ethos, and again, it is impossible for me to challenge it, or to desire to challenge it.
I try to live by such principles, but as you can see, I get a bit emotive and subjective.
But no, I am actually in total agreement.
Best regards
_________________
Extremism is the loser's revenge on society
I reserve the right to make public any PMs sent to me. Be warned! |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Kendrick Morris
Joined: 21 Feb 2006
Posts: 8
|
| Posted: Tue Mar 07, 2006 6:55 am Post subject: |
|
|
| ScienceRules wrote: |
| Kendrick Morris wrote: |
Homosexuality is the fantasy of sexual illusion with self-identity. |
Give me a break, Kendrick whoever you are. I would love for you to be attracted to your own sex for awhile and see what it feels like. Also, what gay people do is not that much different than what heterosexuals do, I wish you could get that through that thick skull of yours. |
I wish that were true, but the evidence (parades, life styles, cruelty etc) shows they are psychologically madder than anyone else.
In the same way we can look at the extremes of the Muslim and say: "this is the fruition of following their belief and practices" and be warned about starting along this path.
Homosexuality is a belief system, but both Muslims and homoerotics deny anything of the sort. They both say Allah made them that way.
How can they ever see themselves if the bomber, terrorist or sexual exploiters do so much damage and yet they still look the other way?
Just as smokers see wrinkled charred faces of those who practiced for years, they too cannot recognise themselves. At least there's a law to keep smokers out of further corrupting our lungs in public places. Sad there's no laws for the other two that corrupt the Id. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Agaricus
Joined: 14 Jul 2005
Posts: 11191
Location: Britain
|
| Posted: Tue Mar 07, 2006 10:27 am Post subject: |
|
|
Kendrick Morris - you are a bigot, but you try to spruce up your bigotry with poetical language.
Pour candy on a turd, and it is still a turd. And the core of what you say is total CRAP.
This site is about Islamic extremism. How are you going to fight it? Preaching and poetry? It's been tried before, and never works.
_________________
Extremism is the loser's revenge on society
I reserve the right to make public any PMs sent to me. Be warned! |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
ScienceRules
Joined: 14 May 2005
Posts: 1908
|
| Posted: Tue Mar 07, 2006 1:34 pm Post subject: |
|
|
I don't know. I have pretty much said whatever I could say. I am just generally ticked off and have tried to explain that gay sex is not that different from heterosexual sex, and most gay people otherwise have normal lives, but I guess I am not going to change anyone's mind.
You know, Agaricus, some of what we have seen on this thread does point out why it is important for people to come out, if only so people know that most gay people are just normal and responsible people. That way they could see that there are gay people around them that they deal with in their everyday lives. Many of us are not even involved in the political process at all. I can't believe some of the stuff I have heard on here.
Whatever. I can't believe this is such a difficult thing for people to understand when it is so simple. I guess just their prejudices get in the way and they can't think through it rationally. Religion does that sometimes (as we all know who are here).
When I am with a woman, I don't even think about being a lesbian. It seems totally normal to me. I am sure heterosexual people don't think about being heterosexual when they are with a partner of the opposite sex either. It just is not that hard to understand, but it just seems such a difficult concept to get through to people. Why?
_________________
"It's not the destination, it's the journey." |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Kendrick Morris
Joined: 21 Feb 2006
Posts: 8
|
| Posted: Tue Mar 07, 2006 1:50 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Agaricus wrote: |
Kendrick Morris - you are a bigot, but you try to spruce up your bigotry with poetical language.
Pour candy on a turd, and it is still a turd. And the core of what you say is total CRAP.
This site is about Islamic extremism. How are you going to fight it? Preaching and poetry? It's been tried before, and never works. |
This site is not about extremism. How can you have a 'moderate' Muslim? How can you have a 'moderate' homosexual? How can you have a 'moderate' heterosexual?
Your mind is either taken over or it isn't. The only gap in between is ignorance of where you are going.
You are either getting better or worse. Your abuse of God or Man tells you apart. This is the same mental conditioning.
Funny how you tell me I speak of excrement when all you want to do is keep prodding it. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
|
Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2002 phpBB Group
|
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Usergroups
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
