Homosexuality

[Barking Pumpkin]

Well......has anyone ever succeeded in ruling the world, or even a large chunk of it, for a decent amount of time? I'm drawing from history here.

 

[Barking Pumpkin]

Unprovable assertion

Why don't we get back to something substantive, instead of wasting time with your pathetic moral dickwaving?

Are you saying you've never made a mistake or done anything less than perfect?

 

[Laeth MacLaurie]

Are you saying that absolute unqualified perfection is a requirement for leadership?

Do you not see how stupid your line of reasoning really is?

 

[Kenneth R.]

It's also a stupid argument because in making a claim that, let's say, "playing God" is wrong (which was implicit), you're implying that your judgment has more integrity than ours and in turn you're also "playing God". I could criticise further... but I'll let you go figure.

then by merely stating your opinion, we are all playing gods and none of this is worth our time. move along, nothing to see.

my argument is that since he is excluding himself from the group, he has already ignored a part of the whole, a self-lie to preserve oneself, and likely stemming from a feeling of self-importance. he thinks he is the ruler by which all else should be judged. to this i call foolhardy. if that is a stupid argument, then i applaud stupid arguments.

Laurie, i am questioning your justification in deeming yourself fit to judge others when you will not include yourself. you seem to consider yourself above all else, in the same way that barking pumpkin is asking of you. have you ever been in err? why should you be the one to declare all these things, and then demand action upon them? in short, who made you God? and if you justify that by saying you feel justified by your IQ, or whatever else criteria, than any other being in your system of thought who meets them has a right to judge as well, including judging YOU unfit to survive. thus my question before is not in any way irrelevant, but the responses from you and the Tragedy have been simply avoiding the question for whatever reasons. whenever an entity judges its own kind, it must include itself, or else it asserts its difference from the group, and i believe you are indeed human. otherwise each would presume to be god, and as i have stated before, when all wear crowns none is king.

 

[Barking Pumpkin]

For total control, as you are suggesting? Yes. It always fails.

 

[Laeth MacLaurie]

then by merely stating your opinion, we are all playing gods and none of this is worth our time. move along, nothing to see.

my argument is that since he is excluding himself from the group, he has already ignored a part of the whole, a self-lie to preserve oneself, and likely stemming from a feeling of self-importance. he thinks he is the ruler by which all else should be judged. to this i call foolhardy. if that is a stupid argument, then i applaud stupid arguments.

How am I excluding myself from any "group" save the group characterized by maladaptive traits I don't possess?

Keep trying, jr.

 

[Kenneth R.]

How am I excluding myself from any "group" save the group characterized by maladaptive traits I don't possess?

see above.

 

[Laeth MacLaurie]

Laurie, i am questioning your justification in deeming yourself fit to judge others when you will not include yourself.

You still haven't demonstrated how I'm not including myself. I would, of course, submit to being judged by the same criteria.

The point is, I measure up.

This isn't rocket science, friend.

 

[Barking Pumpkin]

The point is, that it's rather arrogant of yourself to decide that you measure up. Obviously everyone who has ever been in power thinks they "measure up," but they never have. What makes you so special?

 

[Laeth MacLaurie]

If the criteria is not being possessed of known severe maladaptive genetic traits, then I most certainly measure up. It's a matter, not of opinion, but of simple objective fact. You're trying to make this about preference and aesthetics. It's not.

 

[Barking Pumpkin]

Measure up to what though? I certainly don't think you measure up to being able to run the world and making decisions to wipe out groups of people.

 

[Laeth MacLaurie]

You're being deliberately obtuse, which means I'm through with this conversation.

When you stop trying to pound strawmen, maybe we can resume the discussion.

 

[10293847]

"Well......has anyone ever succeeded in ruling the world, or even a large chunk of it, for a decent amount of time? I'm drawing from history here."

Ghengis Khan. And not an Indo-European. Probably would have conquered Europe had he not killed himself by falling off his horse.

 

[Barking Pumpkin]

Do perfect people die from falling off their horses?

 

[no country for old wainds]

then by merely stating your opinion, we are all playing gods and none of this is worth our time. move along, nothing to see.

Not sure where you pulled this part from. All I briefly established was that the whole concept of *playing God* is ludicrous and furthermore, useless when used as a counter-argument.

 

[RookParliament]

So is schizophrenia, what's your point?



So has schizophrenia, what's your point?



Oystercatchers are not humans, dipshit. Reabsorbing babies is a survival strategy for rabbits, that doesn't make miscarriage advantageous for humans.



And bears didn't magically appear because of stupidity, yet that jackass who got himself and his girlfriend eaten still was removed from the gene pool.

Looks like you lose...again.

Well I was a bit too drunk last night to do anything but laugh at your "steam coming out of your ears" response. So anyway you made the statement that our current "compassionate" society succors the disadvantageous trait of homosexuality. I show that homosexuality has been around for far longer than "compassionate" society and there are examples of it beyond humanity. So either homosexuality is either a neutral trait where it is not important to humanity that a minority of people are gay, or perhaps there is some advantage in it at times.

You lose... AGAIN!!!!... baby

 

[RookParliament]

I love how people with genius level IQ's who post on message boards get so angry when you challenge their right to rule you.

 

[RookParliament]

You're being deliberately obtuse, which means I'm through with this conversation.

When you stop trying to pound strawmen, maybe we can resume the discussion.

He asked what standards are you holding yourself up to claiming you or people like you are suited to lead the world. Why can't you answer that?

 

[no country for old wainds]

You're still asking how genius IQ, physical fitness and a lack of medical problems are characteristics congruent with leadership? Are you all daft or something?

 

[no country for old wainds]

than any other being in your system of thought who meets them has a right to judge as well, including judging YOU unfit to survive.

I never challenged this. At the end of the day if I'm fit to survive then I will survive. If I'm not, then I won't. Whilst I survive, I'll work for what I believe in which involves killing off the defective, regardless of the individuals around me.

I'll also add that "rights" don't exist inherently in reality, they depend on the false concept of free will.