Sign in to follow this  
hamradio

Draft evasion

82 posts in this topic

16 hours ago, Gershwin fan said:

No, he was pretty open about his opposition to it outside of reproduction. He thought master bation was worse than suicide. 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kantian_ethics#Sexual_ethics

He would have certainly thought a man like Trump was a pervert. :lol: 

Maybe it's just as well that Kant did not engage in  sexual intercourse. He would have been a real

drag in the sack. I would say misterbation has the advantage of the ability to be repeated, whereas

suicide, if done effectively, can only be done once. I believe Kant covers this subject in more detail

in Prolegomena to any Future Meatbeating.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
22 hours ago, Gershwin fan said:

There is no God so it is illogical to say you can't do it because God said no.

Not relevant.  We are talking about the law in the U.S. and how it is interpreted.  Governments and Courts accept the teachings of religions.

22 hours ago, Gershwin fan said:

I'm not sure what is funny but perhaps if you are so intelligent then you should write your own Categorical Imperative. You are also conflating races with a lifestyle that is willingly pursued and religions like Catholicism and Judaism that people willingly follow. 

You miss the point.  If you can discriminate for one thing, then you can discriminate for more things.

  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
20 hours ago, Gershwin fan said:

"Sexual union is the reciprocal use one human makes of the sexual organs and capacities of another. This is either a natural use...or an unnatural use, and unnatural use takes place either with a person of the same sex or with an animal of a nonhuman species. Since such transgressions of principle...do wrong to humanity in our own person, there are no limitations or exceptions whatsoever that can save them from being repudiated completely"

-Immanuel Kant, The Metaphysics of Morals

Does this have a point?  He died in 1804 when slavery was still legal in much of the world.  Not to mention no rights for women, non-whites, the non-wealthy, etc.

  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
22 minutes ago, TheCid said:

Not relevant.  We are talking about the law in the U.S. and how it is interpreted.  Governments and Courts accept the teachings of religions.

You miss the point.  If you can discriminate for one thing, then you can discriminate for more things.

Stores CAN discriminate for some things and not others already as it is. 

17 minutes ago, TheCid said:

Does this have a point?  He died in 1804 when slavery was still legal in much of the world.  Not to mention no rights for women, non-whites, the non-wealthy, etc.

And he's famous for being against slavery and mistreatment of women. That's *literally* the entire point of his works. Just agree to disagree on this. What you see as normal others do not. If people think marriage should be a certain way then why would they want to cater to those who do not?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Gershwin fan said:

Stores CAN discriminate for some things and not others already as it is. 

And he's famous for being against slavery and mistreatment of women. That's *literally* the entire point of his works. Just agree to disagree on this. What you see as normal others do not. If people think marriage should be a certain way then why would they want to cater to those who do not?

The issue is when is discrimination wrong in the eyes of the government as representatives of the public at large.  Also, the Federal courts have long determined that when you become a public business, you accept certain responsibilities for fair treatment of the public.  The governments and courts determine what is fair treatment, not the business owner.

If they do not wish to serve certain members of the public, don't go into business.  It is that simple.

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, TheCid said:

The issue is when is discrimination wrong in the eyes of the government as representatives of the public at large.  Also, the Federal courts have long determined that when you become a public business, you accept certain responsibilities for fair treatment of the public.  The governments and courts determine what is fair treatment, not the business owner.

If they do not wish to serve certain members of the public, don't go into business.  It is that simple.

Well the government has made a very sorry judgment as is often the case. I don't see how it would be unfair to turn away a sex offender or a pervert or any deviant.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 hours ago, Gershwin fan said:

Well the government has made a very sorry judgment as is often the case. I don't see how it would be unfair to turn away a sex offender or a pervert or any deviant.

So, you are saying that per American laws and standards all LGBTQ people are "sex offenders or a pervert or a deviant?"

How is the business owner supposed to be able to determine that a person is a "sex offender or a pervert or a deviant?"

So, using your rationale any business owner could refuse service to blacks, Hispanics, Jews, ad infinitum if they believed them to be inferior.  Don't disagree because that IS the logical extension of your argument.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, TheCid said:

So, you are saying that per American laws and standards all LGBTQ people are "sex offenders or a pervert or a deviant?".

From a Deontological perspective, yes, that is the case. It is literally Deviancy by definition.

3 hours ago, TheCid said:

So, using your rationale any business owner could refuse service to blacks, Hispanics, Jews, ad infinitum if they believed them to be inferior.  Don't disagree because that IS the logical extension of your argument.

No, of course not. An ACTION is not the same as racial background. An action is something you physically choose to do while a race is something born into. They choose to violate the Categorical Imperative and it is on their ACTIONS that moral judgment fall.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, Gershwin fan said:

From a Deontological perspective, yes, that is the case. It is literally Deviancy by definition.

No, of course not. An ACTION is not the same as racial background. An action is something you physically choose to do while a race is something born into. They choose to violate the Categorical Imperative and it is on their ACTIONS that moral judgment fall.

What actions are these deviants doing that would warrant a business refusing service?   

In addition how are these actions different than the actions of people you believe are non deviants?

The classic example is overt signs of affection (e.g. making out):   most business that will ask customers to leave for these actions do so regardless of the gender of the couples.    I.e.   they apply their conduct-standard equally.

So again,  what specific actions are deviants doing,  that are different than non-deviant actions, that would warrant a business to refuse service?

 

 

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, jamesjazzguitar said:

What actions are these deviants doing that would warrant a business refusing service?   

In addition how are these actions different than the actions of people you believe are non deviants?

The classic example is overt signs of affection (e.g. making out):   most business that will ask customers to leave for these actions do so regardless of the gender of the couples.    I.e.   they apply their conduct-standard equally.

So again,  what specific actions are deviants doing,  that are different than non-deviant actios, that would warrant a business to refuse service?

 

 

The entire debate was about marriage specifically and asking the bakers to make cakes for the wedding. If you consider that a deviant idea and mockery of marriage and sexual union then it stands to reason that you would refuse service. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Gershwin fan said:

The entire debate was about marriage specifically and asking the bakers to make cakes for the wedding. If you consider that a deviant idea and mockery of marriage and sexual union then it stands to reason that you would refuse service. 

I agree that private businesses should be able to refuse to provide service for religious reasons and that the government should NOT compel them to perform said service (e.g. fine them as a way to get them to conform).

You're the one that introduce the concept of 'actions';   so I ask again;  what 'actions' are a gay couple doing that would warrant a baker to refuse service?       None that I can see other than just being gay.  So in this regard how is that different than racial discrimination?    (discrimination based solely on who someone is and NOT based on their conduct\actions).

I guess one would say asking the baker to put two men on top of the cake or two men's names is an 'action' the gay couple is forcing on the baker.    I find that a stretch,  but hey, I'm not a baker!   

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, jamesjazzguitar said:

I agree that private businesses should be able to refuse to provide service for religious reasons and that the government should NOT compel them to perform said service (e.g. fine them as a way to get them to conform).

You're the one that introduce the concept of 'actions';   so I ask again;  what 'actions' are a gay couple doing that would warrant a baker to refuse service?       None that I can see other than just being gay.  So in this regard how is that different than racial discrimination?    (discrimination based solely on who someone is and NOT based on their conduct\actions).

I guess one would say asking the baker to put two men on top of the cake or two men's names is an 'action' the gay couple is forcing on the baker.    I find that a stretch,  but hey, I'm not a baker!   

Okay, race is something you are BORN into and it is not an action. "Being White" or "being Asian" are NOT actions. Homosex IS an action just as much as master bation is and both actions fly in the face of Deontology. The ACT of being with the same gender is an action that violates the Categorical Imperative and as such, all people of good morals can not condone it. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
25 minutes ago, Gershwin fan said:

From a Deontological perspective, yes, that is the case. It is literally Deviancy by definition.

No, of course not. An ACTION is not the same as racial background. An action is something you physically choose to do while a race is something born into. They choose to violate the Categorical Imperative and it is on their ACTIONS that moral judgment fall.

One that differs from a norm, especially a person whose behavior and attitudes differ from accepted social standards. American Heritage Dictionary.  

That pretty much means anybody could be classified as being deviant.  Key word is accepted.

What the heck is deontological?  Yeah, I could look it up, but want to hear what you think since you missed on deviant.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, Gershwin fan said:

Okay, race is something you are BORN into and it is not an action. "Being White" or "being Asian" are NOT actions. Homosex IS an action just as much as master bation is and both actions fly in the face of Deontology. The ACT of being with the same gender is an action that violates the Categorical Imperative and as such, all people of good morals can not condone it. 

Aren't some people born with a predisposition to homosexuality?

Haven't there been scientific studies done on this?

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

OK Gershwin.  How about let's use 21st Century concepts and not something from the dark or near dark ages.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, Princess of Tap said:

Aren't some people born with a predisposition to homosexuality?

Haven't there been scientific studies done on this?

https://www.sciencenews.org/article/no-evidence-that-gay-gene-exists

https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/massive-study-finds-no-single-genetic-cause-of-same-sex-sexual-behavior/

2 minutes ago, TheCid said:

OK Gershwin.  How about let's use 21st Century concepts and not something from the dark or near dark ages.

You are free to believe in what you see true as is everyone else.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, Gershwin fan said:

You are free to believe in what you see true as is everyone else.

So, I can believe in same sex marriages and the government can "believe" in it and protecting the rights of same sex couples as equal treatment under the 14th Amendment to the Constitution.  Thank you.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I watched the original "Twilight Zone" last night.

I can imagine Rod Serling today might have an episode called:

 

" Sexual Perversion is in the eye of the beholder. "

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, Gershwin fan said:

The study cited does not prove that sexuality is a choice. Here's another take on the same study:

"The study shows that genes play a small and limited role in determining sexuality. Genetic heritability — all of the information stored in our genes and passed between generations — can only explain 8 to 25 percent of why people have same-sex relations, based on the study’s results.

Moreover, the researchers found that sexuality is polygenic — meaning hundreds or even thousands of genes make tiny contributions to the trait. That pattern is similar to other heritable (but complex) characteristics like height or a proclivity toward trying new things. (Things like red/green colorblindness, freckles and dimples can be traced back to single genes). But polygenic traits can be strongly influenced by the environment, meaning there’s no clear winner in this “nature versus nurture” debate."

https://www.pbs.org/newshour/science/there-is-no-gay-gene-there-is-no-straight-gene-sexuality-is-just-complex-study-confirms

You seem to be applying the same kind of absolutism as a number of religious fundamentalists. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 minutes ago, Gershwin fan said:

Okay, race is something you are BORN into and it is not an action. "Being White" or "being Asian" are NOT actions. Homosex IS an action just as much as master bation is and both actions fly in the face of Deontology. The ACT of being with the same gender is an action that violates the Categorical Imperative and as such, all people of good morals can not condone it. 

So you support discrimination based on one's 'actions' regardless of where or when these 'actions' took place.

To me that isn't a sound social policy;  instead the 'actions' needs to be something the business observed.   

E.g.  a business should be allowed to refuse service to those that look and act like clowns,  but not Bozo dressed up in street-cloths.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, LawrenceA said:

The study cited does not prove that sexuality is a choice. Here's another take on the same study:

"The study shows that genes play a small and limited role in determining sexuality. Genetic heritability — all of the information stored in our genes and passed between generations — can only explain 8 to 25 percent of why people have same-sex relations, based on the study’s results.

Moreover, the researchers found that sexuality is polygenic — meaning hundreds or even thousands of genes make tiny contributions to the trait. That pattern is similar to other heritable (but complex) characteristics like height or a proclivity toward trying new things. (Things like red/green colorblindness, freckles and dimples can be traced back to single genes). But polygenic traits can be strongly influenced by the environment, meaning there’s no clear winner in this “nature versus nurture” debate."

https://www.pbs.org/newshour/science/there-is-no-gay-gene-there-is-no-straight-gene-sexuality-is-just-complex-study-confirms

You seem to be applying the same kind of absolutism as a number of religious fundamentalists. 

The genetic component is not dominant though (8 to 25 percent?). Even if it were entirely genetic, it does not make it moral. Pedophiles try to rationalize what they do as being "just how my brain is wired." You could say the same of a lot of criminals that what they do is because their brains are just wired that way.

2 minutes ago, jamesjazzguitar said:

So you support discrimination based on one's 'actions' regardless of where or when these 'actions' took place.

To me that isn't a sound social policy;  instead the 'actions' needs to be something the business observed.   

E.g.  a business should be allowed to refuse service to those that look and act like clowns,  but not Bozo dressed up in street-cloths.  

You're really lost...

7 minutes ago, TheCid said:

So, I can believe in same sex marriages and the government can "believe" in it and protecting the rights of same sex couples as equal treatment under the 14th Amendment to the Constitution.  Thank you.

And people have the right to oppose it and hopefully it will be overturned one day.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, Gershwin fan said:

And people have the right to oppose it and hopefully it will be overturned one day.

Why are you hopeful that it will be overturned? What will you gain by it being overturned?

I'm not trying to get a rise out of you, but I'm just surprised that someone that has been so vocally anti-religious is also this worked up about homosexuality. Trying to lump it in with pedophilia, which includes non-consenting minors, is particularly egregious. 

  • Thanks 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, LawrenceA said:

Why are you hopeful that it will be overturned? What will you gain by it being overturned?

I'm not trying to get a rise out of you, but I'm just surprised that someone that has been so vocally anti-religious is also this worked up about homosexuality. Trying to lump it in with pedophilia, which includes non-consenting minors, is particularly egregious. 

I certainly do not like the Church, especially their frequent cover up of the sexual abuse of young boys by their priests but I just do not think it is really ethical. Legal things like adoption should really be between man and woman because children need male and female role models in their lives. You are all free to support what ethical structures you choose as others are allowed to disagree as well.

  • Sad 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
35 minutes ago, Gershwin fan said:

Okay, race is something you are BORN into and it is not an action. "Being White" or "being Asian" are NOT actions. Homosex IS an action just as much as master bation is and both actions fly in the face of Deontology. The ACT of being with the same gender is an action that violates the Categorical Imperative and as such, all people of good morals can not condone it. 

"Homosex IS an action" is an opinion which I disagree with.  And in any event what is the problem that you have with it?  Who the hell cares anyway?  Live and let live.  

  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  

New Members:

Register Here

Learn more about the new message boards:

FAQ

Having problems?

Contact Us