So, When Did You Choose to be Straight?

PhilDidge wrote:

sphinx wrote:

Wrong is whatever the majority of society thinks it is at the time they think it.

That is the point I am making.

I did not ask that, I asked "you" what is wrong and to define it?

Is society right to what is wrong?

sphinx wrote:

PhilDidge wrote:

I did not ask that, I asked "you" what is wrong and to define it?

Is society right to what is wrong?

I just did define wrong.
No you defined a view
Wrong is whatever the majority of society thinks it is at the time.
Incorrect that is a perception of what a majority view thinks is wrong not what is actually defined as a wrong

50 years ago homosexuality was wrong
Now believing homosexuality is wrong is wrong and people are attacked for views that were the norm 50 years ago.
2000 years ago homosexuality was right not seen as wrong, so is your argument based upon era's in history? That does not define if something is wrong, that shows perceptions change, not how you would define what is wrong

There have at various times in various places been just about every combination of right and wrong assigned to the various types of human sexuality - and every society has been and is utterly convinced that their definitions are the  correct ones - even though to other societies who are equally convinced of their own correctness the other society has got it totally wrong.

PhilDidge wrote:

sphinx wrote:

I just did define wrong.
No you defined a view
Wrong is whatever the majority of society thinks it is at the time.
Incorrect that is a perception of what a majority view thinks is wrong not what is actually defined as a wrong

50 years ago homosexuality was wrong
Now believing homosexuality is wrong is wrong and people are attacked for views that were the norm 50 years ago.
2000 years ago homosexuality was right not seen as wrong, so is your argument based upon era's in history? That does not define if something is wrong, that shows perceptions change, not how you would define what is wrong

There have at various times in various places been just about every combination of right and wrong assigned to the various types of human sexuality - and every society has been and is utterly convinced that their definitions are the  correct ones - even though to other societies who are equally convinced of their own correctness the other society has got it totally wrong.

Utter babble, I asked you a simple question, what is a wrong, define it?

that shows perceptions change,

sphinx wrote:

PhilDidge wrote:

Utter babble, I asked you a simple question, what is a wrong, define it?

For once you have accidentally stumbled over my meaning.

that shows perceptions change,

PhilDidge wrote:

sphinx wrote:

For once you have accidentally stumbled over my meaning.

Incorrect, I want to know the meaning of wrong, it is easily defined, hence why I want to educate you on this and show your previous points poor.

Again define the definition of wrong

sphinx wrote:

PhilDidge wrote:

Incorrect, I want to know the meaning of wrong, it is easily defined, hence why I want to educate you on this and show your previous points poor.

Again define the definition of wrong

No I am correct - you have tripped over my meaning.

PhilDidge wrote:

sphinx wrote:

No I am correct - you have tripped over my meaning.

No you are avoiding, define the definition of wrong?

Never clever to think you are being smart on psychology when as seen you do not understand it.

Try again, definition of wrong

sphinx wrote:

My you do get upset when you actually do get my meaning dont you?

PhilDidge wrote:

sphinx wrote:

My you do get upset when you actually do get my meaning dont you?

Upset? lol laughing at your ignorance

No I actually love it when someone thinks they are being clever but a dickhead as you are now over views to right or wrongs in comparisons to homosexuality and Paedophilia, by questioning this, when you cannot answer a simple question to the definition of wrong?

Try again, you might actually learn something from this

sphinx wrote:

PhilDidge wrote:

Upset? lol laughing at your ignorance

No I actually love it when someone thinks they are being clever but a dickhead as you are now over views to right or wrongs in comparisons to homosexuality and Paedophilia, by questioning this, when you cannot answer a simple question to the definition of wrong?

Try again, you might actually learn something from this

If you are not upset why are you going on when I told you that you got it right?

grumpy old git wrote:OG GOD, another thread turned into all about didge/how good is didge.....

grumpy old git wrote:OG GOD, another thread turned into all about didge/how good is didge.....

sphinx wrote:

grumpy old git wrote:OG GOD, another thread turned into all about didge/how good is didge.....

He did actually get my point this time - all be it accidentally.

Though that seems to have set him off claiming I am wrong about him getting the point

heavenly father wrote:so should homosexuals be cured.

sphinx wrote:

heavenly father wrote:so should homosexuals be cured.

What if they dont want to be cured and do not consider themselves to have an illness?

PhilDidge wrote:

sphinx wrote:

He did actually get my point this time - all be it accidentally.

Though that seems to have set him off claiming I am wrong about him getting the point

Oh dear, what a poor little copout and running away now.

Definition of wrong?

I am trying to show your view point was not only wrong but really absurd, hence you need to answer, then you might understand

sphinx wrote:

heavenly father wrote:so should homosexuals be cured.

What if they dont want to be cured and do not consider themselves to have an illness?

sphinx wrote:

PhilDidge wrote:

Oh dear, what a poor little copout and running away now.

Definition of wrong?

I am trying to show your view point was not only wrong but really absurd, hence you need to answer, then you might understand

If my definition of wrong led you to get the point - which it did - then it was the correct definition.  I do not need to answer any more because I already understand and what is more have expressed my point in a way that meant you got it.

heavenly father wrote:so should homosexuals be cured.

PhilDidge wrote:

sphinx wrote:

If my definition of wrong led you to get the point - which it did - then it was the correct definition.  I do not need to answer any more because I already understand and what is more have expressed my point in a way that meant you got it.

You have yet failed to define its definition, when you do then I can help you understand your error here being  cocky when I actually think you know where I am leading you, hence your avoidance.

Really have to go, but really am looking forward to your next excuse, will pick up tomorrow.

Have good evening

 :D 

sphinx wrote:

PhilDidge wrote:

You have yet failed to define its definition, when you do then I can help you understand your error here being  cocky when I actually think you know where I am leading you, hence your avoidance.

Really have to go, but really am looking forward to your next excuse, will pick up tomorrow.

Have good evening

 :D 

How can leading you to get the point be an error?

Catman wrote:

heavenly father wrote:so should homosexuals be cured.

What do you think about heterosexual people that indulge in anal sex?

PhilDidge wrote:

sphinx wrote:

How can leading you to get the point be an error?

Easily done so, I guess you do not know then.

Okay I will change the question to help you, have wrongs been done to you?

By that define wrong.

sphinx wrote:

PhilDidge wrote:

Easily done so, I guess you do not know then.

Okay I will change the question to help you, have wrongs been done to you?

By that define wrong.

What has that got to do with sexuality?

sphinx wrote:I get wronged every time someone fails to understand me.

sphinx wrote:Its that perception thing you understood earlier.

sphinx wrote:I get wronged every time someone fails to understand me.

Ben_Reilly wrote:

sphinx wrote:I get wronged every time someone fails to understand me.

That's bullshit.

sphinx wrote:

Ben_Reilly wrote:

sphinx wrote:I get wronged every time someone fails to understand me.

That's bullshit.

See?

heavenly father wrote:

sphinx wrote:

heavenly father wrote:so should homosexuals be cured.

What if they dont want to be cured and do not consider themselves to have an illness?

they are clearly faulty wired as heterosexual is the norm, if they can be cured by mending the wiring why wouldn't they want to be, as their life is so difficult as it is..

What do Ben Franklin, the Utah state bird, and the Supreme Court all have in common? And what does any of that have to do with gay rights? It's only natural that you should ask. Over 250 years ago, Franklin invented the lightning rod. Back then, some people objected strongly to its use as being presumptuous and against the will of God. Downright unnatural, one might say.

Franklin retorted in the classic prose of his time. "[Nollet (who had opposed lightning rods)] seems to apply to the superstitious Prejudices of the Populace. . . He speaks as if he thought it Presumption in Man, to propose guarding himself against the Thunders of Heaven! Surely the Thunder of Heaven is no more supernatural than the Rain, Hail or Sunshine of Heaven, against the Inconveniencies of which we guard by Roofs and Shades without Scruple" (read)

Agreed: Lightning rods are unnatural. So too are houses, umbrellas, and clothes.

But homosexuality is not.

From a scientific perspective, all homosexual behavior is biological. That's a truism, of course. Same-sex attraction, like all behaviors and cognition, requires a functioning nervous system. There are no homosexual umbrellas. Furthermore, much but not all same-same sex attraction is probably based in genetics or epigenetics, with predispositions established before birth.

Far from being a "sin against nature," homosexuality is more natural than the sexual abstinence imposed by many human cultures, and more natural than their many artifacts.

The TV show has it wrong, but not in the ways some folks think. Homosexuality is not a "new normal." It's an old one.

Homosexual behavior is ubiquitous throughout the animal kingdom. It occurs in numerous species from worms to primates, including the Utah state bird, the seagull (Read). Bonobos (previously called pygmy chimpanzees) are one of human's closest cousins, sharing nearly 99 percent of our DNA. Nearly all bonobos are bisexual, and some engage in homosexual behavior almost hourly (Read).

It seems unlikely that's the result of a bonobo ACLU, or a bonobo militant homosexual "agenda."

So, new rule: Folks can't rightly complain against "unnatural" homosexual behaviors unless they themselves are living outdoors 24-7-365 and walking around buck naked.

Ben_Reilly wrote:

sphinx wrote:

See?

See what? Sometimes people don't understand what you're expressing, that doesn't mean they've done anything wrong to you.

Eilzel wrote:I do believe paedophiles are born that way. Further, I do not believe there is a cure. Same with gay people; no cure. The problem then is 'what to do' with paedophiles?

Well and offender should be locked in some mental institute for life imo, since they have crossed the line of harming another. As for someone who is that way inclined and feels unable to control themselves indefinitely, well then the only solution is surely the same.

It is a difficult area but if someone does have those feelings they ARE a danger to society.

Obviously just because someone is 'born' a paedophile does not means they warrant rights- their condition means they eventually will harm another- whereas homosexual relationships do not involve a victim.

sphinx wrote:

Ben_Reilly wrote:

sphinx wrote:

See?

See what? Sometimes people don't understand what you're expressing, that doesn't mean they've done anything wrong to you.

That is your perception.

Which was my point.

Which didge got (accidentally)

Which he has spent the last hour trying to prove he got because I communicated it in the wrong way.

By his logic if he got my point by me communicating in the the wrong way that makes him right and me wrong.

sphinx wrote:

Eilzel wrote:I do believe paedophiles are born that way. Further, I do not believe there is a cure. Same with gay people; no cure. The problem then is 'what to do' with paedophiles?

Well and offender should be locked in some mental institute for life imo, since they have crossed the line of harming another. As for someone who is that way inclined and feels unable to control themselves indefinitely, well then the only solution is surely the same.

It is a difficult area but if someone does have those feelings they ARE a danger to society.

Obviously just because someone is 'born' a paedophile does not means they warrant rights- their condition means they eventually will harm another- whereas homosexual relationships do not involve a victim.

So in other words no human has the right to have what they consider pleasurable sexual encounters.

sphinx wrote:

Eilzel wrote:I do believe paedophiles are born that way. Further, I do not believe there is a cure. Same with gay people; no cure. The problem then is 'what to do' with paedophiles?

Well and offender should be locked in some mental institute for life imo, since they have crossed the line of harming another. As for someone who is that way inclined and feels unable to control themselves indefinitely, well then the only solution is surely the same.

It is a difficult area but if someone does have those feelings they ARE a danger to society.

Obviously just because someone is 'born' a paedophile does not means they warrant rights- their condition means they eventually will harm another- whereas homosexual relationships do not involve a victim.

So in other words no human has the right to have what they consider pleasurable sexual encounters.

Ben_Reilly wrote:

heavenly father wrote:

they are clearly faulty wired as heterosexual is the norm, if they can be cured by mending the wiring why wouldn't they want to be, as their life is so difficult as it is..

Homosexuality is the norm as well:

What do Ben Franklin, the Utah state bird, and the Supreme Court all have in common?  And what does any of that have to do with gay rights? It's only natural that you should ask. Over 250 years ago, Franklin invented the lightning rod.  Back then, some people objected strongly to its use as being presumptuous and against the will of God.  Downright unnatural, one might say.  

Franklin retorted in the classic prose of his time. "[Nollet (who had opposed lightning rods)] seems to apply to the superstitious Prejudices of the Populace. . . He speaks as if he thought it Presumption in Man, to propose guarding himself against the Thunders of Heaven! Surely the Thunder of Heaven is no more supernatural than the Rain, Hail or Sunshine of Heaven, against the Inconveniencies of which we guard by Roofs and Shades without Scruple" (read)

Agreed: Lightning rods are unnatural. So too are houses, umbrellas, and clothes.

But homosexuality is not.

From a scientific perspective, all homosexual behavior is biological. That's a truism, of course.  Same-sex attraction, like all behaviors and cognition, requires a functioning nervous system. There are no homosexual umbrellas.  Furthermore, much but not all same-same sex attraction is probably based in genetics or epigenetics, with predispositions established before birth.

Far from being a "sin against nature," homosexuality is more natural than the sexual abstinence imposed by many human cultures, and more natural than their many artifacts.

The TV show has it wrong, but not in the ways some folks think. Homosexuality is not a "new normal." It's an old one.

Homosexual behavior is ubiquitous throughout the animal kingdom. It occurs in numerous species from worms to primates, including the Utah state bird, the seagull (Read). Bonobos (previously called pygmy chimpanzees) are one of human's closest cousins, sharing nearly 99 percent of our DNA. Nearly all bonobos are bisexual, and some engage in homosexual behavior almost hourly (Read).

It seems unlikely that's the result of a bonobo ACLU, or a bonobo militant homosexual "agenda."

So, new rule: Folks can't rightly complain against "unnatural" homosexual behaviors unless they themselves are living outdoors 24-7-365 and walking around buck naked.

http://www.standard.net/stories/2013/03/22/homosexuality-biologically-natural-not-deviant

Ben_Reilly wrote:

sphinx wrote:

That is your perception.

Which was my point.

Which didge got (accidentally)

Which he has spent the last hour trying to prove he got because I communicated it in the wrong way.

By his logic if he got my point by me communicating in the the wrong way that makes him right and me wrong.

OK, my perception is also that you wouldn't know logic if it came up and bit your ass. You can't prove I'm not right.

sphinx wrote:

Ben_Reilly wrote:

heavenly father wrote:

they are clearly faulty wired as heterosexual is the norm, if they can be cured by mending the wiring why wouldn't they want to be, as their life is so difficult as it is..

Homosexuality is the norm as well:

What do Ben Franklin, the Utah state bird, and the Supreme Court all have in common?  And what does any of that have to do with gay rights? It's only natural that you should ask. Over 250 years ago, Franklin invented the lightning rod.  Back then, some people objected strongly to its use as being presumptuous and against the will of God.  Downright unnatural, one might say.  

Franklin retorted in the classic prose of his time. "[Nollet (who had opposed lightning rods)] seems to apply to the superstitious Prejudices of the Populace. . . He speaks as if he thought it Presumption in Man, to propose guarding himself against the Thunders of Heaven! Surely the Thunder of Heaven is no more supernatural than the Rain, Hail or Sunshine of Heaven, against the Inconveniencies of which we guard by Roofs and Shades without Scruple" (read)

Agreed: Lightning rods are unnatural. So too are houses, umbrellas, and clothes.

But homosexuality is not.

From a scientific perspective, all homosexual behavior is biological. That's a truism, of course.  Same-sex attraction, like all behaviors and cognition, requires a functioning nervous system. There are no homosexual umbrellas.  Furthermore, much but not all same-same sex attraction is probably based in genetics or epigenetics, with predispositions established before birth.

Far from being a "sin against nature," homosexuality is more natural than the sexual abstinence imposed by many human cultures, and more natural than their many artifacts.

The TV show has it wrong, but not in the ways some folks think. Homosexuality is not a "new normal." It's an old one.

Homosexual behavior is ubiquitous throughout the animal kingdom. It occurs in numerous species from worms to primates, including the Utah state bird, the seagull (Read). Bonobos (previously called pygmy chimpanzees) are one of human's closest cousins, sharing nearly 99 percent of our DNA. Nearly all bonobos are bisexual, and some engage in homosexual behavior almost hourly (Read).

It seems unlikely that's the result of a bonobo ACLU, or a bonobo militant homosexual "agenda."

So, new rule: Folks can't rightly complain against "unnatural" homosexual behaviors unless they themselves are living outdoors 24-7-365 and walking around buck naked.

http://www.standard.net/stories/2013/03/22/homosexuality-biologically-natural-not-deviant

And the same arguments can be applied to paedophilia.

sphinx wrote:

Ben_Reilly wrote:

OK, my perception is also that you wouldn't know logic if it came up and bit your ass. You can't prove I'm not right.

Exactly.  Unfortunately I cannot prove that you right either - even though you are.

grumpy old git wrote:Surely the definition of wrong depends entirely upon your point of view. It may even consist of a number of definitions

what an individual considers wrong may not coincide with what society considers wrong at some point.
what society considers wrong is dependant upon circumstance

society sends the message it is wrong to kill, for instance
but then it says "except when"
but to the Jain there is no "except when"

the romans considered paedophillia acceptable; wrong by todays standards of course, but non the less by their standards .......

as an interesting aside, how many of you have ever played RPG's??

when you "generate a character" you pick an alignment that is to say a moral out look for it.

this is usually from the set of

lawful good, neutral good or chaotic good
OR true nutral
OR lawful evil, neutral evil or chaotic evil

Now both lawful good AND lawful evil would state that THEIR version of what is right and wrong is valid

So given the moral choice of trying (at risk of spreading the disease) to cure a plagued village or burn it to the ground inhabitants and all

the lawful good paladin would be unable to decide, since both choices lead to possibly appalling consequences and both sets of consequences are contrary to the rigid code of lawful good (DO NO HARM)
the lawful evil sorcerer would ALSO be unable to decide because both choices lead to consequences which go against HIS code of lawful evil...(DO NO HARM, IF IT DOES YOU NO GOOD)(since killing the village and hence the plague would rob him of a useful weapon AND allowing it to spread unchecked would rob him of potential subjects)

Both are selfish choices since they ignore the rule of "the greatest good for the greatest number"

So defining "wrong" is not as straightforward as some may think.

moreover...

homosexuality between consenting adults harms no-one
Paedophillia clearly does

there is no NEED to "cure" homosexuality Especially since any such cure FUNDAMENTALLY CHANGES WHO THE PERSON IS(and actually benefits nobody)
there is need to cure paedophillia EVEN IF IT FUNDAMENTALLY CHANGES WHO THE PERSON IS(since it would benfit potential victims AND the subject.

Just like there is no need to "cure" left handedness (since it harms no one and curing it benefits no-one)
but there IS need to cure paranoid schizophrenia (since it can cause harm for others and curing (or at least controlling it) benefits potential victims AND the subject)

sphinx wrote:I will also draw attention to the argument put forward by others that because our society does consider child sex wrong any and all evidence that it does not always harm the subjects will be rejected or hidden instead of being openly debated and considered.