So what is this toxic masculinity thing anyhow?

[tabibito]

Classic imperialist attitude.

That be true. Who would have expected an inclusivist to be so patronising toward a contemporary society?

[JimL]

so it just boils down to "current social mores" then.

So it is perfectly moral to toss gays off of rooftops in Muslim societies then, right?

No, it doesn't. It boils down to knowledge. That doesn't mean that there will not still be dimwits who don't get it though, such as with respect to human sexual orientation. You apparently think it was moral to stone homosexuals to death, so why are you so upset about tossing them off of rooftops?

[Sparko]

Tossing gays off of rooftops does not reflect current social mores, it reflects those of an ancient religion. The current social mores of civilized countries, such as Australia and the US, recognize equal rights for all.

Oh so the social mores of some societies don't count then, only the ones you agree with? So in the end YOU are the one who decides what is moral for the world. You just replaced "God" with Tassman as the source of all morality.

[Sparko]

No, it doesn't. It boils down to knowledge. That doesn't mean that there will not still be dimwits who don't get it though, such as with respect to human sexual orientation. You apparently think it was moral to stone homosexuals to death, so why are you so upset about tossing them off of rooftops?

I was just going by what Tassman said. "Current social mores" - which varies from culture to culture. Yet when I pointed that out to him, both him and you balk at the consequences of "current social mores" being the source of morality.

Instead what I am seeing is that you each believe YOUR personal morals are what the rest of the world should agree with. You just replace God with yourself as the center of the universe and source of all morality.

[Bill the Cat]

Oh so the social mores of some societies don't count then, only the ones you agree with? So in the end YOU are the one who decides what is moral for the world. You just replaced "God" with Tassman as the source of all morality.

Manifest Destiny at work right there...

[JimL]

I was just going by what Tassman said. "Current social mores" - which varies from culture to culture. Yet when I pointed that out to him, both him and you balk at the consequences of "current social mores" being the source of morality.

Instead what I am seeing is that you each believe YOUR personal morals are what the rest of the world should agree with. You just replace God with yourself as the center of the universe and source of all morality.

Sparko, you seem to have a problem with throwing homosexuals off of rooftops, do you also have a problem with stoning them to death? Human morality is not set in stone, and neither is it set in stone with respect to your god. We evolve and we learn, what is that is in the best interests of human beings and human society. Some peoples, mostly tyrants, simply don't care about what is in the best interests. The problem is that you believe that wronging others is a sin against god therefore morality must be set in stone. Morality is a human concept, not divine law.

[Sparko]

Sparko, you seem to have a problem with throwing homosexuals off of rooftops, do you also have a problem with stoning them to death? Human morality is not set in stone, and neither is it set in stone with respect to your god. We evolve and we learn, what is that is in the best interests of human beings and human society. Some peoples, mostly tyrants, simply don't care about what is in the best interests. The problem is that you believe that wronging others is a sin against god therefore morality must be set in stone. Morality is a human concept, not divine law.

So if morality evolves and changes and is a human concept then there is nothing actually wrong about tossing homosexuals off of rooftops, or stoning them according to you. It might be "wrong" in our current society, but not in the Middle East, or perhaps even in our society in 100 years or so. Which means your constant whining about how evil Christians and our God are is nothing but your personal dislike. Which nobody but you cares about. yawn.

[Tassman]

Oh so the social mores of some societies don't count then, only the ones you agree with?

I’m picking you up on your erroneous notion that “tossing gays off of rooftops" reflects current social mores. It doesn’t, except in the more barbaric countries of the world, e.g. Syria under ISIS. What it “reflects” are the social mores of the historical period when the Koran was written. Similarly, the same applies to the attitude of some Christians (e.g. Evangelicals) vis-à-vis the bible.

So in the end YOU are the one who decides what is moral for the world. You just replaced "God" with Tassman as the source of all morality.

Not at all. It is the community in which I reside which decides on the moral values of the community.

[Mountain Man]

I’m picking you up on your erroneous notion that “tossing gays off of rooftops" reflects current social mores. It doesn’t, except in the more barbaric countries of the world, e.g. Syria under ISIS.

Ah, so you're a bigot.

Of course you immediately contradict your own self-righteous drivel when you say:

IIt is the community in which I reside which decides on the moral values of the community.

Which is to say that if you happened to reside in a country like Syria, you would happily defend the practice of tossing homosexuals off a cliff.

[Cow Poke]

Ah, so you're a bigot.

Of course you immediately contradict your own self-righteous drivel when you say:


Which is to say that if you happened to reside in a country like Syria, you would happily defend the practice of tossing homosexuals off a cliff.

This is yet another case where Tassman said something really stupid, but it's impossible for him to say, "OK, what I should have said is....."

[Bill the Cat]

…. except in the more barbaric countries of the world...

Andy Jackson would be proud of you...

State of the Union Address of December 6, 1830

It will separate the Indians from immediate contact with settlements of whites; free them from the power of the States; enable them to pursue happiness in their own way and under their own rude institutions; will retard the progress of decay, which is lessening their numbers, and perhaps cause them gradually, under the protection of the Government and through the influence of good counsels, to cast off their savage habits and become an interesting, civilized, and Christian community.

What good man would prefer a country covered with forests and ranged by a few thousand savages to our extensive Republic, studded with cities, towns, and prosperous farms embellished with all the improvements which art can devise or industry execute, occupied by more than 12,000,000 happy people, and filled with all the blessings of liberty, civilization and religion? . . . How many thousands of our own people would gladly embrace the opportunity of removing to the West on such conditions! If the offers made to the Indian were extended to them, they would be hailed with gratitude and joy.

Cultural snobbery...

[Sparko]

I’m picking you up on your erroneous notion that “tossing gays off of rooftops" reflects current social mores. It doesn’t, except in the more barbaric countries of the world, e.g. Syria under ISIS.

So what? "barbaric" is just your opinion of them. If their social mores says tossing homosexuals off of rooftops is good then it is good. If Nazi's social mores said that gassing Jews is good then it was good. This is according to YOUR definition, Tassman. If you now think that it is bad, despite their social mores, then you are arguing for objective morality. Which is it?

Not at all. It is the community in which I reside which decides on the moral values of the community.

So we are back to it being perfectly moral for a community to decide to toss homosexuals off of buildings.

You seem to want it both ways.

[JimL]

So if morality evolves and changes and is a human concept then there is nothing actually wrong about tossing homosexuals off of rooftops, or stoning them according to you. It might be "wrong" in our current society, but not in the Middle East, or perhaps even in our society in 100 years or so. Which means your constant whining about how evil Christians and our God are is nothing but your personal dislike. Which nobody but you cares about. yawn.

There is nothing wrong in the divine objective sense, it is wrong in that, based on reason, it is not in our best interests as human beings and as a society. Apparently the same goes for your god, he learned better and decided that stoning homosexuals to death was wrong. Or was it human beings that learned better?

[Sparko]

There is nothing wrong in the divine objective sense, it is wrong in that, based on reason, it is not in our best interests as human beings and as a society. Apparently the same goes for your god, he learned better and decided that stoning homosexuals to death was wrong. Or was it human beings that learned better?

It might not be in the best interests of OUR society, but it is in their society. It eliminates an unwanted segment of their population that might infect others with ideas that go against their society, therefore keeping their society pure. So just because you don't like it doesn't make it immoral. Same with the Nazis and the Jews. If there are no objective morals then it was perfectly moral for them to eliminate the Jews.

[JimL]

It might not be in the best interests of OUR society, but it is in their society. It eliminates an unwanted segment of their population that might infect others with ideas that go against their society, therefore keeping their society pure. So just because you don't like it doesn't make it immoral. Same with the Nazis and the Jews. If there are no objective morals then it was perfectly moral for them to eliminate the Jews.

That's where the "do unto others as you would have them do to you" comes in. The above kind of thinking can go both ways and everyone would be killing everyone.