Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'Philosophy and Religion' started by Satya, Apr 10, 2010.
Believe me, I know. Some Catholics would love to see me imprisoned for sodomy. The purpose of this thread was to make fun of teleology as a credible form of reasoning. Unfortunately, the Catholic Church utilizes teleology to justify many of its less than rational positions on how people should live their lives. Don't take it as a personal attack. Information on tags: http://forums.infjs.com/showthread.php?t=6008 If you are senstive to heated arguments, then I would stay out of [PUG} threads. They aren't meant to be nice. If anything, [PUG} tags are where people come to vent their frustrations.
Anyone that has spent time reading your posts knows what the real reason is for this thread. "Here stands the mean, uncomely, stone, Tis very cheap in price! The more it is despised by fools, The more loved by the wise." the alchemist Arnaldus de Villanova
The biggest problems I see with artificial insemination are the possibly ambiguities with the donors. 1) How much can you trust the clinic people, who inseminate, only inseminate who they say? (They may inseminate more to improve clinic statistics) 2) Donors can be close relatives -> unintended inbreeding -> possible medical problems 3) Donors may have an unknown illness at the time of donation -> possible medical problems (The inability to find the donor can lead to prolonging treating the problem for the future child) 3) Donors' unknown family medical history -> possible medical problems (Same as above) If the woman actually knows the donor, these problems may be avoidable. But, if the donor knows the child is "his", he may have an emotional attachment for the child. More problems. Also, there is no male equivalent for artificial insemination. Imagine having "womb machines" where males submits his sperm. He can choose donated eggs to be his future children. Again, all I see are more problems. As for that Teleology, personally I think there is a necessary balance between intention and result. Teleology and Utilitarianism.
I wasn't attacking you in any way Norwich. There genuinely are Catholics who would love to see me imprisoned for sodomy. I'm happy to hear that you are not one of them and that you find anyone who would hold such a position to be reprehensible. I agree that the way I went about the thread was meant to be sarcastic. I apologized in a different thread specifically for this thread. http://forums.infjs.com/showthread.php?t=9404 Nobody asked me to apologize, and I wasn't apologizing to any particular member, I just felt I had gone too far and had alienated some of the members who held these particular beliefs. While I do not tolerate bigotry of any kind on this forum, my attitude in this thread was less than respectful. As long as someone doesn't demonstrate bigotry on this forum, I feel they should be entitled to express their views openly.
How passive aggressive. This savors strongly of bitterness. I think you're taking some people's opinions very personally.
I'm simply stating a fact. Do you not read the news? http://rawstory.com/rs/2010/0621/tx...icans-criminalize-sodomy-gay-marriage-felony/ Many of those GOP leaders in Texas are Catholic.
Well jeez, please forgive me for not wanting to go to prison.
Who on the board wants you locked up? i think you are preaching to the choir.
I have no interest into going into the political position's of members on the forum. They are entitled to believe what they will, but expressing bigotry on this forum will not be tolerated.
Perhaps the fact that they are Catholics is incidental/accidental to their views. It may be true to say that many African-Americans are rapists, a statement that is verifiable when examining prison populations. But to say so is easily (and probably correctly) interpreted as a racist statement. Similarly to say that many Catholics want gays imprisoned is prejudicial against Catholics. There is no Catholic teaching that promotes the imprisonment of gays - even though there may be the odd Catholic who teaches it as his own opinion. (Incidentally I don't know any Catholics who would want gays imprisoned).
How is it immoral? I literally can see no way what so ever in how this could possibly be immoral. I could see religious arguments being used, but I disregard religious contexts in regards to morality (I disregard it for most everything actually). Therefore, I really don't see how it could even reasonably be considered as such.
I think you misread. I don't recall ever saying that "many" Catholics want gays to be imprisoned. I believe I only said that "some" Catholics want gays imprisoned. I hope that changes your opinion regarding whether the statement is prejudiced. I find those individuals who do feel that gays should be imprisoned, regardless of their religious beliefs, to be incredibly reprehensible, bigoted, and devoid of decency. I'm happy to hear that you do not know of any.
To draw a hypothetical parrallel: to say "Some African-Americans are rapists" isn't seen as prejudicial? Perhaps a highly qualified statement would clearly set out that such a statement was not intended to mis-represent an entire demographic population. Sometimes such qualification is considerate when naming particular demographic populations - especially ones that are often subject to criticism/critique/attack.
You will have to bring it up with Norwich. I was only responding to him. To quote... I didn't feel he was being prejudiced towards Catholics by making that statement, but apparently you feel differently. And I carefully stated that only "some" Catholics wish to see gays imprisoned.
You always use that word as if some means a vast number.
Could you give me some example of where I have used "some" to indicate a vast number? I'm curious as to how I managed to use a word to signify the opposite of what it actually means.
Im not going to research your posts. Simply be introspective and sensitive to how people in certain minorites would perceive the tone and meaning of what you say.