LGBT Smashers

[Andydark]

I don't see why you wouldn't be able to mention it. It'd be a nice way to change the topic...

 

[Yukichu]

Go ahead and give it to us. I really wanna hear this. :3

 

[.:~*Momo*~:.]

He told me in a PM, the story doesn't sound too private or inappropriate or anything, so I don't see why not. =3

 

[SU_Remo]

Yeah, Seiya. I think we all would like to hear your story. You should totally post it in here.

 

[Seiya]

Momo I'm going to be lazy and copy and paste XD but here it is :D

I went to a 17th birthday party and like lots of people I knew were there. I just went there cuz my current roommate wanted me to go.(I'm still in high school guys >.> Just living with her and her parents) So I went there and started playing halo 3 and it got boring cuz the first match and some stupid laser weapon which was stupid. Then I went over to the guitar hero area and saw this guy who I had my first date with. Recently we've been talking with each now. I sat by and and pretty much we got closer and sort of cuddled. I didn't care about what people saw..my facebook says I'm gay so yeah. Well my roommate and friend who was staying with us last night came over and like were disappointed. They hate the guy but eventually we got them to leave and the guy pretty much said "You know this is a date?" and smiled. Then he had to go told his ride,this girl, to meet us outside and tell us when she was leaving. So he and I sat down on this bench near the door to the party. Anybody who walks out can see us. It was cold and I was shivering with like chattering teeth. He thought was cute. Eventually we were like snuggled to each other and holding hands. While doing this we were talking about our gay life and what guys we like and all that. I was telling him how messed up mine is and he said "Roberto..." and kissed me. My first kiss! -screams- I told him lets walk over to his car and we did. We were snuggled up against it until my roommate came out and we had to stop cuz if she would of saw us she would of told the party. That didn't matter cuz someone saw us and already told the party. Drama!!! Someone told the party that we were having sex. Uh no! My date told me that we should go ahead and go in and gave me a goodbye kiss just in case he wouldn't see me. That's the 2nd kiss XD Anyhoo we went in everything seemed normal until my date found the guy who started the rumor and literally struck him multiple times and walked out angry. I was scared and wanted to cry but I don't know why. No one came up to me and asked me what happend but yeah. Everything is cool. It was sorta like Mean Girls! The three of us and like I'm the character Lindsey Lohan played and my two friends was the gay guy and girl. Better thing I forgot to say was we were talking about Brawl while sitting together in the Guitar Hero area. He asked that when I get Brawl to call him and invite him over.

 

[Akwaishigot]

Momo I'm going to be lazy and copy and paste XD but here it is :D

I went to a 17th birthday party and like lots of people I knew were there. I just went there cuz my current roommate wanted me to go.(I'm still in high school guys >.> Just living with her and her parents) So I went there and started playing halo 3 and it got boring cuz the first match and some stupid laser weapon which was stupid. Then I went over to the guitar hero area and saw this guy who I had my first date with. Recently we've been talking with each now. I sat by and and pretty much we got closer and sort of cuddled. I didn't care about what people saw..my facebook says I'm gay so yeah. Well my roommate and friend who was staying with us last night came over and like were disappointed. They hate the guy but eventually we got them to leave and the guy pretty much said "You know this is a date?" and smiled. Then he had to go told his ride,this girl, to meet us outside and tell us when she was leaving. So he and I sat down on this bench near the door to the party. Anybody who walks out can see us. It was cold and I was shivering with like chattering teeth. He thought was cute. Eventually we were like snuggled to each other and holding hands. While doing this we were talking about our gay life and what guys we like and all that. I was telling him how messed up mine is and he said "Roberto..." and kissed me. My first kiss! -screams- I told him lets walk over to his car and we did. We were snuggled up against it until my roommate came out and we had to stop cuz if she would of saw us she would of told the party. That didn't matter cuz someone saw us and already told the party. Drama!!! Someone told the party that we were having sex. Uh no! My date told me that we should go ahead and go in and gave me a goodbye kiss just in case he wouldn't see me. That's the 2nd kiss XD Anyhoo we went in everything seemed normal until my date found the guy who started the rumor and literally struck him multiple times and walked out angry. I was scared and wanted to cry but I don't know why. No one came up to me and asked me what happend but yeah. Everything is cool. It was sorta like Mean Girls! The three of us and like I'm the character Lindsey Lohan played and my two friends was the gay guy and girl. Better thing I forgot to say was we were talking about Brawl while sitting together in the Guitar Hero area. He asked that when I get Brawl to call him and invite him over.

Heh~

That's awsome dude.

Lucky *******....at least you get to cuddle and stuff.......

Oh....better introduce myself....a little.

Uhh....names "Akwaishigot"....

People call me Logann....(hate my name)

So I'm pretty much gay.

I've known since I popped out my moms punana.

I'm 17...going on 18.

Been in ONE relationship...but it just didn't work out cause we just felt more as friends. (:

Umm, I'm more of a masculine gay guy.....although I'd definatly be the recessive one in a relationship!

Love the "Queens"/"Flammers" (as friends)

There's no way in hell I could date/sex/kiss (or anything of that matter) a femmie guy, just because it'd be like trying to do it with a woman....lol.

So....in conclusion to that; I want a MAN. 8D

I really love muscles......my god...I love muscles...*Flex*

Skinny guys are a major turn off.....sorry. D:

I'm totally a Zelda mainer! HOLLER!

Zelda freakin' rocks....in every way-shape-and form.

Peach is my second main. (love her new heart effects)

Pit will be my newcomer main. <3

I'm obsessed with Brawl.........like...it's disgusting how much I love this game. (prolly gonna have sex with it before I actually play it.)

totally joking......*shifty eyes*

I'm a videogame music nerd.....*is downloading Brawl OST*

SO yeah.....

Um....to END this....

I didn't chose to become this way, because.....really....who would want to be discriminated/hated/killed for being gay? :3

Ummm.....I would like to marry a man in the near future.

So...gimmie my rights *****es. <3

The next president is either Obama or Clinton.....and either one of them is "supposedly" in support of gay marriages.

And um....please change the definition of marriage. =D

Oh...and IF YOU WANT....you could arrage the "under god" thinggy from the pledge...cause aint church and state supposed to be seperate?.....I know this was random...but I saw it being talked about earlier......oh god don't start a war PLEASE.....D:

(maybe i'm being ignorant....but i thought that's how it was lol)

And ummm lastley....

Brawl = <3

 

[.:~*Momo*~:.]

Heehee welcome to the thread Akwaishigot! ^^ I like how you provided all that information in your first post here. X3

 

[Andydark]

Heh. The guy I have a crush on decided to bring it up tonight. Making the observation that I go out of my way to help him followed by "It's because you have ac rush on me." and I I just sort of stuttered a half response followeed by a somewhat defeated, "Can you blame me?" And then there was an awkward silence.

And then he said, "You jokingly mentioned taking me out to Olive Garden last semester, for helping you with that paper... Still interested?"

Things are actually going decently for me. How rare.

 

[Kix]

Let's clear up some things Erimir, so you understand me clearly. We'll make things more simple.

1) It's not even remotely the same... why? Because it's convenient for your argument?

Those people back then would have said the definition was "A consenting man and woman of the same race" and that the definition didn't fit for interracial couples.

And even before that, the definition would have been "A man and woman, wherein the woman is the property of the man and must obey him."

2) And in the past women didn't have the right to marry someone of their choice, so consenting wasn't necessarily a part of the definition, and even some men may have been forced into marrying a particular woman for economic or political reasons. It was considered an unbreakable melding of their souls sanctioned by God. Now we have divorce and secular marriage.

3) The definition of marriage is not immutable, and has changed many times in the past. And in fact, in some societies same sex marriages were possible. But let's just pretend that only Western history matters, and that the Western/Christian definition is immutable, has never changed and was handed down from on high and that we should apply this even in our secular law system

4) If I argue rationally why you're wrong and that your argument is illogical, pointing out that I'm an atheist and therefore "have no basis for morality or logic blah blah blah BS" is not an argument. Just because you, for some ridiculous reason think that I have to be a theist in order to be rational, this does not mean that you no longer have to make sensible arguments yourself.

5) Not to mention that your argument doesn't even entail that I have no basis for logic. The transcendental argument entails that my not believing in God is inconsistent with my use of logic and morality, blah blah BS... but not that my logic or moral arguments are baseless. You're saying that they're based on God, and I don't recognize this. But that doesn't make them invalid, since the point of the TAG is precisely that the atheist's logic and moral reasoning ARE valid... but that the only way to explain their validity is God.

6) So in other words... your argument sucks, because you're trying to ignore arguments by shifting the discussion to stupid crap about God, as if believing in God allows you to make bad arguments and call us irrational when we point their flaws out.

1) Yes, but because people say whatever does not mean their definition is the same as it has been in history. I'll say it again, this is not the main part of my argument. What constitutionally gives two people of the same-sex the 'right' to marry?

Whether or not a woman obeys the man does not make make something marriage or not. I didn't say people did not misuse marriage but I am arguing why or why not it is a 'right' and what makes this so.

2) Some questions here - were they a man and a woman? Did they not love each other? Was some marriage not misused throughout history?

3) Out of curiosity, which societies accepted this as marriage? Even then, what gives them a moral right? Right now I'm kind of confused here, is this a constitutional right or moral right? Let me state this again: where does the secular system allow for this as a 'right'?

4) So then you aren't arguing morality?

My reason for you not being able to rationalize this as an atheist is not ridiculous. I'm not talking about having a set of 'morality' or how you formed it. I'm talking about how you rationalize why something is right or wrong. When it is what you want to think, then it does not matter and is based on nothing to rationalize why it is. Then we know it is not based on the physical universe, so how do you rationalize why lying is wrong? Or ****? I'm giving you an opportunity, go ahead and explain this since I am being "ridiculous".

5) The transcendental argument is only about logical absolutes and not morality.

Wait, what the hell are you talking about? First of all, how is your morality not baseless? Your morality is, but it does not argue that you cannot think rationally or that you cannot deduce things as pointed out. Rather that you cannot account for logical absolutes, for example, law of non-contradiction, identity, law of excluded middle. What you use for argumentation cannot be accounted for. So the source and being of any argumentation and these "laws of logic" can only be accounted for by theists.

These things are conceptual in nature but not based on human minds nor on the physical universe, but reflect the mind of something transcendent and absolute. They are verifiable and are laws which rule everything in existence, regardless if the universe existed it is still true that something cannot contradict itself and both be true. There is only one explanation and way to account for this - God. To go into further detail, it is based off of God's nature and is not independent of God's existence.

6) I'm doing two things. I want you to tell me how it is constitutionally considered a 'right' then we can see if that part of my argument sucks. Then I am shifting it to God for moral argumentation. To anyone reading this, consider what I have said about morality, not that you do not have "morals" but that you cannot rationalize them and can get nowhere arguing subjective morality. From this you have yet to point out the problem in my argumentation. For the secondary part of morality you simply cannot win this point period, and have not pointed out anything valid. That's it.

I see that most people that disagree with gay marriage are Christian. Do you think it is illogical? If you do then guess what your religion is based on illogical things, like all religions. So start thinking logically and think about why we actually get married, its for love, on a last note i am not gay.

Sir, you are giving me the impression that you do not know the definition of 'illogical'

 

[Teleco08]

Kix i am saying that Christianity is illogical. Illogical is something which cant be solved logically, if i knew what something illogical is, it would not be illogical anymore. That makes Christianity illogical like all other religions.

 

[Kix]

Kix i am saying that Christianity is illogical. Illogical is something which cant be solved logically, if i knew what something illogical is, it would not be illogical anymore. That makes Christianity illogical like all other religions.

What? I thought for something to be illogical it contradicted logic itself. So by this definition religion does not necessarily contradict logical absolutes although sometimes they do in which case it is easy to recognize them as false from the onset.

 

[.:~*Momo*~:.]

Ugh you people aren't done yet? -.-;;; I hope you all realize this argument is going nowhere... prove this point and disprove that one... but when it comes down to it... you just won't agree with eachother... though I'm pessimistic... but... I just don't really wanna come to a new 5 pages of arguments or anything... what am I saying? Nobody is going to listen. ^^; Somebody always has to have the last word... then somebody after that... it'll never end... I'm sorry. ^^;

I'd share my views on this but... I'm just not the type who likes to get involved in important topics or anything... which is why I never really discuss politics or religion... but you guys will surely continue... sorry for interrupting... I guess. ^^;
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Anyway... UGH! I'm so lonely!! >.< What the heck do I have to do to be able to tell cute/interesting stories like you guys!? D= I seriously have NOTHING going on... past, present, or ... well I dunno about future but past and present definitely! D= Not that I'm desperate or anything... just really curious. ^^;

 

[Kix]

Ugh you people aren't done yet? -.-;;; I hope you all realize this argument is going nowhere...

...and you're so sure of this because?

 

[.:~*Momo*~:.]

I'm not... that sentence came out wrong. ^^;

EDIT: Nevermind, I don't really wanna get involved... like I said I'm sorry for interrupting. ^^;

 

[Erimir]

1) Yes, but because people say whatever does not mean their definition is the same as it has been in history.

Yeah and the point is that you have really given no evidence that the definition you're trying to defend "A contract between a consenting man and woman of the proper age who are not closely related in which the two members have equal legal status" should be considered the historical one. Pretty much every part of that definition has varied in different times and places. Child marriage is practiced in some places even today. Arranged marriages were long the norm in certain places and social groups (non-consensual). In many societies marriages between even brother and sister were common (for example, Hawaii before Western colonization, Ancient Egypt, just off the top of my head). Hell, even the Bible's story of Genesis necessitates close incest in at least two places (after the Garden of Eden and after the flood). Married women were long considered the man's property, and not allowed to own property and required to obey their husband, required to give him sex (marital **** was not a crime), etc. This is probably still true to some extent in some places. And some Native American and African societies had same sex unions (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_same-sex_unions).

When I provide examples of ways in which people thought of marriage as being different from that, you simply respond that this was a "misuse" of marriage. Your argument has been disproved, and you're now changing to an unfalsifiable strategy - whenever confronted with evidence that my definition of marriage is not the only historical one, I'll say that the definition was the same back then and people were just "misusing" marriage. That is what marriage is/was for those people in those places and times - you may have disagreed with how they conducted marriage, and have some good arguments for why they should have not done it that way... but that doesn't change the fact that that is, in fact, how marriage was defined there and then.

Otherwise, I'll simply say that not allowing same sex marriage is a misuse of marriage. Wow, it sure was easy to prove that my definition was the correct one!

I'll say it again, this is not the main part of my argument. What constitutionally gives two people of the same-sex the 'right' to marry?

Well, some would make an argument based on the due process, equal protections and possibly the 10th Amendment. The 10th Amendment can be taken to imply that many things that were acknowledged as rights in English common law can be considered rights of Americans even tho they're not written into the Constitution. I'm thinking that marriage would probably be included.

As for the others, I cannot marry a man, while a woman can. A woman can't marry a woman, while I can. Those are not equal rights.

But even so, I would admit that I'm not sure how strong a Constitutional argument for same sex marriage is.

But in my opinion, the government has to justify not allowing things. Why shouldn't there be same sex marriage? You haven't really given any argument for that.

4) So then you aren't arguing morality?

My reason for you not being able to rationalize this as an atheist is not ridiculous. I'm not talking about having a set of 'morality' or how you formed it. I'm talking about how you rationalize why something is right or wrong. When it is what you want to think, then it does not matter and is based on nothing to rationalize why it is. Then we know it is not based on the physical universe, so how do you rationalize why lying is wrong? Or ****? I'm giving you an opportunity, go ahead and explain this since I am being "ridiculous".

You totally ignored what I said about intersubjectivity. How can you argue about objectivity vs. subjectivity when you clearly don't know much about it?

The point isn't that I can provide some objective argument for why **** is wrong - the point is if we agree on certain principles, then it follows that **** is wrong. If you do not agree on those principles, then yeah, I probably can't rationally convince you. This is just as true for someone who believes in objective morality, even tho they like to pretend they somehow have a way to resolve this problem. But we tend to label people who don't agree on basic principles of human morality (i.e. other people's suffering matters) as sociopaths. Because really that is pretty much what a sociopath is - they don't understand the difference between a moral rule and a conventional one (they see not punching someone as the same sort of rule as the one that says boys should wear pants not dresses). They're not all stupid either, so it's not because they're too stupid too. This doesn't mean they're all murderers - they do what they want and will break what they see as "conventions" if it will get them what they want. But most of the time what they want will not necessitate murder, so most of them do not murder.

You haven't explained why you disagree with what I've said, you've just tried to say that it doesn't have an objective basis. I don't think yours has an objective basis either. You will have no more success explaining morality to a sociopath and getting him to agree to yours than I would, even if he's quite a logical sociopath. What exactly is your point?

You still haven't articulated any good reason why you disagree other than to say "UR an ATHIESTS you can't have any raitonal basis for your morality therefores I am wright and you are wrong!" You seem to be forgetting that you actually need to give an argument why you're right. Just saying that MY argument is wrong does not entail that yours is correct. One would think someone who's such an "expert" on logic would know that.

5First of all, how is your morality not baseless?

Baseless as far as objectively true in the way you're talking about. I guess. But since I don't think what you're discussing is possible, I hardly see that as some horrible flaw of my morality. Yours is the same.

What you use for argumentation cannot be accounted for. So the source and being of any argumentation and these "laws of logic" can only be accounted for by theists.

I've seen you assuming that these things require God exist in order to be true. I don't really see how you've proven that in any way.

Then I am shifting it to God for moral argumentation. To anyone reading this, consider what I have said about morality, not that you do not have "morals" but that you cannot rationalize them and can get nowhere arguing subjective morality. From this you have yet to point out the problem in my argumentation.

The problem in your argumentation is that you have given no argument. Even if I were a theist and believed in objective morality, I would still think the same thing about same-sex marriage. I know people who fit this description. You have given no argument that has any relevance to their position. You haven't given any argument against it other than to criticize me for being an atheist. What do you say to the theist who believes in objective morality and disagrees with you? So far - nothing.

Your argument is nothing but a red herring. That's all you've given us.

For the secondary part of morality you simply cannot win this point period, and have not pointed out anything valid. That's it.

You simply cannot win this point period. You are under the impression that for me to win this point, I have to prove my morality is objective, when it is in fact you who need to. You don't have objective morality, you merely think you do. You are stuck in bad faith, in an attempt to escape existential angst. But denying your responsibility for your moral choices (claiming that it was decided by someone else) does not mean that you are not responsible. You choose your morality whether you acknowledge it or not.

Ah, that was satisfying. Now I see why you do it. It doesn't get us anywhere, it doesn't prove anything, but it sure feels nice to throw a bunch of jargon at you and tell you "You're wrong, period." Read some Sartre and that paragraph will make more sense to you.

 

[Andydark]

PM each other. Honestly, this argument is a waste of time. You both have your beliefs/morals set in stone by now, someone on the intarwebz won't sway you, and you won't sway them.

No matter what point you make, it'll probably wind up boiling down to "Even though you're logical, I disagree."

Though I suppose I'm being hypocritical by trying to sway you to stop.

OH IRONY THOU ART A CRUEL MISTRESS.

 

[.:~*Momo*~:.]

I agree... oh well let's not let this stop us from talking. =3 Soooooo... Why does everybody here have an interesting life but me? <.<

 

[Andydark]

I'm in college, that might be a contributing factor.

And weird luck. My honor's mentor (a sophomore/junior that helps me adjust to college life) who was randomly picked for me, turned out to be the Vice-Chair of the QSA.

So I quickly joined and what not. I'd never been in a group like that having come from a private, Catholic Highschool. But yeah...

 

[.:~*Momo*~:.]

That is weird luck. =P Well I'm a junior in high school so maybe in a couple of years when I get to college I'll finally meet somebody... *sigh* couple of years... after this... huh... well my school has a GSA group and my friend joined... but I never did... and still don't plan on it at the moment. ^^;

Was it weird for you after you joined your group? O.o

 

[Andydark]

Nah not particularly, I fit in pretty easily. I was the only freshman bold enough to go to the first meeting, so I got praised for that.

 

[.:~*Momo*~:.]

Oh cool that's nice to know. ^^

 

[arrowhead]

Ugh you people aren't done yet? -.-;;; I hope you all realize this argument is going nowhere... prove this point and disprove that one... but when it comes down to it... you just won't agree with eachother... though I'm pessimistic... but... I just don't really wanna come to a new 5 pages of arguments or anything... what am I saying? Nobody is going to listen. ^^; Somebody always has to have the last word... then somebody after that... it'll never end... I'm sorry. ^^;

yeah, i know what you mean now. kix is hopeless

so you watch avatar???

 

[.:~*Momo*~:.]

Ah yes I do if I'm ever watching Nickelodeon and it's on (which is very rare)... I like that show, very interesting storyline. =3

 

[Kix]

PM each other. Honestly, this argument is a waste of time. You both have your beliefs/morals set in stone by now, someone on the intarwebz won't sway you, and you won't sway them.

No matter what point you make, it'll probably wind up boiling down to "Even though you're logical, I disagree."

Though I suppose I'm being hypocritical by trying to sway you to stop.

OH IRONY THOU ART A CRUEL MISTRESS.

No it is not. If it makes you feel uncomfortable, don't read it.

Erimir, I've got stuff to do, you'll get your response later.

 

[.:~*Momo*~:.]

I'm not going to argue that this is pointless... but... couldn't one of you please PM the other and start your debate there? I mean you're directing it towards eachother, I see no reason for it to be put in this topic for everybody to read... besides it's kind of a pain looking for posts that aren't a large wall of text that's basically a debate between two people you're not even really talking to. ^^; I'm not trying to start anything... I'm just saying. =/

 

[arrowhead]

Ah yes I do if I'm ever watching Nickelodeon and it's on (which is very rare)... I like that show, very interesting storyline. =3

yeah, i thought the show would be dumb at first since it was TV7 and on nick, but when i actually watched it, i realized it's much deeper than most "mature" cartoons. i don't really watch it on nick anymore cause 1. they don't show it and 2. when they do show a new episode, it's already been on the net for 1+ weeks.

i can't wait for them to air "boiling rock" though

 

[.:~*Momo*~:.]

Yeah they never seem to show the Avatar much anymore... the last episode I saw was the last chapter of the Earth book I think. =3

 

[Yukichu]

Heh. The guy I have a crush on decided to bring it up tonight. Making the observation that I go out of my way to help him followed by "It's because you have ac rush on me." and I I just sort of stuttered a half response followeed by a somewhat defeated, "Can you blame me?" And then there was an awkward silence.

And then he said, "You jokingly mentioned taking me out to Olive Garden last semester, for helping you with that paper... Still interested?"

Things are actually going decently for me. How rare.

Haha, that's amazing! Good luck with that. I don't think I've ever heard of a story in real life quite like that.



Anyway, update; the guy I semi-like is a wrestler named Nick. He's still sexy as ****. <.< Doubt anything'll ever happen between us. We've barely been around each other, and I kinda just look at him as he passes me in the hall. Bah...

 

[.:~*Momo*~:.]

Haha, that's amazing! Good luck with that. I don't think I've ever heard of a story in real life quite like that.



Anyway, update; the guy I semi-like is a wrestler named Nick. He's still sexy as ****. <.< Doubt anything'll ever happen between us. We've barely been around each other, and I kinda just look at him as he passes me in the hall. Bah...

Man I know how that feels. X3

 

[adumbrodeus]

A point to everyone countering Kix's assertions

You're arguing this all wrong, once you reference to morality, you're playing into his hand. If you're an atheist, really morality isn't the right word, and the same principal should follow for a religiously neutral government.



Instead of morality use words or phrases like "ethics", "mores", or "standards of conduct", because morality is a loaded term that references to a universal truth, while none of the above require it.


As for the substance of derivation, natural rights and social contract law, I gave a basic primer on it earlier, it's not about an action being "wrong" it's about an action violating a person's rights (and since we have all rights inherently, due to rights existing due to lack of constraint), and one does not do such violations in order to protect one's own ability to act upon one's own rights.

Clean and simple, you don't steal from a person because they have a right to property, and if allowed to continue, you can be stolen from, or some other right can be violated.


This is strong relativism, what you guys have been giving is weak relativism, almost anyone can poke holes in it. If you wish to defend your arguments against philosophically astute people, you must graduate to strong relativism.

 

[Yukichu]

Argh! Nick wore a muscle shirt to school and it was... *drool*. Unfortunately I couldn't stare since it was inbetween class and people were behind me and I couldn't just turn around and stand there, visibly drooling. Then he changed after lunch and it made me slightly depressed that I didn't get to fully see him in a muscle shirt. ;_;

 

[Erimir]

Clean and simple, you don't steal from a person because they have a right to property, and if allowed to continue, you can be stolen from, or some other right can be violated.

This seems to me to just be a variation on what I was saying about intersubjectivity... what happens when you encounter someone who doesn't care about whether other people steal from them? Sure, you might think they're a lil crazy (then again, societies without Western ideas of property have existed, so it's only crazy from our perspective) but your argument for a right to property on this principle basically falls apart if they don't care about their own "property".

Fortunately we almost all do care about things like that, and this is the foundation for intersubjective agreement (not all of it is based on purely selfish motivations, however).

So I'm not sure if I was really giving "weak relativism" as you said, since it will end up in the same sort of place you were suggesting (altho possibly with a little more caveats).

 

[lumberheartwood]

Hey guys (and girls). Its been a month more or less, so I decided to drop by and say hi. I've been busy lately so yeah, all I can do is just give a shoutout before getting back to work on homework and my personal life, which has been great lately. See ya guys (or girls) later.

 

[Andydark]

...So the whole Olive Garden thing randomly fell through.

He "forgot" that he had promised to go on a date with someone over Spring Break...

Meh.

 

[Lynkx]

Doesn't matter if you're gay, all that matters is that you have a strong mind and you like Smash

 

[adumbrodeus]

This seems to me to just be a variation on what I was saying about intersubjectivity... what happens when you encounter someone who doesn't care about whether other people steal from them? Sure, you might think they're a lil crazy (then again, societies without Western ideas of property have existed, so it's only crazy from our perspective) but your argument for a right to property on this principle basically falls apart if they don't care about their own "property".

Fortunately we almost all do care about things like that, and this is the foundation for intersubjective agreement (not all of it is based on purely selfish motivations, however).

So I'm not sure if I was really giving "weak relativism" as you said, since it will end up in the same sort of place you were suggesting (altho possibly with a little more caveats).

That's why we have governmental enforcement, just because certain people don't care about it doesn't make it any less valid, however because certain people don't care about it means that an outside mechanism for enforcement is required, hence the government.


As for weak versus strong, weak relativism is, philosophically speaking "everything is relative except what I decide isn't relative", it's full of holes.

Since strong relativism is not based on an overarching right or wrong, it lacks this fundamental weakness.

 

[MetaKnight'sSword]

are Bisexual smashers welcome here??? (^^)v

 

[SU_Remo]

are Bisexual smashers welcome here??? (^^)v

Very much so. ^_^ Welcome aboard.

 

[MetaKnight'sSword]

Very much so. ^_^ Welcome aboard.

YAY! (^^)v

 

[Seiya]

are Bisexual smashers welcome here??? (^^)v

I always thought of myself being Bi for quite awhile. Then I eventually decided girls were not for me XD I couldn't picture myself with a girl in a romantic way >.<