Bush's new Surgeon General nominee denies being anti-gay

[guartz]

Now, what did we learn about objective morality today class?

That you're still a moron for trying to compare homosexuality with necrophilia.

maybe, maybe. But anybody who thinks homosexuality or protected sex is okay and at the same time thinks that necrophilia is wrong, is a fucking hypocrite... unfortunately.


Edit: I haven't mentioned any advantages because I don't see how that's relevant to my case.

[Kuya]

Edit: I haven't mentioned any advantages because I don't see how that's relevant to my case.

That's because your case isn't relevant, and you're only argueng for the sake of being contrary.

as far as the species are concerned, homosexuality fails. It's that simple.

Ignorance to the purpose of homosexuality.

Homosexuality is just as relevant and natural as masturbation, or necrophilia. As any argument that can defend importance of homosexuality, can also defend the other two.

The argument that homosexuality and masturbation have advantages to a species, and you weren't able to use any of the arguments that i posted and apply it to necrophilia, hence you failed.

Do you want to keep failing?

Yes/No

[Tyche]

Everyone is a hypocrite in some, way, shape, or fashion...I think i've drawn this picture before, but I like to have a beer every now and then (who doesn't), yet I have a daughter, and when she gets old enough to understand what the hell i'm telling her, I'll tell her how stupid drinking is, and I'll probably be downing a bud light mid conversation. Hypocritical? Absolutely! Justifiably so? Absolutely! Being a hypocrite isn't always bad, yet you make it seem like it's the worst trait in the world to have. Seriously, tell me guartz, do you drink/smoke/sound like a total ass on game forums? Do you want your child to do the same?

I guess what i'm saying is:

Look, you can't pick your monotheistic morals based on what you think is socially moral, without sounding like a hypocrite.

Maybe so, but sometimes it's for the better.

[archibaldcrane]

Maybe we just think that dead bodies should be respected, not fucked, and therefore think that necrophilia is wrong.

Did I win?

[TheCursedGatts]

Ok, here's my two cents. You can only have it two ways if trying to be objective, and maybe I am making a false dichotomy, who knows. Either the only acceptable form of sex is heterosexual vaginal intercourse, or any and all forms of sex, homosexuality, pedophilia, auto-eroticism, necrophilia, and so on and so forth are all acceptable. From the standpoint of survival of the human race, then heterosexual vaginal intercourse is the acceptable answer. From the point of view of pleasure, what gives pleasure is unique to the individual, and as such is up to them. Objectively there can be no answer, as there is not a rule upon which to judge the morality of the action(s). Subjectively, you can base it on either pleasure or purpose. If the goal of sex is to cause pleasure, then whatever causes pleasure for one individual, without compromising the pleasure of another individual, is morally acceptable. Therefore any form of consensual sex, and any form of sex in which the partner/object being used cannot feel pleasure nor displeasure, i.e. necrophilia, sex toys, etc is acceptable. But this is just my opinion, take it with a grain of salt.

[guartz]

Everyone is a hypocrite in some, way, shape, or fashion...I think i've drawn this picture before, but I like to have a beer every now and then (who doesn't), yet I have a daughter, and when she gets old enough to understand what the hell i'm telling her, I'll tell her how stupid drinking is, and I'll probably be downing a bud light mid conversation. Hypocritical? Absolutely! Justifiably so? Absolutely! Being a hypocrite isn't always bad, yet you make it seem like it's the worst trait in the world to have. Seriously, tell me guartz, do you drink/smoke/sound like a total ass on game forums? Do you want your child to do the same?

I guess what i'm saying is:

Look, you can't pick your monotheistic morals based on what you think is socially moral, without sounding like a hypocrite.

Maybe so, but sometimes it's for the better.

eh, could be. I don't know everything.

No, archibaldcrane. You didn't win.

[archibaldcrane]

Ok, here's my two cents. You can only have it two ways if trying to be objective, and maybe I am making a false dichotomy, who knows. Either the only acceptable form of sex is heterosexual vaginal intercourse, or any and all forms of sex, homosexuality, pedophilia, auto-eroticism, necrophilia, and so on and so forth are all acceptable. From the standpoint of survival of the human race, then heterosexual vaginal intercourse is the acceptable answer. From the point of view of pleasure, what gives pleasure is unique to the individual, and as such is up to them. Objectively there can be no answer, as there is not a rule upon which to judge the morality of the action(s). Subjectively, you can base it on either pleasure or purpose.

How do "respect for dead people", "consent", "animal rights" and other such things factor into this analysis?

Oh, they don't. All or none is retarded. Moral relativism has a purpose - aligning your world as "whatever gives you pleasure" or "babies only" is stupid.

Edit: Why didn't I win guartz? I made a reasonable argument outside of the "pleasure vs. babies" dichotomy against necrophilia.

I'm declaring myself the winrar.

[Kuya]

Ok guartz. Homosexuality, martubation, and necrophilia, are all sexual deviances and are quite similar. Even though necrophilia involves having sex with a body that cannot consent, and you are basicaly disrespecting the person to whom that body used to belong to. Sure, go right ahead, that whore of a corpse asked for it.

[Tyche]

I was about to throw the "BOO BITCH, NECROPHILIA CAN NEVER BE CONSENSUAL BECAUSE IT'S ILLEGAL", but holy shit if there's no federal legislation for it. Only 17 states have legal implications for it. Wow, i'd of never guessed that.

Edit: Wheres the MF Perm opinion on this subject matter? The curiosity is killing me lol. Im getting giddy waiting for a post.

[guartz]

Ok, here's my two cents. You can only have it two ways if trying to be objective, and maybe I am making a false dichotomy, who knows. Either the only acceptable form of sex is heterosexual vaginal intercourse, or any and all forms of sex, homosexuality, pedophilia, auto-eroticism, necrophilia, and so on and so forth are all acceptable. From the standpoint of survival of the human race, then heterosexual vaginal intercourse is the acceptable answer. From the point of view of pleasure, what gives pleasure is unique to the individual, and as such is up to them. Objectively there can be no answer, as there is not a rule upon which to judge the morality of the action(s). Subjectively, you can base it on either pleasure or purpose. If the goal of sex is to cause pleasure, then whatever causes pleasure for one individual, without compromising the pleasure of another individual, is morally acceptable. Therefore any form of consensual sex, and any form of sex in which the partner/object being used cannot feel pleasure nor displeasure, i.e. necrophilia, sex toys, etc is acceptable. But this is just my opinion, take it with a grain of salt.

Something like that, although I would disagree about there not being a rule in which a judgment of morality can be made. i.e Every human is born with a intrinsic understanding that their body is their own.

but otherwise ya, ur right.

[TheCursedGatts]

I know the dichotomy doesn't allow for relativism, I was trying to show the most objective possibility, that is all.

[guartz]

Ok guartz. Homosexuality, martubation, and necrophilia, are all sexual deviances and are quite similar. Even though necrophilia involves having sex with a body that cannot consent, and you are basicaly disrespecting the person to whom that body used to belong to. Sure, go right ahead, that whore of a corpse asked for it.

That's just it though... I don't think it's a deviance!!!

wait.. though it is a sound argument that a person's body is still technically their own even after death.
Though i'm not sure how we can prove that....

Hmm, I'm glad you thought of that. Will give me something to think about.

Edit: Okay, if you can somehow prove to me that a person's body is their property after death, then i'll concede.

[miokomioko]

You would need concent of their next of kin... or whoever is in charge of their estate. lol.

[guartz]

You would need concent of their next of kin... or whoever is in charge of their estate. lol.

why? what right do they have to that body, in life or in death?

[Volken]

You would need concent of their next of kin... or whoever is in charge of their estate. lol.

why? what right do they have to that body, in life or in death?

lol organs for all!

[miokomioko]

You would need concent of their next of kin... or whoever is in charge of their estate. lol.

why? what right do they have to that body, in life or in death?

Because that's how it works? Someone has to be in charge of all your shit and what even happens to your body (cremation, burial, ceremony, etc) after death. I believe even your corpse becomes literally part of your estate when you no longer have the convenience of being alive. Your next of kin (or whoever you outline in your will) will be in charge of such things even like donating your body parts to science, or what-have-you.

[MF Perm]

I was about to throw the "BOO BITCH, NECROPHILIA CAN NEVER BE CONSENSUAL BECAUSE IT'S ILLEGAL", but holy shit if there's no federal legislation for it. Only 17 states have legal implications for it. Wow, i'd of never guessed that.

Edit: Wheres the MF Perm opinion on this subject matter? The curiosity is killing me lol. Im getting giddy waiting for a post.

On necrophilia vs homosexuality? lol

I was jousting with Enkidu on page two and three of this thread regarding the paper that was written if you mean the thread in general. As far as necrophilia? It's a fetish, it's not something genetic or ingrained like homosexuality. Necrophilia doesn't happen in nature, so the comparison is just asinine, which is why I'm ignoring this whole line of argument. There's no case and there's no point. To compare necrophilia to homosexuality is to call homosexuality a perverted fetish, which I don't agree with.

All that's going on here is another case of someone saying something out of line or making a mistake on the forum and not being able to say "Ok ok, I shouldn't have put it that way I apologize." I don't think guartz sincerely believes there is a comparison between the two, I just think he doesn't want to look like an asshole who said something wrong, but we all see how well that's working out, lol.

[Kuya]

This has goten beyond ridicules, why do you ask questions that you should already know the answers to?

The body belongs to the next of kin, or whomever the person left charge with his/her belongings. Regardless of how you look at it, if the body is then just an object, you'd still be must be quite an inconsiderate asshole to even screw it. It does not belong to you, you're violating the remains of a person ( alot like sticking your cock in in somebody's property). Therefore it is nowhere near the same as homosexuality or masturbation and it cannot be defended in the same way.

[guartz]

You would need concent of their next of kin... or whoever is in charge of their estate. lol.

why? what right do they have to that body, in life or in death?

Because that's how it works? Someone has to be in charge of all your shit and what even happens to your body (cremation, burial, ceremony, etc) after death. I believe even your corpse becomes literally part of your estate when you no longer have the convenience of being alive. Your next of kin (or whoever you outline in your will) will be in charge of such things even like donating your body parts to science, or what-have-you.

I suppose so, then. Most people wish to be buried in solitude and etc. Necrophilia in that instance would be objectively amoral, as it violates somebody's property. Wow, way to 360 on my part.

[BRP]

I durnt liek them gays fuckin' in ma barn