Google Ads

Google Ads

Bible Wheel Book

Google Ads

+ Reply to Thread
Page 2 of 5 FirstFirst 12345 LastLast
Results 11 to 20 of 44
  1. #11
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Location
    Yakima, Wa
    Posts
    15,143
    Quote Originally Posted by Gambini View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Richard Amiel McGough
    Quote Originally Posted by Gambini
    GIVEN YOUR MORAL THEORY, I don't see HOW you can rationally say it is morally wrong for someone to molest or fondle someone (even a child) who is induced into a coma for example OR why there should even be a law against it. IF NOBODY IS HARMED, then how do you make the case that it is wrong under your moral theory??? Furthermore, the molested subject would never even know he or she was molested or fondled. So how can it be wrong UNDER YOUR MORAL THEORY???
    If you really believe no one would be harmed, then why do you think it would be wrong?
    I already said why I, Gambini, believe ANY sexually immoral act is wrong (namely, it violates the natural order that God has ordained for sexual intimacy). That's my view. Now why is it wrong to you? I'm only making the *ARGUMENT* that I don't see how it can be deemed as wrong UNDER YOUR MORAL THEORY. Maybe you think I'm wrong. Fine. But don't call me a LIAR for making a freaking *ARGUMENT*.
    Perfect. You asserted that "NOBODY IS HARMED" in an activity that you say "violates the natural order that God has ordained for sexual intimacy."

    Think about that. You say that nobody is harmed by violating God's law.

    Perfect.

    The utter incoherence of your moral theory has been exposed.
    • Skepticism is the antiseptic of the mind.
    • Remember why we debate. We have nothing to lose but the errors we hold. Who but a stubborn fool would hold to errors once they have been exposed?

    Check out my blog site

  2. #12
    Join Date
    Mar 2012
    Posts
    278
    Quote Originally Posted by Richard Amiel McGough View Post
    Perfect. You asserted that "NOBODY IS HARMED" in an activity that you say "violates the natural order that God has ordained for sexual intimacy."

    Think about that. You say that nobody is harmed by violating God's law.

    Perfect.

    The utter incoherence of your moral theory has been exposed.

    That is complete NONSENSE! I never said that in order for something to be wrong in my view, it has to produce physical harm. So you're attacking a strawman. In my view, the sexually immoral act *ITSELF* is wrong BECAUSE it violates the natural order that God has ordained for sexual intimacy.



    BINI

  3. #13
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Location
    Yakima, Wa
    Posts
    15,143
    Quote Originally Posted by Gambini View Post
    That is complete NONSENSE! I never said that in order for something to be wrong in my view, it has to produce physical harm. So you're attacking a strawman. In my view, the sexually immoral act *ITSELF* is wrong BECAUSE it violates the natural order that God has ordained for sexual intimacy.



    BINI
    You never said you were talking only about physical harm.

    You explicitly said "NOBODY IS HARMED" in an activity that you said violates God's law. It's obvious you do not think before you write.

    I think you might be right when you say I am attacking a strawman - it appears you have nothing but straw in your head.

    Name:  giphy.gif
Views: 20
Size:  497.3 KB
    • Skepticism is the antiseptic of the mind.
    • Remember why we debate. We have nothing to lose but the errors we hold. Who but a stubborn fool would hold to errors once they have been exposed?

    Check out my blog site

  4. #14
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Posts
    4,313
    Quote Originally Posted by Gambini View Post

    GIVEN YOUR MORAL THEORY, I don't see HOW you can rationally say it is morally wrong for someone to molest or fondle someone (even a child) who is induced into a coma for example OR why there should even be a law against it. IF NOBODY IS HARMED, then how do you make the case that it is wrong under your moral theory??? Furthermore, the molested subject would never even know he or she was molested or fondled. So how can it be wrong UNDER YOUR MORAL THEORY???


    BINI
    Don't you understand the difference between a conscious, consenting adult, and a child or adult who cannot or does not give consent? Come on Bini, you can't be that dense!

    CONSENTING ADULTS, we keep repeating this over and over again ... why is it so hard for you to understand this very simple concept?

    A child or a person in a coma cannot give consent! This needs to be cleared up before we can go any futher.
    Never trust anything you are afraid to question ~

    To know oneself is to know the universe...


    Live Fully...Love Extravagantly...For the sake of Goodness

    Be ye therefore wise as serpents, and harmless as doves. Matt.10:16

    Come let us reason together...Isa.1:18
    ********************************
    My new Blog site: God and Butterfly

  5. #15
    Join Date
    Mar 2012
    Posts
    278
    Quote Originally Posted by Richard Amiel McGough View Post
    You never said you were talking only about physical harm.

    You explicitly said "NOBODY IS HARMED" in an activity that you said violates God's law. It's obvious you do not think before you write.

    I think you might be right when you say I am attacking a strawman - it appears you have nothing in your head but straw.

    What other form of harm can there be other than PHYSICAL harm??? The person being molested in the example I gave is UNCONSCIOUS, remember??? Are you sure you're not the one with the straw in your head?


    My moral theory does NOT entail the idea that something is morally wrong if and only if it causes harm between human beings. So your STRAWMAN is dismissed. For example, a couple can engage in fornication without anyone having an unwanted pregnancy or anyone catching a sexually transmitted disease. NONE of that is WHY fornication is wrong. It is wrong for the same reason that ALL sexual immorality is wrong (it violates the natural order that God has ordained for sexual intimacy). And notice how everytime the issue of morality comes up, you try and weasel out from answering the questions I raised. You've already demonstrated you're a LIAR by claiming my *ARGUMENT* = A "lie" so you can deflect from answering my questions and call me the liar. Further, you also LIED when you interpreted Craig's SILENCE as a "no" to your question (since you claimed it was a "lie""on my part to interpret your SILENCE to my question as a "no").


    BINI

  6. #16
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Location
    Yakima, Wa
    Posts
    15,143
    Quote Originally Posted by Gambini View Post
    What other form of harm can there be other than PHYSICAL harm??? The person being molested in the example I gave is UNCONSCIOUS, remember??? Are you sure you're not the one with the straw in your head?
    When the child wakes up, the molester could say "I creamed all over your little body" and do much psychological damage. Not to mention the damage the molester does to his own integrity, which is the foundation of morality in my theory.

    It really blows my mind that you don't think molesting an unconscious child does any harm. Yowsers!
    • Skepticism is the antiseptic of the mind.
    • Remember why we debate. We have nothing to lose but the errors we hold. Who but a stubborn fool would hold to errors once they have been exposed?

    Check out my blog site

  7. #17
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Posts
    4,313
    Quote Originally Posted by Gambini View Post
    Originally Posted by Rose
    The answer to your question is: CONSENTING RELATIONSHIPS AMONG ADULTS IS NOT A MORAL ISSUE!
    Thank you. FOR THE RECORD, let it be known throughout the cosmos that according to the atheistic moral theory of Rose, there is nothing morally wrong with an ADULT man (with a vasectomy) having *CONSENTING* sex with his ADULT mother, auntie or grand mummy. Nor is there anything morally wrong (in her view) with an ADULT woman having *CONSENTING* sex with her own mother.


    Thanks for clearing that up, Rose. I'm willing to drop this discussion right now (since this thread is really not the place for it).



    BINI
    Again, I repeat myself: CONSENTING RELATIONSHIPS AMONG ADULTS IS NOT A MORAL ISSUE!

    Quit putting words in my mouth and trying to make a moral issue out of something that has nothing to do with morality!!

    I didn't say "There is nothing morally wrong", I said "It is not a moral issue" ... there is a difference, so please be more accurate.
    Never trust anything you are afraid to question ~

    To know oneself is to know the universe...


    Live Fully...Love Extravagantly...For the sake of Goodness

    Be ye therefore wise as serpents, and harmless as doves. Matt.10:16

    Come let us reason together...Isa.1:18
    ********************************
    My new Blog site: God and Butterfly

  8. #18
    Join Date
    Mar 2012
    Posts
    278
    Quote Originally Posted by Rose View Post
    Don't you understand the difference between a conscious, consenting adult, and a child or adult who cannot or does not give consent? Come on Bini, you can't be that dense!

    CONSENTING ADULTS, we keep repeating this over and over again ... why is it so hard for you to understand this very simple concept?

    A child or a person in a coma cannot give consent! This needs to be cleared up before we can go any futher.

    Are you saying if an infant cannot consent to something, that automatically makes it immoral??? Okay. So it's morally wrong to bath an infant or to feed an infant (since they can't CONSENT), right? An infant can't even consent to having its behind cleaned. In fact, an infant can't consent to ANYTHING because it hasn't developed verbal communication skills yet. So the mere fact that someone can't consent to something doesn't by itself make it immoral.



    Sorry but I just don't see how UNDER YOUR MORAL THEORY, the circumstances I raised can be deemed morally wrong ...

    1) The infant is UNCONSCIOUS (hence, there are no emotional scars involved)

    2) The infant would never know what the molester did.

    3) An infant can't consent to ANYTHING (and yet nobody would say it's immoral to scrub a baby's ass when necessary).



    BINI
    Last edited by Gambini; 08-12-2014 at 03:33 PM.

  9. #19
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Location
    Yakima, Wa
    Posts
    15,143
    Quote Originally Posted by Gambini View Post
    Are you saying if an infant cannot consent to something, that automatically makes it immoral??? Okay. So it's morally wrong to bath an infant or to feed an infant (since they can't CONSENT), right? An infant can't even consent to having its behind cleaned. In fact, an infant can't consent to ANYTHING because it hasn't developed verbal communication skills yet. So the mere fact that someone can't consent to something doesn't by itself make it immoral.
    Wow. Talk about a moronic strawman.

    Quote Originally Posted by Gambini View Post
    Sorry but I just don't see how UNDER YOUR MORAL THEORY, the circumstances I raised can be deemed morally wrong ...

    1) The infant is UNCONSCIOUS (hence, there are no emotional scares involved)

    2) The infant would never know what the molester did.

    3) An infant can't consent to ANYTHING (and yet nobody would say it's immoral to scrub a baby's ass when necessary).
    And I remain stunned that you see no harm in molesting an unconscious child.
    • Skepticism is the antiseptic of the mind.
    • Remember why we debate. We have nothing to lose but the errors we hold. Who but a stubborn fool would hold to errors once they have been exposed?

    Check out my blog site

  10. #20
    Join Date
    Mar 2012
    Posts
    278
    Quote Originally Posted by Richard Amiel McGough View Post
    When the child wakes up, the molester could say "I creamed all over your little body" and do much psychological damage. Not to mention the damage the molester does to his own integrity, which is the foundation of morality in my theory.

    It really blows my mind that you don't think molesting an unconscious child does any harm. Yowsers!

    TO THE CHILD, YOU IDIOT!!! If the child is in a COMA, then fondling a child does no physical OR emotional harm TO THE CHILD. Stop putting words in my mouth to make me sound like the QUACK when you and your wife are ON THE RECORD as saying there's nothing morally wrong with Joe getting a vasectomy and having consenting sex WITH HIS OWN MOTHER (not to mention Linda or Valerie having consenting sex with THEIR OWN MOTHERS )!!!


    And IT'S NOT ILLEGAL TO HARM YOURSELF. For example, it's not illegal to smoke your brains out until you die of cancer. So saying it harms the molester doesn't work either. The fact of the matter is that the sexually immoral act *ITSELF* is morally wrong REGARDLESS of whether someone is harmed or not.



    BINI

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may edit your posts
  •