Sen. Clinton dodges question on gays, immorality

[Adrian]

To easy: green :mrgreen:

Homosexuality is green because, as a political issue, money is to be gained by supporting or opposing it, depending on the audience. Also, homosexuality is green because most of those who seek GM are doing so for the legal and financial benefits.

Homosexuality can not be white because the current GM movement stands on Loving -v- Virginia, which ruled against the whites.

If any color other than green, homosexuality would either be pink or brown, depending on rather we are talking about lesbians or gay men

Though I suppose homosexuals could make homosexuality any color they want, what with the rainbow as their symbol and all.

***
Now then, if you would care to stand down your cynicism in face of my attempts to honestly illuminate a difference in thought process, then perhaps we could have a substantive exchange.

In the future, please take care to note that sexual acts have an ancient history in the context of morality/immorality, yet no relation to color.

In a recent post I hyper linked the word "ambiguity". Clicking on that word will bring you to a logical fallacy website, where I recommend you look up "false analogy"; it may keep you from coming apart with questions like you gave in the future.

It is nice to se that I took apart your argument rather quick and reduced you to an emotional puddle though.

Ah, just as I thought. Your answer was flippant, so your entire position on this thread is rendered null and void. Thanks for playing and goodbye.

 

[Captain America]

OMG...

That was funny. Pink or brown. :rofl

 

[Jerry]

An ethic is a moral principal,

No it isn't.

We're not going to get anywhere unless we first agree on a vocabulary.

I'm hoping that evidence can convince you, 'cuz I'm fresh out of revelation.

Definition of ethic - Merriam-Webster Online Dictionary

Main Entry: eth•ic
Pronunciation: 'e-thik
Function: noun
Etymology: Middle English ethik, from Middle French ethique, from Latin ethice, from Greek EthikE, from Ethikos

1 plural but singular or plural in construction: the discipline dealing with what is good and bad and with moral duty and obligation

2
a: a set of moral principles: a theory or system of moral values <the present-day materialistic ethic> <an old-fashioned work ethic> -- often used in plural but sing. or plural in constr. <an elaborate ethics> <Christian ethics>
b plural but singular or plural in construction: the principles of conduct governing an individual or a group <professional ethics>c: a guiding philosophy
d: a consciousness of moral importance <forge a conservation ethic>

3 plural: a set of moral issues or aspects (as rightness) <debated the ethics of human cloning>

As soon as you concede that an ethic is a moral principal we can move on.

 

[Jerry]

OMG...

That was funny. Pink or brown. :rofl

Why thank you.:2wave:

I've been hanging around on the Random Stupid Question thread and well, that was a random stupid question.

 

[Adrian]

I'm hoping that evidence can convince you, 'cuz I'm fresh out of revelation.

I know what you mean. I thought Hillary's complete quote,

"Well I'm going to leave that to others to conclude," she said. "I'm very proud of the gays and lesbians I know who perform work that is essential to our country, who want to serve their country and I want make sure they can."

would clearly show where she stands, but everybody's response to that has consistently been, a la Ptsdkid, "she didn't answer the question."

 

[Jerry]

Ah, just as I thought. Your answer was flippant, so your entire position on this thread is rendered null and void. Thanks for playing and goodbye.

:rofl :rofl

You say that as if you had authority to officiate such a thing even if your question didn't violate the rules of logic.

:rofl :rofl

 

[Jerry]

I know what you mean. I thought Hillary's complete quote,

would clearly show where she stands, but everybody's response to that has consistently been, a la Ptsdkid, "she didn't answer the question."

So much for me being don aye :rofl

Do you wish to address the point in question or are you going to just let your accusation rest in ruin?

…or you could either lock the thread or ban me with whatever authority you apparently think you have at DP…

 

[Adrian]

Do you wish to address the point in question

Concede that she clearly stated her position in her first answer and I will.

 

[Gibberish]

What definition?

The one you asked for.

..and in by the end everyone accepts Jesus.

If they did then there would be no need for Hell. Do those billions of Muslims, Hindu's, Buddhists, etc. accept Jesus?

Imposing my understanding of God's law is not categorically "treating people like chit".

Mandating your opinions into law is oppressing all those that do not share your opinions, thus treating them like "chit". You would basically be telling these people that their opinions are "chit" and are meaningless compared to yours.

Not necessarily, no. There are many things people should not be free to do.

Yes there are many things people should not be free to do. Such as killing, stealing, raping, etc.

Living a life that is peaceful, loving and has no impact on your specific existence but happens to not fit into your opinions of sexuality is not one of those things.

 

[Stinger]

Nope, afterall I have moral beliefs. But I've noticed an extremely strong correlation between those who are strongly religious and the desire to legislate morality. Of course there are exceptions, but that so far appears to be the rule.

I'm not religious and believe lots of moral things are, as they should be, legislated. Murder is against the law because it is morally wrong, assualt, robbery, rape, contract law, lots of things.

 

[Adrian]

I'm not religious and believe lots of moral things are, as they should be, legislated. Murder is against the law because it is morally wrong, assualt, robbery, rape, contract law, lots of things.

That would be more accurately described as in the realm of ethics because those actions deal directly with how they impact other human beings. A personal idea of right and wrong doesn't apply to those things. A better question would be, what moral beliefs would you hold in day to day life if you were alone on a deserted island?

 

[Stinger]

That would be more accurately described as in the realm of ethics

Ethics are nothing more than a cumulation of our moral tenants.

because those actions deal directly with how they impact other human beings.

Doesn't matter, they are still a matter of morals.

A personal idea of right and wrong doesn't apply to those things.

Yes they do.

A better question would be, what moral beliefs would you hold in day to day life if you were alone on a deserted island?

Why would they change just because the opportunity to demonstrate them through ethics is limited?

The better question is, if undeniable proof that supernatural gods did not rule over us, would it then be OK to murder someone since there is no religious teaching saying otherwise. Or is it just a moral we as a society have adopted because it makes a civil society easier to maintain.

Morals are basic rules we as a society have adopted in order to create a civil society and establish the rules under which we will live with each other. Some of those require a punishment if violated, thus we create laws and a justice system to regulate and enforce them justly.

 

[Adrian]

Ethics are nothing more than a cumulation of our moral tenants.

Morality is vague and all encompassing. It deals as much with personal hunches of right and wrong, virtuosity, religion (and not), and of course it does cover actions directly related to their impact on other people. Ethics is much cleaner because it can be broken down to what can directly be observed to cause harm to another person or their property. Morality covers so broad a territory as to be useless in practical terms.

So Pace believes that homosexuality is "immoral." Yippee skippee for him. What the hell does that mean anyway?

To quote him directly:

My upbringing is such that I believe that there are certain things, certain types of conduct that are immoral. I believe that military members who sleep with other military members' wives are immoral in their conduct.

Okaaaay. I can see how sleeping with somebody else's wife could be a problem. Do go on.

I believe that homosexual acts between individuals are immoral, and that we should not condone immoral acts

Er...now his position has become rather muddled. He's moved from one situation where it can be demonstrated that somebody is being lied to and hurt, where trust is directly being violated, and tried to apply that to a situation where none of those factors exist, and then supports policy disallowing that behavior. It doesn't sound to me like even Pace knows precisely what he's talking about, and Hillary is expected to delve into such intellectual cloudiness? The more I read Pace's words, the more convinced I am that Hillary was right to not even touch moralization and keep it to what she can observe: that homosexuals are able to do their job and put themselves on the line for their nation every day.

Doesn't matter, they are still a matter of morals.

Which are too vague to have any meaning.

Yes they do.

You're right, they do, I should have been clearer on that. But directly related to what I stated above, personal ideas of right and wrong, when applied to human relations need to be broken down more empirically in order to have any meaning in discussion. And if you read Pace's comments, you'll see that nothing he said actually has any concrete meaning beyond his own feelings. And of course his reasoning was sloppy as hell.

 

[Adrian]

The better question is, if undeniable proof that supernatural gods did not rule over us, would it then be OK to murder someone since there is no religious teaching saying otherwise. Or is it just a moral we as a society have adopted because it makes a civil society easier to maintain.

Morals are basic rules we as a society have adopted in order to create a civil society and establish the rules under which we will live with each other. Some of those require a punishment if violated, thus we create laws and a justice system to regulate and enforce them justly.

Why are morals better suited to sustaining a civilized society than ethics?

 

[Stinger]

Why are morals better suited to sustaining a civilized society than ethics?

Ethics: 2 a : a set of moral principles : a theory or system of moral values

Ethics are bases on our moral beliefs, without morals there are no ethics or ethical standards.

 

[Adrian]

Ethics: 2 a : a set of moral principles : a theory or system of moral values

Ethics are bases on our moral beliefs, without morals there are no ethics or ethical standards.

Yes, it's a good place to start, but a terrible place to conclude.

4. that branch of philosophy dealing with values relating to human conduct, with respect to the rightness and wrongness of certain actions and to the goodness and badness of the motives and ends of such actions.

 

[Stinger]

Yes, it's a good place to start, but a terrible place to conclude.

No it pretty much stands on it's own.

4. that branch of philosophy dealing with values relating to human conduct, with respect to the rightness and wrongness of certain actions and to the goodness and badness of the motives and ends of such actions.

Morals.

 

[Adrian]

No it pretty much stands on it's own.

Why? What does it mean for something to be immoral?

Morals.

I'm not actually disputing that ethics are a subset of morals. I don't have a problem with that. What I am disputing is using morality alone to arrive at the "rightness" of an action, when it is entirely insufficient to explain something. Were it sufficient, Pace would be able to explain why homosexuality is immoral. But he doesn't do that. Instead, all he does is equate it with another thing that he considers immoral (again, without explaining why the thing itself is immoral), and on top of that, the thing he equates it to can be shown to cause harm to another human being.

That's why morality is only a starting point. From there you have to fine tune to ethics, which determines the causality of behavior toward other human beings. Or, as my definition better put it, "with respect to the rightness and wrongness of certain actions and to the goodness and badness of the motives and ends of such actions."

 

[doughgirl]

“Is your head going to explode when the next President is PRO-CHOICE, PRO-GAY RIGHTS, PRO-IMMIGRATION AND AGAINST EVERYTHING YOU STAND FOR?’

You are precisly why I voted in the poll that Liberals want us to be defeated. But you made a typo didn’t ya? Didn’t you meant to say, your pro-illegal immigration ?

“You gotta remember that posters like Navy Pride are freaking out at the political direction America is on.’

Oh no….not political direction, moral direction and the lack of morals that Liberals seem to have. Its not politics really its moral fiber. Look at their stance on the issues.

“Every time Navy Pride starts another one of his feeble threads I feel invigorated and joyful because I know he's developing an ulcer thinking about Democrats.’

And hon every time he starts a thread like this you JUMP RIGHT IN TO PUT YOUR TWO CENTS IN. :rofl and I think you enjoy doing it, am I right?



She didn’t want to answer the question for one simple reason…….she wants the votes and Americans are to busy with their own lives to give a rats behind what she says to even investigate her position. She lies just like most politicians do on BOTH SIDES, to get votes. I could give you a list of Democrats names who once were pro-life and spoke out against abortion, then changed their minds once they entered a political race.

From all I have read Ms Clinton is for abortion, for all forms of socialism, pro-illegal immigration, anti-religion, pro-choice everything BUT RELIGION AND THE FREEDOM OF SPEECH IN THIS AREA. Oh yes, she is anti-school vouchers. So she wants to allow woman to kill their children and even provide the funds to do this as an option but doesn’t want to help parents send their children go to better schools with government aid.


As for her reply……..”"Well, I'm going to leave that to others to conclude," she said.”

Shes hiding. However she will be forced down the road to answer it. Its to early and she has Obama Hussein to worry about. :rofl


Navy is totally 100% right……” If she was for gay rights as she said she was when talking to gays you don't think she should have stood up for them when General Pace made his comments instead of what she said?’

She would have said..........NO GAYS ARE NOT IMMORAL.

Her complete statment.........
"Well I'm going to leave that to others to conclude," she said. "I'm very proud of the gays and lesbians I know who perform work that is essential to our country, who want to serve their country and I want make sure they can."


She still didn’t answer the question to whether they were immoral or not. She dodged it by talking about the good work they do. She is smart. Immorality is usually sin….and she did not answer the question.

She cant afford to lose even one voter.

 

[RightOfCenter]

Navy:

You have ZERO credibility when it comes to condemning others for dodging questions. You are the biggest cut and runner on this board. For instance you were recently taken to task on an Iraq topic where you claimed that you never said prior that "we were turning the corner", you called the guy a liar for saying it....and when several people posted where in fact you had said the very thing you denied saying....what did you do.....cut and run. You later returned and were asked to confront the question....and what did you do? Cut and run.

I think Politicians should answer the questions, but don't kid yourself that this is unique to Hilary. Don't you ever watch the Sunday shows like Meet the Press or Face the nation....the guests on those shows, democrats and republicans hardly ever answer the questions. So yes....Hilary is a question dodger....but what else is new in the world of politics and who are you to call anyone a question dodger when that is your biggest MO.


...."same old Navy doing his tap dancing on the issues..."

Can you say, "Ad hom?"

 

[FierceEnigma12z]

She cant afford to lose even one voter.

Which is fine...seeing as she wont win the election the way things are going.

 

[Stinger]

Why? What does it mean for something to be immoral?

To go against accepted moral standards. That which society decides goes against our accepted moral principles.

I'm not actually disputing that ethics are a subset of morals. I don't have a problem with that. What I am disputing is using morality alone to arrive at the "rightness" of an action, when it is entirely insufficient to explain something. Were it sufficient, Pace would be able to explain why homosexuality is immoral.

It goes against our accepted moral standards, and what he said was the act of homosexual sex was an immoral act.

That's why morality is only a starting point. From there you have to fine tune to ethics, which determines the causality of behavior toward other human beings.

Or society as a whole. Ethics is merely the application of our moral beliefs.

Ethic
1 plural but singular or plural in construction : the discipline dealing with what is good and bad and with moral duty and obligation
2 a : a set of moral principles : a theory or system of moral values <the present-day materialistic ethic> <an old-fashioned work ethic> -- often used in plural but sing. or plural in constr. <an elaborate ethics> <Christian ethics> b plural but singular or plural in construction : the principles of conduct governing an individual or a group <professional ethics> c : a guiding philosophy d : a consciousness of moral importance <forge a conservation ethic>
3 plural : a set of moral issues or aspects (as rightness) <debated the ethics of human cloning>

 

[DeeJayH]

That would be more accurately described as in the realm of ethics because those actions deal directly with how they impact other human beings. A personal idea of right and wrong doesn't apply to those things. A better question would be, what moral beliefs would you hold in day to day life if you were alone on a deserted island?

any and all woudl be null and void

nobody else to murder, rape, rob, kidnap, oppress, etc..........

 

[Adrian]

To go against accepted moral standards. That which society decides goes against our accepted moral principles.

This is an argumentum ad populum, since it is assumes that because most people believe it, it is correct, and argumentum antiquitatem, since it assumes that because it was always believed, it is therefore correct.

It goes against our accepted moral standards

Who is "our"?

and what he said was the act of homosexual sex was an immoral act.

Yes, I knew that. The article stated that from the beginning.

Or society as a whole.

Which begs the question, how does homosexuality ethically or unethically impact society?

Ethics is merely the application of our moral beliefs.

So what would be the application of ethics in regards to homosexuality?

 

[Adrian]

any and all woudl be null and void

nobody else to murder, rape, rob, kidnap, oppress, etc..........

Is morality that deals with human interaction the only kind you can imagine?