[Godstud]

It's not up for decision, it's a fact.

Yes, looking at pornography is a choice. You are wrong.

Society does not 'encourage' people to look at pornography. That's rubbish.

Via chaos theory.

So some stupid randomness theory, eh? No facts, just assuming it'll happen. Sorry- that's not scientific in any way, nor is it logical.

So is putting a bottle of alcohol to your lips.

You can drink and not become an alcoholic, so your argument is shit. Drinking is a choice. Drinking too much is also a choice.

You don't really actually have an argument, do you? You are making an assumption based on your opinion and your OWN morality.

[Scheherazade]

Yes, looking at pornography is a choice. You are wrong.

A choice which society shouldn't encourage, yes.

Society does not 'encourage' people to look at pornography. That's rubbish.

Oh but it does, that's as naive as saying that fast food industries don't "encourage" people to buy their products.

By that logic, an adult soliciting a minor for sex isn't encouraging it simply because the minor "made the choice" to do so, what nonsense.

Via chaos theory.

So some stupid conspiracy theory, eh? No facts, just assuming it'll happen.
[/quote]
Since when is science and mathematics a "conspiracy theory".

Chaos theory simply states that in reality, there's no such thing as an action which can be performed "in a vacuum", everything, including taking a breath potentially affects everything else to some degree or another.

So is putting a bottle of alcohol to your lips.

You can drink and not become an alcoholic, so your argument is shit. Drinking is a choice. Drinking too much is also a choice.
[/quote]
And there's no reason society should encourage, or not make efforts to discourage it as it's not in their benefit or in that of the individuals to become alcoholics, such as via higher taxes on cigarettes or unhealthy lifestyle choices to discourage them and off-set the healthcare costs they burden the taxpayers, law enforcement, etc with.

You don't really actually have an argument, do you? You are making an assumption based on your opinion and your OWN morality.

But if my own morality is the correct one, then the others are irrelevant. Just as if my own view of science contradicts that of young earth creationists, there's no reason i should consider theirs equal to mine, nor any reason why a literal account of Genesis should be publicly considered equal to the theory of evolution, just because it's "their science".

[Godstud]

A choice which society shouldn't encourage, yes.

No. Society does not encourage it, and it's a choice to look at it, just like it's a choice to drink alcohol and smoke. If you don't like it, then don't do it. I'm not for censorship when you have a choice.

Oh but it does

Provide evidence. I do not see ads for pornography on TV, or social media. There is no advertising for it, unless you go to certain places on the internet. I can look at Facebook and most sites all day and never ever see a hint of pornography. You're simply making this up.

By that logic, an adult soliciting a minor for sex isn't encouraging it simply because the minor "made the choice" to do so, what nonsense.

Pornography, that we are discussing, is legal, and between consenting adults. Don't try to change the argument to something where it's inherently illegal.

Chaos theory simply states that in reality, there's no such thing as an action which can be performed "in a vacuum", everything, including taking a breath potentially affects everything else to some degree or another.

That has no bearing on this discussion. That there is a random "chance" of someone encountering pornography, does not mean that they are going to watch it, or become addicted to it. That's a million to one, and I'm not going to discuss random chance, but reality.

And there's no reason society should encourage, or not make efforts to discourage it as it's not in their benefit or in that of the individuals to become alcoholics, such as via higher taxes on cigarettes or unhealthy lifestyle choices to discourage them and off-set the healthcare costs they burden the taxpayers, law enforcement, etc with.

It's something different. Pornography is NOT bad for your health. It does not affect healthcare(society) with higher costs. It's only an unhealthy lifestyle choice(which it's not), in YOUR eyes. I see a lot personal opinion here, but no real argument beyond that.

But if my own morality is the correct one, then the others are irrelevant.

Your morality is NOT the correct one. It just happens to be the one you have. That's also a very arrogant statement to make.

Just as if my own view of science contradicts that of young earth creationists, there's no reason i should consider theirs equal to mine.

False equivalency. Morality is not FACT. Creationists are ignoring facts in favour of THEIR morality. You are in direct opposition to your last statement.

[Scheherazade]

No. Society does not encourage it, and it's a choice to look at it, just like it's a choice to drink alcohol and smoke. If you don't like it, then don't do it. I'm not for censorship when you have a choice.

Then "encouraging" is a meaningless term, since technically unless something is physically impossible, everything is a choice.

If a robber demands money at gunpoint, the person has the "choice" to defy him and be shot, therefore the robber didn't encourage him.

Oh but it does

Provide evidence. I do not see ads for pornography on TV, or social media. There is no advertising for it, unless you go to certain places on the internet. I can look at Facebook and most sites all day and never ever see a hint of pornography. You're simply making this up.
[/quote]
Much of mainstream entertainment and raunch culture qualifies as porn despite not meeting myopic legal definitions, likewise the idea that it can only be encouraged via advertising is myopic - as having mainstream commercial porn instantly available on demand via the internet, as opposed to having to drive to a seedy store to buy a Playboy magazine makes it a much easier choice.

Pornography, that we are discussing, is legal, and between consenting adults. Don't try to change the argument to something where it's inherently illegal.

"Legal" is relative and has nothing to do with choice or encouragement; we could just switch the argument to societies where it is "legal" to marry girls as young as 12 years old then.

That has no bearing on this discussion. That there is a random "chance" of someone encountering pornography, does not mean that they are going to watch it, or become addicted to it. That's a million to one, and I'm not going to discuss random chance, but reality.

My argument wasn't that it's likely the person would become addicted to it, but that pornography and rauch culture aside from negatively affecting the participants directly, also can influence negative and anti-social worldviews and attitudes toward women and sex, which could have unforeseen cultural, economic, or ecological effects.

It's something different. Pornography is NOT bad for your health.

My argument is that it is, and that trying to reduce "bad for your health" to the purely physical and measurable is myopic; and that it is potentially bad for one's mental and moral health, beyond the possibilities of physical addiction to porn or masturbation.

It does not affect healthcare(society) with higher costs. It's only an unhealthy lifestyle choice(which it's not), in YOUR eyes. I see a lot personal opinion here, but no real argument beyond that.

As my argument is that it has negative cultural and sociological affects, then it does potentially have many costs on society economically and socially, even if not as easily physically measured as smoking. If for example it influences nihilistic views on women and sex, which influence aggression that causes emotional or physical harm to women, or sexual recklessness which results in irresponsible procreation and treatment of children, then it has indirect economic and physical effects as well.

And is therefore objectively unhealthy, not just in my eyes, and would be so even if I was blind as a bat.

But if my own morality is the correct one, then the others are irrelevant.
Your morality is NOT the correct one. It just happens to be the one you have. That's also a very arrogant statement to make.

My argument is that morality is as objective and universal as the laws of physics and mathematics, and that even if I'm not right on all of the specific details, I'll happily update my views if one can logically convince me to.

False equivalency. Morality is not FACT. Creationists are ignoring facts in favour of THEIR morality. You are in direct opposition to your last statement.

My argument is that morality is as objective as physics and mathematics, and that believing otherwise is just as anti-intellectual as believing whether or not the earth is round or flat is determined not by physics, but by individual perspectives; since it my look flat to a person viewing it from the ground, their view should be just as "valid" as an astronaut viewing it from space.

The theory of relativity more or less proves that nothing is actually subjective anyway, and technically there is only one correct answer to everything. In relativity, regardless of how fast a train LOOKS to be traveling from the view of the individual, if the speed is physically measured it is always the same.

So I see no logical reason to assume morality is any different, other than denial-ism, the only difference is that we haven't devised as intricate a way of measuring it yet as we have physical laws; but mathematics and aesthetics likely hold the key to measuring objective and universal morality.

Plus saying that simply because not everyone agrees on all the details that it's completely meaningless, is just as silly as saying all of science is bunk simply because not all physicists have the exact same view on everything, such as string theory.

[Godstud]

If a robber demands money at gunpoint, the person has the "choice" to defy him and be shot, therefore the robber didn't encourage him.

You are comparing pornography to how a robber works? Please. Be realistic.

Much of mainstream entertainment and raunch culture qualifies as porn despite not meeting myopic legal definitions, likewise the idea that it can only be encouraged via advertising is myopic - as having mainstream commercial porn instantly available on demand via the internet, as opposed to having to drive to a seedy store to buy a Playboy magazine makes it a much easier choice.

No. Most of it does not qualify as pornography. Only the most extreme puritan would see it as such.

Playboy doesn't have nudity, incidentally. Best get up to date.

"Legal" is relative and has nothing to do with choice or encouragement; we could just switch the argument to societies where it is "legal" to marry girls as young as 12 years old then.

The legality of porn does make a difference, as "legal" porn, in most countries, means consenting ADULTS. You are comparing a cultural issue that is not related to the topic at hand.

If for example it influences nihilistic views on women and sex, which influence aggression that causes emotional or physical harm to women, or sexual recklessness which results in irresponsible procreation and treatment of children, then it has indirect economic and physical effects as well.

And is therefore objectively unhealthy, not just in my eyes, and would be so even if I was blind as a bat.

It does not promote nihilistic views on women and sex. Sex exists regardless of religion and morality.

Pornography does not promote emotional or physical harm to women. It doesn't promote sexual recklessness(actually, in most pornography they use condoms).

You need to provide some evidence instead of just "saying" something is harmful. There are no indirect economic effects. There are no indirect physical effects.

Your argument has more holes in it than a wheel of Swiss cheese.

My argument is that morality is as objective as physics and mathematics, and that believing otherwise is just as anti-intellectual as believing whether or not the earth is round or flat is determined not by physics, but by individual perspectives; since it my look flat to a person viewing it from the ground, their view should be just as "valid" as an astronaut viewing it from space.

Total nonsense. You're trying to make my argument anti-intellectual, when yours is the one that is. You have no facts that support your opinion or morality regarding pornography. No one is arguing that illegal pornography can be harmful, since we have rules in place to prevent exploitation/abuse, but saying it's all bad is an ignorant blanket statement that is not supported by anything.

My argument is that it is, and that trying to reduce "bad for your health" to the purely physical and measurable is myopic; and that it is potentially bad for one's mental and moral health, beyond the possibilities of physical addiction to porn or masturbation.

You have no evidence or facts to support this statement. This if you fabricating an opinion with no basis in reality.

Pornography doesn't affect my morality nor mental/physical/spiritual health, therefore your opinion on it is irrelevant. The facts say otherwise, as well.

That some people get addicted to alcohol or gambling, does not make alcohol, or gambling, inherently immoral. The same applies to pornography.

You simply have a very puritan opinion that most people probably don't agree with. That's fine. You can have your own morality, but don't try telling the rest of the world that something is evil simply because you, personally, don't like it.

[Scheherazade]

You are comparing pornography to how a robber works? Please. Be realistic.

No I'm just demonstrating how your definition of "choice" is completely meaningless. As well as your notion that if a person does anything short of direct force, they have no role or responsibility in intending or influencing the behavior.

No. Most of it does not qualify as pornography. Only the most extreme puritan would see it as such.

No I'm claiming that only the most extreme libertine would see it as anything but such, and that even Lord Byron or Ovid would've rightfully been disgusted with it, as is most of the rest of the world.

The standards have just fallen so low, that it's almost like letting Caligula or Marquis de Sade re-write the definition of "prude", to where the aberrant is perceived as 'normal' simply due to it's ubiquity. Similar to how I'm sure North Koreans likely view themselves as "free people" due to conditioning.

Playboy doesn't have nudity, incidentally. Best get up to date.

As only of recent, likewise not all nudity is pornography or obscenity, and not all pornography must contain nudity. For example in an ideal world, a show like "2 broke girls" would be considered pornography or obscenity and banned, while the nude Venus di Milo would not.

The legality of porn does make a difference, as "legal" porn, in most countries, means consenting ADULTS. You are comparing a cultural issue that is not related to the topic at hand.

"Adult" in the legal sense is a construct and subject to the whims of society, from a purely biological sense, simply being old enough to procreate qualifies. Much as age of consent varies from culture to culture.

It does not promote nihilistic views on women and sex.

It does both.

Sex exists regardless of religion and morality.

Sex is governed by the same aesthetics and natural laws of morality as everything else in existence, and of course like the laws of physics, nothing and no one exists 'regardless' of the rest, but part of a collective whole.

[/quote]
Pornography does not promote emotional or physical harm to women.
[/quote]
It does so to a greater degree than female circumcision.

It doesn't promote sexual recklessness(actually, in most pornography they use condoms).

Sexual behavior which violates aesthetic tests and is reductionistic of the human condition, is innately reckless in and of itself, regardless of condom usage or any measurable 'consequences'.

You need to provide some evidence instead of just "saying" something is harmful. There are no indirect economic effects. There are no indirect physical effects.

There are both indeed.

Your argument has more holes in it than a wheel of Swiss cheese.

It's far more tight than yours is.

Total nonsense.

I'm sorry you think the laws of physics are nonsense, perhaps the flat earth society would be more accommodating of your views?

As everything in the physical world exists as a part of the universal laws of nature, morality logically comes from somewhere. If you believe humans can somehow magically "invent" moral truths out of thin air, rather than them being governed by the natural laws of the universe, then that makes you the "creationist", sorry.

You're trying to make my argument anti-intellectual, when yours is the one that is. You have no facts that support your opinion or morality regarding pornography. No one is arguing that illegal pornography can be harmful, since we have rules in place to prevent exploitation/abuse, but saying it's all bad is an ignorant blanket statement that is not supported by anything.

It's supported by much evidence, as well as properly applied logic.

Likewise your notion that the harmfulness of something is determined by its "legality" is rather silly, by that logic then homosexual acts magically "become harmful" the second a state decides to make them "illegal".

You have no evidence or facts to support this statement.This if you fabricating an opinion with no basis in reality.

Pornography doesn't affect my morality nor mental/physical/spiritual health, therefore your opinion on it is irrelevant.

It does, you just don't have the self-awareness to understand it. But if you don't have any morality to begin with, there likely isn't much to 'effect'.

Individuals aren't always the best judge of what's right or wrong, for them or for others. I for example could choose to be a murderer and claim it has no adverse moral effects on me or others, but I'd be objectively wrong and just in denial of what I'd know to be true if I was intellectually honest.

Or I could claim that smoking doesn't have any ill effects on me, but I think a doctor would know a bit better than me.

I don't even claim to be the one who has all the right answers, just that the right answers do exist independently of what individuals "think" about their own myopic view of the self.

The facts say otherwise, as well.

The facts confirm every statement I've made, and that yours are inherently illogical and grounded in a week and mythical notion of 'morality' being something people can simply "invent out of thin air" by magic, rather than an objective part of the universe.

That some people get addicted to alcohol or gambling, does not make alcohol, or gambling, inherently immoral. The same applies to pornography.

The argument is that it's innately immoral regardless of whether people get addicted to it or not or any measurable physical consequences, because morality is governed by the objective laws of aesthetics which pornography deviates from.

You simply have a very puritan opinion that most people probably don't agree with. That's fine. You can have your own morality, but don't try telling the rest of the world that something is evil simply because you, personally, don't like it.

You are comparing pornography to how a robber works? Please. Be realistic.

[Godstud]

No I'm claiming that only the most extreme libertine would see it as anything but such, and that even Lord Byron or Ovid would've rightfully been disgusted with it, as is most of the rest of the world.

You are comparing Victorian era ideals to modern ones? Absurd! This is puritanical to the extreme and so must be based on your own religious fundamentalism, and not facts.

The standards have just fallen so low, that it's almost like letting Caligula or Marquis de Sade re-write the definition of "prude", to where the aberrant is perceived as 'normal' simply due to it's ubiquity.

Total and complete nonsense.

For example in an ideal world, a show like "2 broke girls" would be considered pornography or obscenity and banned, while the nude Venus di Milo would not.

The stupidity of this statement, is beyond words. Why are you trying to apply your fucked up puritanical morality to the modern world, where it doesn't belong? A tv sitcom is pornography? Wow. Stupid beyond words.

Much as age of consent varies from culture to culture.

Thank you Captain Obvious, for stating that. We're not discussing age of consent though, are we? no. We are not.

It does not promote nihilistic views on women and sex.

It does both.

Provide evidence for this or STFU. You saying so doesn't make it a reality.

It(pornography) does so(harm) to a greater degree than female circumcision.

Not on earth it doesn't. Still.... no evidence.

Regarding indirect harm pornography does...

There are both indeed.

Provide evidence! Just because you believe something, doesn't make it true. You are ONLY voicing opinion. Reality does not support what you are saying.

I'm sorry you think the laws of physics are nonsense, perhaps the flat earth society would be more accommodating of your views?

Don't be obtuse. I am not arguing against science. Your argument is wholly based on your own morality and views. It is not based on ANY facts. You can scream and rant and rave all day long, but in the end you have no valid argument. It's simply bigotry in the end.

Or I could claim that smoking doesn't have any ill effects on me, but I think a doctor would know a bit better than me.

Do you have any evidence that pornography is impacting you? Does two adults having consensual sex impact you? Does my having sex with my wife impact you? No. Stop being silly. Again, just because you believe something, doesn't make it true.

I don't even claim to be the one who has all the right answers, just that the right answers do exist independently of what individuals "think" about their own myopic view of the self.

That statement is utter bullshit. Show some evidence for what you are claiming. You are the one being myopic due to your own bigotry and religious bias.

[Scheherazade]

You are comparing Victorian era ideals to modern ones?

If you think Byron or Ovid were Victorian, you're beyond ignorant.

More like the ideals of just a few short decades ago prior to some of the more extreme radicalism of the Baby Boomer era- today you'd have to go back to some of the more perverted Roman emperors to find anything comparable.


Mod Edit: Baseless accusations of pedophilia are not tolerated here.

Total and complete nonsense.

Fact, but I'd postulate you'd call someone a prude if they opposed child-snuff porn being shown on the Disney channel- so again, it's like talking ot Marquis de Sade here.

My argument is that my morality is correct, and needs to be imposed on the modern world, which doesn't belong anywhere outside of a Marquis de Sade novel.

Thankfully much of the rest of the world, even "liberal" Europe agrees in many ways about our base entertainment industry, which is more or less universally despised internationally whether by Islamics or Europeans.

Provide evidence for this or STFU. You saying so doesn't make it a reality.

Already did - pornography is reductionist with a focus on the actors as "objects" or "body parts", as opposed to holistic things like genuine erotic art, with a focus on the entire human and the bonding- read about aesthetics and get back to me.

Not on earth it doesn't. Still.... no evidence.

There are plenty of logical arguments that it does, much as fast food and smoking cause more overall harm to society and early deaths than terrorist attacks, for example.

Reality does not support what you are saying.

But it does...

I am not arguing against science. Your argument is wholly based on your own morality and views. It is not based on ANY facts. You can scream and rant and rave all day long, but in the end you have no valid argument.

Already explained to you how science debunks your notion of 'subjectivity', since regardless of how fast a train "looks" to individuals, if measured correctly there's only one right answer, according to relativity.

Therefore nothing is truly subjective, there are only right and wrong answers about everything in the physical universe, morality included.

It's simply bigotry in the end.

Prove that bigotry is objectively "wrong" - it's just your own morality - who are you to tell others that they shouldn't be bigots?

Thanks for just admitting you know that morality is objective and saving me the work of having to explain it to you. What's left to discuss now?

[Godstud]

If you think Byron or Ovid were Victorian, you're beyond ignorant.Lord

Byron lived in the Victorian Era, which is what I said. Pay attention, instead of not reading my posts, and making STUPID statements.

It's based on facts

Show us the facts. You are not doing that. You are just ranting. Show some sources, please.

Already did - pornography is reductionist with a focus on the actors as "objects" or "body parts", as opposed to holistic things like genuine erotic art, with a focus on the entire human and the bonding- read about aesthetics and get back to me.

You provided no source. You can either provide a source(that is scientific) or stop lying. The choice is yours.

But it does...

Just because you believe it's true doesn't mean it is.

Prove that bigotry is objectively "wrong" - it's just your own morality - who are you to tell others that they shouldn't be bigots?

Morality is subjective and not objective. Society determines what it is and bigotry is seen as WRONG in modern society.

Hatred and bigotry are immoral, homosexuality is not
http://archive.sltrib.com/story.php?ref ... ci_4685178

Bigotry is dangerous, immoral, baseless and must be denounced: Mary Kluk in Weekend Argus
http://www.jewishsa.co.za/general/bigot ... end-argus/

Bigotry Is Immoral, No Matter Who Expresses It : Race relations: African Americans must reject anti-Semitism from one of their own. http://articles.latimes.com/1994-01-28/ ... -americans

I can post you articles demonstrating that bigotry is wrong. There is nothing objective about it. You are simply trying to condone your own hatred and religious bias.

[Scheherazade]

Byron lived in the Victorian Era, which is what I said. Pay attention, instead of not reading my posts, and making STUPID statements.

His views were far from Victorian

It's based on facts

Show us the facts. You are not doing that. You are just ranting. Show some sources, please.

Already did - pornography is reductionist with a focus on the actors as "objects" or "body parts", as opposed to holistic things like genuine erotic art, with a focus on the entire human and the bonding- read about aesthetics and get back to me.

You provided no source. You can either provide a source(that is scientific) or stop lying. The choice is yours.

But it does...

Just because you believe it's true doesn't mean it is.

Hatred and bigotry are immoral, homosexuality is not

ISIS disagrees with you, therefore you can't say their view is any more valid than yours.

Bigotry is dangerous, immoral, baseless and must be denounced: Mary Kluk in Weekend Argus

...and Jews are dangerous, immoral, and baseless according to Hitler and the NSDAP - prove that they're "wrong" and you're right.

http://www.jewishsa.co.za/general/bigot ... end-argus/

Bigotry Is Immoral, No Matter Who Expresses It : Race relations: African Americans must reject anti-Semitism from one of their own. http://articles.latimes.com/1994-01-28/ ... -americans

Yawn...

http://shoebat.com/2015/06/12/let-no-on ... sexuality/

I just proved homosexuality is objectively immoral ... because some website somewhere in the "modern era" says so, lol.

Oh and I proved that bigory is good, because if it's on the internet, it must be true:

http://www.slate.com/blogs/scocca/2010/ ... erica.html

I can post you articles demonstrating that bigotry is wrong. There is nothing objective about it.

That's the most logically nonsensical statement I've ever heard - "I can post scientific articles proving the earth is round... by the way there's nothing objective about it, so feel free to believe the earth is flat".

You are simply trying to condone your own hatred and religious bias.

...which you just admitted isn't wrong - either that or you're changing your mind and admitting that morality is objective, and that hatred is objectively immoral, and not up to "society's decision".

Again, thanks for proving me correct. lol

Morality is subjective and not objective. Society determines what it is and bigotry is seen as WRONG in modern society.

Then if tomorrow if 51% of the population decided they supported stoning homosexuals and enslaving blacks, you'd support it right? lol

Plus since when is it universally seen as wrong in "modern society"? What percentage of the population have to decide it's "wrong" for it to magically become "true"? And why is this the case about moral, but not scientific facts?

The majority of Californians supported Proposition 8, so this means modern society in California at least considers 'bigotry' right, and homosexuality immoral? So you're going to change your views and agree with them, right?

Plus in "modern society", atheists are apparently less trusted than rapists, so this view is therefore correct, no? lol

http://usatoday30.usatoday.com/news/rel ... 51777612/1

[Godstud]

I'll provide the evidence, since you are afraid, unwilling, or unable to.

Don’t panic! There’s very little evidence that porn harms health
Setting aside the ‘addicts’, is there evidence on the population level that pornography use causes — or even correlates with — sexual health problems? Most of the evidence seems to suggest not, or not very much. This 2007 study from Denmark found that adults report generally small, and often positive, effects of pornography on their sexual health. A 2012 study of couples found a very small negative correlation of male porn use on sexual quality, but also a very small positive correlation of female porn use with the same outcome.

The authors of a large cross-cultural study from 2015, with a sample size of almost 4,000 men, wrote that, ‘contrary to raising public concerns, pornography does not seem to be a significant risk factor for younger men’s desire, erectile, or orgasmic difficulties’. An even larger study from June 2016, a report from the Australian Study of Health and Relationships (including about 20,000 participants), found that a majority of respondents had watched porn, but that only a vanishingly small proportion reported any porn-related health problems.
http://health.spectator.co.uk/no-need-t ... ur-health/

Psychology Today:
Does Pornography Cause Social Harm?
Porn causes no measurable social harm.
But the evidence clearly shows that from a social welfare perspective, porn causes no measurable harm. In fact, as porn viewing has soared, rates of syphilis, gonorrhea, teen sex, teen births, divorce, and rape have all substantially declined. If Internet porn affects society, oddly enough, it looks beneficial. Perhaps mental health professionals should encourage men to view it.
https://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/al ... ocial-harm

...which you just admitted isn't wrong - either that or you're changing your mind and admitting that morality is objective, and that hatred is objectively immoral, and not up to "society's decision".

That's a lie. I said it was up to society, and not up to the individual to determine morality. You obviously misread what I posted, or are being intentionally dishonest.

[Scheherazade]

Counter-evidence:

https://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/te ... s-intimacy

Either way, you already lost the main crux of the debate by admitting you know morality is objective, then contradicting yourself by claiming that "posting a random website that says X" is immoral makes it true.

Not to mention claiming the evidenceless statement that "bigotry is immoral in modern society", when in reality the majority of Californians voted for Prop 8 - so by your own argument this means bigotry is right, and homosexuality is seen as immoral. because they "decided" it is. lol

So when are you going to recant your immoral views on homosexuality being normal and conform to what the majority Californians in modern society have decided it is? I'll be waiting. lol

--

Since we both admit that morality is indeed objective, the only real debate is what the objective morals are, not whether some objective morality exists to begin with, that's already a given.

[Godstud]

I said morality is SUBjective.

The majority of the country wanted homosexual marriage. That's a fact. That you can't accept that only means that your worldview is bigoted and homophobic.

I don't have immoral views because I don't recognize your idiotic and ignorant view of morality that is based on your stupid religious views from 2000 years ago. FUCK your God and your religion, too.

[Thompson_NCL]

I said morality is SUBjective.

The majority of the country wanted homosexual marriage. That's a fact. That you can't accept that only means that your worldview is bigoted and homophobic.

I don't have immoral views because I don't recognize your idiotic and ignorant view of morality that is based on your stupid religious views from 2000 years ago. FUCK your God and your religion, too.

Says who, the same polls which said Trump had a 1% chance of winning?

Most of the people I know (in the flesh) didn't really care about gay marriage and were at best indifferent to it. I seriously doubt the majority of any Western country were in favour of gay marriage. More likely they majority just didn't care one way or another. Heck, even the gay people I knew didn't care for gay marriage.

But what exactly is your morality based on I wonder, is it better because it's more modern? Nazism is more modern than Liberalism, therefore it must be superior?

[Godstud]

Sure, Thompson, I can agree with your assessment of gay marriage. To most people it just doesn't matter, nor does it affect them... much like Transexuals using bathrooms.

My morality is not based on religion. I base it more on Canada's bill of freedom and rights more than on a silly poorly written 2000 year old comic book.

Everyone's always looking for HARM, where there is none. They see selfishness, when people just want freedom or equality.

Liberalism is a political philosophy or worldview founded on ideas of liberty and equality. I don't see anything wrong with that. That said, most religions are not based on ideas of liberty and equality, but obedience and servitude. Sorry. Pass.

[Truth To Power]

Byron lived in the Victorian Era, which is what I said.

Byron died more than a decade before Victoria ascended the throne. His flamboyance and romanticism made him very much a Georgian.

Morality is subjective and not objective. Society determines what it is and bigotry is seen as WRONG in modern society.

"Subjective" means according to one person's experience, attitudes, etc.; so if morality is socially determined, it is not subjective. IMO it is most accurately thought of as being rather like ideal diet: objectively determinable in principle, but not immutable or universal, and not easy to determine in practice.

Hatred and bigotry are immoral,

Hatred is the appropriate emotion to feel about evil.

[Decky]

Poor Godstud. I have never understood why people are so desperate to comment on things they know nothing about.

[Godstud]

I find your statements to be immoral. Therefore it's subjective. You're just evil, Decky!

[Scheherazade]

I said morality is SUBjective.

You already ended up admitting that it's objective, so you can't backpedal anymore.

The majority of the country wanted homosexual marriage.

Since when? Most Californians voted for Prop 8.

That's a fact. That you can't accept that only means that your worldview is bigoted and homophobic.

...but there's nothing objectively immoral about being bigoted and homophobic, and most Califorinans agreed with me.

I don't have immoral views because I don't recognize your idiotic and ignorant view of morality that is based on your stupid religious views from 2000 years ago. FUCK your God and your religion, too.

But most Muslims consider your views immoral, and since morality is subjective, that makes them right since Muslims vastly outnumber atheists in population

[Godstud]

You already ended up admitting that it's objective, so you can't backpedal anymore.

Quote me where I said that, or shut the fuck up. Lying doesn't make your argument 'edgey'.

Since when? Most Californians voted for Prop 8.

So some ignorant morons in one state represent the whole country? Really? That's your big argument? Canada implemented homosexual marriage in 2004. They didn't need to take a vote to the ignorant masses to know that it was morally principled to make it law. I guess this only emphasizes how morally backwards Californians(and your ilk) are.

...but there's nothing objectively immoral about being bigoted and homophobic, and most Califorinans agreed with me.

You don't know what the word "objective" means, do you? You admit to being a bigot and homophobe. Is that it?

But most Muslims consider your views immoral, and since morality is subjective, that makes them right since Muslims vastly outnumber atheists in population

It's a good thing I don't care what Muslims, and idiots, think of my morality. They are free to think what they will, and I won't kill them for it, unlike Muslims and those who would persecute others for THEIR views.

You consider persecution of people with different views to be moral, don't you? It doesn't matter if they are harmful, or not, but simply the state of being different is enough for you to vilify them. Your views are hideous and archaic.