"King and King" (not spooky but news just the same)

[Icarian Decoding]

Originally Posted by Loy

Icarius-hold, so first you try to give me statistics on populations that consider themselves believers in a religious sect, THEN you try saying that since they're not in power, we shouldn't even count them in the first place? Nice try, Asurai, but your attempt at weaseling out of the debate whilst making yourself seem on top doesn't fly.

I'm not making myself on top. I'm simply trying to get my point across. Like I said, it's a debate. I chose the position different from everyone elses.

I know it's a bit of an odd manuever, but it makes sense. It's simply showing that those in power, mean more then the majority, but even if they didn't the majority theoretically, should still be in favor.

Infact, now that I think about it, the majority would still be the majority, because even though 1% of the US holds 40% of the economy, the 99% would still hold 60%. So either way, it still works.

Now, I could point out that there are MANY subsects within any religious thoughtline, but I think Sobeh's already pointed that out. And I hate to point this out to you, but these different subsects disagree on quite a few issues (including, but not only, the place of homos in the eyes of the Lord). Now, if you'd like we could go into the different strands of Catholicism that differ in their opinions about this issue (why Catholic? I grew up one. Went to seminary. It's the area I can speak a bit more knowledgably about, compared to, say, Orthodox Judaism), but I have a feeling you're gonna twist anything I say to mean exactly the opposite of what the point was.

Which would be the exact opposite of what I am trying to accomplish. I'm simply trying to get a feel for arguing for things I don't believe in. If you want, let's go right into Catholocism. I know a fair whack about it, and I'm pretty sure there is nothing a bit of light reading can't solve.

When you point out that there are many, many different subsects within a religious thoughtline, the instant resolve is that this means that the assertion that the majority is against what one arguer was asserting. The unnoticed part of this, is that it's a two way street. The majority may view differently then what the original point was, or they might follow the point. To assert that not all believe that homosexuality is a sin, is correct. To assert that not all believe homosexuality is not a sin, is not.

Also, about your deconstruction of my points-even though you threw out some points to make the other cultures seem a bit unsavory, you still have yet to actually debate the original point, which was that you felt these cultures frowned upon homosexuality. I pointed out that that wasn't neccesarilly the case. Now, learn how to fucking debate properly, or shut the fuck up and get out of here.

It's how I debate. Break down the points into smaller subjects, then reconstruct based on the whole picture. The original point was: Do cultures view homosexuality as evil. While you provided that it wasn't neccesarily the case, you didn't provide that it always was. Just as it works for you, in that it creates reasonable doubt, it also creates reasonable doubt for your arguement.

In case that doesn't satisfy you, may I provide, a more detailed arguement for each of the cultures you provided.

Japan - Ah yes, the lovely people who killed themselves when their masters died. You see, while they may have handed out sexual favors in the Kabuki theaters, how common was this? Was it those in power, was it the commoners? Wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kabuki) says that it was government officials. Infact, Kabuki theaters only provided homosexual acts in the 1629-1652 era.

Russia - Plenty of Tsars around too, eh? The matter of the fact is, Tsars went out, about three hundred years ago.

* Bulgaria in 913-1422
* Serbia in 1346-1371
* Russia from about 1480 until 1721


Indiginous tribes - Don't know much about this. Links would be appreciated to where I can read up, if you know any.

Greece - They also married their Brothers and Sisters, and murdered their parents. It's been recorded that while Greece was the birthplace of modern civilzation, it was the birthplace of a few other, very ugly things as well.

For instance, some of those acts of homosexuality, were on young boys, by their trainers. I believe, in modern times, this is called pedophilia, which is a known to be a mental disease:

The APA's Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders 4th edition, Text Revision gives the following as its "Diagnostic criteria for 302.2 Pedophilia":

* Over a period of at least 6 months, recurrent, intense sexually arousing fantasies, sexual urges, or behaviors involving sexual activity with a prepubescent child or children (generally age 13 years or younger).
* The person has acted on these urges, or the sexual urges or fantasies cause marked distress or interpersonal difficulty.
* The person is at least age 16 years and at least 5 years older than the child or children in Criterion A.

Note: Do not include an individual in late adolescence involved in an ongoing sexual relationship with a 12 or 13-year-old.

Then, I want to take a look at a few of your little guides.

The following are suggested as tools for testing arguments and detecting fallacious or fraudulent arguments:

Spin more than one hypothesis - don't simply run with the first idea that caught your fancy.

So, we're supposed to prove a hypothesis wrong, how? Someone had to fuck up somewhere to realize they were wrong.

Try not to get overly attached to a hypothesis just because it's yours.

Isn't that the point of debating? Trying to rabidly prove your point until you can't?

Occam's razor - if there are two hypotheses that explain the data equally well choose the simpler.

God made the world.
The world was made through the big bang.
Which one is simpler?
Which one is right?

Ad hominem - attacking the arguer and not the argument.

And I did this where?






Inconsistency (e.g. military expenditures based on worst case scenarios but scientific projections on environmental dangers thriftily ignored because they are not "proved").

Non sequitur - "it does not follow" - the logic falls down.

Post hoc, ergo propter hoc - "it happened after so it was caused by" - confusion of cause and effect.

Man is dead with bullet in his head. He was shot in the head. There. It happend, so it was caused by.

Excluded middle - considering only the two extremes in a range of possibilities (making the "other side" look worse than it really is).

That's all there is in a debate. It's working with the two extremes, and then finding which one is closer to the right.

Caricaturing (or stereotyping) a position to make it easier to attack.

If I say all sharpshooters are good shots, then how is this not a plausible debate? It's stereotyping.

[Solumina]

Originally Posted by Icarian Decoding

Greece - They also married their Brothers and Sisters, and murdered their parents. It's been recorded that while Greece was the birthplace of modern civilzation, it was the birthplace of a few other, very ugly things as well.

For instance, some of those acts of homosexuality, were on young boys, by their trainers. I believe, in modern times, this is called pedophilia, which is a known to be a mental disease

For your information the Greeks actually didn't marry siblings, if you have any evidence of it, outside of myths, then please let me know because that would be quite a shocker because according to my mythology professor there were actually laws against doing so.

On the subject of Greeks and pedophilia they didn't have sex with small boys they had sex with adolescents that were in the process of becoming men but had already hit puberty(these young men were no younger than the girls that were getting married and having children).

[Icarian Decoding]

With the Greeks, marriage to a full sister was not allowed, but marriage to a half-sister was still allowed.
http://www.icr.org/index.php?module=...on=view&ID=437

He was probably married to his own sister, Cleopatra V, as marriage to siblings was common during the Ptolemaic dynasty.
http://www.angelfire.com/realm2/amet...leopatra1.html

[If I remember correctly, Cleopatra was greek]

As for your arguement of these younge men were no younger than the girls getting married and having children, keep in mind, that's what, 13? 14?

Until the age of seven, boys were educated at home and were taught to fight their fears as well as general superstition by their nurses, who were prized in Greece. Their training was then undertaken by the state in the agoge system and supervised by the paidonomos, an official appointed for that purpose
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sparta#Military_life

[Solumina]

Cleopatra’s family was Greek but by the time that Cleopatra V was born her family had been living in Egypt for many, and by many I mean double digits, generations and was far more connected to the cultural norms of the Egyptians than that of the Greeks.

Your point about the boys is what exactly? They had reached puberty so therefore it would not be considered pedophilia according to the definition that you provided.

[Icarian Decoding]

Really? You learn something new every day. Am I still correct in making my assumptions about the Romans though, or did they not participate in incest either?

But wait a minute. =
If I remember right, you don't begin puberty until you're 16...
Oh shit. You start at 12, and end at 16. My bad.
Alright, so it's not Paedophilia, but it's still under what's consider a normal age of consent. (The lowest I could find was 12, and that's in Malta). On average, the age of concent for Europe is 14. This means that kids at 13 and 14, are still what's considered the age of concent now. I don't think anyone in modern day can give an excuse as to why a twelve year old should be getting laid?

Now, think about this. Kids entered at age seven. It is possible, though I can't imagine the scenario likely, that something happended to them when they entered training at age seven.

[Icarian Decoding]

So you are saying, that since the age of consent is different, it gives you an excuse to have sex with someone who may be in prepuberty, or in the early years of it?

It doesn't make sense to me. It's like saying, "Well, their culture is different, so they can go screw all the little kids they want".

[Icarian Decoding]

Wow. So it was a hit and run style attack?

Alright, so say it's all cultural relativism. This means that anti-homosexuality, is just cultural relativism. That means that every point anyone would argue here, would just be cultural relativism, which would give nothing meaning. Anything you did, anything you thought, would all be tainted by cultural relativism. With that said, it would all be based on local law, which means any global views, wouldn't mean shit.

That would mean everyone, and everything, is wasting their time by even breathing.

[Solumina]

You seem to be thinking about male sex in the context of one giving and one receiving, that wasn't the case in ancient Greece, in fact receiving anal sex was considered the greatest humiliation possible, and was used as a threat. Greek men had sex face to face with their penis between the other man's thighs and each man was considered to be the other's equal, it was kind of a ritual practice, and to violate that ritual in such a way as to do this before the boy was of age was considered a grievous act for which there would be a sever punishment and could easily result in the man’s death.

[Icarian Decoding]

Links? I've never heard this, nor read of it.

[Solumina]

I'll try to find you some but it may take a minute as I got it from my prof's lecture

[Solumina]

well here is the thing about thigh sex http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Interfemoral_intercourse I'll try to find the rest

[Solumina]

well I can't find a link to the other stuff at the moment but I'll ask my prof about it tomorrow, at the moment I think I'm going to go to sleep as it is very late and I didn't sleep much last night

[Icarian Decoding]

Hmm, thank you. I have much reading to do.

[Blushing Heliophobe]

See the way this thread has gone?

The topic was a prince marrying a prince in a fairytale book.

Not whether or not Greeks or Egyptians had sex with little boys.

This is a perfect example of what adults, and not children, end up doing to something as simple as diversity.

Adults, and not children, are the ones who are turning this into a religious/cultural/sexual debate that totally eclipses the real issue.

[Icarian Decoding]

I thought I had to be 21 to be an adult. O.o
It's not adults that makes things worse. It's when people are trying to learn, and gain new information. When you answer one question, more questions keep popping up. Soon, you focus away from what the problem is, to where the problem came from.

[Blushing Heliophobe]

Okay fine - you aren't mature enough to be an adult.

Take some crayons with you and leave the big people alone to talk about important things.

[Icarian Decoding]

I think I've stumbled onto my own personal revelation, and I'd like to share that revelation with you. My entire arguement is based on what is percieved as culture, and what is percieved as time.

The first flaw in my statement, that essentially sparked the entire debate, was "Even though the taboo has been broken by many, is it still a taboo to some people, non-the-less. Is stealing a cross-cultural taboo, and do people do it? Yes." I'm cringing by saying this, but this would follow correct logic. The problem is, it's an anology that implies the second is equal to the first. Stealing is supposedly wrong in all cultures. Yet, we see it just as present as homosexuality, in many cultures. While names and dates are not important, it's still a visible aspect of society. One man trying to get ahead by taking advantage of others. It's still present, even though some shun it. The problem is, others encourage it. The theives themselves.

So, if stealing is a cross-cultural taboo, and people still purpotrate it, and homosexuality is a cross-cultural taboo (Put down the flamethrowers, and read through it) and people still perpotrate it, then we must ask, what is right? That depends, not on culture, but on time. Time can exist without culture, but culture cannot exist without time. Take for instance, the belief that the world was/is flat. We now are told, that through scientific process, we have successfully concluded that the world is round. Yet, there are actually societies dedicated to the world being flat. So, even though evidence supports one conclusion, there are still going to be people who believe the opposite. Apply the same situation to homosexuality. People who believe that being Gay is a taboo, or a sin, have the possiblity of being right or wrong. We can't prove either way, because that would require you tally up the majority of the people, and get their opinion. History doesn't matter, because I have shown that paradigms have been wrong before, and it may have been wrong then.

So, right and wrong would then be relative terms, and taboos would essentially, be meaningless, because they would only effect the present, and not neccesarily the future. So to argue if it is a cross-cultural taboo, would be pointless. This means, every part of the past arguement, would be meaningless, because it's debating someone's values, against anothers, trying to prove flaws in either person's ways. We've seen how futual this is, in the face of the supposed existance of the omniscient.

Why am I typing all this? Because I can tie it in, with what I think the teacher should have done in this instance. Trying to get the parents to consent to allowing their children to be exposed to homosexuality, is a perfectly legitimate act. Trying to expose the children to something like marriage, and the assumption of what happens during marriage, which I am pretty sure most children are aware of at that age (I'm guessing most of them have asked at least once, "What's that down there for) was wrong, because it didn't have the parent's knowledge. To assert that homosexuality is either bad or good, is futile, as I hopefully provided above, so to force your values, onto a child, without their parent's consent, is wrong.

I think I've found things to be a bit more clearer now.

[WolfMoon]

Icarian Decoding, you seem to have no grasp on reality and only a faulty one on any of your own views.

Back-pedaling seems to be your strong point. It's not a very charming attribute, however.


Loy, did I ever tell you you're my hero?

[WolfMoon]

Good, I'm glad to see the tail-end of a wanker.

[NachtSorcier]

I was glad to hear that the teacher's choice in books was protected. Finally the seeds that were planted in 1969 with the Stonewall riots are beginning to sprout.