Home Forums Hunting & Shooting Hunter's Campfire Apologists for homosexuality cannot condemn this shooting...

The very fact you are now unhinged---calling me a "psycho bastard" for posting the philosophy of Jefferson and the Founders should tell everyone with the IQ of an ant that I've struck nerve. And that nerve is the fact that you are incensed because I've pointed out that on your premises Jefferson could not be a Supreme Court justice and Washington could not be commander in chief. If that does not define a Leftist, I don't know what does. But your anger should be directed at your espousing of Leftism not me.

You are also apparently incapable of comprehending simple prose. It is the philosophy of the Founders (and the foundation of western civilization) which I have cited and which condemns the mass killing of innocents. Likewise, it is the rejection of that philosophy which (which the homosexual rights movement does in spades) that makes the condemnation of those killings by anyone who agrees with that rejection (by agreeing with the premises of those who reject it) which constitutes the complete denial of any objective ground for condemning mass killings.

Yes, you are indeed a Leftist. Out of your own mouth. Deal with it.

Jordan

Exactly the opposite. What did I write which states or implies agreement with mass killing? Everything I have said has been directed at establishing the validity of the objective basis for condemning it. It is you who give aid and comfort to mass killers by denying the existence of any objective reason to think mass killing is wrong.


Jordan

The objective basis to condemn the killings is because it is wrong to kill innocent people. That's it!

Most people don't need to justify or rationalize their condemnation for the murder of innocent people. You, Rob Jordan, sound a lot closer in philosophy to an Islamic terrorist justifying his jihad, than a Jeffersonian scholar.

this

I'll second that. Huntz's comment is one of most moronic things posted on this site.

OP is a retard.

Plato and Aristotle may have condemned homosexuality in their writings but it is pretty well known that mere buggery was not homosexuality to them. Homosexuality as they defined it was catching instead of pitching.

It was alright to bugger a ten year old boy, but best not open your back door.

The premise is faulty not because there is no divine authority, but because we cannot agree on what it is and what standards it promulgates.

For Christians it is the Bible. For Muslims the Koran. For the secular types, the rights of man. But there is no agreed upon standard no matter how much some Trotskyite Jew tries to argue there is. Western Civilization is Christian Civilization. There is no agreement for long between the secular and Christian. As the authority of God is removed, you get what you get.

Now that isn't to say that Christianity is right or true, but merely that it was the standard and in reality it was also the secular standard in the West. When it is explicitly rejected, we eventually end up here.

I presume you started this thread in response to the massacre in Orlando. Beyond that, I can make little sense of your post. There is no justification for this horrific act of mass murder and terrorism.

The Jaffa quote you posted is not only an example of a rhetorically incoheret argument plagued my numerous logical fallacies, particularly the naturalistic fallacy, it has absolutely nothing to do with the atrocity in Orlando. Rob Jordan, your post clearly evidences of your most insincere intentions. I had avoided responding to this thread for fear of feeding a shameless troll. I pity you and the suffering you celebrate in others.

I seldom agree with you but this time you nailed it.

[/quote]

The objective basis to condemn the killings is because it is wrong to kill innocent people. That's it! [/quote]


Precisely. But what do we do with the philosophy that says some people are not "human beings"? Nazism held that Jews were sub-human---plague-bearing bacilli to be exact. Stalin believed that anyone who was counter-revolutionary could be dumped in a mass grave as if they were the mere by-products of a rendering plant. The movement in the ante-bellum south to justify chattel slavery as a positive moral good did so on the argument that blacks were not human beings---that there was no difference between a chair (a real chattel without a will of its own) and rational human beings who were as much possessed of free will as their putative slave masters. On what basis can we tell these purveyors of evil that their philosophies really are wrong?

Nature and reason tell us that a negro is a man, not an ox, or a hog and that a Jew is a human being, not a bacterium. And with the very same voice that they tell us these things, nature and reason also tell us that a man is not a woman and that the right ordering of sexual relations is between members of the opposite sex, not the same sex. Again, here is Jaffa:


"Man is a social animal, and no one can secure what is desirable for himself except in partnership with others. According to Aristotle, if a man had all the health, wealth, freedom and power that he desired, but lacked friends, he would not even wish to live. But the root of all friendships, as it is the ground of the existence of the species, is that of a man and a woman. As nature is the ground of morality, the distinction of the sexes is the ground of nature. Nature---which forbids us to eat or enslave out own kind---is that which has within it the principle of coming-into-being. Mankind as a whole is recognized by its generations, like a river which is one and the same while the ever-renewed cycles of birth and death flow on. But the generations are constituted---and can only be constituted---by the acts of generation arising from the conjunction of male and female. The root of all human relationships, the root of all morality, is nature, which itself is grounded in the generative distinction of male and female.....Abraham Lincoln once said that if slavery is not unjust, then nothing is unjust. With equal reason it can be said that if homosexuality is not unnatural, nothing is unnatural. And if nothing is unnatural then nothing---including slavery and genocide---is unjust"

Harry V. Jaffa, Original Intent and the Framers of the Constitution: A Disputed Question.

The premises of the homosexual rights movement are identical with those of Nazism and chattel slavery: each claims that the authority of nature is no authority whatsoever. And my point---the only point I have stressed throughout this thread (apart from pointing out the hypocrisy of [people like 4ager) is that if the distinctions in nature are authoritative in condemning slavery and genocide, they are equally authoritative in condemning homosexuality and conversely, if the generative distinction between male and female is meaningless, then why not the distinction between Jews and bacteria or between hogs and negroes? You can't have it both ways.

Does any of this mean homosexuals should be denied their equal rights under the law? No, it only means that anyone who espouses the premises of their movement can condemn mass killings on only subjective, idiosyncratic (and ultimately) hypocritic grounds. That is the entire point of my original post.


Jordan

Nothing in the nature of man is "the ground for all reality". To believe so would be to believe that there is a harmonious state of primitive being where all is just and good and the relationship between the sexes is the basis for it. But aside from a short time in the garden, such a state has never existed in man. The natural state of man is sin, depravity, and violence, regardless of the nature of the relationship of the sexes.

Will you shut up....you're sick.

Gawd what garbage.

I second that.

Sorry Rob, you just cemented your status as a fruitcake.



I mean honestly dude,....

Where did I ever state or imply that there was?

[/quote]

The Jaffa quote you posted is not only an example of a rhetorically incoheret argument plagued my numerous logical fallacies, particularly the naturalistic fallacy, it has absolutely nothing to do with the atrocity in Orlando. Rob Jordan, your post clearly evidences of your most insincere intentions. I had avoided responding to this thread, for fear of feeding a shameless troll. I pity you and the suffering you celebrate in others. [/quote]

Please prove that it is rhetorically and logically incoherent and plagued with fallacies, including the naturalistic fallacy. If the argument is correct, it has everything in the world to do with establishing a non-relative ground for condemning evil, of which mass killing is a prime example.

Respectfully, you've wholly misunderstood the argument First of all, the argument is not that "the nature of man is 'the ground for all reality'. Secondly, the argument does not imply a "harmonious state of primitive being where all is just and good". You mention "sin"--the argument I am making is non-sectarian. The history of human kind is indeed the history of depravity of violence as it is also often-times the history of courage, valor, justice and love. The issue is whether there is a non-relative basis to distinguish the latter as preferable to the former and if so, what is that basis?

Far from unhinged, you schizo nut; just IDing Robert Jordan Funk, Esq., as a nut job.

Mission accomplished.

Non nut cases understand this.

Ah, so you defend this by claiming that the dead gays were not innocent, therefore it was acceptable for a radical Muslim terrorist to kill them.

Yep, you're a nut case.