Philosophy Now Forum

Impenitent wrote: ↑Fri Nov 14, 2025 9:23 pm depends on which lips...

-Imp

Oooh. Imp feels his intelligence is challenged now. He's struggling to come up with a clever retort.

Gary Childress wrote: ↑Fri Nov 14, 2025 9:12 pm So all homosexual behavior is "wrong"?

Do you really think pursuing this will result in productive conversation?

My larger concern is really how our conscience developed.

Gary Childress wrote: ↑Fri Nov 14, 2025 9:25 pm

Impenitent wrote: ↑Fri Nov 14, 2025 9:23 pm depends on which lips...

-Imp

Oooh. Imp feels his intelligence is challenged now. He's struggling to come up with a clever retort.

Yet it was apropos and clever …

Alexis Jacobi wrote: ↑Fri Nov 14, 2025 9:39 pm

Gary Childress wrote: ↑Fri Nov 14, 2025 9:12 pm So all homosexual behavior is "wrong"?

Do you really think pursuing this will result in productive conversation?

My larger concern is really how our conscience developed.

So you don't think all homosexual behavior is wrong, just some behaviors that homosexuals can engage in. Is that correct?

Gary Childress wrote: ↑Fri Nov 14, 2025 9:40 pm So you don't think all homosexual behavior is wrong, just some behaviors that homosexuals can engage in. Is that correct?

Do you really want me to tell you why I think homosexuality is best discouraged? I am happy to oblige if so.

Alexis Jacobi wrote: ↑Fri Nov 14, 2025 9:43 pm

Gary Childress wrote: ↑Fri Nov 14, 2025 9:40 pm So you don't think all homosexual behavior is wrong, just some behaviors that homosexuals can engage in. Is that correct?

Do you really want me to tell you why I think homosexuality is best discouraged? I am happy to oblige if so.

Please oblige, why is all homosexual behavior "wrong" and is always to be discouraged?

Alexis Jacobi wrote: ↑Thu Nov 13, 2025 2:09 pm

Age wrote: ↑Thu Nov 13, 2025 9:45 am Why do you not blame "your" 'self' for fighting, so-called, 'tooth and claw' to keep 'you' from the actual True, and Right, knowledge, in Life?

Now hold on, Age. You imply that you have Special Knowledge?

Here, is 'another one' who writes a statement, but then puts a question mark at the end of it.

What 'these people' beliefs are, are very clear, but then they 'dress those beliefs up', as though they are not closed.

Alexis Jacobi wrote: ↑Thu Nov 13, 2025 2:09 pm But I have a Special Knowledge that is Superior.

How do 'you' know?

And, are 'you' 100% absolutely sure?

If yes, then who do 'you' know? What are you basing this belief and/or claim on, exactly?

Alexis Jacobi wrote: ↑Thu Nov 13, 2025 2:09 pm Tell me, please, that you (of all people!)

What do you mean by 'of all people', exactly?

Alexis Jacobi wrote: ↑Thu Nov 13, 2025 2:09 pm recognize my obvious advanced state and agree with me to the same degree that I agree with myself.

What so-called and so-claimed 'advanced state' are you referring to, here, exactly?

Also, why do you want me to tell you that 'I' agree with 'you' for, exactly? Are you not 100% sure and secure within "your" 'self', here?

Alexis Jacobi wrote: ↑Thu Nov 13, 2025 2:09 pm You’d be doing yourself a favor.

In regards to 'what', exactly?

Alexis Jacobi wrote: ↑Thu Nov 13, 2025 2:09 pm

If yes, then where can 'we' have a 'look at' it [the Matzo Ball Soup cure], exactly?

Well, first you must demonstrate that you really want to be cured. “When the student is ready, the Soup appears.”

How does 'one' demonstrate, to 'you', that they, really, 'want' to be cured?

And, cured from 'what', exactly?

By the way, 'I' am, still, curios as to whether 'you' believe that 'you' have not been fooled, and deceived, "your" 'self', and/or are not fooling, and deceiving, "your" 'self'?

Why' did 'you' not answer and clarify, here?

Alexis Jacobi wrote: ↑Fri Nov 14, 2025 9:39 pm

Gary Childress wrote: ↑Fri Nov 14, 2025 9:12 pm So all homosexual behavior is "wrong"?

Do you really think pursuing this will result in productive conversation?

My larger concern is really how our conscience developed.

Why is 'this' a 'concern', to you?

How it developed is, really, quite simple, and obvious.

Alexis Jacobi wrote: ↑Fri Nov 14, 2025 9:08 pm

phyllo wrote: ↑Fri Nov 14, 2025 8:57 pm On what basis ought he consider it wrong or evil? The Bible?

I have already worked this issue — the social question, and the morality of the issue — out for myself satisfactorily. I can only report on my own findings.

I can say that outside and beyond the Bible that there are seemingly sound reasons for discouraging homosexuality. I think I could make a decent case for wrongness, but to ascribe ‘evil’ to it, in my view, is going a bit far.

Now that you have claimed that you 'think' you could make a so-called 'decent case' for wrongness will you now present 'it', here?

If no, then why not?

But, if yes, then great. I am very interested in seeing what you present and put forward.

phyllo wrote: ↑Fri Nov 14, 2025 8:57 pm

Curiously Gary is deeply involved with issues of conscience and morality — he believes they exist and are real — but he resists ascribing evil or wrong to homosexuality (sexual deviance and misconduct).

Doesn't he think it's harmless activity between consenting adults?

Or maybe he thinks it's neutral or insignificantly wrong in comparison to some other behaviors. If you want to rate it on a scale.

On what basis ought he consider it wrong or evil? The Bible?

And POSSIBLY add that the percentage of same sex behavior roughly the same as with other mammals and birds. This is actually slightly puzzling. The fact that not eliminated by evolution implies must be playing a role OR something that cannot be eliminated because intertwined with how "pair bonding" encoded.

We humans engage in same sex activity somewhat less than our bonobo close cousins. But do note that in both our cases sex has been co-opted for other purposes (social purposes) besides reproduction. Or distant relatives like howler monkeys. Evolution makes use of what is available, so things can be dual prupose. Your fingers atre evolved to grab things, but also to scratch an itch (didn't need to evolve a different body part)

MikeNovack wrote: ↑Fri Nov 14, 2025 4:13 pm

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Thu Nov 13, 2025 10:46 pm And I can't find any shots of Right-wing extremists burning Minneapolis, or Portland, or LA, or NY, or Atlanta, or...but I can find plenty of Leftists in all these places,

Is THAT your problem?

It's America's problem...not mine.

If you think violence something specific to the left, you are simply wrong.

Not lately. Read the news lately?

Yes, anybody can commit acts of violence. But the tolerance for it on the Left is far, far higher than that among their opponents. And it's a function of their collectivism. Whereas a Libertarian or Conservative does not have to be concerned about dissenters, since their aspirations are for individual liberties rather than collectivist utopian projects, the Left cannot endure dissent. And when Leftist collectivist plans or values are thwarted, they quickly become violent, because they demand conformity to the collective plan, and cannot do without it.

You see this in every Communist and Nazi regime in history, actually...not just in the present day ones.

Your fingers atre evolved to grab things, but also to scratch an itch (didn't need to evolve a different body part).

I’m already blushing …

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Thu Nov 13, 2025 10:46 pm

accelafine wrote: ↑Thu Nov 13, 2025 9:52 pm I'm sure IC and Walker don't believe themselves to be 'evil' while many would beg to differ.

Au contraire, I do. We all have to come to grips with the presence of evil in us, even those who would wish to be better than that. Christianity's not a faith for people who aren't sinnners, but for those who know they are. I'd be the last to exempt myself from my critique of the vulnerabilities of human nature.

But, there are absolutely no vulnerabilities of 'human nature' at all.

The real vulnerability, here, is that you adult human beings, in the days when this is being written, still, do not even know what is actually 'human nature'.

As 'you' will prove, once more, when you are asked to explain what is 'human nature', exactly, "immanuel can"?

Now, what will be clearly shown and proved is that "immanuel can" does not, yet, even know. So, claiming that there there are vulnerabilities of 'human nature', when one can not even express and explain what even is 'human nature', is another sign of just how Wrong adult human thinking and believing can be.

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Thu Nov 13, 2025 10:46 pm I know my own heart too well.

Really?

If yes, then explain to the readers, here, about LOL "Immanuel can's" own heart.

Now, and again, 'this one's' inability to express and explain 'this', here, is another sign of 'this one's' Wrong and faulty thoughts and beliefs.

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Thu Nov 13, 2025 10:46 pm

Some people think that 'greed is good' (Americans).

No, they don't think that. You're being a bit jaded there, I have to say.

Are you not aware of some people's attempts to justify their own greedy behavior?

Either way when they do 'this', then this is them thinking that 'greed is good' and/or 'justifiable'. LOL Some even, laughably, believe that 'being greedy' is 'human nature'. Just like some even believe that 'evil is present in human nature'. Which both views or beliefs are hilarious to watch, and hear.

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Thu Nov 13, 2025 10:46 pm What you'll find is that Americans are some of the most charitable people in the world, actually.

Here, 'we' have 'another one' who attempts to generalize every person, in a particular group, is the exact same.

These posters, here, are a prime example of how the adult human beings, in the days when this was being written, had not, yet, actually 'grown up' and 'matured', and still had a long way to go, to 'catch up'.

Imagine disagreeing, fighting, and bickering over what a 'group of classed people' do, when what is being claimed, by both people, is absolutely False, Wrong, Inaccurate, and Incorrect in and of itself.

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Thu Nov 13, 2025 10:46 pm But over the last couple of hundred years that the country has existed, it has not been prone to collectivist visions. The existence of the frontier made a deep impression on the American psyche, which produced a lot more individualism and self-reliance than in many other countries, but also much more community spirit, kindness and generosity than you might think if you just watched the Beeb.

For one who claims it is not 'one of that particular group' it comes across as though it knows all about 'that particular group', and about 'the way' 'that group and country' is.

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Thu Nov 13, 2025 10:46 pm

Wokies actually believe themselves to be the very pinnacle of humanity, with a monopoly on empathy and compassion (I know, staggering in its delusion but true nonetheless). They tell everyone this at any opporunity.

They do. You're right. But have you also noticed their biggest motivator of all? Covetousness. Envy. The green-eyed monster. They get their energy not from helping the poor, but from hating the rich, as Orwell so poignantly is said to have observed.

Once again, 'this one's' 'elitist' loving attitude comes to the forefront.

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Thu Nov 13, 2025 10:46 pm For them, hatred is virtue. It's all "punch a Nazi," or "down with the oppressor," or "eat the rich." And the louder and more violently they actualize their commitment to these sorts of activities, the higher they feel they are on the scale of virtue.

Spoken from 'one' with true experience.

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Thu Nov 13, 2025 10:46 pm Moreover, their tolerance for violence is much higher than on the Right. The response to the Charlie Kirk assassination, for example, makes this clear. I don't know anybody on the Right calling for Clinton, Biden or Obama to be shot, or AOC or the women on The View, far less their children to be harmed: but the Left has trumpeted just these things about Kirk, Fetterman, Trump, Musk, Kennedy... And it seems there's not even a moderate voice on the Left saying, "I say, chaps...this is a bit much, wot?"

'you' do not know any body ...., because you are a prime example of one who only hears, and sees, very limited things, and from a very "one-sided" perspective.

But, 'you' will just pass this off as being the 'presence of evil in human nature'.

Which, coincidentally, 'you' never noticed, and recognized, in 'those' on the "other side" of things.

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Thu Nov 13, 2025 10:46 pm And I can't find any shots of Right-wing extremists burning Minneapolis, or Portland, or LA, or NY, or Atlanta, or...but I can find plenty of Leftists in all these places, burning down neighbourhoods in a "mostly peaceful" way, and beating shopkeepers, or looting Gucci and Foot Locker stores, and stealing from Walmart in broad daylight...all with the highest tone of self-righteous entitlement.

Yes, absolutely every one who does 'those things' has only one particular "side" of politics, hey "immanuel can"?

LOL "immanuel can" is the primest example of why there was so much 'division' in societies, back in the 'olden days' when this was being written.

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Thu Nov 13, 2025 10:46 pm But which neighbourhood, through which the Leftists happened to storm, is today a better neighbourhood than it was before? How many poor have they raised to subsistence? How many lives have they improved? What is the real good they have achieved?

These questions could also be asked in relation to countries and cultures where so-called "christians" have trampled, and razed, to the ground.

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Thu Nov 13, 2025 10:46 pm How does virtue get associated with arson, looting, assault, slander, entitlement, spite, rage, vandalism, censorship, mutilation of children, racism and calls for murder of whole families? I don't know. I can't imagine. But somehow, it seems the Left can.

LOL Could 'this one' be more 'one-sided'?

Did 'virtue' ever get associated when "christians" moved around the earth colonizing people and countries and wreaking havoc on cultures?

If yes, then how, exactly?

Gary Childress wrote: ↑Fri Nov 14, 2025 9:47 pm

Alexis Jacobi wrote: ↑Fri Nov 14, 2025 9:43 pm

Gary Childress wrote: ↑Fri Nov 14, 2025 9:40 pm So you don't think all homosexual behavior is wrong, just some behaviors that homosexuals can engage in. Is that correct?

Do you really want me to tell you why I think homosexuality is best discouraged? I am happy to oblige if so.

Please oblige, why is all homosexual behavior "wrong" and is always to be discouraged?

I'm still waiting for your answer, AJ. You say that you have come to some sort of conclusive realization about homosexuality being wrong action, would you share it with the rest of us? Or how long do you intend to remain a "neutral" observer of reality who claims to study things apathetically without emotional attachment?

Alexis Jacobi wrote: ↑Fri Nov 14, 2025 9:43 pm?

Alexis Jacobi wrote: ↑Fri Nov 14, 2025 9:39 pm

Gary Childress wrote: ↑Fri Nov 14, 2025 9:12 pm So all homosexual behavior is "wrong"?

Do you really think pursuing this will result in productive conversation?

My larger concern is really how our conscience developed.

Alexis, which of the following is your platform?---

* history of ideas
* personality
* sociology of ideas
*theology
*economics and politics
*other