Well gee, I hope you don't hold opinions about anything at all happening in countries other than your own because, according to you, that would just be you trying to impose your morality on others.
You've been trying to define my position for me from the beginning, which is actually quite dishonest in itself, and now you are now accusing me of arguing in bad faith. I get that there are a lot of dishonest people on the internet but people like you, who decide that everything you don't agree with is bad faith by default, are just as bad. Please learn to actually hold a rational discussion instead of leading with smug, bad faith assumptions about your intellectual and ethical superiority.
Freespeech: You are clearly arguing in good faith. The problem here is that you don't seem to have learned the lessons of the last 8+ years.
Certain (((talmudic))) people are effectively the only major force in the world who think that 'morality' is something that the commons can decide rationally. In fact, (((they))) don't actually believe that, but they've convinced Western society to believe it.
That's why you say that it's not 'based' to disallow sexual encounters between consenting people. This is insane, and can only lead to the destruction of society, as we're seeing in real-time, right before our eyes.
Morality is always associated with religion, but it's not actually religious in origin -- it's simply an exposition of what must be done in order to have a functioning society. This is why disparate religions like Islam, Christianity and Hinduism are all roughly the same as far as day-to-day life goes. They all abhor the exact same things.
I would categorically state that person is NOT arguing in good faith.
My initial point was that although his morals clearly disagreed with something, their morals were equally as valid. He then attempted to have his cake and eat it by waffling ‘the government and the people are likely to differ’, but then contradicting that with ‘if most people agree with the government on this that’s wrong too.’
Rather than outright say “I believe this is wrong and I don’t care if the whole country disagrees,’ he tries to hide behind the “will of the people” and then contradicts himself anyway. He clearly doesn’t know the general Malaysian attitude to homosexuality, and tries to fence sit in a disingenuous way.
Oh stop being silly. Your rebuttal opened with “trying to define my position,” and when I told you how you were wrong, you waffled. Unlike myself, who accurately summarised your stance and you agreed.
Your infantile “well, gee I hope” could easily be redirected at YOU for finding out other posters have views different than yours.
Well gee, I hope you don't hold opinions about anything at all happening in countries other than your own because, according to you, that would just be you trying to impose your morality on others.
You've been trying to define my position for me from the beginning, which is actually quite dishonest in itself, and now you are now accusing me of arguing in bad faith. I get that there are a lot of dishonest people on the internet but people like you, who decide that everything you don't agree with is bad faith by default, are just as bad. Please learn to actually hold a rational discussion instead of leading with smug, bad faith assumptions about your intellectual and ethical superiority.
Freespeech: You are clearly arguing in good faith. The problem here is that you don't seem to have learned the lessons of the last 8+ years.
Certain (((talmudic))) people are effectively the only major force in the world who think that 'morality' is something that the commons can decide rationally. In fact, (((they))) don't actually believe that, but they've convinced Western society to believe it.
That's why you say that it's not 'based' to disallow sexual encounters between consenting people. This is insane, and can only lead to the destruction of society, as we're seeing in real-time, right before our eyes.
Morality is always associated with religion, but it's not actually religious in origin -- it's simply an exposition of what must be done in order to have a functioning society. This is why disparate religions like Islam, Christianity and Hinduism are all roughly the same as far as day-to-day life goes. They all abhor the exact same things.
Aerotrain
I would categorically state that person is NOT arguing in good faith.
My initial point was that although his morals clearly disagreed with something, their morals were equally as valid. He then attempted to have his cake and eat it by waffling ‘the government and the people are likely to differ’, but then contradicting that with ‘if most people agree with the government on this that’s wrong too.’
Rather than outright say “I believe this is wrong and I don’t care if the whole country disagrees,’ he tries to hide behind the “will of the people” and then contradicts himself anyway. He clearly doesn’t know the general Malaysian attitude to homosexuality, and tries to fence sit in a disingenuous way.
Oh stop being silly. Your rebuttal opened with “trying to define my position,” and when I told you how you were wrong, you waffled. Unlike myself, who accurately summarised your stance and you agreed.
Your infantile “well, gee I hope” could easily be redirected at YOU for finding out other posters have views different than yours.
“Please learn,” indeed!