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.
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.