tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1905686568472747305.post8837662659800518508..comments2024-02-26T03:25:06.471+00:00Comments on Stephen Law: The case of the Christian would-be foster parentsStephen Lawhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/02167317543994731177noreply@blogger.comBlogger121125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1905686568472747305.post-76375513645227616342011-04-07T17:37:29.844+00:002011-04-07T17:37:29.844+00:00It really annoys me when you are accused of being ...It really annoys me when you are accused of being homophobic for hating depravity and debauchery. Male gay sex is a filthy depraved act no matter how you look at it, they are putting their penis into another mans rectum for goodness sake for sinful pleasure and aids and disease are the reward and as they get used to depravity they have to seek further and further depravity for pleasure.<br />Its natural to be repulsed by such depravity if you have any morals or ehthics. No doubt we are being brainwashed and socially engineered to accept such depravity as normal.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1905686568472747305.post-33330107269845296712011-03-27T08:14:02.009+00:002011-03-27T08:14:02.009+00:00Thanks for links.
PJ what does this mean:
"...Thanks for links. <br /><br />PJ what does this mean:<br /><br />"ineptitude at moral discernment isn't a license for tyranny"Stephen Lawhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02167317543994731177noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1905686568472747305.post-44259472605951009552011-03-24T22:27:58.665+00:002011-03-24T22:27:58.665+00:00Just caught the end of this BBC program which give...Just caught the end of this BBC program which gives a little more about the case<br /><a href="http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b00zm324" rel="nofollow">BBC Radio 4 "The Report" 24/03/2011 </a><br /><br />(at the risk of raking over old coals..)wombatnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1905686568472747305.post-53584734235000891442011-03-23T20:30:36.724+00:002011-03-23T20:30:36.724+00:00@'Course it does! Now allow me to pull out my ...@'Course it does! Now allow me to pull out my Holy Book that tells me to teach kids that Christians are disordered, disgusting, perverted... <br /><br />Ironically, the justice system wouldn't raise any objections to the militantly skeptical parents/guardians who actually do teach their children such things about Christians ("brain viruses" anyone?). They of course have no means to as they don't have a standard by which to proclaim such a belief system detrimental any more than they do the biblical view -which only further highlights the double-standard they employ against Christians.<br /><br />But as I stated, ineptitude at moral discernment isn't a license for tyranny, and wildly fanciful conjectures unsupported by fact about children being "harmed" by scriptural teachings don't magically shift the burden of proof so a parent has to prove their innocence in teaching their belief system.J.C. Thibodauxhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12884600822119690931noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1905686568472747305.post-19918384162677600592011-03-21T17:31:09.766+00:002011-03-21T17:31:09.766+00:00PJ re your comment: "Yes you do, since you...PJ re your comment: "Yes you do, since you're asserting that the Christian teaching against it does moral harm, then the burden of proof lies with you, the accuser, to objectively prove that the teaching is immoral."<br /><br />I didn't say "moral harm". I did say "harm". But I don't even need to use that word, if you don't like it.<br /><br />I am just pointing out that teaching kids stuff that leads them to believe themselves disgusting, perverted, disordered, etc. and leads others to stigmatize and ostracize them, is something we immediately have pretty good reason to restrict foster parents from doing, UNLESS it can be shown that such teaching is necessary "harsh" medicine for some moral illness.<br /><br />At which point you wave your Holy Book at me and insist it establishes they are indeed morally ill!<br /><br />Yeh, right, P.J. 'Course it does! Now allow me to pull out my Holy Book that tells me to teach kids that Christians are disordered, disgusting, perverted...Stephen Lawhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02167317543994731177noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1905686568472747305.post-73941490694973550802011-03-21T15:26:52.501+00:002011-03-21T15:26:52.501+00:00@What's tyrannical about that? I would have th...@What's tyrannical about that? I would have thought you'd agree (just disagree that your teaching is harmful, right?)<br /><br />Obviously. You're essentially demanding parents prove that their moral teachings aren't harmful when you have no evidence that they are -placing the burden of proof upon the accused aka tyranny.<br /><br /><br />@Is the onus on us to establish the kids are healthy, or on the foster parents to establish they are sick?<br /><br />Which I've already established from the moral basis for the Christian faith -the Bible.<br /><br /><br />@Second, In any case, I don't need to show that it's false the homosexuality is wrong.<br /><br />Yes you do, since you're asserting that the Christian teaching against it does moral harm, then the burden of proof lies with you, the accuser, to objectively prove that the teaching is immoral. Your lack-of-moral-value-based argument obviously collapses without any evidence of lack-of-moral-value.<br /><br /><br />@Saying "It says so in my Holy Book!" is something even a dangerous religious wacko holding a nutty Holy Book can say. Clearly not good enough. <br /><br />Ineptitude at discerning good moral standards from bad isn't an argument. The fact that you have trouble objectively showing some ridiculous standard (e.g. your example of teaching a girl that marrying a man is wrong) to be objectively immoral (a problem which I notably don't have, as I only need cite 1 Timothy 4:1-3) doesn't magically give someone the right to assume Christian moral standards are immoral.<br /><br />You're essentially arguing that the justice system's lack of ability to weed out wrong standards constitutes the right to demand proof that a standard is "the correct one" before allowing it to be taught to foster children. Analogously, this would be like saying they're justified in forbidding any strong medicine to be administered because they're too stupid to tell the difference between disease and health -even with the diagnosis in hand!<br /><br />The issue of the justification of moral teachings hinges upon the moral value of the teachings in question, and the default arbiters of morality in child-rearing are the child's parents/guardians, and thus their standards of morality should be assumed adequate unless it can objectively be shown that they aren't. Logic remains unaffected by spin doctoring: burden of proof is still on you to show that the teachings of Christian parents aren't morally sound.<br /><br /><br />@I do need to show that your justification of your moral teaching is no good. <br /><br />Exactly; this is where you repeatedly fail. Simply arguing that your logic dictates that you'd have to accept any kind of teaching plainly doesn't demonstrate that the justification for my teachings is invalid.J.C. Thibodauxhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12884600822119690931noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1905686568472747305.post-23496130634300115292011-03-20T08:27:44.261+00:002011-03-20T08:27:44.261+00:00PJ you say: "the burden of proof is now upon ...PJ you say: "the burden of proof is now upon you then to show how Christian teachings are morally wrong, which you've repeatedly failed to do."<br /><br />Just to be clear, I haven't even tried to do this. First, because I don't object to Christian teaching per se. Much of it is very good. I just object to teaching gay children that their inclinations are perverted, disgusting, etc. Second, In any case, I don't need to show that it's false the homosexuality is wrong. My argument doesn't depend on that for the reason I keep explaining and you keep ignoring.<br /><br />I do need to show that your justification of your moral teaching is no good. But that's easy peasy! Saying "It says so in my Holy Book!" is something even a dangerous religious wacko holding a nutty Holy Book can say. Clearly not good enough.Stephen Lawhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02167317543994731177noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1905686568472747305.post-92007149142596934802011-03-20T08:18:47.769+00:002011-03-20T08:18:47.769+00:00You say:
PJ you say: "Thank you for proving o...You say:<br />PJ you say: "Thank you for proving once more that you're simply advocating tyranny."<br /><br />I fully defend the right of religious people to teach whatever they want, up to the point where it causes harm, when some measures taken to protect people from some harmful teaching may be justified.<br /><br />What's tyrannical about that? I would have thought you'd agree (just disagree that your teaching is harmful, right?)<br /><br />You say:<br /><br />"The stakes (such as your fancies about children being so hurt and such) don't change the rules of logic: teaching that is morally justified is right; the burden of proof is now upon you then to show how Christian teachings are morally wrong, which you've repeatedly failed to do."<br /><br />Suppose foster parents want to administer "Harsh" and "strong" medicine - chemotherapy, say - to children who appear to us to have nothing wrong with them.<br /><br />Should we let them? Is the onus on us to establish the kids are healthy, or on the foster parents to establish they are sick?<br /><br />The latter, surely.<br /><br />I am using your own analogy. You yourself said it would be wrong to give such "harsh" medicine to children with nothing wrong with them.Stephen Lawhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02167317543994731177noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1905686568472747305.post-11305127549035700232011-03-20T03:06:40.757+00:002011-03-20T03:06:40.757+00:00@You claim you have done the latter: "It says...@You claim you have done the latter: "It says so in my Holy Book!" But that's not an adequate justification.<br /><br />Yes it is, as it's the entire basis from which Christian morality is derived. I defy you to show one iota of objective justification that it's morally unjust.<br /><br />@It's not good enough because then we'll have to allow others the same excuse for pushing prima facie hurtful teaching on kids.<br /><br />I've already defeated this non-sequitur of yours as well:<br /><br /><i>Only if one comes in with the a priori assumption that all religious views are of equal merit or have no basis upon which to judge them. I don't hold to this assumption, but have an objective standard by which to measure the merits of another system. So what you're citing is a weakness in how your paradigm interprets justice, not mine.</i><br /><br />Yet somehow you think your legal philosophy's ineptitude at differentiating good moral teaching from bad constitutes the right to prevent Christian parents from imparting good moral teaching? Such inability to reason is truly astounding.<br /><br />@You keep attacking a completely different argument (a rubbish one), and just ignoring the point about prima facie hurt.<br /><br />Because this "prima facie" nonsense is irrelevant as to the substance (or rather lack thereof) to your argument and where the burden of proof rests. The stakes (such as your fancies about children being so hurt and such) don't change the rules of logic: teaching that is morally justified is right; the burden of proof is now upon you then to show how Christian teachings are morally wrong, which you've repeatedly failed to do.<br /><br />@But you need to show this before we can reasonably allow you....<br /><br />Again you demand that I prove my innocence concerning moral teachings when you in fact have no case to prove my guilt. Thank you for proving once more that you're simply advocating tyranny.J.C. Thibodauxhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12884600822119690931noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1905686568472747305.post-91261088731896482972011-03-19T15:04:30.906+00:002011-03-19T15:04:30.906+00:00"What I stated is what your actual argument i..."What I stated is what your actual argument is. Your reasons behind it (e.g. you imagine children are being hurt) are irrelevant".<br /><br />No repeatedly choose to ignore my argument. You keep attacking a completely different argument (a rubbish one), and just ignoring the point about prima facie hurt. You must either show I am wrong and there's no hurt, or that the hurt is justified because homosexuality is morally wrong.<br /><br />You claim you have done the latter: "It says so in my Holy Book!" But that's not an adequate justification. It's not good enough because then we'll have to allow others the same excuse for pushing prima facie hurtful teaching on kids.<br /><br />Maybe you are right and they are wrong. But you need to show this before we can reasonably allow you to teach prima facie hurtful stuff that results in many kids leading miserable lives.Stephen Lawhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02167317543994731177noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1905686568472747305.post-25252464248302347562011-03-19T14:49:44.663+00:002011-03-19T14:49:44.663+00:00@So the latter teaching is indeed justified. I am ...@So the latter teaching is indeed justified. I am asking what the justification of the former teaching is.<br /><br />Already shown from the Bible, which is the basis of morality for Christians. Are you already forgetting?<br /><br /><br />@What I saying is that there's a good, prima facie case for thinking your beliefs ought not to be taught to children by foster parents if they result in significant harm to those children.<br /><br />Which depends entirely upon whether the action has moral justification, which I've provided from scripture, thus the burden of proof is now upon you to show some objective basis by which my scriptural beliefs are wrong, which you obviously can't do. Checkmate.<br /><br /><br />@to show that these kids have something wrong with them that requires such treatment.<br /><br />As I pointed out above, regardless of your reasons, your demand that I prove the correctness of my beliefs about homosexuality amounts to shifting the burden of proof.<br /><br /><br />JCT: "What kind of idiotic reasoning demands proof of correctness for some moral belief before one can teach it to his children?"<br />SL: Just so we are very clear: I make no such demand! That demand would be ridiculous. Read the above posts to see what my ACTUAL argument is. <br /><br /><b>What I stated is what your actual argument is.</b> Your reasons behind it (e.g. you imagine children are being hurt) are irrelevant and don't change the substance of the argument. You are effectively demanding Christians prove our innocence with regards to the moral quality of our teachings (as a precondition to raising foster children) when you have no objective evidence as to our teaching being morally wrong, thus you are advocating judicial tyranny against Christians.J.C. Thibodauxhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12884600822119690931noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1905686568472747305.post-50079885109505023542011-03-19T10:05:25.536+00:002011-03-19T10:05:25.536+00:00P.S. PJ you said: "What kind of idiotic reaso...P.S. PJ you said: "What kind of idiotic reasoning demands proof of correctness for some moral belief before one can teach it to his children?"<br /><br />Just so we are very clear: I make no such demand! That demand would be ridiculous. Read the above posts to see what my ACTUAL argument is.Stephen Lawhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02167317543994731177noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1905686568472747305.post-15240649234279064202011-03-19T09:20:35.118+00:002011-03-19T09:20:35.118+00:00PS suggesting that teaching that homosexuality is ...PS suggesting that teaching that homosexuality is wrong is like teaching that child molestation is wrong, and that I will happily allow the teaching of the latter, won't do, because child molestation is itself demonstrably very harmful. Much more harmful than any harms caused by teaching that it is wrong. So the latter teaching is indeed justified. I am asking what the justification of the former teaching is.<br /><br />P.S. pretty sure I got "latter" and "former" the right way round this time.Stephen Lawhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02167317543994731177noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1905686568472747305.post-38306366281137045822011-03-19T09:00:40.002+00:002011-03-19T09:00:40.002+00:00"You need to provide some objective justifica..."You need to provide some objective justification for condemning my beliefs before I need to justify them."<br /><br />What I saying is that there's a good, prima facie case for thinking your beliefs ought not to be taught to children by foster parents if they result in significant harm to those children.<br /><br />Now, prima facie, harm is indeed caused. Children end up thinking of themselves as perverted, disgusting and disordered, they end up stigmatized by others, ostracized, guilt-ridden, and so on.<br /><br />Given the prima facie harm your teaching causes, there's a prima face case for preventing it UNLESS: you can show that the prima facie harm isn't really harm, or, if it is harm, is nevertheless a price worth paying. Its like the result of "harsh", "strong" medicine for a serious illness - e.g. which is justified given the serious illness. E.g. like giving chemotherapy to children with cancer.<br /><br />Trouble, is, the onus is now on you to show that kids with same sex desire do have something seriously wrong with them - have a moral "illness" if you like - that justifies your administering your moral chemotherapy. You say that their desire is for something morally wrong. So the onus is now on you to show this.<br /><br />Notice that, in this argument, at no point above do I just assume that teaching homosexuality is wrong is itself wrong. I don't start off by condemning your beliefs. Indeed, I don't yet even condemn them.<br /><br />I start off by noting the serious negative effects of your moral chemotherapy, and then ask you to explain why that chemotherapy is nevertheless justified - to show that these kids have something wrong with them that requires such treatment. Perhaps they do. But the onus is on you to show that.Stephen Lawhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02167317543994731177noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1905686568472747305.post-6527893622673057372011-03-18T21:22:16.846+00:002011-03-18T21:22:16.846+00:00@a child that otherwise appears to have absolutely...@a child that otherwise appears to have absolutely nothing wrong with them (to use your own analogy!)<br /><br />That's like saying, "besides the terminal cancer, perfectly healthy," if you're actually following my analogy.<br /><br /><br />@Otherwise, what reason have we to allow you to administer your "harmful medicine", but not allow them to administer theirs?<br /><br />1.) I said "strong," not "harmful."<br />2.) A belief that's objectively immoral isn't medicine in any sense, it's poison.<br />3.) To your question: because their standards violate what scripture teaches.<br />4.) I've already pointed out that you don't have a basis to condemn problematic religious claims, but your being unable to condemn some errant system objectively isn't justification for you to condemn mine without objective evidence.<br /><br /><br />@In short PJ, you need to justify your particular version of Christianity<br />...<br />@I simply ask, if your religious views are indeed right and theirs wrong, that you show this<br /><br />You've already lost on this point...several times. Do you simply not grasp fundamental logic?<br /><br />I don't have to demonstrate that anyone is right or wrong, because the burden of proof isn't upon me to prove my innocence or the correctness of my beliefs. What kind of idiotic reasoning demands proof of correctness for some moral belief before one can teach it to his children? <b>The burden is upon the accuser</b> (i.e. the one accusing others of immoral standards), not the accused.<br /><br />You need to provide some objective justification for condemning my beliefs before I need to justify them. You're more or less demanding I prove my innocence when you have no objective basis to claim I'm guilty. Your reasoning requires assuming guilt beforehand, thus the system of "justice" you're advocating is little more than irrationally heavy-handed tyranny (as the hyper-Liberal British justice system has recently displayed). So accuser, since the burden rests upon you to prove my guilt, not me to prove my innocence, where is your objective evidence that I'm guilty of teaching immoral concepts?J.C. Thibodauxhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12884600822119690931noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1905686568472747305.post-7869335444107254262011-03-18T16:52:52.174+00:002011-03-18T16:52:52.174+00:00Sorry that last post was bit shoddy. This is impro...Sorry that last post was bit shoddy. This is improved...<br /><br />In short PJ, you need to justify your particular version of Christianity - on which those with homosexual inclinations are held to be disordered, perverted, etc.) - before we might reasonably allow you, as a foster parent, to engage in the moral equivalent of administering chemotherapy to a child that otherwise appears to have absolutely nothing wrong with them (to use your own analogy!)<br /><br />Good luck with that, because even very many Christians reject your version of ChristianityStephen Lawhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02167317543994731177noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1905686568472747305.post-31086144280148595862011-03-18T16:49:55.644+00:002011-03-18T16:49:55.644+00:00In short PJ, you need to justify your particular v...In short PJ, you need to justify your particular version of Christianity - on which those with homosexual inclinations are held to be disordered, perverted, etc.) - before we might reasonably allow you, as a foster parent, to engage in the moral equivalent of administering chemotherapy to a child that has absolutely nothing wrong with them (to use your own analogy!)<br /><br />Good luck with that, because even very many Christians reject your version of Christianity.Stephen Lawhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02167317543994731177noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1905686568472747305.post-43545207878502009792011-03-18T16:39:37.893+00:002011-03-18T16:39:37.893+00:00PJ YOU SAY: "The burden of proof remains unsh...PJ YOU SAY: "The burden of proof remains unshifted: we do in fact have a basis showing that homosexual behavior is morally wrong. Your not accepting it or citing that there are different beliefs isn't counter-evidence, as neither of those prove incorrectness. When it comes to how we raise children in our care, the onus is upon you to show upon what objective basis the standard of morality that we're employing is wrong."<br /><br />I NOW CLARIFY: I don't cite different beliefs as counter evidence to yours. That would be a rubbish argument. I am not even trying to prove the incorrectness of your views.<br /><br />YOU QUOTED ME THUS: @If we accept your justification, we'll now have to accept theirs. Even if their teaching is horribly racist or sexist.<br /><br />YOUR REPLY: Only if one comes in with the a priori assumption that all religious views are of equal merit or have no basis upon which to judge them. I don't hold to this assumption, but have an objective standard by which to measure the merits of another system.<br /><br />AGAIN I CLARIFY. I don't assume any such thing, P.J. I simply ask, if your religious views are indeed right and theirs wrong, that you show this (after all, anyone can just *assert* they have an "objective standard", can't they).<br /><br />Otherwise, what reason have we to allow you to administer your "harmful medicine", but not allow them to administer theirs?Stephen Lawhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02167317543994731177noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1905686568472747305.post-72075239097703293962011-03-18T15:33:55.705+00:002011-03-18T15:33:55.705+00:00@I got them wrong way round.
No big deal, I just ...@I got them wrong way round.<br /><br />No big deal, I just got real curious after the second time.<br /><br /><br />@now the onus is on you to show that a homosexual lifestyle is indeed a life of sin.<br />...<br />@UNLESS, of course, it can be show that there's something seriously wrong with the kids that justifies administering that medical treatment.<br /><br />Already done in my example from scripture. Which leads us into....<br /><br /><br />@Well, great. But what justification does that give is for allowing you to teach stuff that otherwise harms children (like your "strong medication")? None.<br /><br />Really? Why or on what basis isn't it adequate moral justification? I've asked this repeatedly and you've so far provided no satisfactory answers.<br /><br /><br />@If we accept your justification, we'll now have to accept theirs. Even if their teaching is horribly racist or sexist.<br /><br />Only if one comes in with the a priori assumption that all religious views are of equal merit or have no basis upon which to judge them. I don't hold to this assumption, but have an objective standard by which to measure the merits of another system. So what you're citing is a weakness in how your paradigm interprets justice, not mine.<br /><br /><br />@Unless you can do so, we have good reason to prevent you from administering that treatment.<br /><br />Sorry, children being involved or your imagining I could be doing them harm doesn't magically change the rules of logic. The burden of proof remains unshifted: we do in fact have a basis showing that homosexual behavior is morally wrong. Your not accepting it or citing that there are different beliefs isn't counter-evidence, as neither of those prove incorrectness. When it comes to how we raise children in our care, the onus is upon you to show upon what objective basis the standard of morality that we're employing is wrong. The case in short:<br /><br />* Our teachings are "strong stuff," but justified if their purpose is moral<br />* Our standard that we raise our children by says our teachings are moral<br />* You may disagree with our standard, but dissension doesn't invalidate a belief<br />* There may be different moral standards, but a variety of beliefs doesn't invalidate any particular one of them<br />* Logically, the burden of proof therefore still rests with you to objectively show that our moral standard is wrongJ.C. Thibodauxhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12884600822119690931noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1905686568472747305.post-16449086590388345132011-03-18T11:25:22.162+00:002011-03-18T11:25:22.162+00:00Put it like this PJ. I like your strong medication...Put it like this PJ. I like your strong medication analogy. Indeed, it nicely illustrates what's wrong with your case.<br /><br />Yes, indeed, as you say, we shouldn't give powerful medication with harsh and harmful side effects to people with nothing wrong with them. There's a case for preventing foster parents administering such medication. UNLESS, of course, it can be show that there's something seriously wrong with the kids that justifies administering that medical treatment.<br /><br />So the onus IS indeed now on you to show there's something wrong homosexual inclinations and practices that justifies the administering of your harsh and harmful treatments.<br /><br />Unless you can do so, we have good reason to prevent you from administering that treatment.Stephen Lawhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02167317543994731177noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1905686568472747305.post-64712407129486750672011-03-18T09:31:17.285+00:002011-03-18T09:31:17.285+00:00YOU SAID:
I didn't say everything about under...YOU SAID:<br /><br />I didn't say everything about understanding the commands of God was always pleasant or easy, but it's always far better for the child to obey God than to live a life of sin. The situation is similar to strong medication given a patient for an otherwise terminal illness: the treatment itself often has some harsh effects it's true, but the alternative is far worse for those suffering. Of course it's harmful to give such drugs or treatment to the healthy, but they're not the ones in need of it.<br /><br />MY REPLY: Right, so such teaching might cause harm but better to teach it then allow child to live a life of sin.<br /><br />Except that now the onus is on you to show that a homosexual lifestyle is indeed a life of sin. Otherwise, there's a case for preventing you doing that harm.<br /><br />Your justification is it says so in your Holy book, which is good enough for you.<br /><br />Well, great. But what justification does that give is for allowing you to teach stuff that otherwise harms children (like your "strong medication")? None. After all, someone with a different Holy Book demanding different teaching can say the very same thing, can't they. If we accept your justification, we'll now have to accept theirs. Even if their teaching is horribly racist or sexist.<br /><br />Maybe you'd accept that?Stephen Lawhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02167317543994731177noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1905686568472747305.post-54359912846911533562011-03-18T09:24:39.492+00:002011-03-18T09:24:39.492+00:00YOU SAID: Do you not know what "former" ...YOU SAID: Do you not know what "former" and "latter" mean? <br /><br />REPLY: yes you are quite right I got them wrong way round. dashed it off in a bit of a hurry.Stephen Lawhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02167317543994731177noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1905686568472747305.post-30634016364794247892011-03-18T09:22:38.846+00:002011-03-18T09:22:38.846+00:00I SAID: @This is very confused PJ. My point is not...I SAID: @This is very confused PJ. My point is not that things that do no harm aren't wrong. When did I say that?<br /><br />YOU SAID: The "this" that's confused I'll take to mean your reasoning. Arguing that something doesn't have to do harm to be wrong isn't the same as arguing against the idea of "what isn't harmful isn't wrong."<br /><br />REPLY. Well, yes, that's my point.Stephen Lawhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02167317543994731177noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1905686568472747305.post-51299346827928255162011-03-15T15:21:26.640+00:002011-03-15T15:21:26.640+00:00@This is very confused PJ. My point is not that th...@This is very confused PJ. My point is not that things that do no harm aren't wrong. When did I say that?<br /><br />The "this" that's confused I'll take to mean your reasoning. Arguing that something doesn't have to do harm to be wrong isn't the same as arguing against the idea of "what isn't harmful isn't wrong."<br /><br /><br />@My point is that causing serious harm to children is something we are within our rights to prevent foster parents doing<br /><br />From a moral standpoint, no, not when the supposed "harm" arises from parents teaching their children against perversion. Also, to argue that the consequences (real or imagined) of an action necessarily establish whether it's right or wrong is logically inept.<br /><br /><br />@Foster parents teaching children that same sex desire is ...perverse and if ever acted on sinful, etc. does do kids harm, much the same sort of harm that would be done by telling them opposite sex attraction is disordered, etc.<br /><br />More like the same "harm" we get from discouraging would-be child molesters. Again, you're trying to divorce context in your comparison. Besides the consequence not determining right or wrong anyway, it's ultimately for the child's best to help them avoid committing perverse actions, it's not in their best interests to try and make them avoid something that <b>is</b> morally right and healthy.<br /><br /><br />@The only reason you seem to have for saying no harm is done in the former case, though it is done in the latter, is that only same sex attraction is wrong.<br /><br />Do you not know what "former" and "latter" mean? Hint: "former" refers to the one that comes before. I didn't say everything about understanding the commands of God was always pleasant or easy, but it's always far better for the child to obey God than to live a life of sin. The situation is similar to strong medication given a patient for an otherwise terminal illness: the treatment itself often has some harsh effects it's true, but the alternative is far worse for those suffering. Of course it's harmful to give such drugs or treatment to the healthy, but they're not the ones in need of it.<br /><br /><br />@Great - so engaging in homosexuality does no harm. We are agreed on that!<br /><br />Talk about your absurd leaps of logic.... Seriously? You don't even understand the difference between choosing not to bring a point up and agreeing with it? Such irrational conclusions derived from lack of evidence demonstrate pretty well why your case is so logically hopeless.<br /><br /><br />Re:<br />JCT: Good enough for what/whom? You?"<br />SL: You, when it's someone else's Holy Book.<br /><br />But it is my book by virtue of my believing it (not writing it of course). If I accept its teachings, it's obviously already good enough for me. Your argument makes no sense whatsoever.<br /><br /><br />@You wouldn't accept that from someone waving a different Holy Book in your face. <br /><br />Why would I? I have a standard by which to judge their book's credibility.<br /><br /><br />@We are still waiting for a decent justification for this claim. "It says so in my Holy Book" is not good enough.<br /><br />In terms of what I'm teaching the children I raise, I've already defeated your argument by pointing out that you're simply shifting the burden of proof. So by what right or objective basis can one barge in claiming that my standard for teaching right from wrong to those in my care isn't "good enough?"J.C. Thibodauxhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12884600822119690931noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1905686568472747305.post-76474254169715538982011-03-14T22:09:38.038+00:002011-03-14T22:09:38.038+00:00[apologies for double posting - slight edit]
Righ...[apologies for double posting - slight edit]<br /><br />Right P.J. - so you are not arguing homosexuality does any harm. Just that's wrong. I say that justifying the claim that's it's wrong by saying "But it says so in my Holy Book" is not good enough. You say:<br /><br />P.J. "And upon what basis do you make such the apparently nonsensical assertion that it's not "good enough"? Good enough for what/whom? You?"<br /><br />You, when it's someone else's Holy Book.Stephen Lawhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02167317543994731177noreply@blogger.com