Hitler

Originally posted by Fetchmyjunk
When you say you would never tolerate the view that rape is not wrong you are being [b]intolerant./b]

How so? I believe rape is wrong. How is that "intolerant"? It's a moral stance. Moral stances involve finding actions to be morally sound or morally unsound. Having explained my moral stance, why would I accept rape as being morally sound?

Originally posted by FMF
How so? I believe rape is wrong. How is that "intolerant"? It's a moral stance. Moral stances involve finding actions to be morally sound or morally unsound. Having explained my moral stance, why would I accept rape as being morally sound?

So someone who finds homosexuality to be morally unsound is not being intolerant of homosexuals because they are taking a moral stance?

Originally posted by Fetchmyjunk
So someone who finds homosexuality to be morally unsound is not being intolerant of homosexuals because they are taking a moral stance?

I accept the stance by religionists that homosexuality is "sinful" and I can see how and why they conflate that with it being morally unsound.

[As you know, I perceive these two things to be separate and different, although I acknowledge that they overlap, in a sense.]

What I would find morally unsound regarding the issue of people disapproving of homosexuality is when or if this disapproval manifested itself in attempts to harm, deceive or coerce homosexuals, for example efforts to discriminate against, or punish, or imprison, or restrict the legal rights of homosexuals ~ for being homosexual. .

I do not think that someone who finds homosexuality to be morally unsound, is, for having that view, in and of itself, morally unsound. I don't subscribe to the notion of thoughtcrimes. I believe morality pertains to actions and interactions.

Originally posted by FMF
But aren't you intolerant of people who do hold the view that rape is not wrong?

According to you apparently I'm not if I'm taking a moral stance.

Originally posted by FMF
I accept the stance by religionists that homosexuality is "sinful" and I can see how and why they conflate that with it being morally unsound.

[As you know, I perceive these two things to be separate and different, although I acknowledge that they overlap, in a sense.]

What I would find morally unsound regarding the issue of people disapproving of homose ...[text shortened]... to the notion of thoughtcrimes. I believe morality pertains to actions and interactions.

How about efforts to discriminate against, or punish, or imprison, or restrict the legal rights of rapists ~ for being rapists?

-Removed-

Would you care to tell me why you think it's nonsense?

Originally posted by Fetchmyjunk
According to you apparently I'm not if I'm taking a moral stance.

I think you are trying a bit too hard and maybe posting a bit too often whilst having not enough to say. According to me... what? Huh? We both take the moral stance that rape is wrong. If you have something to put to me that isn't sheer sophistry, or isn't just dull trolling, please do so.

Originally posted by Fetchmyjunk
How about efforts to discriminate against, or punish, or imprison, or restrict the legal rights of rapists ~ for being rapists?

What about them? You already know that I think rape is a heinous moral atrocity and a vicious crime. Why would I be against punishing people who committed such crimes? If you have a point to make about the morality of rape, make it. At the moment you sound like you are just taking the piss, despite the gravity of the subject.

Originally posted by Fetchmyjunk
So someone who finds homosexuality to be morally unsound is not being intolerant of homosexuals because they are taking a moral stance?

I think homosexuals - just like with heterosexuals - who harm, deceive, or coerce others are engaging in morally unsound acts.

Originally posted by FMF
What about them? You already know that I think rape is a heinous moral atrocity and a vicious crime. Why would I be against punishing people who committed such crimes? If you have a point to make about the morality of rape, make it. At the moment you sound like you are just taking the piss, despite the gravity of the subject.

Since you believe there is no objective standard for right and wrong why do you think that your subjective opinion that rape is a moral atrocity is more correct than someone else's subjective opinion who does not hold the same view? Logically, one subjective opinion cannot any more correct than another subjective opinion.

Originally posted by FMF
I think homosexuals - just like with heterosexuals - who harm, deceive, or coerce others are engaging in morally unsound acts.

But if the the acts of harming, decieving and coercing are not intrinsically wrong why would someone who engages in those acts be committing a morally unsound act? Especially since moral justification can be provided for each of those specific acts. The acts of harming, deceiving and coercing cannot be the standard by which you classify an act as immoral, when moral justification can be provided for each specific act.

Earlier when you so preferred, you provided moral justification for the acts of harming and deceiving. Now a little later on, when you so prefer, you are using the exact same acts to for which you provided moral justification, to classify behavior as morally unsound.

Originally posted by Fetchmyjunk
But if the the acts of harming, decieving and coercing are not intrinsically wrong why would someone who engages in those acts be committing a morally unsound act? Especially since moral justification can be provided for each of those specific acts. The acts of harming, deceiving and coercing cannot be the standard by which you classify an act as immora ...[text shortened]... ame acts to for which you provided moral justification, to classify behavior as morally unsound.

What moral justification can be provided for rape? You have insisted over and over again that I am open to justifying rape and that I tolerate the idea that rape is not wrong but when asked to give me an example or a scenario of what this justification could be you have simply ignored it is if, in an essentially dishonest way, you think you have landed some sort of petty blow in the conversation and it's time to skulk away.

Morality is a set of principles that guide humans through infinite potential situations and dilemmas in their interactions, not a fanatical ideology, plucked from mythology about supernatural creatures, that seeks to render all those infinite potential situations and dilemmas identical.

Your assertions, views, interpretations, disingenuous approach to moral discourse, and pretentious self-anointment regarding morality appear to be functions of your personal preferences (at least as you yourself brandish the terminology) but you have blanked out every single attempt to discuss it because I think you you see morality as a topic befitting your penchant for rhetorical parlour tricks and gimmicks rather than a practical manual for navigating the realities of life.

Originally posted by FMF
What moral justification can be provided for rape? You have insisted over and over again that I am open to justifying rape and that I tolerate the idea that rape is not wrong but when asked to give me an example or a scenario of what this justification could be you have simply ignored it is if, in an essentially dishonest way, you think you have landed some sort ...[text shortened]... parlour tricks and gimmicks rather than a practical manual for navigating the realities of life.

You said the act of lying for example is morally justifiable when it is done to protect your family from harm. What then about the act of rape? Would the act of rape also be morally justifiable if it is done to protect your family from harm?