A perspective on why man must not sleep with man and why God hates that

Well if you can't explain what you said, then as you said, "of course" I can't be expected to know for sure what you're talking about.

 

You're making this more difficult than it needs to be.

Actually, many cultures that we consider 'naive' have virtually zero rates of cancer, so you're right... maybe we should one day eliminate surgeries because the lifestyles that we keep would make surgeries virtually obsolete. Maybe we should eliminate products that aren't really necessary. But at least with child birth, you get a child. All you get with a soft drink is bad teeth and a headache

If you want to believe that there is no inherent value in anything then I don't know what to say man. Some things don't require proof, or at least the kind of proof that you're looking for, once you drop that need, you'll be thankful and you'll see more of what's in front of you. Guaranteed - The proof that you are looking for is a man is just an argument and arguments are not real. Reality is real. Don't let arguments repaint the portrait of reality for you.

P.s. I know where you are coming from, I had the same worldview as you. We shouldn't separate ourselves with the rest of the world, and I agree... I can feel this connection to the rest of the world, but saying that some things are inherently wrong, like the case of unit 731, is just a matter of CONNECTING to the thing that you so want to remain connected to... you only CREATE the separation you and me are so against is when you say that everything is just a matter of perception. Refocus your connection.

 

No, because the concept of free will is a massive joke. Would you like to try to not be so condescending?

I've yet to see where you've tried to rationally explain why things have inherent values. So, to avoid further sidestepping that I predict, I will ask you again very directly.
Why do things have inherent values?

 

How did I know I was going to get some big circle of a thought in response. I'm trying to get you to simply explain your perspective, which, here is a hint, IS NOT RELIANT UPON MY PERSPECTIVE.
Why can't you just explain why you think things have inherent values?

 

And you called me lazy. It must nice being a robot, you don't think for yourself you don't make any choices and you don't take responsibility for your actions.

And it allows you to condone things like rape, mass murder, kidnapping, torture, muggings, robbery, beatings, slavery, genocide, etc

 

What was lazy? You asked me a question, and I responded by agreeing with the description you provided. If you wanted more, then you should have indicated so.

Additionally, I have never condoned any of the things you have mentioned. You seem to be completely incapable of thinking of things outside of the personal context. As I have said previously, this conversation was never about what I personally find right or wrong, but the nature of perception in general. To use a phrase you are so fond of, "What is so hard to understand?"

 

Nice dodge, but when you explain how I can be wrong in by beliefs, as you seem to be insisting, when you believe nothing is right or wrong, it will be easy to prove that things have inherent values.

See the fact is, because you can not prove me wrong and still hold to your belief that nothing is wrong or right, is proof that I am right. You're stuck in an endless philosophic loop, I didn't put you there your philosophy did. I'm free to say I'm right and you can't prove me wrong. It's your philosophy not mine.

You said you came to this philosophy because “labeled wrongs” lead to “persecution, hatred, anger and fear” but according to your philosophy these things are not “wrong” either and instead of fixing these “wrongs” you make them okay by saying there is nothing “wrong” with them. So now you are not only stuck with the problem that you sought to fix but now you’re stuck with condoning rape, mass murder, kidnapping, torture, muggings, robbery, beatings, slavery, genocide, etc as well. Now you may say that there is nothing “wrong” with that but my philosophy allows me to say you‘re on the wrong side and that you are defending some pretty awful things just so you can say that there is nothing wrong with homosexuality.

 

Interesting. Yes or no, are those things wrong?

 

It's really almost unbelievable how confused you are regarding this. What I'm trying to say is really quite simple. Things have no values until you perceive them. It's common sense. How could they have values otherwise?
You are stuck on "me", on the individuals having the conversation, and not the ideas being presented. In truth, what your "philosophy" compells you to do is desperately try to fit EVERYTHING you encounter into it, rather than ever letting it grow or evolve, thus leading to the rambling, misguided, tremendous circle of a thought that I quoted. One get's the image of a child attempting to put a square block in a circle hole.
I will ask you a fourth time, and if you refuse to answer again, please do not even respond to me further. Why do things have inherent values?

 

No, they are neither wrong nor right, they simply are, they have no inherent values by themselves, and only gain values when they are perceived and judged as right or wrong.

 

:svengo:

 

So you condone them, thank you very much.

 

How did I know that of all the points that could be disputed and argued in the context of this thread, it would be superficial semantics that you would jump all over?
If you want to get downright technical though, no, condone is not the word we are looking for here. Do I personally "condone" any of the acts you mentioned? No, not personally. Do I think they have inherent values? No, not that either.
Although I'm convinced at this point you are more interested in smearing me as a person rather than having a rational discussion.

 

So you keep saying have yet to prove or even attempt to prove.

Because I keep putting the conversation in a real setting instead of an imaginary one, you thinking I’m making it personal. I’m just making in realistic. Anything can be made to seem true until you try to use it in the real world. Your philosophy is a good example, as long as you keep saying remove everything that is real and you will see that what I’m saying is true, of course it is and as long as you live in that dream world it will continue to seem true. But as soon as I say okay let’s try it out in the real world, you cry foul, you’re making it personal. Well, I hate to break it to you but if it doesn’t work in the real world. Then it doesn’t work.

And then I’ll ask you for the fifth time and if you refuse to answer again, please do not even respond to me further. Why don’t things have inherent value? Things exist without you perceiving them, so why can’t they have value without you perceiving them?

 

It fits in the real world, it just doesn't fit in your perception of the real world.
And since you so adamantly refuse to explain why you think things have inherent value, I'll explain your position for you. You obviously don't want to because you are aware of how silly it is. You think things have inherent values because there is good and evil in the universe which is dictated by God. What God thinks is "right", is thus right for us, and what he thinks is "wrong" is wrong for us, which really goes a long way towards humanizing "God", doesn't it? Probably because people simply want to project those qualities of themselves onto a supreme authority figure so they don't have to be responsible for their own thoughts and judgements and discriminations. And to top things all off, you get what you think God to believe as right and wrong from an ancient book who's essence has been lost in translation.
There, was that so hard? Since you couldn't do that yourself, and you want to drag this out without even attempting to explain your position, this conversation may as well be over as far as I am concerned.

 

See where your philosophy leads you, nothing is right or wrong, yet I must be wrong and so disagreeing with you is smearing you as a person. My Pointing out to you that your philosophy leads to some pretty awful things being condoned, You instead of thinking well maybe my philosophy is wrong, start thinking my philosophy can't be wrong so he must be attacking me. Sorry but I'm just not, I have no opinion about you one way or another but your philosophy leaves a lot to be desired.

 

Now that you've tried to explain what I believe, if you don't mind, for the sixth time why is it that nothing is good or bad, right or wrong?

 

Alot to be desired....by you.
You aren't trying to smear me by disagreeing with me, but by offhand, condescending comments you continually make, at one point even causally asking me if I were on drugs.

 

Just as I said before, things do not gain value until they are perceived and judged by us. Perhaps it would help if we started off small, on something we can agree on. Is blue the best color? Are computers cool? What is the better pet, dogs or cats? Is watching T.V. fun or boring, or maybe something else?
As I think you agree, all of these decisions, opinions, and judgements people can make about these things occur within them after they have already perceived them and made a discrimination about them compared to something else. I think you will agree that these judgements are personal things, and vary easily from person to person, and without people, T.V. cannot be fun or boring, it can't be anything without someone to judge it as such.
It isn't really a leap in logic if you change the subject of what we are talking about. If the act of watching T.V. is an activity that only has value to someone who perceives the act of watching T.V., then where does the difference arise when we talk about genocide? It is the same principle.

 

I was joking and thought you would understand because of your comments about me but I see now that as long as it's you it's "right" but when it's me it's "wrong".