Re: Do philosophical theories
When **there is no concept of consent in animals **then there is no such thing as rape of animals.
Finally!!!
Yes, you are absolutely right here,( the bold part) that there is no concept of consent in animals and thats exactly why sex with them is illegal. thanks for making my case. :)
Re: Do philosophical theories
Finally!!! Yes, you are absolutely right here (for once) that there is no concept of consent in animals and thats exactly why sex with them is illegal. thanks for making my case. :)
But you are the one using 'lack of consent' as reason against bestiality, but you ate animal(s) without having their consents.
I never started the concept of consent to prove my ideas.
You and ........a large majority of Hindus and non-Hindus eat animals and enjoy it.
Are they all including you.......doing something illegal?
Re: Do philosophical theories
Why are you comparing sex to eating the animal again? 
and then you lie later on and deny comparing the two. brilliant diwana logic 
ok now you really dont make any sense. what concept are you trying to even prove now? this is a new one.
LOL you’re implying I am Hindu? i love how anyone who disagrees with you becomes a hindu! makes perfect sense right.
Re: Do philosophical theories
Not sure you follow hinduism but your reaction was surprising.
I said non-hindus too. Read above again.
Chor Ki darhi mein tinka.
Busted! 
Re: Do philosophical theories
Not sure you follow hinduism but your reaction was surprising.
I said non-hindus too. Chor Ki darhi mein tinka.
Busted! :)
You have been implying for a long time that I am indian and hindu as well. not just me but many who disagree with you get called indian and hindus. according to you, no muslim or pakistani can have a different view than you.
Anyway, you can think whatever you want regarding my faith, doesn't change the fact that you have lost every argument on every thread, despite of desperate efforts.
:)
Re: Do philosophical theories
You have been implying for a long time that I am indian and hindu as well. not just me but many who disagree with you get called indian and hindus. according to you, no muslim or pakistani can have a different view than you.
Anyway, you can think whatever you want regarding my faith, doesn't change the fact that you have lost every argument on every thread, despite of desperate efforts. :)
Never accused you Indian or hindu.
You took that upon yourself by being defensive.
Re: Do philosophical theories
Never accused you Indian or hindu.
You took that upon yourself by being defensive.
you have been implying that for a while now in many different posts. once again please stop being dishonest
Re: Do philosophical theories
you have been implying that for a while now in many different posts. once again please stop being dishonest
Implying? :D
You did not have to but you walked right in to unintentional trap.
Re: Do philosophical theories
Implying? :D
You did not have to but you walked right in to unintentional trap.
Huh? LOL whats your point, or do you even have one?
Re: Do philosophical theories
From the conversation so far between bella88 and diwana is that ...
Bella88 says consent is necessary for an act of sex with another to be allowed
consent for animals is not real
consent for children is not real
consent for diseased (indeterminate)
but consent for homosexual adults is real
this is based on the idea that consent determines whether another is being harmed
So if it is about harm then diwana says that does not apply to eating, because that is necessarily harm and no consent is required ... But then that causes a discontinuity between harm of animal in sex to harm of animal for food he is asking why if harm is the criteria of right and wrong is sex not allowed with animals yet eating them is allowed?
Diwana is arguing for the right and wrong in sex not to be taken from the point of view of consent, but from what is natural in the sense that is serves a biological function which is not rooted in the psyche but in the reproductive order and in a biological majority for the species.
I wonder if bella88 thinks people who are sexually inclined to animals and children are sick or not? And if so, what makes them sick and homosexuals not? Inclination has nothing to do with the actual act ... It is merely an impulse ... Should homosexuals be allowed to nurture their inclinations through engaging in homosexual activity be considered acceptable while those of other inclinations deemed not acceptable, neither in inclination nor in the act ... then there is a major inconsistency here.
Why is it that bella88 has an opinion that is conforming to current view of modern western society which allows multiple heterosexual partners and homosexual activity ... But not the other forms of deviation?
Is it true that bella88 might simply be justifying the norms of today rather than looking for a philosophical answer to the question of homosexuality?
Re: Do philosophical theories
From the conversation so far between bella88 and diwana is that ...
Bella88 says consent is necessary for an act of sex with another to be allowed consent for animals is not real consent for children is not real consent for diseased (indeterminate) but consent for homosexual adults is real
this is based on the idea that consent determines whether another is being harmed
So if it is about harm then diwana says that does not apply to eating, because that is necessarily harm and no consent is required ... But then that causes a discontinuity between harm of animal in sex to harm of animal for food he is asking why if harm is the criteria of right and wrong is sex not allowed with animals yet eating them is allowed?
what is your point psyah? in your opinion, is having sex with an animal the same thing as eating it?
diwana is desperately trying to speak against homosexuals without using religion and now you are doing the same thing.
[quote]
Diwana is arguing for the right and wrong in sex not to be taken from the point of view of consent, but from what is natural in the sense that is serves a biological function which is not rooted in the psyche but in the reproductive order and in a biological majority for the species.
[/quote]
diwana thinks homosexuality is wrong as per his religion. but instead of using religion as the reason, he's trying to use his own made up theories to justify why its wrong. sex is not done by heterosexuals for reproduction only and you know that very well. 90% of the time, even married couples have sex NOT with the intention of getting pregnant. so your argument is completely baseless
[quote]
I wonder if bella88 thinks people who are sexually inclined to animals and children are sick or not? And if so, what makes them sick and homosexuals not? Inclination has nothing to do with the actual act ... It is merely an impulse ... Should homosexuals be allowed to nurture their inclinations through engaging in homosexual activity be considered acceptable while those of other inclinations deemed not acceptable, neither in inclination nor in the act ... then there is a major inconsistency here.
[/quote]
again you're mixing abuse and consenual sex together. no one is harmed in homosexuality, yet someone is harmed in pedophilia. so how can you compare the 2 ?
[quote]
Why is it that bella88 has an opinion that is conforming to current view of modern western society which allows multiple heterosexual partners and homosexual activity ... But not the other forms of deviation?
[/quote]
having multiple partners is somones personal matter, there is no reason why you shouldn't be allowed to. if you dont like it, you dont need to do it, very simple. something that doesn't affect or harm anyone shouldn't be criminal. also in many cultures, polygamy is viewed very immoral. so you see, your standard of morality is very different from some other people.
[quote]
Is it true that bella88 might simply be justifying the norms of today rather than looking for a philosophical answer to the question of homosexuality?
[/quote]
science has come a long way to recognize homosexuality as a normal variant of sexual orientation. you can deny all you want but majority of the scientists and psychiatrist agree with this. you can come up with all sorts of things to make it sound 'wrong', but as of right now, science disagrees with you. you have your reasoning and i have mine. yours is backed by faith, mine is based by science.
there is a reason why NO major medical organization considers homosexuality as a disease or psychiatric problem. you can disagree all you want, but there is a reason why psychiatrists donot view it as a disorder.
also, next time, instead of trying to analyze my argument with diwana, you should come up with your own argument.
Re: Do philosophical theories
^ much respect.
Re: Do philosophical theories
I never brought religion in the discussion to support my views. But bella keeps having this delusion.
Science has not determined homosexuality is a normal variant. Only some idiot filp flop scientists under political pressure issued statement and their opinions. Without ANY scientific evidence.
Re: Do philosophical theories
From the conversation so far between bella88 and diwana is that ...
Bella88 says consent is necessary for an act of sex with another to be allowed consent for animals is not real consent for children is not real consent for diseased (indeterminate) but consent for homosexual adults is real
this is based on the idea that consent determines whether another is being harmed
So if it is about harm then diwana says that does not apply to eating, because that is necessarily harm and no consent is required ... But then that causes a discontinuity between harm of animal in sex to harm of animal for food he is asking why if harm is the criteria of right and wrong is sex not allowed with animals yet eating them is allowed?
Diwana is arguing for the right and wrong in sex not to be taken from the point of view of consent, but from what is natural in the sense that is serves a biological function which is not rooted in the psyche but in the reproductive order and in a biological majority for the species.
I wonder if bella88 thinks people who are sexually inclined to animals and children are sick or not? And if so, what makes them sick and homosexuals not? Inclination has nothing to do with the actual act ... It is merely an impulse ... Should homosexuals be allowed to nurture their inclinations through engaging in homosexual activity be considered acceptable while those of other inclinations deemed not acceptable, neither in inclination nor in the act ... then there is a major inconsistency here.
....
Basically!
Bella has no ground to stand to bring consent as a factor to make something right and wrong. Period.
Re: Do philosophical theories
Basically!
Bella has no ground to stand to bring consent as a factor to make something right and wrong. Period.
you have not yet given one valid reason why homosexuality is wrong.
Re: Do philosophical theories
I never brought religion in the discussion to support my views. But bella keeps having this delusion.
You come up with your own reasoning to make something right or wong. lol who gave you that authority?
[quote]
Science has not determined homosexuality is a normal variant. Only some idiot filp flop scientists under political pressure issued statement and their opinions. Without ANY scientific evidence.
[/quote]
LOL the vast majority of psychiatrist and scientists consider it a normal variant. but ofcourse, you know more than all the scientists and psychiatrists around the world.
please give me 1 reason why it's not considered a medical disorder in US, UK, Canada, Australia, and all of europe?
Re: Do philosophical theories
Form very beginning I told you you are no different from senseless followers of so called religious leaders.
You follow so called scientists just like that.
Do you even know Psychiatry is not science at all?
Have you even read ANY psychiatry book let alone understand it…like I asked you before?
Do you have any idea how this wrongful act of homosexuality got the seal of approval by some idiot ‘psychiatrists’? One person among them actually found to be flip flopping and simply changed his position and then again.
And you follow them? 
Read, learn and then argue.
Re: Do philosophical theories
should i follow you instead? excuse me for following science and reasoning. some of us like to use our brains unlike you.
yes i have. plenty. I have also read plenty of books explaining sexual orientation and homosexuality..
do you know how wrongful it is to accuse homosexuals of being wrong? do you know how wrongful it is to suggest that it’s a choice. do you know how arrogant you sound when you call scientists and psychiatrist dumb? its like noone knows has any knowledge except diwana lol
one person among how many? lol.
do you know how many psychiatrist in the world suggest homosexuality is normal? if it were a minority then maybe you would have a point. but VAST MAJORITY around the WORLD think of it as normal. ab sub ghalat hain per diwana theek hai…
who should i follow, YOU? 
btw whenever i mention, you follow just religious texts, you get all upset and worked up over that. grow up a little. if you can accuse me of following something blindly, i can also say you’re just a blind follower of a book written over a 1000 year ago.. but when i say that, i become an anti-pakistan anti-islam pro-hindu and 100% indian agent… such double standards even in your accusations
Re: Do philosophical theories
should i follow you instead? excuse me for following science and reasoning. some of us like to use our brains unlike you.
yes i have. plenty. I have also read plenty of books explaining sexual orientation and homosexuality..
do you know how wrongful it is to accuse homosexuals of being wrong? do you know how wrongful it is to suggest that it's a choice. do you know how arrogant you sound when you call scientists and psychiatrist dumb? its like noone knows has any knowledge except diwana lol
**one person among how many? **lol. do you know how many psychiatrist in the world suggest homosexuality is normal? if it were a minority then maybe you would have a point. but VAST MAJORITY around the WORLD think of it as normal. ab sub ghalat hain per diwana theek hai... :)
who should i follow, YOU? :p btw whenever i mention, you follow just religious texts, you get all upset and worked up over that. grow up a little. if you can accuse me of following something blindly, i can also say you're just a blind follower of a book written over a 1000 year ago.. but when i say that, i become an anti-pakistan anti-islam pro-hindu and 100% indian agent... such double standards even in your accusations
You do not follow science. You follow people who YOU THINK are scientists.
Forget about plenty, if you really had read even one book on psychiatry/psychology book, you would not have called psychiatrists 'scientists'.
*Just like little kids who wear adult shoes do not become adults or grown up, posting by you and spreading uneducated comments online including philosophy section does not make you mature!!!
*
In essence you have no idea about how those stupid people made homosexuality not a disease.
And by the way: That ONE person you admit being an idiot was the one who played leadership role in making homosexuality CLOSE to normal. It was still not considered completely normal and some room was left in there. This man peed in his pants (figuratively speaking) when homosexual lobby threatened, used force and abusive tactics.
Read bella read, then learn and.... then argue. I am not going to spoon feed you like a child all the time.
P.S. I deliberately did not give you the name of that person to se if you even knew, but you blew up by your utter ignorance of the topic and said " One person out of how many? ".
Shows how illiterate are you on this discussion. Once again.
**As to the books written 1000 or more years ago, you are incapable of discussing that. So do not ever bother bringing scriptures or religions in to this discussion. I never did. ........ Since I know you have been itching all over to talk about and bashing religions and scriptures and I shunned you every time. Understood?
**
Re: Do philosophical theories
uff the tension between you two. diwanoo, play nice. bella, want a sip of my soda? is very yum and thandaa.