So, it turns out that the Florida Shooter was Gay

Originally posted by FMF
Good grief, josephw. What kind of debating is this? Like I said, I have already answered this question. I did so on page 14.

Perhaps you don't understand the question.

You have said that I derive my morality from the Bible, or in other words to that effect. I'm simply trying to learn from you what your source is from which you derive yours.

You're not usually this tightlipped. It shouldn't be that difficult for you to give a simple and concise answer.

Originally posted by josephw
It shouldn't be that difficult for you to give a simple and concise answer.

My answer - which you have been ignoring for 12 or so pages - was a simple and concise one and it is on page 14.

http://www.redhotpawn.com/forum/general/so-it-turns-out-that-the-florida-shooter-was-gay.169103/page-14#post_3597596

Originally posted by FMF
My answer - which you have been ignoring for 12 or so pages - was a simple and concise one and it is on page 14.

http://www.redhotpawn.com/forum/general/so-it-turns-out-that-the-florida-shooter-was-gay.169103/page-14#post_3597596

If can't understand the question, then just say so.

You did not answer the question I am posing to you now on page 14.

You said you try to be forthright and honest. I guess that's part of your moral code, but you're not doing that just now.

From whence do you derive your moral code? I'm not asking what it your moral code is. I'm asking you to tell me what is the source from which you derive your moral code.

You told me what mine was. Be forthright and answer the question if you can.

Originally posted by josephw
From whence do you derive your moral code? I'm not asking what it your moral code is. I'm asking you to tell me what is the source from which you derive your moral code.

You're trying to be funny, presumably. For pages and pages, you've been pretending that you didn't say what you clearly said on page 7. And now you are pretending that I didn't give a simple and concise answer to your question on page 14. It is, as you well know, in my 6th post on that page. Now. There you go. You can no longer pretend that I didn't answer it directly and immediately when I was asked. 😉

Originally posted by FMF
You're trying to be funny, presumably. For pages and pages, you've been pretending that you didn't say what you clearly said on page 7. And now you are pretending that I didn't give a simple and concise answer to your question on page 14. It is, as you well know, in my 6th post on that page. Now. There you go. You can no longer pretend that I didn't answer it directly and immediately when I was asked. 😉

"I believe that, being the social creatures that we are, that wanting or needing to act in a morally sound way is innate within us and this is nurtured in us by our families and our communities."

A moral code of self righteousness.

Originally posted by josephw
[b]"I believe that, being the social creatures that we are, that wanting or needing to act in a morally sound way is innate within us and this is nurtured in us by our families and our communities."

A moral code of self righteousness.[/b]

yup thats about it smack bang right on the button!

Originally posted by josephw
A moral code of self righteousness.

I think that morality is something innate within us - I think it defines us as humans and sets us apart from the rest of the animal kingdom.

It is nurtured in us by our families and our communities and our diverse societies. Indeed, it is the very thing that makes human society function, and that is probably exactly why it developed and evolved.

Philosophers - and, in a way, theologians and religious people too - have been pondering it in their various ways for as long as humans have existed.

Originally posted by FMF
You're trying to be funny, presumably. For pages and pages, you've been pretending that you didn't say what you clearly said on page 7. And now you are pretending that I didn't give a simple and concise answer to your question on page 14. It is, as you well know, in my 6th post on that page. Now. There you go. You can no longer pretend that I didn't answer it directly and immediately when I was asked. 😉

This accusing everyone of attempting to be funny is rather tawdry and not working for you. We've seen it already countless times.

Originally posted by josephw
A moral code of self righteousness.

That you think your personal preference for Christianity [and the way it seems to enable you to abstain from putting forward any actual arguments and just cite your religious beliefs instead] can somehow simply be superimposed onto all the homosexuals in the world and their "supporters" ~ is surely textbook "self righteousness", right?

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
This accusing everyone of attempting to be funny is rather tawdry and not working for you. We've seen it already countless times.

Telling me over and over and over again that I hadn't answered his question when I had, and he surely knew it, was surely josephw trying to be funny. The same can be said for his bizarre denials that he has condemned homosexuals even when the bits where he did were quoted verbatim. It must be a brand of 'funny'. What else could it be? 😉

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
This accusing everyone of attempting to be funny is rather tawdry and not working for you. We've seen it already countless times.

Accusing you of attempting to be funny - as I often do because it is often the only way to explain the kind of stuff that you post - can hardly be described as "accusing everyone", now can it?

As you said back in February, when you were apologizing - insincerely, as it turned out - for repeatedly insinuating that I was a pedophile when you were faring badly in some discussion about something else - "I just want to make fun of people and have people make fun of me and to talk copious amounts of dwool". In this matter, I have taken you at your word.

Originally posted by FMF
Telling me over and over and over again that I hadn't answered his question when I had, and he surely knew it, was surely josephw trying to be funny. The same can be said for his bizarre denials that he has condemned homosexuals even when the bits where he did were quoted verbatim. It must be a brand of 'funny'. What else could it be? 😉

On the contrary is simply proves that you are uncomfortable being given the same treatment that you mete out to others and the only way you seem to be able to deal with it is to accuse others of trying to be funny. Its not working for you, sorry.

Originally posted by josephw
You have said that I derive my morality from the Bible, or in other words to that effect. I'm simply trying to learn from you what your source is from which you derive yours.

If your Bible makes you not want live a homosexual life or makes you disapprove of homosexuals because their sexual orientation is different from yours, then fair enough.

But when you condemn people sticking up for their human rights, and you start comparing homosexuals to murderers, and talking in terms of homosexuality being proscribed by law, then I think your personal religious-based discomfort with such people is not only extraordinarily self-righteous, but it's getting translated into something harmful and unjust too.

If you believe humans should live under theocracies then you will perhaps disagree with me. But I don't think you actually do want people to live under theocracies. Instead I think you simply haven't thought through what you have said about the criminalization of homosexuality, that's all.

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
On the contrary is simply proves that you are uncomfortable being given the same treatment that you mete out to others and the only way you seem to be able to deal with it is to accuse others of trying to be funny. Its not working for you, sorry.

josephw's impervious denial of what he had said explicitly on page 7 was nothing if not comical. If that is, in your estimation, "accusing everyone of attempting to be funny", then so be it.

Originally posted by FMF
Accusing you of attempting to be funny - as I often do because it is often the only way to explain the kind of stuff that you post - can hardly be described as "accusing everyone", now can it?

As you said back in February, when you were apologizing - insincerely, as it turned out - for repeatedly insinuating that I was a pedophile when you were faring badly ...[text shortened]... of me and to talk copious amounts of dwool". In this matter, I have taken you at your word.[/b]

You seem to be unaware that what one persons says at a particular point in time does not necessarily mean that they hold that perspective at every other time too. To do so is to assume that people have no emotions or that they feel the same way all the time or that they never change. Are you now willing to state that that is the case? No then your silly and quite useless attempt to retrospectively troll by dragging something up from the past, in a particular context and to attempt to utilise it at some other point is quite frankly the most absurd thing I have the misfortune to come across and perhaps sums up the desperate state you are willing to go to when you have nothing of any substance with which to attack and attempt to humiliate people as is your usual mode of conduct. Is it any wonder that you are not to be taken seriously?

I suspect that this tin star badge that you wear as forum sheriff as you drag people to account for what they have said, or allegedly said is simply another manifestation of your self righteousness for it becomes apparent that the standards they are being held accountable to are yours. When one asks who appointed you judge it also becomes evident that it must also then be you. You are a self certified, self appointed, self righteous judge. Isn't that pattern interesting?