What Would it Take to Change your mind on ...

[Beavah]

Yah, trevorum, perhaps yeh can help me out.

 

What irrefutable evidence is there that stealing is wrong? I can't recall a peer reviewed scientific article on da subject. In fact, some of da psych studies and a reasonable view of natural selection suggest it is best to occasionally steal. Not enough to break trust with everybody, but enough to advance da cause of your own genetic material. We after all just went through one of da biggest episodes of organized theft in da history of the world, and all the perpetrators remain free and rolling in clover.

 

What irrefutable evidence is there that torture is wrong? It's been used by societies and governments for millennia to subjugate people with different genetic material, thereby advancing the genetic material of da torturers. In fact, conquest and rapine are so successful in terms of natural selection that some ridiculously large percentage of da world population are descendants of Ghengis Khan.

 

What irrefutable evidence is there that teen drug use is wrong? They're only hurting themselves, eh? They aren't hurting anybody else, and they're providing a market for da crop of impoverished Afghan poppy farmers. The majority of teen drug users end up leading relatively productive lives, and yeh can certainly find non-drug users who are more messed up.

 

Yeh can have irrefutable evidence of whether da solar system is heliocentric. But when it comes to morals and ethics and their development, da advances haven't ever in the history of humanity come from science. They've come from religion.

 

Science has, throughout human history, only given us better weapons and torture devices. And "reason" has been right there with 'em to justify their indiscriminate use.

 

Beavah(This message has been edited by Beavah)

[packsaddle]

Beavah, Scientific advancements made possible and led to the technologies you mention but it was human desire working with the marketplace that gave us those deadly products. Moreover, their subsequent application is entirely a matter of human desire.

 

As for the other things, you might want to ask Rumsfeld about torture. I'm sure he can provide so-called 'irrefutable evidence' that it IS good. Teen drug "use" might actually be good if it is applied to cure an illness (same as for other age groups, and it's not as if drug 'abuse' is good for anyone else, is it?). Stealing, like other forms of deception, serves to cause disorder in society. As if I needed to explain any of this to you.

 

Missed one part: you seem to be saying that persons without religion cannot be moral or ethical? Am I getting this right?(This message has been edited by packsaddle)

[Beavah]

Yah, pack, I was responding to Trevorum's argument, eh? Though I love da misdirection. Developing instruments whose sole purpose is torture and death, that's not science's responsibilty, that's "human desire" or "da marketplace.". But if a religious tenet is misused or misapplied, that's religion's fault for not being rational.

 

Trevorum made da following case:

, the more abundantly clear it becomes to me that the only irrefutable objection to homosexuality is based in religion. Some religions (not all as we have seen in some of the above comments) label homosexuality to be a moral transgression - a "sin". I say "irrefutable" because religious beliefs are immune to scientific evidence. That is to say, science could never yield evidence to convince someone that homosexuality is NOT a sin.

 

I'm asking for irrefutable scientific evidence for anything else we collectively agree is morally repugnant. Rapine? Like Ghengis Khan, advances the selection of genetic material. Genocide? Historically very effective at enhancing the selection of the genetic material of the winners. Torture? Not so good at finding the truth, but very effective at suppressing alternate ideas.

 

Da point is that science could never yield evidence that ANYTHING is a sin or not, eh? Moral judgments, though vital to humanity, are completely beyond scientific ken. All science has ever managed to do is multiply the technological leverage of da most aggressive humans. That's not a particularly illustrious moral record on which to build a case.

 

... is an adaptive trait that served to increase group fitness among evolving hominids (see my comment above).

 

Yah, I'm not an evolutionary biologist, eh? But this claim doesn't pass the sniff test.

 

That being said, it's irrelevant if there's a biological cause. There is likely a biological cause for alcoholism, but da practice of alcoholism is morally opposed, even if da only person being harmed is the alcoholic.

 

What does seem to be da case is the practice of homosexuality has been strongly selected against in da societies that have been historically successful. That is strong evidence that successful societies make it a taboo, no matter what a study of a few people conducted by a biased researcher in one town comes up with.

 

Beavah

[Trevorum]

"Yah, I'm not an evolutionary biologist, eh? But this claim doesn't pass the sniff test. "

 

I know, it doesn't seem to make intuitive sense, does it? But to evolutionary biologists, it makes a lot of sense. Of course, they're probably all left-wing wackos with a political agenda driving their research, so you don't have to take them seriously if ya don't want to ... It s a fairly complex idea to explain (and especially so to folks who don't understand evolution to begin with) and so I honestly don't expect it to get much traction outside of the field. At least, as Pack notes, not for a few decades ...

 

(edited poor writing)

 

 

(This message has been edited by trevorum)

[packsaddle]

OK, I think I see your argument with Trevorum now. Before I go on, I want to note that irrefutable evidence is not that hard to come by. To qualify as that, it just needs to be incapable of refutation, for whatever reason. Examples of this include observations that can never be made again. Often this kind of evidence is termed, 'anecdotal' and if it can't be subjected to examination, it is incapable of being refuted. It doesn't necessarily have to be strong evidence or even correct.

And refutable or not, it is only evidence and not necessarily conclusive, few things are in science although pragmatically, we often make tentative conclusions until something better comes along.

 

But I think you are using some confusing and perhaps conflicting ideas in your argument. In fact unless I read you wrong, you seem to be agreeing with Trevorum, although perhaps in an oblique way.

 

Trev said, "...the only irrefutable objection to homosexuality is based in religion."

Your argument is about irrefutable 'evidence'. You said, "I'm asking for irrefutable scientific evidence for anything else we collectively agree is morally repugnant."

I wonder why anyone would ask this if we are all in agreement in the first place? It just doesn't make sense.

 

A scientist would look for irrefutable evidence AGAINST it, and if none can be found, would tentatively accept the current idea, although he might continue to search for evidence against from other directions. For a scientist to look for evidence against something actually means he's looking for greater support for the idea, whatever it is. The more he tries to refute the idea, and fails, the more confidence there is in the idea. And if he does find evidence against it, the prize is having identified a weak or perhaps incorrect idea.

 

Trev argues that objections to homosexuality on the basis of science are refutable on the basis of group selection.

You argue that science can't serve as a moral basis in the first place.

 

Trev argues that the only basis for objection to homosexuality is in religion - that since religious beliefs are incapable of refutation on a rational basis, religious objections to homosexuality ARE irrefutable.

You argue that religion is the only basis for morality. I suspect you might also agree that the religious basis is irrefutable, I might be wrong.

 

I have this mental image of the two of you, yelling at each other at each end of a bridge. Trouble is, you're on two separate bridges and while you can't actually see the other guy, you can hear him so you just imagine what you want at the other end of your own bridge.

 

Either you two are both arguing straw men which neither of you understand and neither of which actually characterize the other's line of reasoning...or else you seem to be in agreement.

 

Alternatively, you might just have me confused...a distinct possibility.

[Trevorum]

Pack, I know what you mean about talking past each other. This is not the first time I've had this experience with ol' Beavah. I think we secretly agree but just don't want to admit it to each other. I am also starting to think that Beav might be a closet UU, the way he loves to debate (no offense intended there, Beav!)

 

[BDPT00]

I happen to like Beav's stance on this. People who argue try to do so with facts. Beav has people talking in circles. I'd say that puts him out front at the moment. If he's wrong, say so, and explain how or why.

The American Psychiatric whatever they call themselves seem to have the corner on the market regarding the genetic vs environmental argument, yet have absolutely no proof to back up their position. Once published, however, their position becomes fact for everyone else. Where's the beef?

The original question asked what it would take to change my mind. Proof would help.

BDPT00

 

[Beavah]

I am also starting to think that Beav might be a closet UU, the way he loves to debate

 

Nah, those UU folks are too wishy-washy for me. I reckon I have a professional interest in argumentation which is hard to outgrow.

 

B

 

[NJCubScouter]

BDPT00, no, Beavah is not "out front" in this discussion at all. I think a lot of people are just tired of discussing this. Beavah is very clever in using analogies, but they don't work. I don't need a big discussion to know that a gay person is not doing anything inherently wrong, while a thief is. Beavah is just trying to use "logic" to justify what he thinks the Bible says.

 

To respond to somebody else, I don't know who, I find that the expression "hate the sin, love the sinner" is often used as a cover for hatred of both. I don't really detect a lot of love flowing around, when people are explaining why it's ok to exclude and oppress gay people.

[Eagledad]

>>I don't need a big discussion to know that a gay person is not doing anything inherently wrong,

[funscout]

I'm not sure why some people think that my believing that practicing homosexuality is wrong means that I am discriminating and hateful. I have worked with gay folks before, and I never treated them differently than my other co-workers. Mormons think using caffeine is wrong, but that doesn't make them haters of coffee drinkers!

[NJCubScouter]

Eagledad,

 

So if divorce is a sin, does that mean the BSA should ban divorced people from being leaders? Some units may do that now, especially if the circumstances of the divorce suggest other immoral acts by the leader, such as adultery. But other units don't care, and there is no national policy prohibiting divorced leaders. In effect, there is a local option. This is in contrast with homosexuality, where units don't get a choice. Gay leaders are banned regardless of whether they, or their unit, thinks a sin is being committed, and regardless of what the local unit wants.

 

So to paraphrase George Orwell, it looks like some "sins" are more equal than others.

 

Although I have to agree with you that in some cases divorce IS "wrong" (whether you use the word "sin" is up to you), but in many of those cases the real "wrong" may have been the two people getting married in the first place.

[OldGreyEagle]

I have to ask,

 

Eldrick (Tiger) and Elin Woods are now divorced

 

Did Tiger sin?

Did Elin sin?

[Scoutfish]

Funscout,

 

I think what you are doing makes all the difference in the world!

If you do not agree with somebody's lifestyle...that's your right and I do not blame you.

 

The key thing is, you are still treeating them as equals.

 

That's cool with me.

 

I perdsonally do not agree with things alot of people do, but still treat them equally as me, for I know there are things I do that others do not agree with.

 

Equal treatmewnt is the key thing, not having to completely agree with or embace others ideals.

[Beavah]

So to paraphrase George Orwell, it looks like some "sins" are more equal than others.

 

Yah, whoever said that sins were equal, eh? Dat's no more the case than all violations of law or custom are equal.

 

You're mixin' up two different things, eh? One is whether an act is morally sound, da other is whether a government or social institution should impose sanctions for it. Unless yeh adhere to something like Islamic Sharia, those are two different questions. Yeh can believe that homosexual activity or divorce are wrong and also believe that da BSA should allow individual COs to determine criteria for leadership in their own units.

 

But da key to local option is mutual respect, eh? Which includes not disparaging some units and COs for "oppressing" someone just because they don't feel the person is the sort of mentor for youth that they want. As ScoutFish implies, local option can't work without that mutual respect.

 

Beavah

 

(This message has been edited by Beavah)