[R.M. Schultz]That Axis History Forum Guy Again...

[Big Orange]

But in a free society, such as the one Alan Turing lived in, social order is not maintained by force but rather by the good behavior of the citizens and respect for the rule of law becomes a moral obligation.

Blah, blah, 1940s Britain was a "free" society with half the laws and social obligations that Turing had to follow getting abolished or looked down upon as wrong by the 1960s onwards. And you're still implying that homosexuality is "wrong" while the legal prosecution of homosexuals is "right". It's 2006, not 1946.

And if I had my say in the Imperial Senate, I would vote for your banishment from this forum as well, R.M. Schultz, since you do not listen to reason.

[Keevan_Colton]

I like how one murder is apparently morally less reprehensible than another because the victim could have not done something the murderer didnt like...

This is a wonderful variation on the "She had it coming, wearing those short skirts..." rapist defense.

Come on Shitz, why does your idea of "they dont have to be gay?" help make the murder less reprehensible?

I'll let others nail you on the assanine bullshit of the being gay argument, but I seriously want to know why this idea of yours helps make mass murder less reprehensible...

[Wyrm]

OK R.M. Shultz, since you have been totally evasive about the subject upon which you were challenged earlier, I have three questions:

10 Do you have any evidence whatsoever to support your bizarre claims about the way sexuality works? If not, then will you concede that your claims are unsubstantiated? And do not say "personal experience".

Look, I have offered an hypothesis to explain human sexual behavior and I have offered to defend it against any reasoned argument.

Which you have yet to do. You have not, Mr. Schultz, explained how your 'thesis' explains how there can be homosexuals at all, let alone the entire heterosexual/homosexual spectrum that we actually observe.

The only response I have gotten (aside from infantile name-calling) has been a chorus insisting that “homosexuality is biologically determined.”

Because the weight of the scientific evidence points in that direction, fuckface.

This answer does not explain how significant numbers of people routinely change their orientation, whereas my theory does.

Have people changed their orientation? Do the psychological metrics used to diagnose sexual orientation show that people do indeed purposefully change their orientation? Or do you actually swallow the claptrap of the "homosexual reeducation" faction's claims that they have make gay people straight, hook, line and sinker?

A phenomenon that doesn't exist requires no explanation.

Will someone please offer a theory that is comprehensive enough to include the idea that sexual orientation is fixed while simultaneously accounting for how in many cases it is not?

Simple. You haven't proved that people do really substantially change orientation, fuckface, as opposed to just SAYING that they change orientation because they are under pressure to do so. The phenomenon you "explain" is not observed, therefore, we do not have to explain it.

2) Do you have any response to the argument that the only way to escape these programs was to deceive the authorities about your true nature, either for Jews or homosexuals?

Supposing you were born Jewish — how could someone tell? Well, there would be your birth certificate which, until fairly recently, listed the parents religious affiliation. There would also be records of temple membership and a corresponding lack of baptismal records. If that didn’t do it, the Nazis were quite willing to go back to the eighteenth century with records or one’s forbearers. Ultimately, you were simply trapped.

Ah, but it does require you to go back through the records to hunt for a name. Do you think they did this for absolutely EVERYONE who walked through their door? No way! They asked around. Neighbors, friends, the local grocier.

If you move to a new neighborhood, change your name and refrain from practicing Judeism, then divining you are a Jew becomes much harder. The Nazis were NOT about to hunt through the records of everyone in their country and everyone they capture. The task grows intractible very quickly without the help of computers.

But if you were gay, all you had to do was keep your pants up and for all legal purposes cease to be gay!

Bullshit. History has shown that such activities get driven underground. It happened with Prohibition, it happened with the War on Drugs, and it will certainly happen with anti-sodomy laws.

When you make a law, people will break it. So the question is, are the people breaking the law actually doing something wrong?

I guess the issue here ultimately comes down to respect for the rule of law. In a totalitarian state one really does not owe the government any loyalty and is not bound, morally at least, to follow the laws. But in a free society, such as the one Alan Turing lived in, social order is not maintained by force but rather by the good behavior of the citizens and respect for the rule of law becomes a moral obligation.

So, again, by this argument, blacks should've kept their mouths shut, their assholes open and receptive, and never engaged in the prolonged period of organized civil disobediance called the Civil Rights movement, because their country had not yet crossed the line into the totalitarianistic domain. This is just more legalistic bullshit. A wrong law should be challenged, and if you're in the minority, the prelude to striking down an unjust law is to break it; to challenge a law in our legal court, you have to have standing.

There are going to be bad laws in any system, but in a democratic system our duty is not to pick-and-choose which laws we will follow, but to endeavor to change those laws we disagree with at the ballot box.

So tough cheese if you're in a minority, eh? Fuck you, shitchugger!

Thus I would maintain that the Nazi persecution of Jews, Slavs, and Gypsies was of an order of magnitude worse than the persecution of Homosexuals, Jehovah’s Witnesses, and Communists, while the persecution of Allan Turing was (however foolish and misguided) accomplished within the rule of laws that he was obliged to obey. Sure what happened to Alan Turing was tragic, but he could have acted differently and avoided it.

In other words, Alan Turing should've taken the injustice up the ass like a good little boy. Fuck you, again!

3) Would you make the same moral argument about (for example) a law mandating the execution of all Christians, since Christianity is definitely far more of a voluntary choice than homosexuality is?

While I favor religious liberty I also recognize that I live in a democracy where my views are not always going to prevail. The traditional Christian response to persecution is the acceptance of martyrdom — not a lot of sore-headed belly-aching!

Actually, I can make an argument that the fundamentialist flavor of Christianity (and most of the Abrahamic religions) are pretty toxic to any real morality you care to name. I'm soooo glad to see that you're agreeable to the Abrahamic Purge. Into the death chambers!

Well, bully for the Christian's acceptance of martyrdom. Too bad nobody asked the poofters and the kikes and the niggers whether they wanted to be persecuted.

Kindly go fuck yourself!

[General Zod]

>snip long winded bullshittery<

I love the way you continually contradict yourself. You keep saying discriminatory hate laws based on race are evil, but hate laws based on so-called choices aren't as evil. By your idiot logic, Rosa Parks should have mindlessly obeyed the law and gone to the back of the bus for the sake of being a dutiful citizen, nevermind that the laws at the time were completely bigoted and unjust. Or are you simply so fucking stupid that you don't realise that sometimes the only way to get an unacceptable law changed is to get enough people to break it?

If you're going to make laws against something, make them based on actual harm. Not some asinine logic like whether it's a choice a lot of people happen to not like. So, tell me dipshit. How are two consenting men fucking each other harming anyone else in any way whatsoever? Or are you simply going to ignore me again?

[Beppo Schmidt]

The only response I have gotten (aside from infantile name-calling) has been a chorus insisting that “homosexuality is biologically determined.” This answer does not explain how significant numbers of people routinely change their orientation, whereas my theory does.

I'm a little dubious of people who claim to have changed their sexual orientation, particularly when said people than become poster boys for anti-gay organizations aimed at "turning people straight". There have been numerous examples of people who supposedly "became" heterosexual but in reality turned out to still have homosexual affairs "on the side" or had simply learned to repress their sexual orientation. Suppressing or hiding your sexual orientation is not the same as changing it.

While I agree with most of your views on what "causes" homosexuality (I'm gay) rather than R.M. Schultz's, it doesn't say much for your maturity level that you can't make your arguments without calling him a "fuckface", an "asshat", or "an unforgivable and pathetic monster". I have often disagreed with him, but I have never resorted to calling him names. However valid the point you are trying to make may be, you lose your credibility when you call names like little children.

[Einhander Sn0m4n]

When you make a law, people will break it. So the question is, are the people breaking the law actually doing something wrong?

To him, yes, because they're breaking the law. There's a law because someone in power feels or once felt it's wrong. And then it's wrong because they're breaking the law...

[Wanderer]

"Snip useless bullshit"

But if you were gay, all you had to do was keep your pants up and for all legal purposes cease to be gay!

What business is it of the law to say how consenting adults should frack and who they frack? Fuck it.

Save Mike the trouble and leave. You are useless and unrepentant.




P.S. To the SD.net member who made this, I forgot who you are, I couldn't resist.

[Morilore]

Look, I have offered an hypothesis to explain human sexual behavior and I have offered to defend it against any reasoned argument. The only response I have gotten (aside from infantile name-calling) has been a chorus insisting that “homosexuality is biologically determined.” This answer does not explain how significant numbers of people routinely change their orientation, whereas my theory does. Will someone please offer a theory that is comprehensive enough to include the idea that sexual orientation is fixed while simultaneously accounting for how in many cases it is not?

You don't get it. Your argument doesn't automatically get to be the defendant just because you proposed it. If it did, I could say "R.M. Schultz is a murderer" and then go "I'm willing to defend this position against reasoned argument, but all I'm getting a chorus of 'no he's not.'" Lack of positive evidence = FAIL.

Supposing you were born Jewish — how could someone tell? Well, there would be your birth certificate which, until fairly recently, listed the parents religious affiliation. There would also be records of temple membership and a corresponding lack of baptismal records. If that didn’t do it, the Nazis were quite willing to go back to the eighteenth century with records or one’s forbearers. Ultimately, you were simply trapped.

But if you were gay, all you had to do was keep your pants up and for all legal purposes cease to be gay!

And all you have to do to legally cease to be a Jew is to run away, change your name, and alter your appearance. Darth Wong challenged you to answer this point and you have pretended it hadn't been made. I therefore predict your lifespan on this board from this post is most accurately denoted in hours.

snip

Others got to this part and did it better than I could.

Thus I would maintain that the Nazi persecution of Jews, Slavs, and Gypsies was of an order of magnitude worse than the persecution of Homosexuals, Jehovah’s Witnesses, and Communists, while the persecution of Allan Turing was (however foolish and misguided) accomplished within the rule of laws that he was obliged to obey. Sure what happened to Alan Turing was tragic, but he could have acted differently and avoided it.

See above.

[Einhander Sn0m4n]

While I agree with most of your views on what "causes" homosexuality (I'm gay) rather than R.M. Schultz's, it doesn't say much for your maturity level that you can't make your arguments without calling him a "fuckface", an "asshat", or "an unforgivable and pathetic monster". I have often disagreed with him, but I have never resorted to calling him names. However valid the point you are trying to make may be, you lose your credibility when you call names like little children.

That is how our board is run. Someone acts like a fucktarded asshole, we call a spade a spade. Search for the phrase "Emily Post" on here and you'll discover very quickly that dismissing, ignoring, or lending not enough weight to a good argument or debate point is despised and persecuted with great zeal and passion; we rightly consider it quite the abomination here.

[Morilore]

While I agree with most of your views on what "causes" homosexuality (I'm gay) rather than R.M. Schultz's, it doesn't say much for your maturity level that you can't make your arguments without calling him a "fuckface", an "asshat", or "an unforgivable and pathetic monster". I have often disagreed with him, but I have never resorted to calling him names. However valid the point you are trying to make may be, you lose your credibility when you call names like little children.

Read the rules?

[Pint0 Xtreme]

Look, I have offered an hypothesis to explain human sexual behavior and I have offered to defend it against any reasoned argument. The only response I have gotten (aside from infantile name-calling) has been a chorus insisting that “homosexuality is biologically determined.”

It's quite humorous to see him argue against arguments that he does not comprehend. I mean, how stupid must you be to not understand:

Evidence for Schultz theory = 0
Evidence for SDNET's position > 0
Therefore, SDNET > Schultz

This answer does not explain how significant numbers of people routinely change their orientation, whereas my theory does.

Hey look, another DR6 violation coming up! This guy keeps on throwing them.

[Keevan_Colton]

The only response I have gotten (aside from infantile name-calling) has been a chorus insisting that “homosexuality is biologically determined.” This answer does not explain how significant numbers of people routinely change their orientation, whereas my theory does.

I'm a little dubious of people who claim to have changed their sexual orientation, particularly when said people than become poster boys for anti-gay organizations aimed at "turning people straight". There have been numerous examples of people who supposedly "became" heterosexual but in reality turned out to still have homosexual affairs "on the side" or had simply learned to repress their sexual orientation. Suppressing or hiding your sexual orientation is not the same as changing it.

While I agree with most of your views on what "causes" homosexuality (I'm gay) rather than R.M. Schultz's, it doesn't say much for your maturity level that you can't make your arguments without calling him a "fuckface", an "asshat", or "an unforgivable and pathetic monster". I have often disagreed with him, but I have never resorted to calling him names. However valid the point you are trying to make may be, you lose your credibility when you call names like little children.

You'd do well to read the rules of conduct for this forum. Intellectual honesty and evidence go far further here than a civil tongue.

[Pint0 Xtreme]

I'm a little dubious of people who claim to have changed their sexual orientation, particularly when said people than become poster boys for anti-gay organizations aimed at "turning people straight". There have been numerous examples of people who supposedly "became" heterosexual but in reality turned out to still have homosexual affairs "on the side" or had simply learned to repress their sexual orientation. Suppressing or hiding your sexual orientation is not the same as changing it.

To go against the grain of most gay advocacy positions, there is evidence that sexual orientation can be fluid. However, contrary to what Schultz has claimed, this evidence exists in the form of a small handful of documented cases and for the majority of people, their sexual orientation remains constant throughout their lives. Sexual fluidity occurs more often in women than men so for the vast majority of men in general, their sexuality remains constant.

[Big Orange]

I have often disagreed with him, but I have never resorted to calling him names. However valid the point you are trying to make may be, you lose your credibility when you call names like little children.

Sure foul language or aggressive insults may often be off putting. But when it comes to highly obnoxious, stubborn, intolerant twits like R.M. Schultz, then it is called for when you are verbally putting down people like him who peddle their hatred and ignorance in such a blatant manner.

[Simplicius]

Look, I have offered an hypothesis to explain human sexual behavior and I have offered to defend it against any reasoned argument. The only response I have gotten (aside from infantile name-calling) has been a chorus insisting that “homosexuality is biologically determined.” This answer does not explain how significant numbers of people routinely change their orientation, whereas my theory does. Will someone please offer a theory that is comprehensive enough to include the idea that sexual orientation is fixed while simultaneously accounting for how in many cases it is not?

Here's an idea - provide actual evidence for your theory. "I say so therefore it's right" doesn't fly here.

Supposing you were born Jewish — how could someone tell? Well, there would be your birth certificate which, until fairly recently, listed the parents religious affiliation. There would also be records of temple membership and a corresponding lack of baptismal records. If that didn’t do it, the Nazis were quite willing to go back to the eighteenth century with records or one’s forbearers. Ultimately, you were simply trapped.

But if you were gay, all you had to do was keep your pants up and for all legal purposes cease to be gay!

As others have said, you are blaming the victims while ignoring the ethicality of the laws which punish them. This is not a valid argument. Try again, idiot.

I guess the issue here ultimately comes down to respect for the rule of law. In a totalitarian state one really does not owe the government any loyalty and is not bound, morally at least, to follow the laws. But in a free society, such as the one Alan Turing lived in, social order is not maintained by force but rather by the good behavior of the citizens and respect for the rule of law becomes a moral obligation. There are going to be bad laws in any system, but in a democratic system our duty is not to pick-and-choose which laws we will follow, but to endeavor to change those laws we disagree with at the ballot box.

Again with the legalist bullshit. A law is not automatically ethical, you cunt, and therefore a prosecution sustained under an unethical law is AUTOMATICALLY unethical, regardless of whether or not it is legal. You have completely ignored this point like any proper snivelling weasel would do, and I will keep throwing it in your face until you man up.

Thus I would maintain that the Nazi persecution of Jews, Slavs, and Gypsies was of an order of magnitude worse than the persecution of Homosexuals, Jehovah’s Witnesses, and Communists, while the persecution of Allan Turing was (however foolish and misguided) accomplished within the rule of laws that he was obliged to obey. Sure what happened to Alan Turing was tragic, but he could have acted differently and avoided it.

You maintain? You maintain? I don't care what you think, scum - I want you to back up your bullshit claims instead of just repeating them.

Address the ETHICS of a law persecuting someone for an innate characteristic. Now.

While I favor religious liberty I also recognize that I live in a democracy where my views are not always going to prevail. The traditional Christian response to persecution is the acceptance of martyrdom — not a lot of sore-headed belly-aching!

This only goes to show that you are unaware of the character of American Christians, as bitching and moaning is precisely what they do whenever they don't get their way.

Furthermore, this is yet another bit of handwaving nonsense that is irrelevant to the matter at hand. Democracy or no, all laws are not good laws - as you yourself have conceded. Your argument is such a mess of self-contradiction and bullshit that I'd be surprised if there was a single legitimate statement within.

By the way, coward, if you ignore this post of mine, that'll make three. You owe me a lengthy reply, if you can muster the testicular fortitude to face someone smarter than you instead of running away like a little bitch.

[Beppo Schmidt]

You'd do well to read the rules of conduct for this forum

I wouldn't have thought this forum had rules of conduct, but alrighty.

To go against the grain of most gay advocacy positions, there is evidence that sexual orientation can be fluid. However, contrary to what Schultz has claimed, this evidence exists in the form of a small handful of documented cases and for the majority of people, their sexual orientation remains constant throughout their lives. Sexual fluidity occurs more often in women than men so for the vast majority of men in general, their sexuality remains constant.

Oh sure, sexuality can be fluid. Many people (most?) do not fit neatly into categories of 100% straight, 100% gay, or 50/50 bisexual, nor should they have to. We are "more than the some of our parts", so to speak; many "straight" people have a few homosexual encounters at some point or other, and vice versa, especially in their youth. But this very fact makes it hard to determine who really changes their sexual orientation and who doesn't. And a society which has and unfortunately sometimes continues to compel people to feel that they have to pretend to be or even force themselves to be a certain sexual orientation in order to be socially accepted makes it doubly hard to determine. How can we be sure that these people truly changed their sexuality or simply forced themselves to conform to what society thinks they should be?

[Stile]

I wouldn't have thought this forum had rules of conduct, but alrighty.

Ahem! http://bbs.stardestroyer.net/viewtopic.php?t=70641
Otherwise, we value a good debate as long as someone debates with evidence and doesn't sound like a broken record. Welcome to the board.

[The Yosemite Bear]

did he just register with a new account whilst under a banwatch?

[R.M. Schultz]

I love the way you continually contradict yourself. You keep saying discriminatory hate laws based on race are evil, but hate laws based on so-called choices aren't as evil. By your idiot logic, Rosa Parks should have mindlessly obeyed the law and gone to the back of the bus for the sake of being a dutiful citizen, never mind that the laws at the time were completely bigoted and unjust. Or are you simply so fucking stupid that you don't realize that sometimes the only way to get an unacceptable law changed is to get enough people to break it?

A specious analogy for two reasons:

Alan Turing was an enfranchised citizen with fewer rights than other citizens, neither Rosa Parks nor any statistically significant number of Southern Blacks were though since they could have been if they passed certain almost impossible standards then it's their actions that kept them from being enfranchised. Thus, Turing owes the law a respect that does not bind Parks despite the law disrespecting them both.

Secondly, Alan Turing broke the law by his actions, Parks broke the law for being who she was, an important difference as no one gives full consent of the will to being of a certain race though I must admit that Rosa was free not to sit at the front of the bus and it was her actions that got her in shit...oops, please ignore me I'm a fuckwit.

Oh sure, sexuality can be fluid. Many people (most?) do not fit neatly into categories of 100% straight, 100% gay, or 50/50 bisexual, nor should they have to. We are "more than the some of our parts", so to speak; many "straight" people have a few homosexual encounters at some point or other, and vice versa, especially in their youth. But this very fact makes it hard to determine who really changes their sexual orientation and who doesn't. And a society which has and unfortunately sometimes continues to compel people to feel that they have to pretend to be or even force themselves to be a certain sexual orientation in order to be socially accepted makes it doubly hard to determine. How can we be sure that these people truly changed their sexuality or simply forced themselves to conform to what society thinks they should be?

A very reasonable assessment. I would concur, adding only that the key variable in whether a genuine change can occur is strength of will (or sexual dominance because lets face it, I really secretly want fucked in the ass by a donkey, but I dont have the stength of will to do it alone...I need a dominant donkey to liberate me to be a interspecies eroticist.).

[Stark]

I can change someone's sexuality through my power of Sexual Dominance? Is this more baseless speculation, or do you actually have something to back that up?

Oh wait, you're just agreeing with - and being civil towards - anyone who agrees with you! Dear me, I shouldn't be ascribing any laudable action to you, you're just playing to the crowd. Is that how you win debates?

[General Zod]

I love the way you continually contradict yourself. You keep saying discriminatory hate laws based on race are evil, but hate laws based on so-called choices aren't as evil. By your idiot logic, Rosa Parks should have mindlessly obeyed the law and gone to the back of the bus for the sake of being a dutiful citizen, never mind that the laws at the time were completely bigoted and unjust. Or are you simply so fucking stupid that you don't realize that sometimes the only way to get an unacceptable law changed is to get enough people to break it?

A specious analogy for two reasons:

Alan Turing was an enfranchised citizen, neither Rosa Parks nor any statistically significant number of Southern Blacks were. Thus, Turing owes the law a respect that does not bind Parks.

Secondly, Alan Turing broke the law by his actions, Parks broke the law for being who she was, an important difference as no one gives full consent of the will to being of a certain race.

How about addressing my other point fuckwit? Where is the harm in any of these actions? Or do you mindlessly believe that 'I don't like something' is justification enough to put a law in place and enforce it?

[Big Orange]

A specious analogy for two reasons:

Alan Turing was an enfranchised citizen, neither Rosa Parks nor any statistically significant number of Southern Blacks were. Thus, Turing owes the law a respect that does not bind Parks.

Secondly, Alan Turing broke the law by his actions, Parks broke the law for being who she was, an important difference as no one gives full consent of the will to being of a certain race.

Gah, but Alan Turing was disenfranchised by the state when he was caught for being a homosexual under amoral laws!!!

[Einhander Sn0m4n]

How about addressing my other point fuckwit? Where is the harm in any of these actions? Or do you mindlessly believe that 'I don't like something' is justification enough to put a law in place and enforce it?

I have every reason to believe that's his exact outlook on morality. Ergo, he is worse than useless.

did he just register with a new account whilst under a banwatch?

Wait, same IP?! Kill him. Kill him now. </Palpatine>

[Beppo Schmidt]

did he just register with a new account whilst under a banwatch?

If you're suggesting that R.M. Schultz and I are the same person, rest assured we're not, we're both from the Axis History Forum, and we get along fine, but we have very different views.

[Keevan_Colton]

How about addressing my other point fuckwit? Where is the harm in any of these actions? Or do you mindlessly believe that 'I don't like something' is justification enough to put a law in place and enforce it?

I have every reason to believe that's his exact outlook on morality. Ergo, he is worse than useless.

did he just register with a new account whilst under a banwatch?

Wait, same IP?! Kill him. Kill him now. </Palpatine>

Not the same IP, do you think I'd let that slide?