Mountain Tracy you wanted to talk about
whether or not a theism is rationally
justified okay Tracy and that Tracy I
believe we spoke yeah thanks so - the
name looks familiar
so what's on your mind yeah well
actually so being on hold I call it what
the different questions probably a
little controversial Christ job but I
wanted to know okay go ahead go for it
well it's on the same why I was just
wondering because I I heard you guys had
something to do homosexuality and I was
thinking having homosexuality rationally
justified I mean what's the argument
that says homosexuality is immoral
behavior well what's the argument that
says it isn't the burden of parole is it
obvi we begin we begin the smart thing
to do with it is to grant every liberty
and freedom and then begin limiting
freedoms and liberties for good reasons
so what's the problem with two people of
the same gender having a romantic and
sexual and/or sexual relationship what
oh okay so first of I would say there
are a couple different problems with
that first off I often little kind of
relationships there's a high but it aids
going on so it's actually that's not an
input to that society along you know
that's true that's back so I'm gonna
pause you I'm gonna pause you because
first of all while aids isn't cured we
have great medications that essentially
diminish the effects and make people so
that they can live with it etcetera but
the fact that a particular like you
could be in a homosexual relationship
and never actually engage in any sort of
behavior that even slightly increases
your risk of getting AIDS right but also
it's it's not a homosexual illness right
right there are huge swaths of the globe
where a heterosexual women are the
primary you know patients in HIV but
functionally the the question was why is
it wrong the fact that you guys all sex
would be wrong yeah so so if we were
saying STI is there's a risk of sgi's
and there's there's some that aren't
gonna happen to lesbian relationships
periodically there's some that are going
to happen in male male relationships but
none of that gets to why it's wrong the
fact that something may not
it may increase our risk for something I
mean you might as well be using that to
say the skydiving is wrong or driving
because you know there's a chance that
parachute doesn't open or driving
driving is wrong because if you don't
ever drive it you're not gonna you know
cause a car accident right this is why I
was gonna give a dub of difficulys is
definitely they've been starting with
one that's not correct
obviously well no that's not it crap it
is what Matt just said did you
understand why that's crap
it is functionally crap because it has
nothing to do with the moral component
right yes another reason that there's a
there's a problem with that as I said
home essentials razorkinder right so one
there's detrimental effect Society
another thing is those are detrimental
effects that all sexuality would be
subject to yeah and by the way you
didn't list any you just asserted that
there are detrimental effects of society
are there also positive effects to
society yes there are yeah so I'm not
gonna wait for you to answer that
because it's obvious there are so now
come up with come up with a reason that
it's wrong that isn't crap right yeah
and a couple other reasons or more the
theological side which I don't never
[ __ ] about the theological side yeah
really
which I which I understand that but then
why because because those are greater -
so do you value Grove al you personal
freedom and liberty and the right for
people to do because you first well you
don't choose who you fall in love with
you don't choose who you want to
interact you use what you do about it
but you know it's not like I chose to
fall in love and I really don't know
that there's a in most cases a rational
component to sex with anybody it's
mostly visceral and instinctive and and
so the question here then becomes we
definitely we're gonna we're gonna say
we value individual freedom and autonomy
the ability to live your life the
ability to not you know be punished or
have the choices that you make
diminished if they don't impact the
lives of others and so pointing out that
there's something that you can view as
wrong with homosexuality is irrelevant
until you point out the one that is the
justification for overriding individuals
freedoms
right well I don't think it's really a
good argument to suggest just because
you don't personally care about religion
therefore doesn't matter I mean I care
about it that means that assert that
much well no no wait a minute let me see
if I might be able to help my dad argue
ok wait I might be able to help
facilitate this here's the thing wait
wait wait let me just try this he just
said it was a bad argument and I'm
responding to his sure he understands he
doesn't if the religious reason is a
good reason then you don't need to use
religion because you'll be able to
demonstrate it's a good reason even
without the religion right so if the if
the religion has a good reason for
putting it forward then you should be
able to just point to the good reason
and you don't really need to go to
religion for it well I think there's
okay so first off there's a few problems
with that first off it assumes that
humans are capable of reason apart from
the Christian God that people are so it
doesn't assume human people of reason
humans are in fact capable of reason
most of us ok ok so so good so there's a
problem
it assumes people are capable of reason
I also said that it I just said that's
not a [ __ ] problem it's not an
assumption it's a demonstration not only
are we capable of reason we are able to
define and describe reasoning we are
able to describe how and why we know
when we come across fallacious reasoning
we are Weibull to describe how we know
when our emotions and biases are
affecting things for you to suggest that
we are just presupposing that humans can
reasoning the humans can reason is
flatly [ __ ] absurd so don't just
assert it again if I offer a rebuttal
don't just restate the same thing you
need to then rehabilitate your argument
or drop it yeah yeah so there was a fall
of man I believe that happened thousands
of years ago I don't think that the fell
of man is a real thing or that it
happened a thousand years ago because
you don't believe that I mean it's not
true correct and just because you do
believe it and just because you do
believe it does not mean oh my god
interrupt me one more [ __ ] time I
dare you okay he's on hold just because
you do believe it doesn't mean it's true
so if you're just calling into the show
to assert things that you believe yeah
and offer no argument for it I'm not
interesting make a case yeah I have to
say that if this is just gonna be
preaching just tell us now and we'll
move on to the next call yeah okay
you're off hold no well I I didn't click
on pretty changes plan saying that the
starting with the fallout man and just
asserting it and saying this is part of
your argument is preaching
especially when you admit that you
understand that that's not just going to
accept it so you don't like homosexuals
and you don't like sound arguments go
ahead what's next okay well first off I
never said you like homosexuals to bed
straw man what I'm simply coming on to
do is to show that I don't believe all
the sexuality it has a rational
justification I think if we're to
justify addressed then I address that oh
yeah I a dress like that what the [ __ ]
did you say that claims that it what is
the world ok now you're on hold so even
if you're still talking other people
will hear this first of all you're
saying that homosexual e done
homosexuality doesn't have a rational
justification and I'm address this point
at the outset that we don't need a
rational justification to permit people
to engage in activities we need rational
justifications to limit freedoms not to
have freedoms otherwise we would have a
list of the here are the five things
that everyone is allowed to do and
that's it instead we have maximal
freedom and we begin limiting under for
good reasons as it impacts other most
romantic relationships though do not
have a rational justification is because
you you like somebody you fell in love
with them and then you've karate yeah on
that ground that that argument is also
crap because first of all as Tracy
pointed out they don't necessarily have
a rational justification but the point I
made earlier was it you need a rational
justification to limit them or to save
the something wrong but I would like for
you to tell me how the [ __ ] you started
with I didn't ever say I didn't like
homosexuals and had a bad string of
arguments and then uttered the word
pedophilia go okay you're awful well so
I believe that if one rationally
justified as you have to homosexuality
or some of the arguments like they're
going this way or they didn't have a
choice in that in the matter it wouldn't
matter if arguments can be applied to no
no no no no
no no no no no you are completely
[ __ ] wrong
pedophilia by the way is a sexual
preference it doesn't mean that
somebody's actually going to act on it
and so we're not going to disparage
pedophiles who don't actually engage in
it they have no more choice about what
they're attracted to than the person
who's attracted to a fencepost the
person who's attracted to me or the
person who is foolishly attracted to you
so that attraction thing is not an issue
what is a problem is pederasty in child
rape and that is actually a problem
because there is not informed
enthusiastic consent of to responsible
adults and that is not in any way
remotely comparable to what happens when
two adults of the same gender interact
and you should be ashamed of yourself
for even trying to string those two
things together and it's also not
restricted to gay people gay people with
pedophilia said the justification of the
act offender royality the same argument
can be applied and you're wrong well
I've been interrupted about over five
times you know you know how many times
you're gonna get interrupted here in a
minute
you're gonna get interrupted no more
times because we're gonna hang up you
made the case that the same arguments
could be used to justify pedophilia as
there are for homosexuality and I
corrected you that pedophilia is not the
issue that you're talking about and that
the arguments you're talking about don't
apply to both of them so either
acknowledge that or rehabilitate your
arguments yeah basically what Matt
objected to was he was saying that
you're you're talking about conformed I
mean it's re informed consent between
adults versus non informed consent from
two adults when you're dealing with
children and so it's not the same
justifications and I would say that you
don't have to justify homosexuality I
don't even know why what do you mean
justify our attraction to anyone or
anything that's not a thing that is
justified right right so the pedophiles
desires are completely fine as long as
they don't act on caress that your
argument not an argument it's a fact so
then so then what would be wrong with
someone acting with a desire that's
completely neutral why would it suddenly
become nothing if it was neutral
that's completely neutral there's no
profit he's saying that this is
pedophilia when he's interpreting
pedophilia as a neutral desire because
you're saying there's nothing wrong with
the desire so what's wrong with acting
on it because desire an action or
difference right I might desire to punch
you in the face but acting on it would
be the actual problem right
you can desire all kinds of things but
if you're not doing them then you're not
creating issues for other people and I'm
a non-violent person so I wouldn't know
at the meeting was just I think it's a
meaningless distinction what you're
simply what you're simply wanting to rob
a buyer and and robbing a bank are two
different things yeah absolutely we
don't arrest people with them in that
it's okay to desire to wanna rob a bank
yes sir I do anything what about being
what about a mass murderer is that an
okay desire to have it's okay to have
that desire as a matter of fact the
person who has that desire and never
acts on it is engaging in a morally
superior position because they recognize
that the action is distinct and
different and has consequences yeah they
have a parity on that on naturalism he
explained that to me sorry what was the
question
moral superiority or naturalist and how
is something better than another
position he explained that to me so our
actions have consequences and it is the
actions that matter now if there are
Department oh my god did you want me to
answer your question or not go ahead and
answer it's ok good so someone has a
desire but never acts on it that is
morally superior to the person who has a
desire to do something harmful and then
acts on it because it's the actions that
have consequences for ourselves and for
others my desire what goes on in my head
first of all is nobody's business nobody
can know unless I state it nobody can
make an assessment of me I could see I
could be sitting here every day on the
show with really horrific desires that I
never act on I'm not but you don't have
any way to know that you don't have any
right to know it and what you're doing
is trying to make thoughts a crime
but thoughts aren't necessarily a crime
you have to actually make that case hang
on well I'm not talking about the legal
content of the thoughts and I'm simply
saying it so you know that that usually
delineate between moral superiority and
and you say one thought is better than
another you're simply saying is there's
something wrong with this thought but
they're not asking what it's a work okay
with that the only thing that's wrong
with the thought that we that we can
establish right away is that if one were
to act on it that would be detrimental
that would be against well-being but
people don't choose their thoughts you
don't have any control over whether or
not you believe something are attracted
to someone or anybody else you can in
fact influence it and other people can
influence it as well but what you're
trying to do is make along along the
lines of theology make thoughts a crime
make thoughts as sin make thoughts
immoral and what I'm saying is that it
is the actions and the consequences of
those actions that makeup determine that
the determine morality and that is
entirely rooted in naturalism we are
physical beings in a physical universe
the physical laws of the universe
dictate what the consequences of our
actions are otherwise if I stabbed you
in the neck with hatchet and we were in
a universe that could have willy nilly
things maybe that would actually be a
wonderful pleasant experience for you
that would make you immune to cancer and
live forever in a universe that doesn't
have these naturalistic laws but we live
in the universe that does and so that's
what we use to assess the consequences
of our action the superiority the
superiority of secular morality is that
it has the entirety of the goal is
entirely about getting better at getting
better and understanding and building on
that understanding religious moral
systems have pronouncements about what
is and that's why you're convinced that
somebody who has an evil thought is
somehow a bad person even if they don't
act on it and you are wrong so Delonte
are you saying that societal
consequences then determines whether or
not something is correct although right
knows
society doesn't act on it then it's okay
no that's not what he was trying that's
not even in the [ __ ] ballpark of what
I was talking about okay so so what was
the point of bringing up as much as we
can see there seem to be consequences to
certain actions because we how does that
affect a moral argument so what people
react negatively to it he's talking
about real-world consequences not
artificially imposed social consequence
you you compare the consequences of
actions with respect to a goal in this
case the goal being well-being Oh
like for example homosexuality engaging
in the practice of spreading aim which
you said was hanging up on this piece of
[ __ ] please I have no objection to that
thanks for those who are saying Matt is
running the show from the co-host chair
I'm happy to make that hang-up it's also
why I say did not violate my anyway it's
it's why I said please in a trace you'd
wanted to continue I would have sat here
and played chess on the phone yeah I
can't blame you for that one that's