It is currently Wed Aug 21, 2019 7:56 am

All times are UTC - 7 hours [ DST ]




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 116 posts ]  Go to page 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6  Next
Author Message
 Post subject: The Subgenius/Amore Challenge
PostPosted: Wed Sep 10, 2014 9:39 am 
God
User avatar

Joined: Fri Oct 05, 2012 5:37 pm
Posts: 8696
Location: On walkabout
Amore seems to believe that something about the way people reproduce logically leads to conclusion about how we should treat gay folks. However, when I read her arguments, I see a mishmash of random facts, unstated premises, non-sequiturs, and other logical fallacies of various flavors. Now, it's entirely possible that there is a valid argument in there somewhere that moves from well-supported premises to conclusions in a logical fashion. But for the life of me, I can't find one. So, I offer this challenge to her, or anyone else who agrees with her views: construct a logical argument with explicit and well-supported premises that moves logically from facts about human reproduction to a conclusion about how we should treat gay folks in our society. The argument must go one step at a time, premises to conclusion, with each step justified with well supported premises. Terms capable of multiple definitions must be rigorously defined upon request, in a form like "A trait is 'natural' if, and only if, X, with X being the proposed definition.

Given that, today, there is no necessary connection between male-female intercourse and sexual reproduction (that is, one can have intercourse without reproducing and can reproduce without sexual intercourse) I suggest the following as a starting premise that I think we can all agree upon:

P1: human life is created by combining a sperm cell with an egg cell.

If you would prefer a different initial premise, post one and we'll see if we can agree on one that is more to your liking.

ETA: I originally included subgenius in this challenge. Based on his statement that he does not hold the position stated in my OP, I have removed him from the challenge. My apologies for the error.

UPDATE: As Subgenius did, in fact, argue the very position he claimed not to hold, I have reinstated the original name of the challenge. Apology withdrawn.

_________________
​“The ideal subject of totalitarian rule is not the convinced Nazi or the dedicated communist, but people for whom the distinction between fact and fiction, true and false, no longer exists.”

― Hannah Arendt, The Origins of Totalitarianism, 1951


Last edited by Res Ipsa on Thu Sep 11, 2014 3:07 pm, edited 4 times in total.

Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: The Subgenius/Amore challenge
PostPosted: Wed Sep 10, 2014 9:44 am 
God
User avatar

Joined: Mon May 16, 2011 7:40 pm
Posts: 8150
Location: What does the fox say?
What, sub goes completely incoherent, as Amore did before him, with his use of English, and now you want a coherent, logical argument from either of them?

Good luck.

Me.... I've filled my quota of arguing with idiots for the week.

_________________
It is better to be a warrior in a garden, than a gardener at war.

Some of us, on the other hand, actually prefer a religion that includes some type of correlation with reality.
~Bill Hamblin


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: The Subgenius/Amore challenge
PostPosted: Wed Sep 10, 2014 10:54 am 
God
User avatar

Joined: Fri Oct 05, 2012 5:37 pm
Posts: 8696
Location: On walkabout
Both of them post as if they believe they have a coherent logical argument. I don't see one in their posts, but that doesn't mean they don't have one. However, if they do have one, I don't think it is too much to expect them to articulate it in a step by step, logically supported fashion. Doing so will flesh out unstated premises as well as logical errors. In Amore's case, she appears to believe her argument is so strong that no rational person could disagree and, so, she concludes disagreement must result from brainwashing. If that's true, and she is not actually just following a herd like she claims everyone who disagrees with her is doing, it should be especially easy for her to meet the challenge.

_________________
​“The ideal subject of totalitarian rule is not the convinced Nazi or the dedicated communist, but people for whom the distinction between fact and fiction, true and false, no longer exists.”

― Hannah Arendt, The Origins of Totalitarianism, 1951


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: The Subgenius/Amore challenge
PostPosted: Wed Sep 10, 2014 10:58 am 
God
User avatar

Joined: Wed Dec 07, 2011 12:54 am
Posts: 7243
Brad Hudson wrote:
...articulate it in a step by step, logically supported fashion.

This is exactly the issue.


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: The Subgenius/Amore challenge
PostPosted: Wed Sep 10, 2014 12:15 pm 
God
User avatar

Joined: Thu Sep 01, 2011 6:50 am
Posts: 12241
Location: Your mother's purse
Brad Hudson wrote:
Both subgenus and amore seem to believe that something about the way people reproduce logically leads to conclusion about how we should treat gay folks.

not true. People who share your posts' point of view always want to rely on the reproduction argument...i seldom, if ever, use reproduction as a means to qualify or disqualify a marriage...and likely have never used it to qualify/disqualify a relationship. So, once again the argument of "attack the messenger" is all your posts ever bring to the table.

Brad Hudson wrote:
However, when I read their arguments, I see a mishmash of random facts, unstated premises, non-sequiturs, and other logical fallacies of various flavors. Now, it's entirely possible that there is a valid argument in there somewhere that moves from well-supported premises to conclusions in a logical fashion. But for the life of me, I can't find one.

yet another common tactic for your posts.
"Because you found something difficult to understand, or are unaware of how it works, you made out like it's probably not true."
https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/personal-incredulity

Brad Hudson wrote:
So, I offer this challenge to the both of them, or anyone else who agrees with their views: construct a logical argument with explicit and well-supported premises that moves logically from facts about human reproduction to a conclusion about how we should treat gay folks in our society.

this is like a soggy straw man.
You want me to argue a position i have never proposed, and may not even agree with, so that you can claim victory after you rattle of a few presumptuous posts?....how enticing

Brad Hudson wrote:
The argument must go one step at a time, premises to conclusion, with each step justified with well supported premises. Terms capable of multiple definitions must be rigorously defined upon request, in a form like "A trait is 'natural' if, and only if, X, with X being the proposed definition.

This has been done repeatedly on other points, yet you admit above that you just do not "get it"...so why would anyone repeat the process for you here?

Brad Hudson wrote:
Given that, today, there is no necessary connection between male-female intercourse and sexual reproduction (that is, one can have intercourse without reproducing and can reproduce without sexual intercourse) I suggest the following as a starting premise that I think we can all agree upon:

so, first you want us to construct the argument...but you actually mean is that you will construct the argument...ok.

Brad Hudson wrote:
P1: human life is created by combining a sperm cell with an egg cell.

wait a second...is this an abortion thread?

Brad Hudson wrote:
If you would prefer a different initial premise, post one and we'll see if we can agree on one that is more to your liking.

So, if we do not like your premise for our argument, we will just submit one until you approve of one for our argument?...all this seems contrary to the very structure you initially proposed...i smell fascism.

_________________
Seek freedom and become captive of your desires...seek discipline and find your liberty
I can tell if a person is judgmental just by looking at them
what is chaos to the fly is normal to the spider - morticia addams
If you're not upsetting idiots, you might be an idiot. - Ted Nugent


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: The Subgenius/Amore challenge
PostPosted: Wed Sep 10, 2014 12:26 pm 
God
User avatar

Joined: Thu Sep 01, 2011 6:50 am
Posts: 12241
Location: Your mother's purse
Brad Hudson wrote:
Both of them post as if they believe they have a coherent logical argument.

as do you
Brad Hudson wrote:
I don't see one in their posts, but that doesn't mean they don't have one.

to you it does mean that, and you proclaim such at almost every opportunity....except when baiting like the OP.
Brad Hudson wrote:
However, if they do have one, I don't think it is too much to expect them to articulate it in a step by step, logically supported fashion.

as long as it meets your approval...how generous.
Brad Hudson wrote:
Doing so will flesh out unstated premises as well as logical errors. In Amore's case, she appears to believe her argument is so strong that no rational person could disagree and, so, she concludes disagreement must result from brainwashing.

whereas your posts claim that it is Amore that is brainwashed...the brilliant rubber/glue rebuttal.
Brad Hudson wrote:
If that's true, and she is not actually just following a herd like she claims everyone who disagrees with her is doing, it should be especially easy for her to meet the challenge.

But your posts consistently merit the pearls before swine,or easily the milk before meat, response....and your refusal to accept that reality is an obstacle for you.
To insist that an argument about religion be framed on your paradigm is absurd...it would be tantamount to me insisting that you prove the 2nd law of Thermodynamics within the confines of the King James Version of the Bible.

Truthfully, it comes down to the simple reality that your posts rely upon a very narrow idea and definition of what is "true" and what is "real"...yet when confronted with the reality that breaches that reliance, your posts become dismissive and critical of those responsible for that breach.

Image

_________________
Seek freedom and become captive of your desires...seek discipline and find your liberty
I can tell if a person is judgmental just by looking at them
what is chaos to the fly is normal to the spider - morticia addams
If you're not upsetting idiots, you might be an idiot. - Ted Nugent


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: The Subgenius/Amore challenge
PostPosted: Wed Sep 10, 2014 12:31 pm 
God
User avatar

Joined: Thu Sep 01, 2011 6:50 am
Posts: 12241
Location: Your mother's purse
A simple question for the OP

Should a society implement, condone, encourage, or support any and all behaviors, concepts, and characteristics that the majority of its members hold to be true, virtuous, good, or correct?

_________________
Seek freedom and become captive of your desires...seek discipline and find your liberty
I can tell if a person is judgmental just by looking at them
what is chaos to the fly is normal to the spider - morticia addams
If you're not upsetting idiots, you might be an idiot. - Ted Nugent


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: The Subgenius/Amore challenge
PostPosted: Wed Sep 10, 2014 12:48 pm 
God
User avatar

Joined: Mon May 16, 2011 7:40 pm
Posts: 8150
Location: What does the fox say?
Conversely, does the majority have the right to force its views on a minority that does not hold the same beliefs?

_________________
It is better to be a warrior in a garden, than a gardener at war.

Some of us, on the other hand, actually prefer a religion that includes some type of correlation with reality.
~Bill Hamblin


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: The Subgenius/Amore challenge
PostPosted: Wed Sep 10, 2014 12:50 pm 
God
User avatar

Joined: Wed Dec 07, 2011 12:54 am
Posts: 7243
subgenius wrote:
A simple question for the OP

Should a society implement, condone, encourage, or support any and all behaviors, concepts, and characteristics that the majority of its members hold to be true, virtuous, good, or correct?


'Society' is composed of 'its members'.

If something was already accepted as true, virtuous, good, or correct, then technically it isn't being 'condoned' if those activities are legally allowed.

Condone = "accept and allow (behavior that is considered morally wrong or offensive) to continue."

Do you mean to ask another question?


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: The Subgenius/Amore challenge
PostPosted: Wed Sep 10, 2014 12:52 pm 
God
User avatar

Joined: Mon Mar 22, 2010 3:46 pm
Posts: 9070
Location: The Orange House: The loft overlooking the garden
SteelHead wrote:
Conversely, does the majority have the right to force its views on a minority that does not hold the same beliefs?


And, does a minority have the right to force its views on the majority that does not hold the same beliefs?

At this point, those who are anti-equality are in the minority.

_________________
~Those who benefit from the status quo always attribute inequities to the choices of the underdog.~Ann Crittenden
~The Goddess is not separate from the world-She is the world and all things in it.~


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: The Subgenius/Amore challenge
PostPosted: Wed Sep 10, 2014 12:57 pm 
God
User avatar

Joined: Wed Dec 07, 2011 12:54 am
Posts: 7243
subgenius wrote:
...the milk before meat, response....

Image

There does not appear to be a 'meat' response.


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: The Subgenius/Amore challenge
PostPosted: Wed Sep 10, 2014 1:14 pm 
God
User avatar

Joined: Fri Oct 05, 2012 5:37 pm
Posts: 8696
Location: On walkabout
subgenius wrote:
Brad Hudson wrote:
Both subgenus and amore seem to believe that something about the way people reproduce logically leads to conclusion about how we should treat gay folks.

not true. People who share your posts' point of view always want to rely on the reproduction argument...i seldom, if ever, use reproduction as a means to qualify or disqualify a marriage...and likely have never used it to qualify/disqualify a relationship. So, once again the argument of "attack the messenger" is all your posts ever bring to the table.


I don't recall every relying on a reproduction-based argument with respect to how we should treat gay folks. If my memory is incorrect, feel free to quote me. I did not intend my general paraphrasing of a position to be an attack.

If I misunderstood this quote from you, I apologize:

subgenius wrote:
Even more to the point is recognizing that marriage, as a legal contract, is bound to sexual activity - so obviously society legislates sexual activity and raises some sexual activity to the level of being more virtuous, more natural, and more worthy than other sexual activity. Currently I have not seen, heard, nor read any argument that elevates same sex activity to that level.....and certainly the idea that SSM should be permitted because a small minority of monkeys are caught is homosexual activity after throwing their poo at zoo visitors is not convincing on any level.


If you think the way humans reproduce does not logically lead to a conclusion about how we should treat gay folks, then we agree and I'll confine my challenge to Amore.


subgenius wrote:
Brad Hudson wrote:
However, when I read their arguments, I see a mishmash of random facts, unstated premises, non-sequiturs, and other logical fallacies of various flavors. Now, it's entirely possible that there is a valid argument in there somewhere that moves from well-supported premises to conclusions in a logical fashion. But for the life of me, I can't find one.

yet another common tactic for your posts.
"Because you found something difficult to understand, or are unaware of how it works, you made out like it's probably not true."
https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/personal-incredulity


What you are describing is not the fallacy of incredulity. The fallacy of incredulity is "I don't see how it can be true, therefore it's not true." I'm fully admitting that such an argument may exist and that I'm missing it. I'm also giving you an opportunity to show me.

subgenius wrote:
Brad Hudson wrote:
So, I offer this challenge to the both of them, or anyone else who agrees with their views: construct a logical argument with explicit and well-supported premises that moves logically from facts about human reproduction to a conclusion about how we should treat gay folks in our society.

this is like a soggy straw man.
You want me to argue a position i have never proposed, and may not even agree with, so that you can claim victory after you rattle of a few presumptuous posts?....how enticing


If it's not your position, then fine. I'll rename the challenge "The Amore Challenge"

subgenius wrote:
Brad Hudson wrote:
The argument must go one step at a time, premises to conclusion, with each step justified with well supported premises. Terms capable of multiple definitions must be rigorously defined upon request, in a form like "A trait is 'natural' if, and only if, X, with X being the proposed definition.


This has been done repeatedly on other points, yet you admit above that you just do not "get it"...so why would anyone repeat the process for you here?


Please link to where I've invited you to provide a step by step logical argument and you have responded by doing so.

subgenius wrote:
Brad Hudson wrote:
Given that, today, there is no necessary connection between male-female intercourse and sexual reproduction (that is, one can have intercourse without reproducing and can reproduce without sexual intercourse) I suggest the following as a starting premise that I think we can all agree upon:

so, first you want us to construct the argument...but you actually mean is that you will construct the argument...ok.


No. I suggested a starting point and invited the suggestion of others.

subgenius wrote:
Brad Hudson wrote:
P1: human life is created by combining a sperm cell with an egg cell.

wait a second...is this an abortion thread?


No.

subgenius wrote:
Brad Hudson wrote:
If you would prefer a different initial premise, post one and we'll see if we can agree on one that is more to your liking.

So, if we do not like your premise for our argument, we will just submit one until you approve of one for our argument?...all this seems contrary to the very structure you initially proposed...i smell fascism.


No. I suggest starting from some point on which can can all agree and going from there.

_________________
​“The ideal subject of totalitarian rule is not the convinced Nazi or the dedicated communist, but people for whom the distinction between fact and fiction, true and false, no longer exists.”

― Hannah Arendt, The Origins of Totalitarianism, 1951


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: The Subgenius/Amore challenge
PostPosted: Wed Sep 10, 2014 1:24 pm 
God
User avatar

Joined: Thu Sep 01, 2011 6:50 am
Posts: 12241
Location: Your mother's purse
SteelHead wrote:
Conversely, does the majority have the right to force its views on a minority that does not hold the same beliefs?

This is not the converse, it is the obverse - it is implied by the actual question i asked.

Yet your question here would be measured by the same question i asked, would it not?...i mean, it relies on a majority view upon whether to impose upon the minority or not...correct?

_________________
Seek freedom and become captive of your desires...seek discipline and find your liberty
I can tell if a person is judgmental just by looking at them
what is chaos to the fly is normal to the spider - morticia addams
If you're not upsetting idiots, you might be an idiot. - Ted Nugent


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: The Subgenius/Amore challenge
PostPosted: Wed Sep 10, 2014 1:27 pm 
God
User avatar

Joined: Thu Sep 01, 2011 6:50 am
Posts: 12241
Location: Your mother's purse
canpakes wrote:
subgenius wrote:
A simple question for the OP

Should a society implement, condone, encourage, or support any and all behaviors, concepts, and characteristics that the majority of its members hold to be true, virtuous, good, or correct?


'Society' is composed of 'its members'.

If something was already accepted as true, virtuous, good, or correct, then technically it isn't being 'condoned' if those activities are legally allowed.

Condone = "accept and allow (behavior that is considered morally wrong or offensive) to continue."

Do you mean to ask another question?

wow...that is the kernel you plucked form that question?

condone is appropriate...because society would be composed of those in the majority and the minority...so somebody would have to "condone" at some point.

nevertheless....since you are checking words...check the "or" within that listing.

_________________
Seek freedom and become captive of your desires...seek discipline and find your liberty
I can tell if a person is judgmental just by looking at them
what is chaos to the fly is normal to the spider - morticia addams
If you're not upsetting idiots, you might be an idiot. - Ted Nugent


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: The Subgenius/Amore challenge
PostPosted: Wed Sep 10, 2014 1:28 pm 
God
User avatar

Joined: Thu Sep 01, 2011 6:50 am
Posts: 12241
Location: Your mother's purse
subgenius wrote:
A simple question for the OP

Should a society implement, condone, encourage, or support any and all behaviors, concepts, and characteristics that the majority of its members hold to be true, virtuous, good, or correct?

a couple of responses...but nary an answer yet.

_________________
Seek freedom and become captive of your desires...seek discipline and find your liberty
I can tell if a person is judgmental just by looking at them
what is chaos to the fly is normal to the spider - morticia addams
If you're not upsetting idiots, you might be an idiot. - Ted Nugent


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: The Subgenius/Amore challenge
PostPosted: Wed Sep 10, 2014 1:45 pm 
God
User avatar

Joined: Fri Oct 05, 2012 5:37 pm
Posts: 8696
Location: On walkabout
subgenius wrote:
Brad Hudson wrote:
Both of them post as if they believe they have a coherent logical argument.

as do you


Yep. ***shrugs***

subgenius wrote:
Brad Hudson wrote:
I don't see one in their posts, but that doesn't mean they don't have one.

to you it does mean that, and you proclaim such at almost every opportunity....except when baiting like the OP.


No, it means that they aren't articulating one in what they post. I disagree with your notion that inviting someone to lay out an argument in a step by step logical fashion qualifies as "baiting."

subgenius wrote:
Brad Hudson wrote:
However, if they do have one, I don't think it is too much to expect them to articulate it in a step by step, logically supported fashion.

as long as it meets your approval...how generous.


I don't think anyone's "approval" has anything to do with my challenge. For example, Amore appears to believe she has a logical argument that supports her views. I think it's reasonable to challenge her to lay out her argument in a step by step fashion.

subgenius wrote:
Brad Hudson wrote:
Doing so will flesh out unstated premises as well as logical errors. In Amore's case, she appears to believe her argument is so strong that no rational person could disagree and, so, she concludes disagreement must result from brainwashing.


whereas your posts claim that it is Amore that is brainwashed...the brilliant rubber/glue rebuttal.


You misunderstand the point of my argument. Amore's "herd" argument is straight up well poisoning, a logical fallacy. My point in reversing the argument is not to argue that she really is brainwashed, but to show how silly it is.

subgenius wrote:
Brad Hudson wrote:
If that's true, and she is not actually just following a herd like she claims everyone who disagrees with her is doing, it should be especially easy for her to meet the challenge.


But your posts consistently merit the pearls before swine,or easily the milk before meat, response....and your refusal to accept that reality is an obstacle for you.
To insist that an argument about religion be framed on your paradigm is absurd...it would be tantamount to me insisting that you prove the 2nd law of Thermodynamics within the confines of the King James Version of the Bible.


That's simply the special pleading fallacy. If you want to take the position that your views on how gay folks can be treated in society cannot be supported by logical argument and well-supported factual premises, I'm good with that. If you want to take the position that we should treat gay folks in a certain manner because your god says so, I understand the argument but disagree with the initial premise. But if you believe your views are supported by evidence and logic, you should be able to articulate your argument in a step by step, logical manner.

subgenius wrote:
Truthfully, it comes down to the simple reality that your posts rely upon a very narrow idea and definition of what is "true" and what is "real"...yet when confronted with the reality that breaches that reliance, your posts become dismissive and critical of those responsible for that breach.


Interesting derail. So, how do I define "true" and "real"?

_________________
​“The ideal subject of totalitarian rule is not the convinced Nazi or the dedicated communist, but people for whom the distinction between fact and fiction, true and false, no longer exists.”

― Hannah Arendt, The Origins of Totalitarianism, 1951


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: The Subgenius/Amore challenge
PostPosted: Wed Sep 10, 2014 1:48 pm 
God
User avatar

Joined: Fri Oct 05, 2012 5:37 pm
Posts: 8696
Location: On walkabout
subgenius wrote:
subgenius wrote:
A simple question for the OP

Should a society implement, condone, encourage, or support any and all behaviors, concepts, and characteristics that the majority of its members hold to be true, virtuous, good, or correct?

a couple of responses...but nary an answer yet.


A simple question deserves a simple answer: sometimes. Nice derail, though.

_________________
​“The ideal subject of totalitarian rule is not the convinced Nazi or the dedicated communist, but people for whom the distinction between fact and fiction, true and false, no longer exists.”

― Hannah Arendt, The Origins of Totalitarianism, 1951


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: The Subgenius/Amore challenge
PostPosted: Wed Sep 10, 2014 1:58 pm 
God
User avatar

Joined: Wed Sep 03, 2014 10:27 am
Posts: 1030
Brad Hudson wrote:
Both subgenus and amore seem to believe that something about the way people reproduce logically leads to conclusion about how we should treat gay folks.
Wrong - but obvious projection.
If you read through, you'll see our focus on facts, and YOUR focus on ad hominemn attacks.
You have NOTHING to stand on - no foundation - even homosexual herd leaders admit this and encourage their herd to argue based on emotional reasoning, ad homonim attacks (name calling like homophobe, hate-filled, bigot, etc.).

Two quotes from the Marshall Kirk book, aimed at showing how to use advertising and PR to advance the agenda:
"Thus propagandistic advertising can depict all opponents of the gay movement as homophobic bigots who are 'not Christian' and the propaganda can further show them as being criticized, hated and shunned"....
"Our effect is achieved without reference to facts, logic or proof.... the person's beliefs can be altered whether he is conscious of the attack or not".

Quote:
However, when I read their arguments, I see a mishmash of random facts, unstated premises, non-sequiturs, and other logical fallacies of various flavors.
Do you know what a logical fallacy is? It's not "random facts."
Even if you haven't taken statistics, it isn't too difficult to understand stats from the US CDC, like those who practice homosexuality are 40 TIMES more likely to get STDs.
Even if you didn't go to medical school, it's easy to see that a penis fits into a vagina, and a penis does NOT fit into an anus, without several risk factors.
Even if you have never had sex, by now you should understand that all children come by a man and a woman - and that is why societies have seen it wise to invest in such a union. Homosexual practices offer nothing but liabilities to society, which is why most Americans have voted against redefining marriage to include sexual substitutes.
Quote:
Now, it's entirely possible that there is a valid argument in there somewhere that moves from well-supported premises to conclusions in a logical fashion. But for the life of me, I can't find one.

Of course not, how could you accept such axiomatic truth, when you can't even accept basic human anatomy?
Quote:
So, I offer this challenge to the both of them, or anyone else who agrees with their views: construct a logical argument with explicit and well-supported premises that moves logically from facts about human reproduction to a conclusion about how we should treat gay folks in our society. The argument must go one step at a time, premises to conclusion, with each step justified with well supported premises. Terms capable of multiple definitions must be rigorously defined upon request, in a form like "A trait is 'natural' if, and only if, X, with X being the proposed definition.
Strawman logical fallacy, Fallacy of assumption, Begging the question, Conjunction fallacy, Red Hering...
You may not consciously understand logical fallacies, but your homosexual herd brainwashing has trained you well in applying them.

How about you TAKE THIS CHALLENGE:
Try your hardest to communicate on this forum without any more logical fallacies.
I bet you can't do it.
Quote:
Given that, today, there is no necessary connection between male-female intercourse and sexual reproduction (that is, one can have intercourse without reproducing and can reproduce without sexual intercourse) I suggest the following as a starting premise that I think we can all agree upon:

P1: human life is created by combining a sperm cell with an egg cell.

If you would prefer a different initial premise, post one and we'll see if we can agree on one that is more to your liking.
You're conveniently ignoring the fact that the vast majority of human beings are conceived by sexual intercourse between a man and a woman, so your attempt at a red herring & other logical fallacies dismisses any relevance in your attempt at presenting a case. You simply cannot win the argument against dishing special rights based on certain sexual substitutes, without engaging in logical fallacies and having an ignorant herd-minded audience who falls for them.

1. Try your hardest to logically and ethically explain why society should legally promote any sexual substitutes, and why homosexual substitutes over all the other sexual substitutes.

2. Try to logically prove that homosexual behavior is healthy enough to legally encourage, while acknowledging US CDC overwhelming homosexual reports of STDs, HIV/AIDS and mental illness... as well as doctor warning of anal sex (anal fissures, anal cancer, colon rupture and bacterial infection).

3. Attempt to prove (without emotional reasoning) that mothers or fathers are useless. That 2 mothers... or 2 fathers are sufficient in raising future generations - in and by themselves without outside help.

Warning: The above are impossible to prove, but knock yourself out trying.


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: The Subgenius/Amore challenge
PostPosted: Wed Sep 10, 2014 2:08 pm 
God
User avatar

Joined: Mon May 16, 2011 7:40 pm
Posts: 8150
Location: What does the fox say?
Here is the problem Amore no one here is claiming your 1, 2, or 3.

1. No one is promoting a homosexual centric legal preference.
2. No one here is saying it needs to be legally promoted, rather the law should be agnostic towards it.
3. No one is claiming that traditional families are useless.

You are asking us to defend straw man positions of your own crafting. Since they are your strawmen, you can have the honor of both promoting or tilting against them.

_________________
It is better to be a warrior in a garden, than a gardener at war.

Some of us, on the other hand, actually prefer a religion that includes some type of correlation with reality.
~Bill Hamblin


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: The Subgenius/Amore challenge
PostPosted: Wed Sep 10, 2014 2:11 pm 
God
User avatar

Joined: Fri Oct 05, 2012 5:37 pm
Posts: 8696
Location: On walkabout
Amore. i'm perfectly happy to start with:

P1: "The vast majority of human beings are conceived by sexual intercourse between a man and a woman."

Therefore, what?

_________________
​“The ideal subject of totalitarian rule is not the convinced Nazi or the dedicated communist, but people for whom the distinction between fact and fiction, true and false, no longer exists.”

― Hannah Arendt, The Origins of Totalitarianism, 1951


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: The Subgenius/Amore challenge
PostPosted: Wed Sep 10, 2014 2:20 pm 
God
User avatar

Joined: Wed Dec 07, 2011 12:54 am
Posts: 7243
subgenius wrote:
[q]
wow...that is the kernel you plucked form that question?

condone is appropriate...because society would be composed of those in the majority and the minority...so somebody would have to "condone" at some point.

nevertheless....since you are checking words...check the "or" within that listing.


There is no 'one' specific answer, given that the amount of variation is too large (translated, every possible level of acceptance or variable type of behavior, with respect to everyone). The question can be ignored until you pen something more specific.


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 116 posts ]  Go to page 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6  Next

All times are UTC - 7 hours [ DST ]


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Bret Ripley and 5 guests


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum

Jump to:  
Revival Theme By Brandon Designs By B.Design-Studio © 2007-2008 Brandon
Revival Theme Based off SubLite By Echo © 2007-2008 Echo
Powered by phpBB © 2000, 2002, 2005, 2007 phpBB Group