why can't we have a relationship with other men?

[1robin]

I'll label it non-sequitur then, because your conclusion is not entailed by your premise. In other words, your argument is simply invalid. If you think an invalid argument "still stands", that shows how low your standards are for evidence and argumentation. And to be honest, that you're content with patently unsound arguments sort of explains everything.

Why has assertion replaced evidence and argumentation? Do you think simply claiming X is invalid makes it such. To even begin to be meaningful you must provide reasons why X is invalid. A post without this is not worth typing and is a form of complaint not argumentation.
My points are based on one of the most universal and foundation principles of law. It stands as is and the conclusion can't possibly follow any more directly from the premise. How long are we going to do the "yes it is, no it isn't" stuff. I can rebut attempts at evidence with evidence but am stuck having to respond to assertions with counter assertions but find it meaningless.

Given that all of your views are utter immune to any sorts of evidence or reasoning, its no surprise that people have stopped trying to talk to you like an adult. More listening and thinking is required, less stamping your foot and repeating yourself.

Says the person who last 4 posts have been exactly what they are complaining about. I do not care about your opinions. Present arguments not assertions.

 

[Enai de a lukal]

Do you think simply claiming X is invalid makes it such.

No. The fact that the premise could be true and the conclusion false makes it invalid. That's usually what makes an argument invalid.

 

[1robin]

No. The fact that the premise could be true and the conclusion false makes it invalid. That's usually what makes an argument invalid.

No it does not. Science is based on the best explanation for the evidence. The fact it could be a false conclusion does not render science invalid.

However in my argument I do not see any theoretical possibility the conclusion can be wrong if the premise is true, unless you do not believe anything is actually wrong. Maybe you can show my why you think it could.

 

[Enai de a lukal]

No it does not. Science is based on the best explanation for the evidence. The fact it could be a false conclusion does not render science invalid.

Oh dear. Read the first couple sentences from a couple of (randomly selected) introductory level sources explaining logical validity-

Introduction to Logic: Level Two Tutorials
Validity and Soundness*[Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy]

You're welcome.

 

[1robin]

Oh dear. Read the first couple sentences from a couple of (randomly selected) introductory level sources explaining logical validity-

Introduction to Logic: Level Two Tutorials
Validity and Soundness*[Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy]

You're welcome.

Then you must reject every claim except we think because they all can be wrong.

Those sites are another example of thinking ourselves into imbecility. Anyone who claims this:

So the following are both valid arguments:


2+2=5. So it is raining.



2+2=5. So it is not raining.
Introduction to Logic: Level Two Tutorials

Instantly lost any credibility they might have had in determining what is a valid argument.

Let me construct an argument of exactly the same type but make it a much more extreme example and see if you claim it is invalid.

I claim this.

1. Hitler's racial ideals and greed resulted in the death of 50 million people.
2. Hitler had no justification that can compensate for the lives lost.
3. Hitler acted immorally.

Now is that argument invalid. If so which part and why?

 

[Enai de a lukal]

Then you must reject every claim except we think because they all can be wrong.

Um... What? Care to try that again?

Those sites are another example of thinking ourselves into imbecility.

Yeah, a professor at Oxford University in logic probably has no idea what he's talking about when it comes to a basic logic tutorial. You're such a joker.

Let me construct an argument of exactly the same type but make it a much more extreme example and see if you claim it is invalid.

I claim this.

1. Hitler's racial ideals and greed resulted in the death of 50 million people.
2. Hitler had no justification that can compensate for the lives lost.
3. Hitler acted immorally.

Now is that argument invalid. If so which part and why?

The syllogism, if 3 is supposed to be the conclusion, is not deductively valid (it needs at least one additional premise). Its invalid because the conjunction of 1 and 2 do not contradict the negation of 3. That's what logical validity means- the conclusion can be false even when the premises are true (in other words, the conclusion doesn't follow from the premises).

Perhaps you should read the whole logic tutorial, as you are apparently unfamiliar with some very basic concepts in logic and reasoning.

 

[AmbiguousGuy]

I have but it should not be necessary.

I would not, of course, call anyone on this forum a liar. So I assume you are simply confused here. Let's investigate.

You say that you have presented CDC data proving that homosexuality has no justification for its risks.

I'm asking you, point blank, to repost that data now... or else to retract your claim that you've done so.

Please either repost that data or point me to the place where you claim to have posted it.

The cost is in lives. Homosexuality produces no lives. It has no justification.

Sure, man. You think that love is no justification for any human behaviors. There's where conservative Christian theology takes us.

Your not paying attention to my posts. I said the CDC data proves what the cost is. The second point is a philosophical proposition about justification and qualities. I use evidence where it applies.

No, that's not what you said. You said you'd proven the claim with CDC data.

But that's silly. There is no data from the CDC which proves that homosexuality has no justification.

 

[MysticSang'ha]

The confusion, I think, is:

1) A sweeping generalization that "homosexuality" is fully equated to "male to male penile-anal penetration."
2) A sweeping generalization that "heterosexuality" is fully equated to "procreation."

Reducing sexuality to whether or not a man is having anal intercourse with another man....or whether or not a heterosexual couple is making babies....is dismissing a tremendous number of people, ages, and means of intimacy. Males with erectile dysfunction, infertile couples as a whole, post-menopausal women, lesbians and same-sex female couples, pre- and post-op transgendered people, intersexed people, asexual people. Just as a start.

Utilizing this logic has also - for a very long time - dismissed the female orgasm as biologically necessary, as unjustifiable (since a female orgasm does not figure into procreation by its inherent existence), and at times even non-existent...

...reminds me of a debate I once had with another member here some years ago who insisted that female orgasms don't actually exist, only that we women fool ourselves into thinking that what we are feeling is an orgasm. That was funny...

...anyway...

The thing is, sex for pleasure is considered "lust" and therefore a grave sin according to people who reduce all of sexuality to functional reproductive organs. It doesn't matter that it isn't penis + vagina = baby....but sperm + egg + gestation + birth = baby. The latter equation actually produces an infant human being, whereas the former does not do so necessarily. However, to some people, all that matters is not what a woman wants to do with her reproductive organs or that a man wants to do with his, but that everyone is using their bodies to make babies. And to prioritize even further, it's most important what a penis is doing or isn't doing (I call it phallocentric and having an ejaculatory bias, but that's just me. The bias means that the only pleasure that is justifiable is male ejaculation for the purpose of fertilizing an egg inside a female....whether she is willing or not).

I find such mindsets extraordinarily depressing.

 

[Debater Slayer]

"He has told you, O man, what is good; and what does the Lord require of you but to do justice, and to love kindness, and to walk humbly with your God?" -- Micah 6:8

Maybe it's just me, but I don't see any mention of sex there. Not sure what the big fuss is for.

 

[1robin]

Um... What? Care to try that again?

Nope. If you reject my conclusion for the sole reason that it is possible for it to be wrong (which I deny anyway) then you must also reject all claims where it is possible for them to be wrong, that is if consistency is desired at all.

Yeah, a professor at Oxford University in logic probably has no idea what he's talking about when it comes to a basic logic tutorial. You're such a joker.

So you are saying that what an Oxford professor says must be true. If so then God exists, Hawking is wrong, and Dawkins is an idiot because the Pure mathematician Lennox (an Oxford professor) claims all three plus about another thousand things concerning God's certain existence. Good to know. I could have saved a lot of time. What if a Cambridge professor says something. Are they omniscient to? What if two Oxford scholars disagree, does a worm hole open and suck reality down the tube because it became broken?

The logical theory you provided the link to is complete arbitrary opinion. It is like grammar. Someone just decides what is right and wrong and nothing exists anywhere to confirm or deny it. I could draw the exact opposite conclusions they had and there is nothing to indicate I was wrong.

The syllogism, if 3 is supposed to be the conclusion, is not deductively valid (it needs at least one additional premise). Its invalid because the conjunction of 1 and 2 do not contradict the negation of 3. That's what logical validity means- the conclusion can be false even when the premises are true (in other words, the conclusion doesn't follow from the premises).

Quit supplying objections that are semantic technicalities. It is as if you are attempting to hide whatever you wish reality to be, so deep in terminology it can't be seen. It is like trying to sneak into a building by walking in with a crowd.


Every one of my arguments follows directly and unavoidably from the previous one no matter how many letters you put in the words you use to suggest they are not. The argument has no choice but to be correct if one thing is granted (morality). If you grant a morality that is similar in foundation to what is present universally in cultures there is no escape from what I said.


Your response is not just a waste of time it is an impediment to resolution (which is probably it's purpose). While people that think like you do would and did spend years discussing the technical aspects of a clear act the rest of the free world actually stopped Hitler's murderous reign. By the time you figured out (if you ever would) that killing Jews on an industrial scale was wrong there would have been no Jews left.

That kind of stuff reminds me of another Bible passage.

Paul and the False Apostles
…13For such men are false apostles, deceitful workers, disguising themselves as apostles of Christ. 14No wonder, for even Satan disguises himself as an angel of light. 15Therefore it is not surprising if his servants also disguise themselves as servants of righteousness, whose end will be according to their deeds.
2 Corinthians 11:14 And no wonder, for Satan himself masquerades as an angel of light.

Romans 1:22 CEB
Common English Bible
While they were claiming to be wise, they made fools of themselves.
Romans 1:22 Although they claimed to be wise, they became fools - Online Bible Study Tools

I will include an example that illustrates these verses below.

Perhaps you should read the whole logic tutorial, as you are apparently unfamiliar with some very basic concepts in logic and reasoning.

I read enough of those links to know I want nothing whatever to do with the thinking that created them. Let me give an example that illustrates why, and those verses above.


In pre 1940 Europe there were two men and I am sure a bunch of people that think like you do involved in the impending events Hitler was driving towards.

1. The extremely liberal Neville Chamberlain lacked the moral fortitude to fight evil and instead tried to pacify it. What he actually did was give it several years of free reign which made it eventual fury far worse. He made things much worse at the same time he was proclaiming his brilliance had produced peace in our time.

I want nothing to do with whatever liberal philosophy he is selling. It kills truth.

2. There were many people in think tanks and universities who believed Hitler was actually a genius. That ignorance and their being involved in theoretical discourse which never has to be right about anything ever, persuaded many people to just let Hitler have his way. They operated in the deep end of academia where there exists no way to know if your theory is wrong. This is typified by a comment much later that reveals it also lacks the ability to learn from its mistakes.

The interviewer noticed this, and when prompted to respond Dawkins replied “What’s to prevent us from saying Hitler wasn’t right?”.
More on Dawkins and Morality-No absolutes | Frames of Reference

Apparently 70 years after the fact and with all the additional info about Hitler the theoretical and academic crowd still could not resolve the nature of Hitler's actions. This not just a waste of everyone's time, it is evil, and exactly what those verses above are talking about.

3. Lastly we had Christian Churchill. His Christian character gave him moral clarity at least in the extreme end of the spectrum where Hitler was at. His hard hitting experience in war (not think tanks), his moral fortitude, and his conviction led him to suggest taking Hitler out in 1937. The two groups above (plus a few more) persuaded parliament or it's advisors not to do so, and thereby enabled a man to kill 50 million people. Not only has Churchill been proven right but he fought those same people for four more years in the successful effort to stop the monster they allowed to thrive.

A long time ago I was mesmerized by $100 dollar terminologies and idolized sciences big names. College, military service, and historical study cured me of that, no longer am I enchanted with garbage dressed in silk robes. I stay in the practical reliable end of academics, if I could pry you out of the veneer covered end of useless academia by any means, we might eventually get somewhere.

 

[1robin]

I would not, of course, call anyone on this forum a liar. So I assume you are simply confused here. Let's investigate.

You say that you have presented CDC data proving that homosexuality has no justification for its risks.

For god's sake, why does whatever a persons IQ happens to be drop by 50 points in this thread. I have never ever claimed what you said I did. I have spent much time straightening out exactly what I used the CDC data for. This thread is the twilight zone.

I have two points, one about the costs of homosexuality, one about its lack of justification. The CDC data applies to the former and have never been used for the latter.

I'm asking you, point blank, to repost that data now... or else to retract your claim that you've done so.

No no no no no. I have done so at least a dozen times plus at least half a dozen other lists that include other data beyond aids costs. I did so again just yesterday or the day before. I am not going to keep reposting data over and over and over again. My data stays where it is and will not be withdrawn. My God what is going on here?

Please either repost that data or point me to the place where you claim to have posted it.

Please review and please post a single statement I made the used CDC data to directly prove justification is absent. I used it only for what the behavior costs. I must have made that argument that way 2 dozen times and straightened out misunderstandings of the two simple sentences at least a dozen times, and pointed out 1 of the 2 claims was ignored for convenience two dozen times. Exactly how much data must I have to give up and conclude your side is doing this on purpose.

Sure, man. You think that love is no justification for any human behaviors. There's where conservative Christian theology takes us.

Once again point to a single claim I made that said that. You are posting nothing but stuff I never said. How long do you think I must put up with this for?

No, that's not what you said. You said you'd proven the claim with CDC data.

No it is not. I said I have a simplistic two part argument. The CDC data proves point one, point two flows from the most concrete, universal, and foundational principles in law and morality. If a behavioral preference takes lives it must produce the same to even have a chance to be justifiable.

But that's silly. There is no data from the CDC which proves that homosexuality has no justification.

That is probably why I never used it that way. Not only are you claiming my statement said what they never did, you are doing so with unrivaled redundancy. For weeks I have been offering one more illustration of my claims after another. It's only 2 freaking sentences for heck's sake. I can't do so indefinitely. Review, give up, I will not continued to do so time after time after time.

 

[AmbiguousGuy]

For god's sake, why does whatever a persons IQ happens to be drop by 50 points in this thread. I have never ever claimed what you said I did.

You need to re-read the thread. More importantly you need to realize that you are speaking with wordsmiths, logicians, very intelligent people. So when you present your words, the others here read them closely. It might be wise for you to spend a bit more time carefully composing your words and a little less time stomping on the SUBMIT REPLY button. Just a suggestion.

I have spent much time straightening out exactly what I used the CDC data for. This thread is the twilight zone.

Have you ever heard this phrase: We have met the enemy and he is us.

If you find yourself in the Twilight Zone, maybe you should look within yourself to try and figure out how you came to be there?

I said I have a simplistic two part argument. The CDC data proves point one, point two flows from the most concrete, universal, and foundational principles in law and morality. If a behavioral preference takes lives it must produce the same to even have a chance to be justifiable.

If you would actually listen to me, I'd be happy to show why this argument is not just flawed but immoral.

But you never listen to me, so....

 

[1robin]

You need to re-read the thread. More importantly you need to realize that you are speaking with wordsmiths, logicians, very intelligent people. So when you present your words, the others here read them closely. It might be wise for you to spend a bit more time carefully composing your words and a little less time stomping on the SUBMIT REPLY button. Just a suggestion.

It is not me that is constantly misunderstanding or intentionally ignoring my simplistic two sentence primary claim. Abraham Lincoln was a wordsmith, GK Chesterton was a wordsmith, and Christ was a wordsmith. No one here is, and apparently are lacking the most basic reading comprehension. My words stand as written, it is not my fault you mangle them all up.

This is typical deflection, cover up your mistakes by attempting to make them my fault.

I am in daily communication with our technical writing dept. I write technical orders that must be approved by army aviation generals. I might make a spelling mistake in a long post and I might even get some grammar wrong. However in two sentences that have been posted over and over and over error in comprehension is not the fault of the simplistic wording in them.

Have you ever heard this phrase: We have met the enemy and he is us.

If you find yourself in the Twilight Zone, maybe you should look within yourself to try and figure out how you came to be there?



If you would actually listen to me, I'd be happy to show why this argument is not just flawed but immoral.

But you never listen to me, so....

I have had it. You are trying to win a word fight regardless of whether what you claim is true or not. I am not. My two claims stand and are comprehensible to an 8 year old. The data was used by me exactly where appropriate (as the fact you could not produce any of the statements where I used it as you said I had even when demanded, proves). If you can't or won't admit that then I have other more productive things I can do.

 

[Enai de a lukal]

Nope. If you reject my conclusion for the sole reason that it is possible for it to be wrong (which I deny anyway) then you must also reject all claims where it is possible for them to be wrong, that is if consistency is desired at all.

I didn't reject the statement that was a reply to- I couldn't make any sense of it one way or the other, which is why I asked you to try it again. Perhaps you should go back and read what you had posted- it was clearly a typo, or something, because it was simply incoherent.

So you are saying that what an Oxford professor says must be tru

The site in question was a basic logic 101 tutorial, and you would find the exact same material in any introductory source on logic you care to pick; could he be wrong? Unlikely, but possible. Was he wrong regarding the basics of his field of expertise? Nope.

The logical theory you provided the link to is complete arbitrary opinion. It is like grammar.

No, it isn't. The definition of logical (in)validity is not up-for-grabs; it means that the conclusion doesn't follow from the premises, or, in other words, that it's possible for the premises to be true and the conclusion false, or, in other words, the negation of the conclusion is consistent with the premises.

Quit supplying objections that are semantic technicalities.

Your utter disregard for truth and accuracy is showing again.

I read enough of those links to know I want nothing whatever to do with the thinking that created them.

That you want "nothing whatever to do" with logic is hardly surprising, and pretty instructive.

 

[AmbiguousGuy]

It is not me that is constantly misunderstanding or intentionally ignoring my simplistic two sentence primary claim.

It is you who ignores all powerful arguments made against your simplistic and immoral claim. If you actually engaged those counterarguments, you'd be forced to admit your error... as so you pretend they aren't there.

That's certainly what I've observed, at least.

Abraham Lincoln was a wordsmith, GK Chesterton was a wordsmith, and Christ was a wordsmith. No one here is, and apparently are lacking the most basic reading comprehension. My words stand as written, it is not my fault you mangle them all up.

Sure, man. The problem is with everyone else but you. OK.

I am in daily communication with our technical writing dept. I write technical orders that must be approved by army aviation generals. I might make a spelling mistake in a long post and I might even get some grammar wrong.

It would be inappropriate for me to truthfully describe your writing and reasoning ability.

My two claims stand and are comprehensible to an 8 year old.

Your two claims are morally despicable and have been disproven by virtually everyone who has addressed you here in this thread.

 

[1robin]

"He has told you, O man, what is good; and what does the Lord require of you but to do justice, and to love kindness, and to walk humbly with your God?" -- Micah 6:8

Maybe it's just me, but I don't see any mention of sex there. Not sure what the big fuss is for.

Well here are just a few of the many from the 99.9% of the Bible you apparently did not read.


Leviticus 20:13
If a man lies with a male as with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination; they shall surely be put to death; their blood is upon them.

1 Corinthians 6:9

Or do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: neither the sexually immoral, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor men who practice homosexuality.



1 Timothy 1:10

The sexually immoral, men who practice homosexuality, enslavers, liars, perjurers, and whatever else is contrary to sound doctrine,


Leviticus 18:22

You shall not lie with a male as with a woman; it is an abomination.


Romans 1:26-28

For this reason God gave them up to dishonorable passions. For their women exchanged natural relations for those that are contrary to nature; and the men likewise gave up natural relations with women and were consumed with passion for one another, men committing shameless acts with men and receiving in themselves the due penalty for their error. And since they did not see fit to acknowledge God, God gave them up to a debased mind to do what ought not to be done.


1 Corinthians 7:2

But because of the temptation to sexual immorality, each man should have his own wife and each woman her own husband.


Jude 1:7

Just as Sodom and Gomorrah and the surrounding cities, which likewise indulged in sexual immorality and pursued unnatural desire, serve as an example by undergoing a punishment of eternal fire.


1 Corinthians 6:9-11

Or do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: neither the sexually immoral, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor men who practice homosexuality, nor thieves, nor the greedy, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor swindlers will inherit the kingdom of God. And such were some of you. But you were washed, you were sanctified, you were justified in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ and by the Spirit of our God.


Romans 1:32

Though they know God's decree that those who practice such things deserve to die, they not only do them but give approval to those who practice them.


http://www.openbible.info/topics/homosexuality

Many more can be found there.

 

[AmbiguousGuy]

Romans 1:32

Though they know God's decree that those who practice such things deserve to die, they not only do them but give approval to those who practice them.

I swear I have thought more than once that you could be a militant atheist pretending to be a Christian in order to turn everyone's stomach at Christianity.

Why must you always show us the darkest underbelly of the Bible and Christianity? Can't you ever focus on the 'love' part?

 

[FranklinMichaelV.3]

Well according too all those versus...for women...it's alright.

 

[AmbiguousGuy]

Well according too all those versus...for women...it's alright.

I think 1robin approves of lesbianism. After all, it has justification and does no harm.

He just seems focused on male anal sex, so it seems to me.

 

[1robin]

I swear I have thought more than once that you could be a militant atheist pretending to be a Christian in order to turn everyone's stomach at Christianity.

Why must you always show us the darkest underbelly of the Bible and Christianity? Can't you ever focus on the 'love' part?

I don't and your nuts. I spend almost all my time dealing with atheistic assumptions in the effort to deny God and call him evil at the same time. Less that 1% of my posts have anything dark in them. Over 90% of them are fluffy good stuff to contradict claims about dark stuff. Only your side would call a verse condemning evil and the death it produces wrong dark in the first place. However even if it was dark and even if it occurred in more that 1% of posts it was mandated by a false claim.

I do not care about your estimations about what I say because long ago I concluded you don't care about the accuracy or relevance of anything you claim. Most of us call condemning death and suffering if produced by acts contrary to morality light. I guess I should not be surprised you consider moral truth as darkness.

You completely wrong in about every single word you posted above as usual and none of it is meaningful even if true.

In fact I am done with you again for now.