Page 103 of 124 FirstFirst ... 35393101102103104105113 ... LastLast
Results 1,021 to 1,030 of 1236

Thread: Just Plain Wrong

  1. #1021
    Dorset Patriot
    Wessexman's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    Sydney, Australia(but my heart is back in Dorset.)
    Last Seen
    10-17-17 @ 04:17 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Very Conservative
    Posts
    8,468

    Re: Just Plain Wrong

    Quote Originally Posted by misterman View Post
    I still win.
    When you put it so eloquently, who could doubt it.
    "It is written in the eternal constitution that men of intemperate minds cannot be free. Their passions forge their fetters." - Edmund Burke

  2. #1022
    Sage
    misterman's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Last Seen
    02-09-12 @ 08:41 AM
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    12,913

    Re: Just Plain Wrong

    Quote Originally Posted by Wessexman View Post
    When you put it so eloquently, who could doubt it.
    You said it yourself - the mouth has multiple uses. So the naturalness argument goes out the window. If he has to justify kissing that way, he can't exclude homosexuality. You either accept "natural" as a moral argument, or you don't. Which is why I brought up kissing.
    "Yes I read the 9th [amendment]. It doesn't say **** about abortion." -Jamesrage

  3. #1023
    Dorset Patriot
    Wessexman's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    Sydney, Australia(but my heart is back in Dorset.)
    Last Seen
    10-17-17 @ 04:17 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Very Conservative
    Posts
    8,468

    Re: Just Plain Wrong

    Quote Originally Posted by misterman View Post
    You said it yourself - the mouth has multiple uses. So the naturalness argument goes out the window. If he has to justify kissing that way, he can't exclude homosexuality. You either accept "natural" as a moral argument, or you don't. Which is why I brought up kissing.
    One could, as an example and to use again a particular technical language, argue a final cause of the mouth is eating and that another is kissing; or it is in the nature of the mouth to both eat and kiss. I'm not sure why something must have only one function, or final cause, as part of its nature. You could also certainly argue that a final cause of the mouth is eating and that kissing, while not its final cause or natural function, is not contrary to this and therefore not unnatural per se.
    Last edited by Wessexman; 12-24-11 at 10:11 AM.
    "It is written in the eternal constitution that men of intemperate minds cannot be free. Their passions forge their fetters." - Edmund Burke

  4. #1024
    Matthew 16:3

    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    Everywhere and nowhere
    Last Seen
    06-24-17 @ 05:05 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Progressive
    Posts
    45,603

    Re: Just Plain Wrong

    Quote Originally Posted by Wessexman View Post
    Unless it was an argument that defined nature according Essences and Formal and Final Causes and did not see these being violated in man's case by using a computer.
    Well, then it's circular reasoning because you invented a fake definition for a word for the sole purpose of using said word in an argument designed specifically to reach the per-determined conclusion you wish to achieve. Thus making the argument invalid again.
    Last edited by Tucker Case; 12-24-11 at 11:30 AM.

  5. #1025
    Dorset Patriot
    Wessexman's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    Sydney, Australia(but my heart is back in Dorset.)
    Last Seen
    10-17-17 @ 04:17 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Very Conservative
    Posts
    8,468

    Re: Just Plain Wrong

    Quote Originally Posted by Tucker Case View Post
    Well, then it's circular reasoning because you invented a fake definition for a word for the sole purpose of using said word in an argument designed specifically to reach the per-determined conclusion you wish to achieve. Thus making the argument invalid again.
    You really are going to have to run that past me again. In general nature in this sense is defined as Essence or what something cannot be without and be itself. Exactly how that is circular reasoning is beyond me, Tucker.
    "It is written in the eternal constitution that men of intemperate minds cannot be free. Their passions forge their fetters." - Edmund Burke

  6. #1026
    Matthew 16:3

    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    Everywhere and nowhere
    Last Seen
    06-24-17 @ 05:05 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Progressive
    Posts
    45,603

    Re: Just Plain Wrong

    Quote Originally Posted by Wessexman View Post
    You really are going to have to run that past me again. In general nature in this sense is defined as Essence or what something cannot be without and be itself. Exactly how that is circular reasoning is beyond me, Tucker.
    If you had limited your definition to "Essence or what something cannot be without and be itself" it wouldn't have been a made up definition. It also wouldn't be possible to relate it back to homosexuality, though.

    So you added the extra stuff that was necessary to for it to work in a morality argument. That would mean that any attempt to use it in such a way would make such an argument circular.

    Now, one could argue that you really just mashed multiple definitions of "natural" together to create one that could hypothetically work. That would mean it's all really just equivocation. Which is actually true of any moral argument relying on "normal" or "natural" as the indicators. I have yet to see, nor do I ever expect to see, anyone present such an argument without having a loose and fluid definition of normal or natural.

  7. #1027
    Dorset Patriot
    Wessexman's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    Sydney, Australia(but my heart is back in Dorset.)
    Last Seen
    10-17-17 @ 04:17 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Very Conservative
    Posts
    8,468

    Re: Just Plain Wrong

    Quote Originally Posted by Tucker Case View Post
    If you had limited your definition to "Essence or what something cannot be without and be itself" it wouldn't have been a made up definition. It also wouldn't be possible to relate it back to homosexuality, though.
    That depends on how you argue for it, surely. Scholastic thought, for instance, does relate it back, even if you think it fails to do it properly.

    So you added the extra stuff that was necessary to for it to work in a morality argument. That would mean that any attempt to use it in such a way would make such an argument circular.
    I don't follow all. All else I mentioned is Formal and Final Causes. Formal Causes are the instantiation, in Aristotelian and Thomistic thought, of Essences or Forms. Final Causes are the end goal or purpose of something and in a sense the playing out of the instantiation of the Essence.

    For a rubber ball the Formal Cause is bounciness, roundness and such properties, which obviously are a reflection of the Essence of such a ball, and its Final Cause might be for a child's game, which can be related to its nature or Essence. The Essence here is something one defines indirectly in discursive description, because to completely capture it one would have to convey the entire Essence in words, which is not possible of course; the description of something is always distinct from the thing itself. So Formal and Final Causes are here simply added descriptions of the Essence or nature, which help us to understand it better.
    Last edited by Wessexman; 12-24-11 at 07:30 PM.
    "It is written in the eternal constitution that men of intemperate minds cannot be free. Their passions forge their fetters." - Edmund Burke

  8. #1028
    ˇSelah!
    Alyssa's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Location
    southern and midwestern United States where Protestant fundamentalism is dominant
    Last Seen
    05-07-14 @ 09:55 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    8,648
    Blog Entries
    2

    Re: Just Plain Wrong

    Quote Originally Posted by lpast View Post
    DO NOT PUT WORDS IN MY MOUTH..

    thats all you homosexual cheerleaders do is throw bs...I have never said not ONCE that it was evil..not once...Ive never insinuated any such thing...you people throw around the most absurd DODGES and thats all they are is dodges.

    You accuse people of saying or meaning things they never said...because you have no other answers...you ask the same questions over and over for what end ? to intimidate someone that doesnt agree with you or what wear them out...got news for all of you...you cant wear me out lol...everytime you make a ridiculous statement to dodge the issue or blur it...so will I...I will continue to relentlessly tell you what I know to be true...homosexuality is ABNORMAL and unnatural..and the reasons are obvious...but the cheerleaders will continue to be dishonest and evasive and use their same tired trickery in every pro homosexual thread...
    I will not allow you to put words im my mouth...I will say what I want to and stand by it all on my own
    If homosexuality isn't immoral, then what is your point? What is it exactly that you are trying to argue?
    “In politics, stupidity is not a handicap.” -Napoleon

  9. #1029
    Matthew 16:3

    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    Everywhere and nowhere
    Last Seen
    06-24-17 @ 05:05 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Progressive
    Posts
    45,603

    Re: Just Plain Wrong

    Quote Originally Posted by Wessexman View Post
    ...and its Final Cause might be for a child's game, which can be related to its nature or Essence.
    You just demonstrated quite well why it's always going to be circular logic in a morality argument.

    First, it can only be "related to it's nature" by way of creating an arbitrary designation of what is natural.

    The nature of a ball is not to be used in a child's game unless you define 'nature' in such a way to allow you to reach said conclusion by including such things as natural in the definition.

    The "final cause" is an arbitrary decision to claim that this is what such an object can be used for. But a rubber ball is equally usable to plug up the sphincter of a kinky fetish model. Who defines the "appropriate" final cause? The person trying to make the circular argument vilifying or justifying a certain behavior, that's who. And they do so by reverse engineering their logic from the conclusion to the premises, carefully creating premises that imply their desired conclusion.

    When you have to "relate" that which you wish to call "natural" or "unnatural" back to your definition of "natural" or "unnatural", you cannot possibly have employed anything otehr than circular logic.

    Why? Because as any student of logic knows, conclusions follow from the premises. You, however, have been demonstrating the complete opposite of a logical progression, and your language choices demonstrate that perfectly. If the argument must be "related back" it certainly does not follow, at least on it's own merits.

    Since the conclusions are what must be "related back" to the premises (and not by virtue of a premise), we can clearly see that the arguments involved are invalid ones.

  10. #1030
    Sporadic insanity normal.


    The Mark's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Location
    Pennsylvania
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 11:43 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    19,736

    Re: Just Plain Wrong

    Quote Originally Posted by Cardinal View Post
    Actually, you're quite right about my ignorance on homeschooling. I honestly have very little idea of what that entails. What I can say is that I've run into homeschooled people on debate forums with some degree of frequency, and the result of that homeschooling is extremely consistent:

    *Adequately well educated in the three R's, but the overall education seems to focus (again, simply from what I've been able to ascertain from the result) on an ideological bent (you get three guesses what that ideology is and the first two don't count).
    *Whatever their homeschooling entailed, it did not appear to involve any particular demand on citing sources or backing claims. Empirica's habit of not providing supporting evidence for anything she says whatsoever is entirely consistent with this. The impression I get is that her word is the source of evidence for her argument. (Reminds me of a Start TNG episode, where one of the crew must be prosecuted and defended in court based entirely on the evidence of opinions and hearsay).
    *More jaw-dropping, chronic use of logical fallacies than you can shake a stick at. Ad homs, appeal to majority, appeal to history, it's all good in their eyes. Nobody seems to have told them about logical fallacies, let alone that they were best left unused in arguments.
    *And finally, an absolute smugness about their intellectual inflexibility. It's not enough that all contradictory facts and demands for evidence go ignored, they're proud of their willingness to ignore these things.

    Based on these observations, the moment someone claims to be home schooled I'm outta there. And from what I've seen in this thread and the climate threads, I'm wise to take that approach.
    I was homeschooled.

    Perhaps I'm an exception to the rule...


    Nah, I just outgrew the training a bit...

    I mean...how else could one of my favorite sayings be "there are no absolutes except this statement"?
    Last edited by The Mark; 12-28-11 at 11:25 PM.
    Education.

    Sometimes I think we're alone. Sometimes I think we're not. In either case, the thought is staggering. ~ R. Buckminster Fuller

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •