• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Just Plain Wrong

Wessexman said:
In this case it appears that what you think is completely obvious no one before Hobbes, Locke and Hume had any inkling of. All this is chronological snobbery; the strange idea that what has been argued in the past must have refuted and what is believed now must be right. That Pre-Descartesian thought, except a few Greco-Romans, badly interpreted, is largely ignored you do not take into account. This is quite an ironic position for someone so intent on disparaging those who try and appeal to normalcy.
Click to expand...

You confuse a philosophical belief with the application of that belief. I am quite certain that folks from very early times had a philosophy of what constitutes normal. Their application of such would be contextual on their time period. The belief system might continue to apply, but the application in THEIR time period no longer does. You constantly confuse philosophy with application, Wessexman, and often digress into psuedo-intellectual rubbish when this is pointed out. Talk philosophy all you want. I am discussing application. How folks in pre-modern Western society applied the concept of normal, no longer applies in most cases.
 
CaptainCourtesy said:
You confuse a philosophical belief with the application of that belief. I am quite certain that folks from very early times had a philosophy of what constitutes normal. Their application of such would be contextual on their time period. The belief system might continue to apply, but the application in THEIR time period no longer does. You constantly confuse philosophy with application, Wessexman, and often digress into psuedo-intellectual rubbish when this is pointed out. Talk philosophy all you want. I am discussing application. How folks in pre-modern Western society applied the concept of normal, no longer applies in most cases.
Click to expand...
Sorry, but, as one 'pseudo-intellectual' to another, I can't heads nor tails of this.
 
Wessexman said:
Sorry, but, as one 'pseudo-intellectual' to another, I can't heads nor tails of this.
Click to expand...

OK, let's start here. What do you think the pre-modern Western concept of normal was?
 
CaptainCourtesy said:
OK, let's start here. What do you think the pre-modern Western concept of normal was?
Click to expand...
I can just about see what you are saying. You're saying that they have to apply the beliefs according to the context of their time. I'm just not sure how this necessarily makes it completely relative. Indeed, as it begs the question of what are the different contexts and applications, what is one unit or measurement or parameter of the 'contexts' is, it doesn't make much sense to me as an argument. If they are applying a belief there must be something not relative involved. You might as well just say 'it is all relative' and ignore their shared beliefs if you want to make the point you seem to be trying to make.
 
Last edited:
Wessexman said:
I can just about see what you are saying. You're saying that they have to apply the beliefs according to the context of their time. I'm just not sure how this necessarily makes it completely relative. Indeed, as it begs the question of what are the different contexts and applications, what is one unit or measurement of the 'contexts', it doesn't make much sense to me as an argument. If they are applying a belief there must be something not relative involved. You might as well just say 'it is all relative' and ignore their shared beliefs if you want to make the point you seem to be trying to make.
Click to expand...

If they apply the beliefs in accordance with their time, this application reflects not only the belief but the context of their time period and their societal beliefs. Now, their are some applications of this that have seemed timeless... the moral implications of murder, for example. However, for the most part, the application of a philosophy, what constitutes normal and the moral implications of this, for example, are completely relative based on time period and context. It IS all relative... in application. Shared beliefs, however, due exist, mostly in philosophical terms, occasionally in application.
 
Heres a truth...you can make up all the inferences you want, you can apply all your own personal ideals...and the truth is you cant answer the question truthfully...to do so would make you wrong....Define How homosexuality is normal.....you cant. Im done with the conversation for now...because theres too much dishonesty and the cheerleaders will never admit to being wrong...
 
CaptainCourtesy said:
Actually, lpast, you cannot win this. There is no one at DP more stubborn than I. You have not answered the question in any satisfactory way. In this thread alone, you have given a definition, then contradicted the very definition you gave, demonstrating your hypocrisy on the issue. Once you answer the question, you will get my answer... not before.

Define normal.
Click to expand...

Youve already lost, you have proven you can only attack your opponent with dodges and accusations of them being dishonest andput words in their mouth to attempt to change their meaning.....you are totally unable to prove any of your points and you refuse to answer my question...Define how homosexuality is Normal....because you cant answer it,to do so would make you wrong...and your ego could never allow that. Homosexuality is neither normal or natural thats a truth no matter how many times you and your cheerleading squad say its not so.
I relish in your loss CC and I relish that when your put in the same position you love to put everyone else in....you fail....:)
I have no animosity and certainly no hatred for homosexuals. They apparently have more hatred towards me because I dont agree with them. The only dislike I have is their constant overbearing attempts to force me to agree with them...I dont agree with anyone about anything merely because they insist that I do. I either believe it or I do not.
Everyone thats for homosexual marriage on this forum have no facts to support their arguments all they have is what you CC accuse everyone else of. acting on emotion.
Im through with this conversation for now...its become pointless because you cant answer the question...but im sure another like conversation will come about "SHORTLY"
 
CaptainCourtesy said:
THIS is why I ALWAYS ask for how one is defining normal.
Click to expand...

When your asked to define how its normal....your unable or unwilling to expose the weakness in your postion and you refuse to answer :)
 
Wessexman said:
It is clear, looking at the edit you made to your last but one post, that you are referring to normal simply in the sense of average. Obviously I would agree with you in criticising that notion if it was then used as the basis for a moral judgement. But normal isn't used in this sense alone, indeed seeing as it is based on the root 'norm' I would say it shouldn't be used simply as average anyway( but that boat has long sailed it seems), as I said it is a problematic term, at least unless it is defined succinctly.
Click to expand...

I'm not simply limiting it to "average". No matter how it's defined it'll end up being a fallacy in a moral argument.

If it's used to describe, as you put it, "what is right or proper or natural", then the argument begs the question since the conclusion that something is or is not right or proper or natural is implied by the premise.

No definition of "normal" can exist which allows one to use it as the means to draw a conclusion about the morality of an action which is not fallacious.
 
Wessexman said:
But one might be able to construct an argument relating man's usual intuitions or how, on aggregate, he has felt, reasoned and pronounced on behaviour, to what is normal in the sense of correct, proper or even moral.
Click to expand...

True, it's possible for someone who excels at constructing logical arguments to create a valid argument of this sort, but the premises in these instances will usually be ones that are of very dubious veracity, thus making the arguments far more likely to be unsound ones.

Those people are rare, though. I have yet to encounter one directly.
 
lpast said:
Nice try...wrong...only 6 % and its not natural
Click to expand...

Yes it is natural. Your making the mistake of equating natural with good, cannibalism is also natural, but that doesn't make it good. Admit this or accept the fact that Jewish, and left-handed people are also evil deviants, you can't have it both ways.
 
Your Star said:
Yes it is natural. Your making the mistake of equating natural with good, cannibalism is also natural, but that doesn't make it good. Admit this or accept the fact that Jewish, and left-handed people are also evil deviants, you can't have it both ways.
Click to expand...

But wait--cannabalism is a practice, a choice. Jewishness is a genetic situation into which one is born, and so is which hand is dominant. How do your examples apply to homosexuality?
 
Your Star said:
Yes it is natural. Your making the mistake of equating natural with good, cannibalism is also natural, but that doesn't make it good. Admit this or accept the fact that Jewish, and left-handed people are also evil deviants, you can't have it both ways.
Click to expand...

Now thats just a bunch of crap there, what do you do star memorize everything CC says ?? and repeat and ask it all over again
GET THIS RIGHT...It is NOT natural for two males to have sex nor two females and it doesnt have a damn thing to do with being Jewish or lefthanded....you nor cc no anyone else will ever be allowed to play games with what I said....I have no qualms saying whatever it is I want to say all on my own. I wont even respond to absurd crap like this again
 
Last edited:
nota bene said:
But wait--cannabalism is a practice, a choice. Jewishness is a genetic situation into which one is born, and so is which hand is dominant. How do your examples apply to homosexuality?
Click to expand...

Look this is simple and quite apparent to any HONEST person..Homosexuals and their cheerleaders will say ANYTHING no matter how absurd...no matter how ridiculous...because they refuse to acknowledge anyone that disagrees with their point of view can be right...now I understand why most people on this forum that dont agree with them...dont even bother to respond in the many many many many many homosexual cheerleading threads on this forum....because they are confronted with the same dishonesty, animosity or games.....being left handed and jewish is as deviant as being homosexual, ROFL...I bet the rabbi's reading this are thrilled over that statement...ridiculous absurd and plain stupid and Oh yes of course people eating other people is a natural act...just ask the Jeffrey Dahmers who btw was a homosexual...
 
I appreciate how one seed of thought can blossom into a winding plant with many branches and leaves of thought, as evidenced by this thread. By all means, please continue.
 
lpast said:
Homosexuals and their cheerleaders will say ANYTHING no matter how absurd...no matter how ridiculous..


Jeffrey Dahmers who btw was a homosexual...
Click to expand...

I love it!
 
Last edited:
Tucker Case said:
I didn't make an exception.



Perhaps I didn't get it. Did you mean something other than "other than" when you used the term "other than"?
Click to expand...
That depends on what you meant by "somethin other"?!

(liberals love playing silly word games believing it validates their argument__ha-ha__they think they're so clever)
 
evanescence said:
Normal is normal. No kidding, Sherlock. People like Empirica have no actual logic or facts to back their argument. This thread proves that fact.
Click to expand...
"Normal" is a much too simple logic within itself to require "facts to back" it up__It is what it is slick willy.

(when I get bored I come here to play word games with liberals__they seem to enjoy it alot)
 
lpast said:
Now thats just a bunch of crap there, what do you do star memorize everything CC says ?? and repeat and ask it all over again
GET THIS RIGHT...It is NOT natural for two males to have sex nor two females and it doesnt have a damn thing to do with being Jewish or lefthanded....you nor cc no anyone else will ever be allowed to play games with what I said....I have no qualms saying whatever it is I want to say all on my own. I wont even respond to absurd crap like this again
Click to expand...

Hehe, it's not crap, it's just the truth. If your using normal as a statistical thing, then yes being gay, Jewish, and left handed are not normal. If your trying to use it as a moral indicator, of what is good or bad, well then you'd be wrong. Seriously your hatred for humans who aren't doing anything different than what you do is disturbing. I feel bad for you, I hope you can overcome this.
 
nota bene said:
But wait--cannabalism is a practice, a choice. Jewishness is a genetic situation into which one is born, and so is which hand is dominant. How do your examples apply to homosexuality?
Click to expand...

I wasn't comparing the actions, I was just saying that cannibalism occurs in nature, so it is natural, and that using it as a moral indicator isn't right. And that being Jewish and left-handed is also statistically not normal, but that doesn't make them immoral. It was all about destroying his use of the word natural.
 
Empirica said:
That depends on what you meant by "somethin other"?!
Click to expand...

Look at this (specifically definition 2):

Something - Definition and More from the Free Merriam-Webster Dictionary

And then at this (again, specifically definition 2):

Other - Definition and More from the Free Merriam-Webster Dictionary

If that doesn't clarify things for you, and you need a more in depth explanation, I am always willing to assist. Just let me know what you were confused by.



(liberals love playing silly word games believing it validates their argument__ha-ha__they think they're so clever)
Click to expand...

Ahhhh... you one of those people who stupidly assumes anyone who disagrees with your illogical positions is liberal. Does it make it easier for you to deny the illogical nature of your arguments by assuming that those who disagree are "evul libruls"?
 
lpast said:
Heres a truth...you can make up all the inferences you want, you can apply all your own personal ideals...and the truth is you cant answer the question truthfully...to do so would make you wrong....Define How homosexuality is normal.....you cant. Im done with the conversation for now...because theres too much dishonesty and the cheerleaders will never admit to being wrong...
Click to expand...

Since you have failed to define "normal," or even how "normal" applies to whether or not something is immoral, you have lost this debate.
 
Tucker Case said:
Look at this (specifically definition 2):

Something - Definition and More from the Free Merriam-Webster Dictionary

And then at this (again, specifically definition 2):

Other - Definition and More from the Free Merriam-Webster Dictionary

If that doesn't clarify things for you, and you need a more in depth explanation, I am always willing to assist. Just let me know what you were confused by.
Click to expand...
That depends on how you define "in depth explanation".

Ahhhh... you one of those people who stupidly assumes anyone who disagrees with your illogical positions is liberal. Does it make it easier for you to deny the illogical nature of your arguments by assuming that those who disagree are "evul libruls"?
Click to expand...
Pretty much_

(word games can be kinda fun once you get past how silly it is)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom