Men in dresses against men marrying each other
-
Quote:
argumentum ad verecundiam.
You are incorrect. You do not know me and cannot make that assumption. Remember what assume does to you.
-
No... first I categorized your argument as argumentum ad verecundiam because your argument is basically: God said so, so it's true. And you put it as an opinion so it's not a very serious offense, but you're still walking around with an unjustified opinion. Also, since you're not god (probably), how do you know God even said that? Presumably from the bible, which (if god is assumed to exist) is an other argumentum ad verecundiam, with the bible as authority. On the other hand if god is assumed not to exist then there is no logical fallacy, just fiction, so the first argumentum ad verecundiam comes into effect (fictional characters aren't an authority). Then you said something about assumptions and I addressed that - after all if you are god then you are an authority on what you said. Then your argument is reduced to "I believe this because I believe this, and I believe I am right in believing that so I am", which is 1) nicely circular and 2) still argumentum ad verecundiam, with yourself as the authority.
-
No... first I categorized your argument as argumentum ad verecundiam because your argument is basically: God said so, so it's true. And you put it as an opinion so it's not a very serious offense, but you're still walking around with an unjustified opinion. Also, since you're not god (probably), how do you know God even said that? Presumably from the bible, which (if god is assumed to exist) is an other argumentum ad verecundiam, with the bible as authority. On the other hand if god is assumed not to exist then there is no logical fallacy, just fiction, so the first argumentum ad verecundiam comes into effect (fictional characters aren't an authority). Then you said something about assumptions and I addressed that - after all if you are god then you are an authority on what you said. Then your argument is reduced to "I believe this because I believe this, and I believe I am right in believing that so I am", which is 1) nicely circular and 2) still argumentum ad verecundiam, with yourself as the authority.
Wait a second. That was a lot of big words and I am not sure you ended up saying anything. :) But what is that about an "unjustified opinion?" How can an opinion be unjustified? Opinion is just a personal belief, you can't tell me my opinion is unjustified. Your opinion is unjustified.
-
Wait a second. That was a lot of big words and I am not sure you ended up saying anything. :) But what is that about an "unjustified opinion?" How can an opinion be unjustified? Opinion is just a personal belief, you can't tell me my opinion is unjustified. Your opinion is unjustified.
-
Basically I said: you have this opinion, but not for a logical reason. That's OK really, just a bit silly. But I did actually argue that that is the case, I didn't just take it up as my opinion because I felt like it.
Sure, I understand that. Now, consume this: What if God is real? You just said "you have this opinion, but not for a logical reason." Assuming God is real then your opinion has no logical reason. I appreciate your comments but they are just as much opinion as you claim mine to be.
-
Sure, I understand that. Now, consume this: What if God is real? You just said "you have this opinion, but not for a logical reason." Assuming God is real then your opinion has no logical reason. I appreciate your comments but they are just as much opinion as you claim mine to be.
No no look, I actually included that as a possibility. I'll just rehash it here I guess. In that case your argument is still broken, because gods existence doesn't in itself validate the bible, so we still don't know his opinion. But even if we did know gods opinion on the matter, so what? That's still an appeal to authority.
-
Quote:
I think they do quite enough to share their beliefs.
Do you believe the media "shares their beliefs" less than churches?
-
And I with you: my point was not about the right of the church to have an opinion, rather what that opinion might be based upon and whether or not it has any merit. I suppsoe one could further extrapolate that given that the opinion is worthless and, possibly, dangerous (based, as it is, on an outmoded set of morlas and values) that they should not, in fact, promulgate those beliefs through opinions given in a political context. And that's my opinion. :-)
"If you think it's expensive to hire a professional to do the job, wait until you hire an amateur." Red Adair. nils illegitimus carborundum me, me, me
-
Sure, I understand that. Now, consume this: What if God is real? You just said "you have this opinion, but not for a logical reason." Assuming God is real then your opinion has no logical reason. I appreciate your comments but they are just as much opinion as you claim mine to be.
-
Gay marriage: Roman Catholic archbishops step up fight[^] "The letter says Roman Catholics have a duty to make sure it does not happen." They seem to have missed the reformation, or the fact that the UK legal system is secular. They should have no more say in the matter than any of the other citizens in the UK. The legislation doesn't mandate religious bodies to solemnise gay marriages, so I don't see that this is any of their business. To say it will "shame the United Kingdom in the eyes of the world" is just wrong in the parts of the world that matter, and I don't see why we should care anyway. I'd have thought they'd have kept a pretty low profile, seeing as they have lost their moral authority by keeping certain "priestly activities" under wraps - given that is quite possibly the result of repressing normal sexuality, homosexual or otherwise.
Sort of a cross between Lawrence of Arabia and Dilbert.[^]
-Or-
A Dead ringer for Kate Winslett[^]I am personally against gay "marriage" in part, since marriage by definition implies the potential of childbearing. But, whatever. But, I'm also against the gov't getting involved in the situation.
If your actions inspire others to dream more, learn more, do more and become more, you are a leader." - John Quincy Adams
You must accept one of two basic premises: Either we are alone in the universe, or we are not alone in the universe. And either way, the implications are staggering” - Wernher von Braun -
No, my point was that what was illegal a few years ago is now considered 'normal'; however not everyone has reached the point where they accept that. More importantly is, as I said before, that we have a reasoned and open debate and listen to everyone's point of view, even those diametrically opposed to ours. As to my personal views ... well, they're personal.
Unrequited desire is character building. OriginalGriff I'm sitting here giving you a standing ovation - Len Goodman
Richard MacCutchan wrote:
well, they're personal.
Then what's the point of having them?
If your actions inspire others to dream more, learn more, do more and become more, you are a leader." - John Quincy Adams
You must accept one of two basic premises: Either we are alone in the universe, or we are not alone in the universe. And either way, the implications are staggering” - Wernher von Braun -
No... first I categorized your argument as argumentum ad verecundiam because your argument is basically: God said so, so it's true. And you put it as an opinion so it's not a very serious offense, but you're still walking around with an unjustified opinion. Also, since you're not god (probably), how do you know God even said that? Presumably from the bible, which (if god is assumed to exist) is an other argumentum ad verecundiam, with the bible as authority. On the other hand if god is assumed not to exist then there is no logical fallacy, just fiction, so the first argumentum ad verecundiam comes into effect (fictional characters aren't an authority). Then you said something about assumptions and I addressed that - after all if you are god then you are an authority on what you said. Then your argument is reduced to "I believe this because I believe this, and I believe I am right in believing that so I am", which is 1) nicely circular and 2) still argumentum ad verecundiam, with yourself as the authority.
harold aptroot wrote:
still walking around with an unjustified opinion.
If he believes in God, which he clearly does, that's justification enough.
harold aptroot wrote:
unjustified opinion.
Really? Opinions don't need justification since they are subjective and not necessarily based upon fact or knowledge. Merely "reason".
If your actions inspire others to dream more, learn more, do more and become more, you are a leader." - John Quincy Adams
You must accept one of two basic premises: Either we are alone in the universe, or we are not alone in the universe. And either way, the implications are staggering” - Wernher von Braun -
No no look, I actually included that as a possibility. I'll just rehash it here I guess. In that case your argument is still broken, because gods existence doesn't in itself validate the bible, so we still don't know his opinion. But even if we did know gods opinion on the matter, so what? That's still an appeal to authority.
harold aptroot wrote:
That's still an appeal to authority
Well, that's true. But, in that case, we probably aught to listen. Unless we don't care what God's "opinion" is.
If your actions inspire others to dream more, learn more, do more and become more, you are a leader." - John Quincy Adams
You must accept one of two basic premises: Either we are alone in the universe, or we are not alone in the universe. And either way, the implications are staggering” - Wernher von Braun -
No, I don't. Then again, I have the same feelings for the media :D
If it moves, compile it
At least you're consistent. I somewhat agree with you: will everyone just "SHUT UP!"
If your actions inspire others to dream more, learn more, do more and become more, you are a leader." - John Quincy Adams
You must accept one of two basic premises: Either we are alone in the universe, or we are not alone in the universe. And either way, the implications are staggering” - Wernher von Braun -
harold aptroot wrote:
That's still an appeal to authority
Well, that's true. But, in that case, we probably aught to listen. Unless we don't care what God's "opinion" is.
If your actions inspire others to dream more, learn more, do more and become more, you are a leader." - John Quincy Adams
You must accept one of two basic premises: Either we are alone in the universe, or we are not alone in the universe. And either way, the implications are staggering” - Wernher von Braun -
harold aptroot wrote:
still walking around with an unjustified opinion.
If he believes in God, which he clearly does, that's justification enough.
harold aptroot wrote:
unjustified opinion.
Really? Opinions don't need justification since they are subjective and not necessarily based upon fact or knowledge. Merely "reason".
If your actions inspire others to dream more, learn more, do more and become more, you are a leader." - John Quincy Adams
You must accept one of two basic premises: Either we are alone in the universe, or we are not alone in the universe. And either way, the implications are staggering” - Wernher von Braun -
Richard MacCutchan wrote:
well, they're personal.
Then what's the point of having them?
If your actions inspire others to dream more, learn more, do more and become more, you are a leader." - John Quincy Adams
You must accept one of two basic premises: Either we are alone in the universe, or we are not alone in the universe. And either way, the implications are staggering” - Wernher von BraunTo keep you guessing. :laugh:
Unrequited desire is character building. OriginalGriff I'm sitting here giving you a standing ovation - Len Goodman
-
Several people are responding with the opinion of "who gives them the right to tell people what to do?" And that is fine. However, where do we draw the line? There was a point in history where if you told people that one day men would be able to marry each other you would have been laughed at and banished from your village. So, what happens when the popular voice starts to say that killing another person is OK? Sounds absurd now but what if? So, what is wrong with a religious organization standing up for what it believes? Separation of church and state meant that the state should not mandate a specific religion. It does not mean church cannot publicize opinion to the state.
ryanb31 wrote:
So, what happens when the popular voice starts to say that killing another person is OK?
Nonsense. One could state as well - what happens when the popular voice starts to advocate that the church and only the church is allowed to dictate all laws? And contrary to your example there are already societies that allow the church to do just that.
-
1. What makes you think homosexuality is not a choice? 2. You say that homosexuality is a "response to evolution." Homosexuality, if followed by all, would mean the end of the human race so how can that be considered evolution? Are you suggesting evolution is intentionally killing us off? Maybe you meant it as humor, like the Darwin awards or something. 3. What definition of "hate" are you using? I hate to do my homework or extreme hostility?
ryanb31 wrote:
1. What makes you think homosexuality is not a choice?
What about pedophile priests, priests that cover it up, and religious dictates specifying rules to minimize damage from that? Choice right?
ryanb31 wrote:
You say that homosexuality is a "response to evolution." Homosexuality, if followed by all, would mean the end of the human race so how can that be considered evolution?
Utter nonsense. First, there are many instances of homosexual behavior in other species and they aren't extinct. Second, absolutely no one is claiming anything at all about making it universal. Third, a significant reduction in the worlds population would solve a vast number of problems.
ryanb31 wrote:
Are you suggesting evolution is intentionally killing us off?
I would guess that you do not understand evolution, the animal kingdom nor do you have a scientific via of humanity (thus your take on evolution in regards to that is hypocritical.)
ryanb31 wrote:
3. What definition of "hate" are you using? I hate to do my homework or extreme hostility?
How about execution? Or 20 years in prison? Those are in fact some possible state sanctioned results of homosexuality in some places. I suspect as well that there would be some extreme 'hostile' reactions to you expressing your religion in general way if you chose to express it openly in certain parts of the world. Might as well note that in some parts of the world 'homework' for certain segments of the population would likely be met with 'hostile' result as well. But hey all of that is perfectly ok with you right?