Catholics vs. TTA......Respectfully.....
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
18-10-2013, 06:23 PM
RE: Catholics vs. TTA......Respectfully.....
(18-10-2013 06:07 PM)evenheathen Wrote:  Assumption 1: Having a family with someone you love is what matters, not how the family is created. Your assumption is your assumption, not a rational argument.

All of your other assumptions are based on number 1, so I guess I'm done.

What your saying is you disagree with my assumption 1. That's fine. My assumption 1 is really just a value judgment.

The argument I presented there is valid. The conclusion can only be false if one of the assumptions is false. If you accept assumptions 1,2, and 3 as true,(and really, I think most people would accept those assumptions as true even if they are homosexual) you have a good rational reason to believe its conclusion.

I could make a rational arguement that homosexuality is immoral but it would require a set of assumptions this audience would not accept.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
18-10-2013, 06:27 PM
RE: Catholics vs. TTA......Respectfully.....
(18-10-2013 06:19 PM)nach_in Wrote:  -Hey, does your dick work?
-No, I have an erectile dysfunction
-YOU'RE INFERIOR!!!
- Dodgy

Erectile dysfunction is inferior to erectile function. Why?

Assumption 1: The ability to have sex is good.
Assumption 2: The inability to have sex is bad.
Assumption 3: Erectile dysfunction destroys any ability to have sex.
Assumption 4: Erectile function allows the ability to have sex.
Conclusion: Therefore Erectile function is better than Erectile dysfunction.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
18-10-2013, 06:29 PM
RE: Catholics vs. TTA......Respectfully.....
(18-10-2013 06:23 PM)Heywood Jahblome Wrote:  
(18-10-2013 06:07 PM)evenheathen Wrote:  Assumption 1: Having a family with someone you love is what matters, not how the family is created. Your assumption is your assumption, not a rational argument.

All of your other assumptions are based on number 1, so I guess I'm done.

What your saying is you disagree with my assumption 1. That's fine. My assumption 1 is really just a value judgment.

The argument I presented there is valid. The conclusion can only be false if one of the assumptions is false. If you accept assumptions 1,2, and 3 as true,(and really, I think most people would accept those assumptions as true even if they are homosexual) you have a good rational reason to believe its conclusion.

I could make a rational arguement that homosexuality is immoral but it would require a set of assumptions this audience would not accept.

Your value judgement in assumption 1 is all that the rest of the assumptions have to rest on. And yes, I disagree with it. Looking at the popular trends towards homosexuality and the ever quickening defeat of the irrational bigotry towards it would show that what you just said is wrong.

But now I have come to believe that the whole world is an enigma, a harmless enigma that is made terrible by our own mad attempt to interpret it as though it had an underlying truth.

~ Umberto Eco
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
18-10-2013, 06:29 PM
RE: Catholics vs. TTA......Respectfully.....
(18-10-2013 06:13 PM)Heywood Jahblome Wrote:  
(18-10-2013 05:48 PM)Mark Fulton Wrote:  Because you upset homosexual people and thereby create divisiveness in society. Homosexual people are our brothers and sisters and they deserve our
love and respect.

You won't admit it, but your opposition to homosexuality goes beyond the rational argument. It is obvious you dislike homosexuals. You don't have any homosexual friends do you?

You might think on rational grounds that Mercedes make better cars than Ford. Yet I'm sure you would not discriminate against someone because they drove a Ford. Yet you will discriminate against homosexuals, won't you? Correct me if I'm wrong.

Yeah I would discriminate against homosexuals, I wouldn't choose one as a mate. But I have hired, rather flamboyant homosexuals before based solely on the recommendation of my homosexual friend. I ended up being very happy about his recommendation.

Now suppose the earth was doomed and we built a spaceship to carry 250,000 human beings to some new planet somewhere in another solar system. Further suppose I was the sole judge of who got to go on that ship. There wouldn't be one gay person on it(unless they hid their homosexuality of course).

I find it amazing that you proudly proclaim you're a bigotted asshole.
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
18-10-2013, 06:31 PM
RE: Catholics vs. TTA......Respectfully.....
(18-10-2013 06:27 PM)Heywood Jahblome Wrote:  
(18-10-2013 06:19 PM)nach_in Wrote:  -Hey, does your dick work?
-No, I have an erectile dysfunction
-YOU'RE INFERIOR!!!
- Dodgy

Erectile dysfunction is inferior to erectile function. Why?

Assumption 1: The ability to have sex is good.
Assumption 2: The inability to have sex is bad.
Assumption 3: Erectile dysfunction destroys any ability to have sex.
Assumption 4: Erectile function allows the ability to have sex.
Conclusion: Therefore Erectile function is better than Erectile dysfunction.

So, a person with erectile dysfunction is less than other without it right?

[Image: sigvacachica.png]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
18-10-2013, 06:31 PM
RE: Catholics vs. TTA......Respectfully.....
(18-10-2013 06:27 PM)Heywood Jahblome Wrote:  
(18-10-2013 06:19 PM)nach_in Wrote:  -Hey, does your dick work?
-No, I have an erectile dysfunction
-YOU'RE INFERIOR!!!
- Dodgy

Erectile dysfunction is inferior to erectile function. Why?

Assumption 1: The ability to have sex is good.
Assumption 2: The inability to have sex is bad.
Assumption 3: Erectile dysfunction destroys any ability to have sex.
Assumption 4: Erectile function allows the ability to have sex.
Conclusion: Therefore Erectile function is better than Erectile dysfunction.

And that makes the person ultimately inferior how?

You know, a little empathy goes a long way. You're grasping at straws to defend a position that is atrocious and detrimental to society.

But now I have come to believe that the whole world is an enigma, a harmless enigma that is made terrible by our own mad attempt to interpret it as though it had an underlying truth.

~ Umberto Eco
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes evenheathen's post
18-10-2013, 06:38 PM (This post was last modified: 18-10-2013 06:43 PM by Heywood Jahblome.)
RE: Catholics vs. TTA......Respectfully.....
(18-10-2013 06:29 PM)Mark Fulton Wrote:  
(18-10-2013 06:13 PM)Heywood Jahblome Wrote:  Yeah I would discriminate against homosexuals, I wouldn't choose one as a mate. But I have hired, rather flamboyant homosexuals before based solely on the recommendation of my homosexual friend. I ended up being very happy about his recommendation.

Now suppose the earth was doomed and we built a spaceship to carry 250,000 human beings to some new planet somewhere in another solar system. Further suppose I was the sole judge of who got to go on that ship. There wouldn't be one gay person on it(unless they hid their homosexuality of course).

I find it amazing that you proudly proclaim you're a bigotted asshole.

Let me walk that back for a second. I probably wouldn't put any gays on that ship. I probably wouldn't put any old people on that ship either....or priest or nuns. I'd leave myself off the ship(over 40...too old). Now I think exceptions could always be made if the gay, old, celibate, person had an extremely useful skill set that could not be found in a young heterosexual person.

Why you got to resort to name calling Mark? I thought you were better than that?
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
18-10-2013, 06:40 PM
RE: Catholics vs. TTA......Respectfully.....
(18-10-2013 06:31 PM)evenheathen Wrote:  
(18-10-2013 06:27 PM)Heywood Jahblome Wrote:  Erectile dysfunction is inferior to erectile function. Why?

Assumption 1: The ability to have sex is good.
Assumption 2: The inability to have sex is bad.
Assumption 3: Erectile dysfunction destroys any ability to have sex.
Assumption 4: Erectile function allows the ability to have sex.
Conclusion: Therefore Erectile function is better than Erectile dysfunction.

And that makes the person ultimately inferior how?

You know, a little empathy goes a long way. You're grasping at straws to defend a position that is atrocious and detrimental to society.

When did I say gays were inferior?
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
18-10-2013, 06:41 PM
RE: Catholics vs. TTA......Respectfully.....
(18-10-2013 06:31 PM)nach_in Wrote:  
(18-10-2013 06:27 PM)Heywood Jahblome Wrote:  Erectile dysfunction is inferior to erectile function. Why?

Assumption 1: The ability to have sex is good.
Assumption 2: The inability to have sex is bad.
Assumption 3: Erectile dysfunction destroys any ability to have sex.
Assumption 4: Erectile function allows the ability to have sex.
Conclusion: Therefore Erectile function is better than Erectile dysfunction.

So, a person with erectile dysfunction is less than other without it right?

Nobody is perfect, everyone has defects. I suppose you think mongoloids are inferior.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
18-10-2013, 06:50 PM
RE: Catholics vs. TTA......Respectfully.....
http://www.suscipedomine.com/forum/index...pic=4011.0

Here is the thread dedicated to bashing atheist. Hypocrites
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: