Poll: Which fundie was the craziest?
voxxpopulisuxx
LouisIX
mikemac
Kaesekopf
Archer
[Show Results]
 
Real debate with fundies
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
17-10-2013, 11:26 PM
RE: Real debate with fundies
(17-10-2013 11:19 PM)evenheathen Wrote:  
(17-10-2013 11:11 PM)LouisIX Wrote:  But what if it is known to lower man's inhibitions or consciousness enough that it often leads to irrational or violent behavior?

Bath salts are known to cause violent or erratic outbursts in people.

Erratic people, known for their outbursts, are more likely to take bath salts. I'm not sure what that proves.....

I'm sure the same argument can be made over and over for whiskey.

Yes, it probably could. I'm just trying to get a sense of what Crimson thinks.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
17-10-2013, 11:27 PM
Real debate with fundies
(17-10-2013 11:26 PM)LouisIX Wrote:  
(17-10-2013 11:19 PM)evenheathen Wrote:  Erratic people, known for their outbursts, are more likely to take bath salts. I'm not sure what that proves.....

I'm sure the same argument can be made over and over for whiskey.

Yes, it probably could. I'm just trying to get a sense of what Crimson thinks.

Here is a good principle to go by. If there is no victim, there is no crime.

"Laissez nous faire!"

"I swear by my life and my love of it that I will never live for the sake of another man, nor will I ever ask another man to live for mine."
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
17-10-2013, 11:29 PM
RE: Real debate with fundies
(17-10-2013 11:27 PM)Crimson Flyboy Wrote:  
(17-10-2013 11:26 PM)LouisIX Wrote:  Yes, it probably could. I'm just trying to get a sense of what Crimson thinks.

Here is a good principle to go by. If there is no victim, there is no crime.

I can agree to that. My argument, however, is that those engaging in sodomy are themselves victims since they do not act in accord with their nature.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
17-10-2013, 11:30 PM
RE: Real debate with fundies
(17-10-2013 11:22 PM)LouisIX Wrote:  Secondly, my belief against homosexuality is bolstered by revelation yes, but it's also available via the natural law alone.

Revelation is not an argument, and the natural law is arguable. You will have to be more specific as to why any "revelation" is relevant.

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
17-10-2013, 11:32 PM
RE: Real debate with fundies
(17-10-2013 11:22 PM)LouisIX Wrote:  First of all, I'm not sure if your last sentence is supposed to carry some argumentative force or not. Who has ideas that are their own? I can just about guarantee that every belief you hold is linked to a philosopher or politician or other thinker who held it before you and who has influenced you.

Secondly, my belief against homosexuality is bolstered by revelation yes, but it's also available via the natural law alone.
No, it isn't an argument, more just an observation. And yes, you're right, most ideas come from discussion or studies of others. I assert that your argument would be very, very difficult if not completely impossible to prove factual without the assumed authority of scripture.

Which natural law do you refer to? The only laws universally governing nature are the physical ones. Homosexuality occurs in the animal kingdom naturally.

"Good news, everyone!"
-Cody
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
17-10-2013, 11:33 PM
Real debate with fundies
(17-10-2013 11:29 PM)LouisIX Wrote:  
(17-10-2013 11:27 PM)Crimson Flyboy Wrote:  Here is a good principle to go by. If there is no victim, there is no crime.

I can agree to that. My argument, however, is that those engaging in sodomy are themselves victims since they do not act in accord with their nature.

But they are willing participants. Even if they were doing some sort of damage to themselves, and I don't think they are, no one has the right to stop them. A man owns his body and has every right to do with it whatever he pleases, he may injury it or even destroy it.

"Laissez nous faire!"

"I swear by my life and my love of it that I will never live for the sake of another man, nor will I ever ask another man to live for mine."
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
17-10-2013, 11:33 PM
RE: Real debate with fundies
(17-10-2013 11:29 PM)LouisIX Wrote:  I can agree to that. My argument, however, is that those engaging in sodomy are themselves victims since they do not act in accord with their nature.

Explain how you can dictate what their nature is without invoking scripture or God.

"Good news, everyone!"
-Cody
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
17-10-2013, 11:33 PM
RE: Real debate with fundies
(17-10-2013 10:57 PM)Crimson Flyboy Wrote:  I don't care if you change your views or not. I wanted clear concise answers. There is a huge difference between rape and sodomy. Sodomy involves consenting adults, rape doesn't. Can you see the difference? What I wanted to know is why it is okay for the government or the Church to tell me how I may live my life. I never got any good answers.

I share your view re homosexuality but unlike me you appear entirely incapable of justfying your position and engaging with those of a different position. My defense of sexual freedom derives from my commitment to classical liberal it has nothing to do with Judaism and Christianity being wrong. You make several allusions to liberal and libertarian concepts (e.g. freedom from certain interference from the government, soveregnty over physical person) but you don't ever get beyond incidental mention of what are--I think--key concepts.

Implicit in your posts (and those of Chlamydia Cathy and Bucky Ballsack) is that liberalism and/or libertarianism don't require justification and that it is impossible for someone else to subscribe to some other political philosophy. Many Catholics do not support liberalism or libertarianism so it is pointless to merely appeal to liberal precepts in an argument. Most Catholics support the political philosophy of communitarianism (not related to communism).

If someone is a communitarian then there is no point in appealing to concepts outside of their political philosophy to oppose a public policy that is a consequence of that political philosophy (in the absence of any further justification). In liberal and libertarian political philsophy liberty is the primary value, it isn't in communitarianism. For this reason your silly little arguments are entirely off the mark, they are question begging. In this case you can only defend homosexuality by presenting a defense of liberalism or libertarianism as well as a critique of communitarianism. If you aren't up to the task then go away and read something.

Lastly, I am atheist and I never was a Catholic but I know this stuff because unlike many of you I actually have an education and I've had to submit my arguments to scrutiny by people that are experts on the subject. Bucky Balls, Chalmydia Cathy and you are a joke, a fucking clown troupe. Try reading a book and educating yourselves, if only for the novelty of the experence.
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
17-10-2013, 11:33 PM
RE: Real debate with fundies
(17-10-2013 11:30 PM)evenheathen Wrote:  
(17-10-2013 11:22 PM)LouisIX Wrote:  Secondly, my belief against homosexuality is bolstered by revelation yes, but it's also available via the natural law alone.

Revelation is not an argument, and the natural law is arguable. You will have to be more specific as to why any "revelation" is relevant.

I didn't say revelation is an argument. I mean, I think that it is, but not one that holds force with those who do not believe, as it presupposes faith.

I wouldn't mind going into the natural law part of it, but it'll have to wait for tomorrow.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
17-10-2013, 11:35 PM
RE: Real debate with fundies
(17-10-2013 11:27 PM)Crimson Flyboy Wrote:  Here is a good principle to go by. If there is no victim, there is no crime.

And that is a precept of classical liberalism. What if the person you are arguing with doesn't subscribe to liberalism or libertarianism? What then?
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: