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, 11:41 PM
Real debate with fundies
(17-10-2013 11:33 PM)Chippy Wrote:  
(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.

A man may subscribe to any philosophy he wants, just don't force it on others. I was Catholic for many years and know the faith fairly well. The traditional movement is a bit newer to me, but I have spent the past four years studying it. The one aspect I don't understand is ow it is acceptable in that particular movement to force an idea of morality on others by use of the government.

"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, 11:42 PM
Real debate with fundies
(17-10-2013 11:35 PM)Chippy 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.

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?

I was giving him a principle, I was expecting him to tell me what he sees wrong with 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, 11:43 PM (This post was last modified: 17-10-2013 11:46 PM by LouisIX.)
RE: Real debate with fundies
(17-10-2013 11:33 PM)Chippy Wrote:  
(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.

Good post. There's been a lot of begging the question, which makes any sort of discussion almost impossible. This is why I mentioned on the other forum that these sort of discussions usually go almost nowhere. They must start first with epistemology, first principles, and metaphysics. Since we hold radically different views of even the most fundamental principles of the world we're always arguing past one another.

I study Thomistic metaphysics and theology. One can spend years discerning the nuanced dialogue between idealists and moderate realists, for example. Even those vehemently opposed to realism (Hume or Husserl, for examples) recognized the historical and philosophical effort required to disprove some of its most basic premises. This is an immensely rich and dense topic.

But you'll get responses like "Thomism is worthless. Fail." It's not worth my time.

I may attempt to discuss a Catholic view of natural law and how it affects our views on homosexuality, but I'm not sure it will be of much use. Many of the posters here seem incapable of thinking outside of the box of Enlightenment-based ideas at all. It's either a form of humanism or cultic superstition. There are no other categories for them to work with. Since I do not acquiesce to the former, the only logical conclusion is that I am a fideist incapable of rational thought.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
17-10-2013, 11:55 PM
RE: Real debate with fundies
(17-10-2013 11:02 PM)Crimson Flyboy Wrote:  Murder takes away from the rights of another, ingesting drugs does not. I am an adult and have every right to do with my body as I please, the government has no right to tell me what substances I can and cannot ingest.

I agree with you but that isn't an argument it is just an assertion.

Don't you understand the difference between an argument and a mere assertion? If you want to engage in a debate then you need at least one argument not just a conclusion.

"I am an adult and have every right to do with my body as I please, the government has no right to tell me what substances I can and cannot ingest."

How so? Elaborate and you will have something that at least resembles an argument. Fuck me, I'm spoon feeding you.
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
18-10-2013, 12:17 AM
RE: Real debate with fundies
(17-10-2013 11:33 PM)LouisIX Wrote:  
(17-10-2013 11:30 PM)evenheathen Wrote:  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.

Agreed. I needs my sleeps too. I work early and have a gig late tomorrow, so my replies will be sparing. I would urge you to post in the thread I started for this discussion.

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, 12:35 AM
RE: Real debate with fundies
(17-10-2013 11:43 PM)LouisIX Wrote:  Since we hold radically different views of even the most fundamental principles of the world we're always arguing past one another.

The shrill people in this thread don't understand this, they are ignorant and some of them are also of below average intelligence. They assume that you share components of their worldview hence the invocation of liberal and libertarian precepts as if those were sufficient to establish the point. The idea that someone has a completely different worldview is an alien idea.

Quote:I study Thomistic metaphysics and theology. One can spend years discerning the nuanced dialogue between idealists and moderate realists, for example. Even those vehemently opposed to realism (Hume or Husserl, for examples) recognized the historical and philosophical effort required to disprove some of its most basic premises. This is an immensely rich and dense topic.

I completed a degree with a philosophy major many years ago and philosophy of religion was one of my concentrations. I'm an atheist but I have sufficient intellectual integrity to name bullshit when I see it and this thread is full of uneducated and idiotic, shrill nonsense.

Quote:But you'll get responses like "Thomism is worthless. Fail." It's not worth my time.

Bucky Balls knows as much about Thomism as he does of econometrics.

Quote:I may attempt to discuss a Catholic view of natural law and how it affects our views on homosexuality, but I'm not sure it will be of much use. Many of the posters here seem incapable of thinking outside of the box of Enlightenment-based ideas at all.

That is because they don't realise they are culturally steeped in Enlightenment-based ideas, as the cliche goes "a fish doesn't know its in water".

Quote:It's either a form of humanism or cultic superstition. There are no other categories for them to work with. Since I do not acquiesce to the former, the only logical conclusion is that I am a fideist incapable of rational thought.

Well that is village atheism. I've tried to explain that even amongst YECs there are intelligent and educated people (such as Henry Morris) so it won't work to just say that they are stupid and ignorant (I would admit that Henry Morris was more intelligent than I am). I've also tried to explain the principle of interpretive charity. But only a few seem to "get it". They go for the low hanging fruit and many are happy to continue doing so because it is a source of self-esteem for them.
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
18-10-2013, 12:41 AM
Real debate with fundies
(17-10-2013 11:55 PM)Chippy Wrote:  
(17-10-2013 11:02 PM)Crimson Flyboy Wrote:  Murder takes away from the rights of another, ingesting drugs does not. I am an adult and have every right to do with my body as I please, the government has no right to tell me what substances I can and cannot ingest.

I agree with you but that isn't an argument it is just an assertion.

Don't you understand the difference between an argument and a mere assertion? If you want to engage in a debate then you need at least one argument not just a conclusion.

"I am an adult and have every right to do with my body as I please, the government has no right to tell me what substances I can and cannot ingest."

How so? Elaborate and you will have something that at least resembles an argument. Fuck me, I'm spoon feeding you.

I think we can start with the self evident principle that all men are born equal. From that I argue that no man has any right to rule over any other man, any political association is done by willing individuals working together. A man therefore has ownership over his own person and that which he produces. If a man owns his own person, then he has the right to take ownership over his body and do with it what he wills. Does this work, or should I elaborate further?

"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
18-10-2013, 12:44 AM
RE: Real debate with fundies
(17-10-2013 11:42 PM)Crimson Flyboy Wrote:  I was giving him a principle, I was expecting him to tell me what he sees wrong with it.

So you want him to argue your case for you? Fuck...

A debate doesn't work like that. You argue your case and he argues his case. If he did what you did then there would be nothing to read except assertions. It is your responsibility to defend your position not his. If you can't be assed defining and defending your position or are incapable of doing so then don't pretend you are engaged in a debate.
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
18-10-2013, 01:00 AM
RE: Real debate with fundies
(18-10-2013 12:41 AM)Crimson Flyboy Wrote:  I think we can start with the self evident principle that all men are born equal. From that I argue that no man has any right to rule over any other man, any political association is done by willing individuals working together. A man therefore has ownership over his own person and that which he produces. If a man owns his own person, then he has the right to take ownership over his body and do with it what he wills. Does this work, or should I elaborate further?

How is that principle in any way self evident?

"Good news, everyone!"
-Cody
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Anudist's post
18-10-2013, 01:02 AM
RE: Real debate with fundies
(18-10-2013 12:41 AM)Crimson Flyboy Wrote:  I think we can start with the self evident principle that all men are born equal. From that I argue that no man has any right to rule over any other man, any political association is done by willing individuals working together. A man therefore has ownership over his own person and that which he produces. If a man owns his own person, then he has the right to take ownership over his body and do with it what he wills. Does this work, or should I elaborate further?

No it doesn't work. Those are just political slogans. This isn't a Tea Party forum.

Have you actually read anything by a proponent of liberalism or libertarianism? I mean seminal books by people that founded those ideas and books by those that expanded and defended those ideas and defined modern liberalism and libertarianism.

Classical Liberalism e.g. Mills On Liberty, Locke's Second Treatise of Government

Libertarianism e.g. Hayek's The Road to Serfdom and The Constitution of Liberty and Nozick's Anarchy, State and Utopia

Shouting slogans at people isn't going to win them over to liberalism or libertarianism. If the above books and names mean nothing to you then you should read them if you are serious about libertarianism. Hayek and Nozick are intellectual pillars of libertarianism.
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: