|
|
|
Convinced
Skeptic Friend
USA
384 Posts |
 Posted - 05/24/2012 : 13:06:33 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by HalfMooner
Throwing in NAMBLA is the sexual-issue equivalent and analogy of Godwin's Law, or Reductio ad Hitlerum. It's a rhetorical fallacy in this case, as: 1) nobody has advocated molesting little boys in this discussion, and 2) it's a contextually absurd "slippery slope" argument. Probably nobody here's personally insulted by the NAMBLA reference precisely since it's so wide of the mark, but it's a brazen logical/rhetorical fallacy, and sounds desperate, like the way some fundamentalists warn, "Next, they'll be marrying animals!"
You need better arguments.
|
Godwins law and reduction hitlerum refer to being compared to nazi’s? How does this apply to what I said?
I was trying to point out that I draw the moral line in a different place than most at this site. Isn’t it a moral judgment to think boys and men should not have intimate relations? Just as condoning adult homosexual relationships is a moral judgment. So why is one called bigotry and one not?
Also, I was not trying to use that argument to make a case against homosexual relationships; my argument comes from the bible.
|
Therefore be careful how you walk, not as unwise men but as wise, making the most of your time, because the days are evil. So then do not be foolish, but understand what the will of the Lord is. (Eph 5:15-17) |
 |
|
|
Dr. Mabuse
Septic Fiend
Sweden
9687 Posts |
Posted - 05/24/2012 : 14:16:00 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Convinced
Ok, I misunderstood, I can agree with you on this point.
After rereading my post I owe you an apology for my remarks.
|
A mistake easily made, apology accepted.
|
Dr. Mabuse - "When the going gets tough, the tough get Duct-tape..."
Dr. Mabuse whisper.mp3
"Equivocation is not just a job, for a creationist it's a way of life..." Dr. Mabuse
Support American Troops in Iraq:
Send them unarmed civilians for target practice..
Collateralmurder. |
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26020 Posts |
Posted - 05/24/2012 : 14:28:45 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Convinced
I was not trying to convince you but only to try to correct you on your use of Matthew 5. |
Mine was an attempt to get OFFC to explain his ideas. But while you're here, what is your opinion of Matthew 5:42? If I ask you to give me $100, will you? I have a PayPal account...| I doubt it will happen as well because people are not good. |
And I think people would be better without religions like Christianity to hide behind. For example, the idea that people can get forgiveness for their bad acts from anyone other than the victims of those acts enables people to act badly. Asking for forgiveness face-to-face is often very hard to do, providing a deterrent to performing bad acts in the first place, and Jesus gives people an easy way out of that. The "once saved, always saved" doctrine is particularly heinous in this regard.
Also:| Do you support NAMBLA? If not then you are a f**ing bigot according to your post. We just draw our moral line in a different place. Is it intolerant to believe NAMBLA is wrong? |
Yes, but being tolerant of coercion and injustice is itself a bad thing. Being intolerant of the intolerable is not a moral failing.
Loudly decrying child rape while advocating for tolerance of consensual adult sex acts is not hypocritical. And denouncing an organization for what it publicly states it will advocate is not bigotry.
Examples of bigotry might include calling a particular sex act between consenting adults an "abomination," or implying that anyone who engages in such sex acts is a pedophile. |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
HalfMooner
Dingaling
Philippines
15831 Posts |
Posted - 05/24/2012 : 22:09:44 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Convinced
Originally posted by HalfMooner
Throwing in NAMBLA is the sexual-issue equivalent and analogy of Godwin's Law, or Reductio ad Hitlerum. It's a rhetorical fallacy in this case, as: 1) nobody has advocated molesting little boys in this discussion, and 2) it's a contextually absurd "slippery slope" argument. Probably nobody here's personally insulted by the NAMBLA reference precisely since it's so wide of the mark, but it's a brazen logical/rhetorical fallacy, and sounds desperate, like the way some fundamentalists warn, "Next, they'll be marrying animals!"
You need better arguments.
|
Godwins law and reduction hitlerum refer to being compared to nazi’s? How does this apply to what I said?
|
I was careful to mention Godwin's Law and Reductio ad Hitlerum as being rhetorical fallacies that are logically analogous to your loaded NAMBLA "question," not the same. No real Nazis were bashed by either of us in this argument.| I was trying to point out that I draw the moral line in a different place than most at this site. Isn’t it a moral judgment to think boys and men should not have intimate relations? |
Yes, but we draw our often similar working morality from different sources. You, from scripture, most of the rest of us from the simple desire not to want to see harm be done to another, lest it be done to ourselves.| Just as condoning adult homosexual relationships is a moral judgment. So why is one called bigotry and one not? |
It's that matter of harm. Where's the harm between consenting adults?| Also, I was not trying to use that argument to make a case against homosexual relationships; my argument comes from the bible. |
Which makes it pretty dodgy, like most of the "moral" lessons there. |
“Biology is just physics that has begun to smell bad.” —HalfMooner
Here's a link to Moonscape News, and one to its Archive. |
| Edited by - HalfMooner on 05/24/2012 23:35:59 |
|
|
|
ThorGoLucky
Snuggle Wolf
USA
1486 Posts |
Posted - 05/25/2012 : 10:47:52 [Permalink]
|
Many homosexuals and bisexuals such as myself aren't much into sodomy if at all, and I have met heterosexuals that are into sodomy.
|
|
|
|
Convinced
Skeptic Friend
USA
384 Posts |
Posted - 06/04/2012 : 14:01:00 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Dave W.
But while you're here, what is your opinion of Matthew 5:42? If I ask you to give me $100, will you? I have a PayPal account... |
Well obviously if I as a Christian gave money to everyone that asked I would be broke, living on the street with my family and asking other Christians to give me money. That does not make sense. I think that Jesus is using a bit of hyperbole here. He is trying to redefine our notions of giving. That any possessions we have are not as important as people. I think Jesus is talking about things like not just giving a homeless person $5 for a meal but instead investing time and money in that person if that person wants or needs more help. Giving more than what’s “required”.
Mathew six talks about gaining treasures in heaven instead of on this earth. Generally (including myself) Christians in the U.S. should be more giving than we are. With Mathew 5:42 in view I think that Christians should be giving everything they have after taking care of obligations in life the Bible says is good. Christians with a BMW or live in a larger house than they need are missing the point of Mt 5:42. Of course each Christian needs to decide how much to give individually and how much to save if any, but I have found that we can and should give more than we do.
As far as giving you $100 just because you ask would not make me a good steward of Gods money in my opinion. It doesn’t sound like you need it from your post, you are just trying to make a point. Would you really like me to give you $100 or give it to an organization that can give many children nutrition for the month?
|
Therefore be careful how you walk, not as unwise men but as wise, making the most of your time, because the days are evil. So then do not be foolish, but understand what the will of the Lord is. (Eph 5:15-17) |
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26020 Posts |
Posted - 06/04/2012 : 16:36:13 [Permalink]
|
Yeah, I need to find some true Biblical literalist to try that on.
I've gotta try Luke 10:4 on missionairies who knock on my door, too. Although I just donated two big boxes of shoes, so I don't really need to start a collection of faithful footwear. |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
HalfMooner
Dingaling
Philippines
15831 Posts |
Posted - 06/04/2012 : 20:59:59 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Dave W.
Yeah, I need to find some true Biblical literalist to try that on.
I've gotta try Luke 10:4 on missionairies who knock on my door, too. Although I just donated two big boxes of shoes, so I don't really need to start a collection of faithful footwear.
|
A Biblical literalist, as far as I can see from practice, is someone who maintains a death grip upon a few Biblical verses that match his or her prejudices, claiming them to be literal and timeless truths, while ignoring others. Those inconvenient verses are shrugged of with phrases like "Things were different back then," or "That's a parable," or "Jesus changed that rule". The Bible is literal and eternal only when and where a literalist says it is. |
“Biology is just physics that has begun to smell bad.” —HalfMooner
Here's a link to Moonscape News, and one to its Archive. |
|
|
 |
|
|
|
Supporting a delusional Bible-based marriage
