Formal Debate Challenge Thread

Anything that doesn't fit anywhere else.

Moderators: Blip, The_Metatron

Re: Formal Debate Challenge Thread

#21  Postby Mick » Aug 27, 2013 3:12 am

willhud9 wrote:And? If you present material which is hateful, or preachy towards the members (which is included in a formal debate) you are violating the FUA. The mods cannot simply tweak the FUA.



My problem is not with the FUA, but how they interpret hatefulness, bigotry, etc.. That is, what they interpret to be acceptable opinion. For them, you can either voice support for gay marriage or the ethical permissibility of gay sex, or be silent about it. Opposing views are actually prohibited, and voicing them can get you banned. For Catholics, and for many other people within the world, the consequence of that is quite clear. we hear that some of our views are banned from expression. We are not to speak up. We cannot defend our views. We are to just shut up and assume the acceptable line of opinion.

That silences a rather large part of the global population. Are you aware of that?


The FUA is fine. It is just how it is applied. That is my issue.

In any case, I can't discuss it here. If you want, open a thread about it.
Christ said, "I am the Truth"; he did not say "I am the custom." -- St. Toribio
User avatar
Mick
Banned Troll
 
Posts: 7027

Print view this post

Ads by Google


Re: Formal Debate Challenge Thread

#22  Postby willhud9 » Aug 27, 2013 3:54 am

No. You can oppose gay marriage. I can argue that gay marriage is against the Bible and then argue why the Bible should be an acceptable standard for society without spreading hate. But when you state gay marriage is against the Bible, the Bible is the truthful word of God, therefore gays are sinners( thus accusing the gay members of the forum as being sinners, thus personalizing them and thus breaching the FUA) that is where the line is drawn on the forum.
Fear is a choice you embrace
Your only truth
Tribal poetry
Witchcraft filling your void
Lust for fantasy
Male necrocracy
Every child worthy of a better tale
User avatar
willhud9
 
Name: William
Posts: 19252
Age: 28
Male

Country: United States
United States (us)
Print view this post

Re: Formal Debate Challenge Thread

#23  Postby Mick » Aug 27, 2013 5:11 am

willhud9 wrote:No. You can oppose gay marriage. I can argue that gay marriage is against the Bible and then argue why the Bible should be an acceptable standard for society without spreading hate. But when you state gay marriage is against the Bible, the Bible is the truthful word of God, therefore gays are sinners( thus accusing the gay members of the forum as being sinners, thus personalizing them and thus breaching the FUA) that is where the line is drawn on the forum.


I didn't state that or anything like that, and I still got suspended.
Christ said, "I am the Truth"; he did not say "I am the custom." -- St. Toribio
User avatar
Mick
Banned Troll
 
Posts: 7027

Print view this post

Re: Formal Debate Challenge Thread

#24  Postby Thomas Eshuis » Aug 27, 2013 9:21 am

Mick wrote:
willhud9 wrote:No. You can oppose gay marriage. I can argue that gay marriage is against the Bible and then argue why the Bible should be an acceptable standard for society without spreading hate. But when you state gay marriage is against the Bible, the Bible is the truthful word of God, therefore gays are sinners( thus accusing the gay members of the forum as being sinners, thus personalizing them and thus breaching the FUA) that is where the line is drawn on the forum.


I didn't state that or anything like that, and I still got suspended.

Could you cite or provide a link to the specific post?
"Respect for personal beliefs = "I am going to tell you all what I think of YOU, but don't dare retort and tell what you think of ME because...it's my personal belief". Hmm. A bully's charter and no mistake."
User avatar
Thomas Eshuis
 
Name: Thomas Eshuis
Posts: 30234
Age: 30
Male

Country: Netherlands
European Union (eur)
Print view this post

Re: Formal Debate Challenge Thread

#25  Postby THWOTH » Aug 27, 2013 9:30 am

Mick wrote:I am up for debating unpopular ethical views, such as those against gay marriage or gay sex. But the mods would have to let me voice a moral argument without getting banned.

I'd take you up on that.

EDIT: Though, to be clear, I don't think there's any chance of suspending part of the FUA for a formal debate.
"No-one is exempt from speaking nonsense – the only misfortune is to do it solemnly."
Michel de Montaigne, Essais, 1580
User avatar
THWOTH
RS Donator
THREAD STARTER
 
Name: Penrose
Posts: 37101
Age: 54

Country: Untied Kingdom
United Kingdom (uk)
Print view this post

Re: Formal Debate Challenge Thread

#26  Postby jamest » Aug 27, 2013 10:30 pm

Mick wrote:I am up for debating unpopular ethical views, such as those against gay marriage or gay sex. But the mods would have to let me voice a moral argument without getting banned.

I don't see how you could provide an 'argument' for such other than "Cuz the bible says so".
Il messaggero non e importante.
Ora non e importante.
Il resultato futuro e importante.
Quindi, persisto.
jamest
 
Posts: 18044
Male

Country: England
Jolly Roger (arr)
Print view this post

Re: Formal Debate Challenge Thread

#27  Postby Mick » Aug 27, 2013 11:28 pm

jamest wrote:
Mick wrote:I am up for debating unpopular ethical views, such as those against gay marriage or gay sex. But the mods would have to let me voice a moral argument without getting banned.

I don't see how you could provide an 'argument' for such other than "Cuz the bible says so".

Natural law theory. But it would require to argue the proposition "homosexuality is unnatural" (natural has a special meaning here). Yet, that is precisely what I was suspended for.
Christ said, "I am the Truth"; he did not say "I am the custom." -- St. Toribio
User avatar
Mick
Banned Troll
 
Posts: 7027

Print view this post

Ads by Google


Re: Formal Debate Challenge Thread

#28  Postby SafeAsMilk » Aug 27, 2013 11:34 pm

Mick wrote:
jamest wrote:
Mick wrote:I am up for debating unpopular ethical views, such as those against gay marriage or gay sex. But the mods would have to let me voice a moral argument without getting banned.

I don't see how you could provide an 'argument' for such other than "Cuz the bible says so".

Natural law theory.

Which has about as much credibility as 'cuz the bible says so'.
"They call it the American dream, because you have to be asleep to believe it." -- George Carlin
User avatar
SafeAsMilk
 
Name: Makes Fails
Posts: 13576
Age: 40
Male

United States (us)
Print view this post

Re: Formal Debate Challenge Thread

#29  Postby Mick » Aug 27, 2013 11:37 pm

SafeAsMilk wrote:
Mick wrote:
jamest wrote:
Mick wrote:I am up for debating unpopular ethical views, such as those against gay marriage or gay sex. But the mods would have to let me voice a moral argument without getting banned.

I don't see how you could provide an 'argument' for such other than "Cuz the bible says so".

Natural law theory.

Which has about as much credibility as 'cuz the bible says so'.



That can be addressed in the debate.
Christ said, "I am the Truth"; he did not say "I am the custom." -- St. Toribio
User avatar
Mick
Banned Troll
 
Posts: 7027

Print view this post

Re: Formal Debate Challenge Thread

#30  Postby Mick » Aug 27, 2013 11:40 pm

Byron seems to think I play language games. If he wants to debate, I'd love that. We can do the same argument: does a god exist? I will form a new argument though.
Christ said, "I am the Truth"; he did not say "I am the custom." -- St. Toribio
User avatar
Mick
Banned Troll
 
Posts: 7027

Print view this post

Re: Formal Debate Challenge Thread

#31  Postby willhud9 » Aug 28, 2013 12:07 am

How about you finish the one you are in? :ask:
Fear is a choice you embrace
Your only truth
Tribal poetry
Witchcraft filling your void
Lust for fantasy
Male necrocracy
Every child worthy of a better tale
User avatar
willhud9
 
Name: William
Posts: 19252
Age: 28
Male

Country: United States
United States (us)
Print view this post

Re: Formal Debate Challenge Thread

#32  Postby SafeAsMilk » Aug 28, 2013 12:18 am

Mick wrote:
SafeAsMilk wrote:
Mick wrote:
jamest wrote:
I don't see how you could provide an 'argument' for such other than "Cuz the bible says so".

Natural law theory.

Which has about as much credibility as 'cuz the bible says so'.



That can be addressed in the debate.

No need. All one has to do is look it up, and having even the most basic understanding of science that every high school graduate should, one can see it's a pile of shit. You may as well debate the validity of humours.
"They call it the American dream, because you have to be asleep to believe it." -- George Carlin
User avatar
SafeAsMilk
 
Name: Makes Fails
Posts: 13576
Age: 40
Male

United States (us)
Print view this post

Re: Formal Debate Challenge Thread

#33  Postby ughaibu » Aug 28, 2013 1:02 am

SafeAsMilk wrote:
Mick wrote:
SafeAsMilk wrote:
Mick wrote:Natural law theory.
Which has about as much credibility as 'cuz the bible says so'.
That can be addressed in the debate.
No need. All one has to do is look it up, and having even the most basic understanding of science that every high school graduate should, one can see it's a pile of shit.
Okay, here's the Stanford entry: http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/natural-law-ethics/ How do I use my "basic understanding of science" to "see it's a pile of shit"?
ughaibu
 
Posts: 4391

Print view this post

Re: Formal Debate Challenge Thread

#34  Postby THWOTH » Aug 28, 2013 1:12 am

Mick wrote:
SafeAsMilk wrote:
Mick wrote:
jamest wrote:
I don't see how you could provide an 'argument' for such other than "Cuz the bible says so".

Natural law theory.

Which has about as much credibility as 'cuz the bible says so'.



That can be addressed in the debate.

Why embark upon a formal debate when you can address the matter in the Gay Marriage thread?

THWOTH wrote:Aquinas' objection to homosexuality is founded in an objection to onanism - it's simply a waste of good spunk.

The authorised objective of every man's issue is, and can only ever be, towards procreation. To do otherwise is contrary to God's will, and is therefore a very naughty thing to do. The natural function of spunk is to make babies and when it is brought forth and resideth not in the proper, respectable receptacle then a man is acting against his obligations to obey the will of big voyeur in the sky, and in doing so is obviously acting against the natural goods of man as bestowed from above. Thus intimate relations are reduced to a set of authorised physical conditions in which the natural feelings of attraction, affection and a desire for intimacy play no part. Such feelings may act as an impetus to intimate relations, but once engaged in intimate relations must only ever be open to the possibility of procreation. Whether procreation occurs or not is in God's hand not your own.

So, spunk is for babies and it is a perversion (origin: action of turning aside from [religious] truth), or an unnatural vice (imperfection), for it to be issued in any other circumstances. Aquinas' objection to homosexuality is not founded in a fundamental objection to inter-gender expressions of affection and desire, but to those infamous 'homosexual acts' and in this sense is the same as objections to masturbation and contraception - it's a moral crime to waste spunk. The Natural Law stuff is just a retroactive, self-affirming means of justifying the Biblical stricture against 'spilling one's seed upon the ground.'

I think I've got to grips with the nub of the issue in hand there.

:coffee:
"No-one is exempt from speaking nonsense – the only misfortune is to do it solemnly."
Michel de Montaigne, Essais, 1580
User avatar
THWOTH
RS Donator
THREAD STARTER
 
Name: Penrose
Posts: 37101
Age: 54

Country: Untied Kingdom
United Kingdom (uk)
Print view this post

Re: Formal Debate Challenge Thread

#35  Postby Mick » Aug 28, 2013 1:17 am

willhud9 wrote:How about you finish the one you are in? :ask:



I didn't intend otherwise.
Christ said, "I am the Truth"; he did not say "I am the custom." -- St. Toribio
User avatar
Mick
Banned Troll
 
Posts: 7027

Print view this post

Ads by Google


Re: Formal Debate Challenge Thread

#36  Postby Mick » Aug 28, 2013 1:18 am

THWOTH wrote:
Mick wrote:
SafeAsMilk wrote:
Mick wrote:
Natural law theory.

Which has about as much credibility as 'cuz the bible says so'.



That can be addressed in the debate.

Why embark upon a formal debate when you can address the matter in the Gay Marriage thread?

THWOTH wrote:Aquinas' objection to homosexuality is founded in an objection to onanism - it's simply a waste of good spunk.

The authorised objective of every man's issue is, and can only ever be, towards procreation. To do otherwise is contrary to God's will, and is therefore a very naughty thing to do. The natural function of spunk is to make babies and when it is brought forth and resideth not in the proper, respectable receptacle then a man is acting against his obligations to obey the will of big voyeur in the sky, and in doing so is obviously acting against the natural goods of man as bestowed from above. Thus intimate relations are reduced to a set of authorised physical conditions in which the natural feelings of attraction, affection and a desire for intimacy play no part. Such feelings may act as an impetus to intimate relations, but once engaged in intimate relations must only ever be open to the possibility of procreation. Whether procreation occurs or not is in God's hand not your own.

So, spunk is for babies and it is a perversion (origin: action of turning aside from [religious] truth), or an unnatural vice (imperfection), for it to be issued in any other circumstances. Aquinas' objection to homosexuality is not founded in a fundamental objection to inter-gender expressions of affection and desire, but to those infamous 'homosexual acts' and in this sense is the same as objections to masturbation and contraception - it's a moral crime to waste spunk. The Natural Law stuff is just a retroactive, self-affirming means of justifying the Biblical stricture against 'spilling one's seed upon the ground.'

I think I've got to grips with the nub of the issue in hand there.

:coffee:



Because you can't run away, and you'd be committed to answering me.
Christ said, "I am the Truth"; he did not say "I am the custom." -- St. Toribio
User avatar
Mick
Banned Troll
 
Posts: 7027

Print view this post

Re: Formal Debate Challenge Thread

#37  Postby Mick » Aug 28, 2013 1:19 am

SafeAsMilk wrote:
Mick wrote:
SafeAsMilk wrote:
Mick wrote:
Natural law theory.

Which has about as much credibility as 'cuz the bible says so'.



That can be addressed in the debate.

No need. All one has to do is look it up, and having even the most basic understanding of science that every high school graduate should, one can see it's a pile of shit. You may as well debate the validity of humours.


Then perhaps you can take that avenue in a formal debate?
Christ said, "I am the Truth"; he did not say "I am the custom." -- St. Toribio
User avatar
Mick
Banned Troll
 
Posts: 7027

Print view this post

Re: Formal Debate Challenge Thread

#38  Postby THWOTH » Aug 28, 2013 1:29 am

Mick wrote:
THWOTH wrote:Why embark upon a formal debate when you can address the matter in the Gay Marriage thread?

THWOTH wrote:Aquinas' objection to homosexuality is founded in an objection to onanism - it's simply a waste of good spunk.

The authorised objective of every man's issue is, and can only ever be, towards procreation. To do otherwise is contrary to God's will, and is therefore a very naughty thing to do. The natural function of spunk is to make babies and when it is brought forth and resideth not in the proper, respectable receptacle then a man is acting against his obligations to obey the will of big voyeur in the sky, and in doing so is obviously acting against the natural goods of man as bestowed from above. Thus intimate relations are reduced to a set of authorised physical conditions in which the natural feelings of attraction, affection and a desire for intimacy play no part. Such feelings may act as an impetus to intimate relations, but once engaged in intimate relations must only ever be open to the possibility of procreation. Whether procreation occurs or not is in God's hand not your own.

So, spunk is for babies and it is a perversion (origin: action of turning aside from [religious] truth), or an unnatural vice (imperfection), for it to be issued in any other circumstances. Aquinas' objection to homosexuality is not founded in a fundamental objection to inter-gender expressions of affection and desire, but to those infamous 'homosexual acts' and in this sense is the same as objections to masturbation and contraception - it's a moral crime to waste spunk. The Natural Law stuff is just a retroactive, self-affirming means of justifying the Biblical stricture against 'spilling one's seed upon the ground.'

I think I've got to grips with the nub of the issue in hand there.

:coffee:

Because you can't run away, and you'd be committed to answering me.

I outlined Aquinas' position fairly and addressed the Thomist objection to homosexual acts. ("Thus intimate relations are reduced [by Aquinas] to a set of authorised physical conditions in which the natural feelings of attraction, affection and a desire for intimacy play no part. ")

I'm not the moving target here - the post remains unchallenged. Also, the assertion that one cannot represent NLT objections to gay sex on the forum without incurring a sanction, such that it's necessary to suspend some portion of the FUA in order to discuss them, is clearly bogus.

:smoke:
"No-one is exempt from speaking nonsense – the only misfortune is to do it solemnly."
Michel de Montaigne, Essais, 1580
User avatar
THWOTH
RS Donator
THREAD STARTER
 
Name: Penrose
Posts: 37101
Age: 54

Country: Untied Kingdom
United Kingdom (uk)
Print view this post

Re: Formal Debate Challenge Thread

#39  Postby Mick » Aug 28, 2013 1:57 am

THWOTH wrote:
Mick wrote:
THWOTH wrote:Why embark upon a formal debate when you can address the matter in the Gay Marriage thread?

THWOTH wrote:Aquinas' objection to homosexuality is founded in an objection to onanism - it's simply a waste of good spunk.

The authorised objective of every man's issue is, and can only ever be, towards procreation. To do otherwise is contrary to God's will, and is therefore a very naughty thing to do. The natural function of spunk is to make babies and when it is brought forth and resideth not in the proper, respectable receptacle then a man is acting against his obligations to obey the will of big voyeur in the sky, and in doing so is obviously acting against the natural goods of man as bestowed from above. Thus intimate relations are reduced to a set of authorised physical conditions in which the natural feelings of attraction, affection and a desire for intimacy play no part. Such feelings may act as an impetus to intimate relations, but once engaged in intimate relations must only ever be open to the possibility of procreation. Whether procreation occurs or not is in God's hand not your own.

So, spunk is for babies and it is a perversion (origin: action of turning aside from [religious] truth), or an unnatural vice (imperfection), for it to be issued in any other circumstances. Aquinas' objection to homosexuality is not founded in a fundamental objection to inter-gender expressions of affection and desire, but to those infamous 'homosexual acts' and in this sense is the same as objections to masturbation and contraception - it's a moral crime to waste spunk. The Natural Law stuff is just a retroactive, self-affirming means of justifying the Biblical stricture against 'spilling one's seed upon the ground.'

I think I've got to grips with the nub of the issue in hand there.

:coffee:

Because you can't run away, and you'd be committed to answering me.

I outlined Aquinas' position fairly and addressed the Thomist objection to homosexual acts. ("Thus intimate relations are reduced [by Aquinas] to a set of authorised physical conditions in which the natural feelings of attraction, affection and a desire for intimacy play no part. ")

I'm not the moving target here - the post remains unchallenged. Also, the assertion that one cannot represent NLT objections to gay sex on the forum without incurring a sanction, such that it's necessary to suspend some portion of the FUA in order to discuss them, is clearly bogus.

:smoke:



Bogus? You and your mods are the ones who suspended me for it. When I appealed the decision, you and your mods denied that too. The propositions 'homosexuality is disordered' or 'homosexuality is unnatural' is a necessary part of what i would need to affirm in order to make my case, and yet those are the exact same propositions you suspended me for saying.

That whole thread is entrapment. I am to explain Catholic views, but I cannot affirm them. I am to fend of your criticisms, but I cannot affirm Thomas' view, lest I get another suspension.
Christ said, "I am the Truth"; he did not say "I am the custom." -- St. Toribio
User avatar
Mick
Banned Troll
 
Posts: 7027

Print view this post

Re: Formal Debate Challenge Thread

#40  Postby Mick » Aug 28, 2013 2:01 am

Thomas Eshuis wrote:
Mick wrote:
willhud9 wrote:No. You can oppose gay marriage. I can argue that gay marriage is against the Bible and then argue why the Bible should be an acceptable standard for society without spreading hate. But when you state gay marriage is against the Bible, the Bible is the truthful word of God, therefore gays are sinners( thus accusing the gay members of the forum as being sinners, thus personalizing them and thus breaching the FUA) that is where the line is drawn on the forum.


I didn't state that or anything like that, and I still got suspended.

Could you cite or provide a link to the specific post?



Yes.

http://www.rationalskepticism.org/chris ... l#p1665692



I appealed the decision. I lost the vote. Thus, the mods had a chance to reconsider, and yet they still suspended me.

The natural law theory objection depends upon those two propositions; and hence I cannot but affirm them if I am going to argue for that objection.
Christ said, "I am the Truth"; he did not say "I am the custom." -- St. Toribio
User avatar
Mick
Banned Troll
 
Posts: 7027

Print view this post

PreviousNext

Return to General Discussion

Who is online

Users viewing this topic: No registered users and 1 guest