Formal Debate Challenge Thread

[SafeAsMilk]

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"?

You misunderstand. The context of my statement is Mick trying to use natural law theory, a masturbatory philosophical clusterfuck (your article can't even definitively say what it is -- "It's whatever Aquinas says!"), to conclude something about an empirical, observable phenomenon: homosexuality. Drawing conclusions about observable empirical phenomena based on gazing at navel lint should ring and obvious alarm bell. Have a look at one of Mick's NLT statements above: "Homosexuality is unnatural." You can see homosexuality arise naturally amongst living creatures all over the place: his is as clear a bullshit statement as you could find. As I said before: it has about as much credibility as 'because the bible says so.'

Then perhaps you can take that avenue in a formal debate?

Even if I had the time, I'd rather watch paint dry.

[Mick]

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"?

You misunderstand. The context of my statement is Mick trying to use natural law theory, a masturbatory philosophical clusterfuck (your article can't even definitively say what it is -- "It's whatever Aquinas says!"), to conclude something about an empirical, observable phenomenon: homosexuality. Drawing conclusions about observable empirical phenomena based on gazing at navel lint should ring and obvious alarm bell. Have a look at one of Mick's NLT statements above: "Homosexuality is unnatural." You can see homosexuality arise naturally amongst living creatures all over the place: his is as clear a bullshit statement as you could find. As I said before: it has about as much credibility as 'because the bible says so.'

Then perhaps you can take that avenue in a formal debate?

Even if I had the time, I'd rather watch paint dry.

Notice that even when I state (within this very thread!) that the sense of natural for which i speak is not the same as its present day meaning, SafeAsMilk still makes that confusion.

[Mick]

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.

[SafeAsMilk]

No confusion at all, I just don't need to make up "special" definitions of understood words to make what I want to believe fit reality.

[willhud9]

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.

Again can you provide citation of your claim? i.e. provide a link to the post which you were suspended for?

[Thomas Eshuis]

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.

Again can you provide citation of your claim? i.e. provide a link to the post which you were suspended for?

and

No confusion at all, I just don't need to make up "special" definitions of understood words to make what I want to believe fit reality.

[Mick]

No confusion at all, I just don't need to make up "special" definitions of understood words to make what I want to believe fit reality.

Um, I didn't. That is the translation. It just doesn't hold the same meaning.

[Mick]

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.

Again can you provide citation of your claim? i.e. provide a link to the post which you were suspended for?

I did, but it seems as though the mods deleted it. I will PM it.

[The_Metatron]

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.

Again can you provide citation of your claim? i.e. provide a link to the post which you were suspended for?

I did, but it seems as though the mods deleted it. I will PM it.

No, we aren't having that. Here's the warning that announced your last suspension:

[Reveal] Spoiler:

!

MODNOTE Mick, this is a warning that your post here, in which you suggest that homosexuality is ‘contrary to nature’ and your post here, in which you suggest that homosexuality is a ‘disorder’, contravene the Forum Users’ Agreement, specifically section 1.2b which prohibits homophobic posting. As this is your fourth active warning, you will now be suspended from the forum for one month. Any comments on this modnote or moderation should not be made in the thread as they will be considered off topic. You yourself may email info@rationalskepticism.org if you wish to comment on your suspension.

And here are the two posts to which are linked in that warning:

[Reveal] Spoiler:

What about the homosexual couple? Can they have sex if they're open to being "preggers"?

Nope.

Why's that? If a homosexual is having sex for the end of procreation insofar as they are "open to it," what's the problem?

Many things. Suppose homosexual couple were male. The nature of men does not include becoming preggers, that's the nature of women, that is, in part, their end, or at least that of their reproductive organs. In regards to barren heterosexual couples, there is nothing contrary to their natures, the reason for their barrenness is (save injury or truma, or the like) a privation rather than something contrary to nature.

Why's that? If a homosexual is having sex for the end of procreation insofar as they are "open to it," what's the problem?

Many things. Suppose homosexual couple were male. The nature of men does not include becoming preggers, that's the nature of women, that is, in part, their end, or at least that of their reproductive organs. In regards to barren heterosexual couples, there is nothing contrary to their natures, the reason for their barrenness is (save injury or truma, or the like) a privation rather than something contrary to nature.

It is the nature of some men and women to be homosexual, and it seems to be quite common in antiquity as well as today. That some desert dwellers found it offensive to their god has nothing to do with it being natural or not.

No, it is not in their nature, that is a disorder, like club foot. I am using nature in a metaphysical sense, not in the sense you are accustom to.

Were those events describing the wrong suspension?

[Mick]

Again can you provide citation of your claim? i.e. provide a link to the post which you were suspended for?

I did, but it seems as though the mods deleted it. I will PM it.

No, we aren't having that. Here's the warning that announced your last suspension:

[Reveal] Spoiler:

And here are the two posts to which are linked in that warning:

[Reveal] Spoiler:

Nope.

Why's that? If a homosexual is having sex for the end of procreation insofar as they are "open to it," what's the problem?

Many things. Suppose homosexual couple were male. The nature of men does not include becoming preggers, that's the nature of women, that is, in part, their end, or at least that of their reproductive organs. In regards to barren heterosexual couples, there is nothing contrary to their natures, the reason for their barrenness is (save injury or truma, or the like) a privation rather than something contrary to nature.

Many things. Suppose homosexual couple were male. The nature of men does not include becoming preggers, that's the nature of women, that is, in part, their end, or at least that of their reproductive organs. In regards to barren heterosexual couples, there is nothing contrary to their natures, the reason for their barrenness is (save injury or truma, or the like) a privation rather than something contrary to nature.

It is the nature of some men and women to be homosexual, and it seems to be quite common in antiquity as well as today. That some desert dwellers found it offensive to their god has nothing to do with it being natural or not.

No, it is not in their nature, that is a disorder, like club foot. I am using nature in a metaphysical sense, not in the sense you are accustom to.

Were those events describing the wrong suspension?

Yes, that is what I was suspended for. However, I noted this already within the thread. Either the mods deleted it or moved t. Either way, ur mod buddies rather it not be discussed here (or at all).



ETA: there was no delete. My mistake.

[Mick]

Oops. I retract. There was no delete. For some reason or other, my phone didn't show the post I made.

My apologies.

[Mick]

In any case, I was suspended for something I would need to argue for if I were to do that formal debate.

[THWOTH]

In any case, I was suspended for something I would need to argue for if I were to do that formal debate.

This has been dealt with in threads and feedback threads. Your suspension was the consequence of a fourth active warning. The foruth warning was for saying that same-sex orientation was equivalent to a congenital physical deformity, among other things. You would not have to argue that same-sex orientation is equivalent to a congenital physical deformity in order to argue the NTL objection to same-sex intimacy. Nor do we need to allow a special, FUA-invoking definition of 'nature' to discuss this matter.

[SafeAsMilk]

No confusion at all, I just don't need to make up "special" definitions of understood words to make what I want to believe fit reality.

Um, I didn't. That is the translation. It just doesn't hold the same meaning.

Sounds like it's not very well translated. I would think that part of translating is conveying meaning to a modern audience. If people meant "water" when they used the word "fire", I would hope you would use "water" because it would be clearer to your audience. But then again I think the point of words is to communicate, not to pretend my words have more authority than they actually do.

[Mick]

No confusion at all, I just don't need to make up "special" definitions of understood words to make what I want to believe fit reality.

Um, I didn't. That is the translation. It just doesn't hold the same meaning.

Sounds like it's not very well translated. I would think that part of translating is conveying meaning to a modern audience. If people meant "water" when they used the word "fire", I would hope you would use "water" because it would be clearer to your audience. But then again I think the point of words is to communicate, not to pretend my words have more authority than they actually do.

Right, so I took the effort to say that it had a special meaning. You ignored this.


If the mod wants to debate me, I will need to make the case that homosexuality is unnatural. By this I mean would argue that it is contrary to a form, if i were allowed. Contrary to his suggestion, natural law theory does not claim it to be "just like" or "equivalent" to a deformity, but rather something of a departure from a form.

If that is unacceptable, then cool. But I think such a prohibition is far more detrimental than not. You guys aren't even aware of what is said by your opponents, but yet youre opposed to their conclusion. That is just dogma.

[Thomas Eshuis]

No confusion at all, I just don't need to make up "special" definitions of understood words to make what I want to believe fit reality.

Um, I didn't. That is the translation. It just doesn't hold the same meaning.

Sounds like it's not very well translated. I would think that part of translating is conveying meaning to a modern audience. If people meant "water" when they used the word "fire", I would hope you would use "water" because it would be clearer to your audience. But then again I think the point of words is to communicate, not to pretend my words have more authority than they actually do.

Right, so I took the effort to say that it had a special meaning. You ignored this.

Thing is that your special meaning is without rational foundation or support from any credible source, let alone evidence.
It's nothing but homophobia disguised by sophistry.

If the mod wants to debate me, I will need to make the case that homosexuality is unnatural.

Exactly, a case. Not like in the post for which you got a suspension, where you merely asserted it and appealed to an unexpounded 'theory'.

By this I mean would argue that it is contrary to a form.

But you didn't in that form. You merely asserted and dropped the name of a 'theory'.

Contrary to his suggestion, natural law theory does not claim to "just like" or "equivalent" to a deformity, but rather something of a departure from a form.

Except that you compared homosexuality to a deformity without providing any evidence or rational argumentation for it.
Once again you merely dropped NLT as a name, without any substantiation.

[Rumraket]

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?

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.

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

This is so ironic it boggles the mind.

[Byron]

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.

We all play language games. (Or so goes the theory.)

It was largely a reference to Wittgenstein's philosophy of language, with some po-mo implications. I was making a point about the relationship of language with its subject, and the fluidity of definitions and concepts. In short, the limitations of "proofs."

Before making any decision about debating you, I'll see how your current debate pans out, and how I feel after mine's wrapped. As I said in the peanut gallery, I wouldn't debate anything as vague as a deity, nor would I be interested in a circular argument about terms.

[SafeAsMilk]

No confusion at all, I just don't need to make up "special" definitions of understood words to make what I want to believe fit reality.

Um, I didn't. That is the translation. It just doesn't hold the same meaning.

Sounds like it's not very well translated. I would think that part of translating is conveying meaning to a modern audience. If people meant "water" when they used the word "fire", I would hope you would use "water" because it would be clearer to your audience. But then again I think the point of words is to communicate, not to pretend my words have more authority than they actually do.

Right, so I took the effort to say that it had a special meaning. You ignored this.

And I note that your efforts are semantic games to give your words the authority of their common usage without any of the real-world knowledge that underlies them. If you're actually concerned about people understanding you, then use a "special" word with your "special" meaning instead of hijacking terms to suit your needs.

If the mod wants to debate me, I will need to make the case that homosexuality is unnatural. By this I mean would argue that it is contrary to a form, if i were allowed. Contrary to his suggestion, natural law theory does not claim it to be "just like" or "equivalent" to a deformity, but rather something of a departure from a form.

Sounds like you've got a "special" definition of deformity too, seeing as something that is departing from a form would be deFORMed.

If that is unacceptable, then cool. But I think such a prohibition is far more detrimental than not. You guys aren't even aware of what is said by your opponents, but yet youre opposed to their conclusion. That is just dogma.

You seem to be mistaking masturbatory sophistry for arguments. If my opponents can't manage to rally more than pure navel-gazing to support their arguments, then I don't particularly care what they are. They can argue amongst themselves about how many angels can dance on the head of a pin, and I'll be none the poorer for knowing nothing about it.

[jamest]

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.

Personally, I'd like to see what you have to say, but how you would present such an argument without incurring the wrath of many members/mods is beyond me. Indeed, short of seeing that argument, I'm wondering whether it could be turned against you.