ughaibu wrote: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"?SafeAsMilk wrote: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 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.'
Mick wrote:
Then perhaps you can take that avenue in a formal debate?
Even if I had the time, I'd rather watch paint dry.