Moderators: Blip, The_Metatron
THWOTH wrote:Mick wrote: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.
Mick wrote:I'd be interested in debating this:
"Is abortion ethically permissible?" I deny; my opponent affirms.
Mick wrote:THWOTH wrote:Mick wrote: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.
I didn't say it was equivalent, I said it was like one in the sense that it is a departure from proper form. You see how you suspended me without even understanding what it was that I said? Lame.
Mick wrote:jamest wrote:
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.
I could argue it in a detached way, that there are no known and sound objections to it. That wouldn't suggest it is true.
Mick wrote:
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.
Animavore wrote:Mick wrote:THWOTH wrote:Mick wrote: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.
I didn't say it was equivalent, I said it was like one in the sense that it is a departure from proper form. You see how you suspended me without even understanding what it was that I said? Lame.
You never showed that there was a "proper form". In fact it has been demonstrated repeatedly that the term is meaningless.
Mick wrote:The whole disembodied mind thing is a Cartesian thing. Besides, that resolution puts a heavier burden on me than you. You don't need to argue that there are no disembodied minds, but just that we have no good reason to think there is. You'll just be responding to me rather than making a positive case of your own. It is easy to stand back and poke holes.
Rumraket wrote:Mick wrote:
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.
Sounds like a ridiculous topic since you could basically just invent some crazy version of "natural" tailored to make homsexuality not fit the definition. When you start with already disagreeing on whether the definition of "natural" used is meaningful, you won't even get to the meat about homosexuality in the first place, you'd be debating your various ethical and philosophical starting positions.
Rumraket wrote:
What does that even mean? As a christian, surely you believe in a soul and an afterlife?Mick wrote:The whole disembodied mind thing is a Cartesian thing. Besides, that resolution puts a heavier burden on me than you. You don't need to argue that there are no disembodied minds, but just that we have no good reason to think there is. You'll just be responding to me rather than making a positive case of your own. It is easy to stand back and poke holes.
I'm sorry that you don't want to shoulder your burden of proof.
Mick wrote:Animavore wrote:Mick wrote:THWOTH wrote:
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.
I didn't say it was equivalent, I said it was like one in the sense that it is a departure from proper form. You see how you suspended me without even understanding what it was that I said? Lame.
You never showed that there was a "proper form". In fact it has been demonstrated repeatedly that the term is meaningless.
Then you shouldn't have a problem defeating me.
Mick wrote:I'm more interested in abortion though.
Mick wrote:Rumraket wrote:
What does that even mean? As a christian, surely you believe in a soul and an afterlife?Mick wrote:The whole disembodied mind thing is a Cartesian thing. Besides, that resolution puts a heavier burden on me than you. You don't need to argue that there are no disembodied minds, but just that we have no good reason to think there is. You'll just be responding to me rather than making a positive case of your own. It is easy to stand back and poke holes.
I'm sorry that you don't want to shoulder your burden of proof.
It means that the idea of disembodied minds like that in Ghost are simply not part of Thomist thought.
I will shoulder a burden of proof. The objection was that your burden is lighter, and that is typical of atheists here on RS.
Rumraket wrote:Mick wrote:Rumraket wrote:
What does that even mean? As a christian, surely you believe in a soul and an afterlife?Mick wrote:The whole disembodied mind thing is a Cartesian thing. Besides, that resolution puts a heavier burden on me than you. You don't need to argue that there are no disembodied minds, but just that we have no good reason to think there is. You'll just be responding to me rather than making a positive case of your own. It is easy to stand back and poke holes.
I'm sorry that you don't want to shoulder your burden of proof.
It means that the idea of disembodied minds like that in Ghost are simply not part of Thomist thought.
I will shoulder a burden of proof. The objection was that your burden is lighter, and that is typical of atheists here on RS.
Once again you missed a question.
I think it's really just the nature of the topic. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.
Animavore wrote:Mick wrote:Animavore wrote:Mick wrote:
I didn't say it was equivalent, I said it was like one in the sense that it is a departure from proper form. You see how you suspended me without even understanding what it was that I said? Lame.
You never showed that there was a "proper form". In fact it has been demonstrated repeatedly that the term is meaningless.
Then you shouldn't have a problem defeating me.
Even if you could show homosexuality was a departure from 'proper form' you still have a long way to go to show that we should deny people rights based on this. In fact, if what you say is true, then denying homosexuals rights is as egregious as denying Down Syndrome people rights. You make your case against gay marriage, for instance, worse, not better by following this line of argument. So I'm not sure why you would even want to employ it.
Rumraket wrote:Mick wrote:Rumraket wrote:
What does that even mean? As a christian, surely you believe in a soul and an afterlife?Mick wrote:The whole disembodied mind thing is a Cartesian thing. Besides, that resolution puts a heavier burden on me than you. You don't need to argue that there are no disembodied minds, but just that we have no good reason to think there is. You'll just be responding to me rather than making a positive case of your own. It is easy to stand back and poke holes.
I'm sorry that you don't want to shoulder your burden of proof.
It means that the idea of disembodied minds like that in Ghost are simply not part of Thomist thought.
I will shoulder a burden of proof. The objection was that your burden is lighter, and that is typical of atheists here on RS.
Once again you missed a question.
I think it's really just the nature of the topic. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.
Users viewing this topic: No registered users and 1 guest