4. Errors are to be sought on both sides of the issue. Progress will consist in seeking, identifying, agreeing on and discarding them. They will not be left inconclusive to clog up the exchange
We start with our agreement that there are such things as sexual perversions. If I'm questioned as to what I mean by a "sexual perversion", my answer is that it is a misdirection of the reproductive drive.
Quote:"I'll take the moment to address your 'A' but I'd greatly appriciate your reply to the growing list of questions addressed to you."
Pick out and give me what you consider to be the most pertinent question from that growing list.
Quote:"You are begging the question by using false or unestablished premises in your argument."
Let's explore what's involved with that.
We start with our agreement that there are such things as sexual perversions. If I'm questioned as to what I mean by a "sexual perversion", my answer is that it is a misdirection of the reproductive drive.
What do you mean by "sexual perversion"?
And getting back to "A", do you find it acceptable methodologically or is it flawed?
"No, I mean, how did the vote on Prop 8 'confirm the validity' of a cultural institution? In other words, what does it mean for somebody to 'confirm the validity' of something else?"
"If by 'misdirection' you mean do people engage in non-procreative sex, then the answer is most certainly 'yes'."
"All I can say is that statement contradicts itself completely."
"There is no such thing as a marriage without recognition and by that recognition comes tacit approval."
"Several questions have been asked of you but you haven't answered."
"So by that definition can we assume that a female orgasm is a sexual perversion?"
"Can we also assume that you think masturbation is a sexual perversion?"
"Now we are getting somewhere it appears but not quite where we wanted, is it?"
Quote:"Several questions have been asked of you but you haven't answered."
Please pick out and give me the --one-- most pertinent of the questions you believe I have failed to answer.
"I'll take the moment to address your 'A' but I'd greatly appriciate your reply to the growing list of questions addressed to you."
"I'll do nothing of the sort. I've addressed many questions to you and I find them all pertinent."
No no, failures art. I'm assuming that our exchange is to be a cooperative one, and if information is requested we each are obligated to provide it.
The debate on whether a couple must be fertile is already closed. Do you disagree? If not, what happens when a fertile marriage becomes infertile? Would the authority over the marriage (state, church, etc) void that marriage?
Do you support
1) The Equal Protection Clause
2) Full Faith and Credit Clause
Simply put, what is more valuable: Imposing regulation on homosexual relationships or ethical application of the law? Perhaps an even simpler question is to ask if you expect the law to protect your rights? If so, what clause do you think will guarantee that you're protected fairly?
If people (total strangers at that) disapproved of your marriage, can you still legally marry?
What nature of speech or context would not fall under the protection of free speech?
Why is it necessary to ban homosexuals from marrying to convey your disapproval?
We established that you can disapprove of idea/institution without banning it, and yet you choose to support the banning of same sex marriage. How do you pick and choose when to violate your stated value?
Jack and Jill get engaged.
Neither Jack's parents or Jill's parents approve of the engagement.
None of their friends approve of the engagement.
Strangers on the street see them, and do not approve of the engagement.
Does the disapproval of their relationship inhibit their legal ability to get married? No.
If they get married will they have the same legal status (rights & privileges) as other married couples? Yes.
Jack and Jill are sexual perverts. They like to **** in each others mouth. Daily.
Now you disapprove of Bert and Ernie getting married.
Why should your disapproval void Bert and Ernie's ability to legally marry while it doesn't void Jack and Jill's?
What make same sex marriage a sexual perversion? Specifically.
A. Since there must --and I emphasize must-- be an error in contradictory propositions, we must have test-criteria for identifying it (or them). To get away from subjectivity, I suggest that we limit those test-criteria to fallacies and contradictions, nothing more. In other words, neither you nor I will be accused of being involved in an error unless it be a fallacy or a contradiction. And, regarding fallacies, the word is all too frequently used loosely. Fallacies have names. If the accusation of being guilty of using a fallacy is made, a) the name of the fallacy and b) how it is being applied will be given. Otherwise the only test-criterion of error will be contradictions.
In general terms I would say by accepting the value of something, whether of that "something" or another. What would confirming the validity of something else be for you?
Quote:"If by 'misdirection' you mean do people engage in non-procreative sex, then the answer is most certainly 'yes'."
No, I don't mean that.
I mean do you make a distinction between the target chosen --say a 30-year-old man driven to a 5-year-old child non-procreatively, on the one hand, and that 30-year-old man driven to a 25-year-old woman and using a contraceptive on the other. Would you consider being driven to a 5-year-old child a misdirection of the reproductive drive? Please note that I'm talking about the primitive drive itself, not how that drive is handled when the intellect becomes involved.
"Now, let me ask, do you believe that there are heterosexual 'perversions'?"
There may be. What do you have in mind?
Do you find the following acceptable as a first plank in that flooring?
Since there must be an error in contradictory propositions, we must have test-criteria for identifying it (or them). To get away from subjectivity, and in the interest of simplicity, I suggest that we limit those test-criteria to fallacies and contradictions, nothing more. In other words, neither you nor I will be accused of being involved in an error unless it be a fallacy or a contradiction. And, regarding fallacies, the word is all too frequently used loosely. Fallacies have names. If the accusation of being guilty of using a fallacy is made, a) the name of the fallacy and b) how it is being applied will be given. Otherwise the only test-criterion of error will be contradictions.
"Here is a list of direct questions to you, that have been left unanswered."
" The debate on whether a couple must be fertile is already closed. Do you disagree?"
"Since you understand there must be an error in contradictory positions, and your premises have been demonstrated to be built upon false premises, then do you concede that we have found the fallacy?"
"I appreciate your attempt at imposing some intellectual rigor here, but my thinking is rigorous enough to satisfy myself. I'll let you decide if it satisfies you."
Quote:"Here is a list of direct questions to you, that have been left unanswered."
You've over-done it. I only requested one (1) evaded question. But that is not a complaint and I do appreciate your having searched out the others.
Permit me to take them one at a time, as you've given them.
Quote:" The debate on whether a couple must be fertile is already closed. Do you disagree?"
Yes. (from my post of 6/11)
Your rejoinder was, "You're welcome to make this argument whenever you wish..."
Perhaps my "yes" was overly brief, but it did answer your question. I saw no interest on your part in pursuing the matter further at the time.
Now, to dispel any lingering suspicions that I'm trying to evade your quesion with as brief a reply as I originally gave, would you care to pursue your question --and I mean this specific question-- and my answer further?
That takes a "yes" or "no" answer.
Quote:"Since you understand there must be an error in contradictory positions, and your premises have been demonstrated to be built upon false premises, then do you concede that we have found the fallacy?"
I really don't know what "the" fallacy to which you're referring is. I've found two you've accused me of: a) begging the question and b) argumentum ad populum.
Would you like to start with the begging the question fallacy first?
It doesn't, but if you see our exchange revolving around satisfaction/dissatisfaction rather than truth/falsity, I suppose that your satisfaction is all that really matters in the end. I wish you had told me at the outset, though; we both could have saved some time.
"You answered the first question, but it was a multiple part question. This is why it was on the list of unanswered questions."
"If not, what happens when a fertile marriage becomes infertile?"
"Would the authority over the marriage (state, church, etc) void that marriage?"
"I already have explained your fallacies in this thread. I won't retype it. Please read back and reply to my explanations."
Quote:"You answered the first question, but it was a multiple part question. This is why it was on the list of unanswered questions."
Here are the answers to the rest of the questions constituting your #1:
Quote:"If not, what happens when a fertile marriage becomes infertile?"
Nothing. The heterosexual couple continues to support the traditional male/female cultural institution of marriage.
Quote:"Would the authority over the marriage (state, church, etc) void that marriage?"
No. The couple, fertile or not, may still need an outlet for their reproductive drive.
Does that complete the answer to #1?
Note that I'm not asking you if those answers are satisfactory; I'm asking if I've answered them rather than evading them
The second question is, if you think my answers to #1 are unsatisfactory because of a residual element of evasiveness in them, do you want to pursue your #1 further?
Quote:"I already have explained your fallacies in this thread. I won't retype it. Please read back and reply to my explanations."
In your post of 6/18/10 you accused me of begging the question. Begging the question as a fallacy, and as I understand it, is to assume that a proposition is a conclusion and true.
That homosexuality is a sexual perversion assumed by me to be true in an absolute sense is not really the case. Based on what I consider to be factual and rational it is what I believe to be true, but I freely admit that I may be mistaken. That leaves the proposition up for refutation, which I invite.
Does that clarify the matter and absolve me from your accusation?
"Look, Jack, I'll make a deal with you: anytime that you see some logical fault in my reasoning, you can let me know, and I'll do the same if I see some logical fault in your argument (like your constant question-begging)."
Can we agree on the above? Does it need modification?
Well, let's start with anal sex. Is that a perversion? Is it a perversion if it is a man anally penetrating a woman?
"You've answered the question."
"Do you support The Equal Protection Clause?"
"Do you support The Full Faith and Credit Clause."
"Additionally, what you 'believe' doesn't change what a false premise is."
"You're basing your argument on what you believe (I believe you're sincere in that), but what you believe and what can be successfully established as a factual premise are not the same in this case."
"Please address the specifics I wrote previously."
"Is it a perversion if it is a man anally penetrating a woman?"
Quote:"Do you support The Equal Protection Clause?"
Generally, yes, but we have to be careful here. We don't have equal rights in an absolute sense since rights depend on conditions and circumstance.
Quote:"Do you support The Full Faith and Credit Clause."
It sounds okay, but, again it seems a little generalized to me and might admit of exceptions as does the Equal Protection Clause.
Can you give me the application to the homosexual marriage controversy that you have in mind?
Quote:"Additionally, what you 'believe' doesn't change what a false premise is."
I already acknowledged that. Please either acknowledge that I did or refute me.
Quote:"You're basing your argument on what you believe (I believe you're sincere in that), but what you believe and what can be successfully established as a factual premise are not the same in this case."
I already acknowleged that. Please either acknowledge that I did or refute me.
Quote:"Please address the specifics I wrote previously."
I'm trying to. Did I miss something?
