7
   

Gay Marriage & Conflict Resolution

 
 
parados
 
  2  
Reply Thu 1 Jul, 2010 07:09 am
@jackowens,
Quote:

When I say that homosexuality is a sexual perversion, I'm not using that proposition as a valid premise/truth to arrive at a conclusion. That comes later if, after close examination, it is agreed to be a truth. At this point, however, I'm stopping short of that, as I pointed out to failures art, and am asking if, as a simple proposition, that proposition is true or false using the test-criteria for identifying errors we agreed on.

Why would that constitute a begging-the-question fallacy?

If we don't know if it is a sexual perversion or not and you have never used it to reach a conclusions then what is this statement from you?

Quote:
Yes they are. They're asking to have a sexual perversion institutionalized.

There certainly can be no logical basis for your statement if there is no agreement on whether sexual perversion exists or not.
parados
 
  3  
Reply Thu 1 Jul, 2010 07:16 am
@jackowens,
Quote:
The general rule is that, since it is only possible to reproduce by means of the union of a male and female, that specific union is a reasonable basis for the cultural institution of marriage.

That's a rule? Where can I find this rule? Again, you repeat something that no one has agree with a want us to just accept it as a rule. Is this another ipse dixit?
0 Replies
 
Thomas
 
  2  
Reply Thu 1 Jul, 2010 07:32 am
@parados,
Parados, clearly you are not giving Jack enough credit for his openmindedness. Reconsider what he says:

jackowens wrote:
The general rule is that, since it is only possible to reproduce by means of the union of a male and female, that specific union is a reasonable basis for the cultural institution of marriage."

Just give it a few decades of biotechnological progress. At some point, cloning a baby from two regular cells of the fathers' may well be a retail technology. By then, homosexuals couples will be able to reproduce, and homosexuality will no longer be a sexual perversion. It's not a question of 'if', it's a question of 'when'. And when it happens, I'm sure Jack will be the first to approve of same sex unions.
parados
 
  1  
Reply Thu 1 Jul, 2010 07:35 am
@Thomas,
But Thomas, you are clearly forgetting Jack's appeal to tradition argument.

Oh, was that a fallacy?
Thomas
 
  1  
Reply Thu 1 Jul, 2010 07:40 am
@parados,
I'm all for tradition. Now excuse me while I go beat my slaves. It's the oldest tradition in the world.
0 Replies
 
jackowens
 
  1  
Reply Fri 2 Jul, 2010 03:20 am
@parados,
Dear parados,

In reply to your posts of 7/1/10:

Let's take my errors one at a time.

(Jack:) "When I say that homosexuality is a sexual perversion, I'm not using that proposition as a valid premise/truth to arrive at a conclusion. That comes later if, after close examination, it is agreed to be a truth. At this point, however, I'm stopping short of that, as I pointed out to failures art, and am asking if, as a simple proposition, that proposition is true or false using the test-criteria for identifying errors we agreed on."

Why would that constitute a begging-the-question fallacy?"

Quote:
"If we don't know if it is a sexual perversion or not and you have never used it to reach a conclusions then what is this statement from you?"

Let me break that down.

My proposition, without the reasoning already given in support of it, is, "Homosexuality is a sexual perversion".

Quote:
"If we don't know if it is a sexual perversion or not..."

I admit that. Do you?

Quote:
"...and you have never used it to reach a conclusions then what is this statement from you?"

It's a proposition in support of which facts and reasoning must be given if I want to show it to be true.

Now from what has been written by you and failures art, what makes me guilty of being involved in a begging-the-question fallacy is that I'm trying to pass off as true a proposition (my belief) that is false. If I admit that the proposition (my belief) may be false and that to prove it true, facts and reasoning must given, the facts and reasoning are the points really at issue, whether what is given as facts are facts rather than fictions and whether the reasoning given is sound rather than flawed.

Can you accept that?

If you can, how am I begging the question?

(Jack:) "The general rule is that, since it is only possible to reproduce by means of the union of a male and female, that specific union is a reasonable basis for the cultural institution of marriage."

Quote:
That's a rule? Where can I find this rule?

In the California legal code.

Quote:
"Let's assume for a moment that a women's ability to reproduce is from the ages of 13 to 50.

"Which marriage is more likely to produce an offspring?

'A man that marries a 12 year old and is married for 50 years
or a man that marries a 50 year old and is married for 50 years?

Obviously a man who marries a 12-year-old and is married for 50 years

Quote:
"Which marriage better fits your argument that marriage is for the purpose of reproduction?"

No no. My argument isn't that marriage is for the purpose of reproduction; the reproductive system is. The simple occurrence of reproduction doesn't need marriage. Marriage is the cultural institution that gives recognition to the function/purpose of the reproductive system and the male/female union necessary for the realization of that function/purpose.

Quote:
" Do you agree one of the major arguments for gay marriage is to have it recognized for the purposes of spousal benefits under the law?"

Yes, but I believe that those benefits can be arranged under present laws or, to provide those benefits appropriately, the needed legislation can be enacted.

Regards,

Jack

parados
 
  1  
Reply Fri 2 Jul, 2010 07:12 am
@jackowens,
jackowens wrote:

Dear parados,


Quote:
"If we don't know if it is a sexual perversion or not and you have never used it to reach a conclusions then what is this statement from you?"

Let me break that down.

My proposition, without the reasoning already given in support of it, is, "Homosexuality is a sexual perversion".

Quote:
"If we don't know if it is a sexual perversion or not..."

I admit that. Do you?
Yes, I admit that but you reached a conclusion based on it.
Quote:

Quote:
"...and you have never used it to reach a conclusions then what is this statement from you?"

It's a proposition in support of which facts and reasoning must be given if I want to show it to be true.
No, it's a conclusion based on your belief that homosexuality is a perversion.
Your reasoning is as follows
Homosexuality is a perversion
THEREFOR allowing homosexual marraige would institutionalize sexual perversion.
Your statement is a conclusion based on the unsupported allegation.


Quote:

Now from what has been written by you and failures art, what makes me guilty of being involved in a begging-the-question fallacy is that I'm trying to pass off as true a proposition (my belief) that is false. If I admit that the proposition (my belief) may be false and that to prove it true, facts and reasoning must given, the facts and reasoning are the points really at issue, whether what is given as facts are facts rather than fictions and whether the reasoning given is sound rather than flawed.

Can you accept that?
No. You don't seem to understand what begging the question is.

Quote:

If you can, how am I begging the question?
You use 'sexual perversion' as a loaded phrase to beg the question.
See here -
http://www.fallacyfiles.org/begquest.html
Quote:
This is how real-life questions are often begged, that is, by using loaded language to conceal the fact that an argument is circular.



Quote:

(Jack:) "The general rule is that, since it is only possible to reproduce by means of the union of a male and female, that specific union is a reasonable basis for the cultural institution of marriage."

Quote:
That's a rule? Where can I find this rule?

In the California legal code.
Really? Cite the code. I am interested in this law that you think claims marriage is for reproduction. I am willing to bet no such law exists.

Quote:

Quote:
"Let's assume for a moment that a women's ability to reproduce is from the ages of 13 to 50.

"Which marriage is more likely to produce an offspring?

'A man that marries a 12 year old and is married for 50 years
or a man that marries a 50 year old and is married for 50 years?

Obviously a man who marries a 12-year-old and is married for 50 years

Quote:
"Which marriage better fits your argument that marriage is for the purpose of reproduction?"

No no. My argument isn't that marriage is for the purpose of reproduction; the reproductive system is. The simple occurrence of reproduction doesn't need marriage. Marriage is the cultural institution that gives recognition to the function/purpose of the reproductive system and the male/female union necessary for the realization of that function/purpose.
So you agree then that marriage has NOTHING to do with reproduction other than some historical idea of yours that you agree is no longer valid in describing marriage. So, that makes your argument about 'reproduction' nothing but a red herring.

Quote:

Quote:
" Do you agree one of the major arguments for gay marriage is to have it recognized for the purposes of spousal benefits under the law?"

Yes, but I believe that those benefits can be arranged under present laws or, to provide those benefits appropriately, the needed legislation can be enacted.
[/quote] Really? Wouldn't that mean the law would have to recognize those ceremonies in order to provide benefits? Didn't you say that recognizing them would be the same as approving of them. You have just undermined your argument.

jackowens
 
  1  
Reply Sat 3 Jul, 2010 09:33 pm
@parados,
Dear parados,

In reply to your post of 7/2/10:

Quote:
"If we don't know if it is a sexual perversion or not..."


(Jack:) "I admit that. Do you?"

Quote:
"Yes, I admit that but you reached a conclusion based on it."

There are two conclusions here. Let's not jumble them:

1. Homosexuality is a sexual perversion.

2. Homosexuality is not a suitable basis for institutionalization in marriage.

Since we don't know if conclusion #1 is true, we examine what are claimed to be the facts and reasoning it is based on to see how sound they are.

If, after that examination, #1 apprears to be a truth, the truth of #2 is largely self-evident. If, on the other hand, that examination of #1 shows it to be a falsity, to withhold approval of the institutionalization of homosexuality in marriage on the basis of its being a sexual perversion is invalid.

Are we in agreement on that?

Quote:
"Your reasoning is as follows

Homosexuality is a perversion

THEREFOR allowing homosexual marraige would institutionalize sexual perversion.

Your statement is a conclusion based on the unsupported allegation."


But I'm not getting to the THEREFORE. That comes later as explained above. Is that some sort of assignment on your part that I have to accept, true or not?

Quote:
"This is how real-life questions are often begged, that is, by using loaded language to conceal the fact that an argument is circular."

"Homophobia" is loaded, too, but I would not try to refute it on the basis of its being "loaded". "Loaded" is not one of our test-criteria for error. Do you agree to discard its use and stick with fallacies and contradictions per our original agreement?

"Really? Cite the code. I am interested in this law that you think claims marriage is for reproduction. I am willing to bet no such law exists."

I haven't said that marriage must be followed by reproduction if that's what you're implying.

"So you agree then that marriage has NOTHING to do with reproduction other than some historical idea of yours that you agree is no longer valid in describing marriage."

If you're talking in biological/animal terms you're quite right; marriage has nothing to do with reproduction. It's only when we get to the social level with the need for civilized order and the part the nuclear family plays in that order that we get into the value of marriage as a cultural institution.

"So, that makes your argument about 'reproduction' nothing but a red herring."

Again, we need something clearer than "red herring". Are you saying that I'm involved in a fallacy or contradiction?

"Didn't you say that recognizing them would be the same as approving of them."

Yes.

"You have just undermined your argument."

Once again, I don't mind your use of "undermined" but I find it imprecise and short of showing my argument to be fallacious or contradictory. What fallacy or contradiction am I involved in that you are attempting to point out with your use of the word "undermined"?

Regards,

Jack
parados
 
  2  
Reply Mon 5 Jul, 2010 09:46 am
@jackowens,
Quote:
If, after that examination, #1 apprears to be a truth, the truth of #2 is largely self-evident. If, on the other hand, that examination of #1 shows it to be a falsity, to withhold approval of the institutionalization of homosexuality in marriage on the basis of its being a sexual perversion is invalid.

Are we in agreement on that?

I would agree to that. so.. do you agree with this statement or not?

Quote:
Yes they are. They're asking to have a sexual perversion institutionalized.

If homosexuality is not known to be a perversion then no one can ask to have sexual perversion institutionalized by marriage. Your statement is clearly a conclusion based on "Homosexuality is a sexual perversion". You used something that wasn't factual to make a logical conclusion.

Quote:
But I'm not getting to the THEREFORE. That comes later as explained above
But your statement contained no "if". It states
Quote:
They're asking to have a sexual perversion institutionalized
There clearly is a "therefor". Without a "therefor" from the earlier "homosexuality is a perversion" then your statement is not logical at all. It is merely an ipse dixit.

Quote:
"Homophobia" is loaded, too, but I would not try to refute it on the basis of its being "loaded". "Loaded" is not one of our test-criteria for error. Do you agree to discard its use and stick with fallacies and contradictions per our original agreement?

Why should I agree to discard something I never used? This would be an attempt at a red herring on your part and appears to violate your rules about dealing with an issue before moving on to something else. (Red herring is a fallacy. If you require ME to define every fallacy whenever I point them out this conversation will soon be over since you have never done that. You do NOT get to require that I use rules that you won't or can't use yourself. By the way, you have never pointed out a fallacy on my or Joe's part. Why are you exempt from that?)

Quote:
"Really? Cite the code. I am interested in this law that you think claims marriage is for reproduction. I am willing to bet no such law exists."

I haven't said that marriage must be followed by reproduction if that's what you're implying.

You stated THIS
Quote:
(Jack:) "The general rule is that, since it is only possible to reproduce by means of the union of a male and female, that specific union is a reasonable basis for the cultural institution of marriage."
I asked where I could find this rule and you told me in the California code. Are you now telling me you lied when you said it was in the California Code? It appears to me that is what you did.
Where can I find the rule that a reasonable basis for marriage is because it is only possible for male and females to reproduce? If you can't find that rule anywhere to support you than you are doing nothing but spouting something and expecting us to accept it. That isn't reasonable debate my friend and it certainly doesn't follow your rules.
0 Replies
 
parados
 
  2  
Reply Mon 5 Jul, 2010 09:54 am
@jackowens,
jackowens wrote:


I haven't said that marriage must be followed by reproduction if that's what you're implying.
I merely asked where I could find what YOU stated was a rule. I didn't imply anything. I only asked for some support of your statement. You failed to provide that support. In fact you first claimed it came from the California Code and have now backed off that claim. In a formal debate, you would have just lost major points for such an unsupported claim.

Quote:

"So you agree then that marriage has NOTHING to do with reproduction other than some historical idea of yours that you agree is no longer valid in describing marriage."

If you're talking in biological/animal terms you're quite right; marriage has nothing to do with reproduction. It's only when we get to the social level with the need for civilized order and the part the nuclear family plays in that order that we get into the value of marriage as a cultural institution.
But you see, this was pointed out before. The value of marriage as a cultural institution is an "appeal to tradition" fallacy. Marriage and the nuclear family really has very little to do with civil order.
You might consider this little tidbit which disputes your "nuclear family" is required for social order argument
Quote:
One out of every two children in the United States will live in a single-parent family at some time before they reach age 18. According the United States Census Bureau, in 2002 about 20 million children lived in a household with only their mother or their father. This is more than one-fourth of all children in the United States.

http://www.answers.com/topic/single-parent-families
25% of children live in single family houses and I don't see a large breakdown of social order.

0 Replies
 
parados
 
  2  
Reply Mon 5 Jul, 2010 10:09 am
@jackowens,
jackowens wrote:


"So, that makes your argument about 'reproduction' nothing but a red herring."

Again, we need something clearer than "red herring". Are you saying that I'm involved in a fallacy or contradiction?

http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/red-herring.html

Quote:

"Didn't you say that recognizing them would be the same as approving of them."

Yes.

"You have just undermined your argument."

Once again, I don't mind your use of "undermined" but I find it imprecise and short of showing my argument to be fallacious or contradictory. What fallacy or contradiction am I involved in that you are attempting to point out with your use of the word "undermined"?




You stated this jack.

Quote:
My vote would be to permit homosexuals to marry, which they already can and do, by means of their preferred procedure as long as others aren't obliged to approve of such marriages.

I stated your statement was contradictory.

1. You think homosexuals should be allowed to marry.
2. You say you don't want others to approve of their marriage
3. You say any recognition of a marriage by the government means approval
4. You agree that the preferred procedure for gays is to have their unions recognized.

Your statement is contradictory. Since 2 of the 4 tenets that underpin your statement are contradictory and mutually exclusive your statement is as well. You can't allow gays to marry by their preferred method at the same time you prevent them from implementing their preferred method.
jackowens
 
  0  
Reply Tue 6 Jul, 2010 04:20 am
@parados,
Dear parados,

In reply to your posts of 7/5/10:

Quote:
"Your statement is clearly a conclusion based on 'Homosexuality is a sexual perversion'. You used something that wasn't factual to make a logical conclusion."

I was speaking of what I believe, mistaken or not. Since you're calling into question what I believe, I go to what that belief is based on --the facts and reasoning on the basis of which I believe that homosexuality is a sexual perversion --which, of course, you've had since my post of 6/28/10. To repeat:

Marriage aside and talking about homosexuality itself, it is a sexual perversion because it involves a reproductive drive that is misdirected. It drives the individual to a target that makes the reproductive system non-functional. Homo sapiens, having a sexual reproductive system, each individual member of the species should be driven to a live, postpubescent member of the same species and opposite sex.

Obviously the primitive drive can't distinguish between impotent/barren and potent/fertile individuals. That depends on the intellect, not the drive that is blind in that respect. All that the drive sees, properly directed, is a target that appears appropriate, as described above.

Quote:
"In the discussion about recognition of marriage it would be a non sequitor."

I'm not talking about marriage now. That's the next step. Right now I'm simply talking about the nature of Homo sapiens' reproductive system and its components, homosexuality as a sexual perversion and whether my belief, in those regards, involves me in a fallacy or contradiction or not.

Quote:
"The value of marriage as a cultural institution is an 'appeal to tradition' fallacy."

I'm not appealing to tradition; I'm appealing to the foundation of tradition and asking you to address that foundation.

1. What fallacy or contradiction does that involve me in?

2. What question is being begged?

(Jack:) "'Homophobia' is loaded, too, but I would not try to refute it on the basis of its being 'loaded'. 'Loaded' is not one of our test-criteria for error. Do you agree to discard its use and stick with fallacies and contradictions per our original agreement?"

Quote:
"Why should I agree to discard something I never used?"

I'm not talking about your use of the term "homophobia", I'm talking about your use of the term "loaded".

Quote:
"By the way, you have never pointed out a fallacy on my or Joe's part.

Joefromchicago simply lied. He agreed to follow the method I suggested and didn't.

Quote:
"Why are you exempt from that?"

I'm not.

We have to go further for me to be able to nail down any fallacies or contradictions you're involved in. At present I believe you're involved in a contradiction regarding my involvement in a begging-the-question fallacy.

Quote:
"Where can I find the rule that a reasonable basis for marriage is because it is only possible for male and females to reproduce?"


Drop "The general rule is that," and vet the rest.

Quote:
"I stated your statement was contradictory.

1. You think homosexuals should be allowed to marry."

Yes, in whatever non-community-recognized ceremony that they prefer.

Quote:
"2. You say you don't want others to approve of their marriage."

Yes. The "others" being the community.

Quote:
"3. You say any recognition of a marriage by the government means approval."

Why not the citizenry rather than the politicians, bureaucrats and judiciary?

Quote:
"4. You agree that the preferred procedure for gays is to have their unions recognized."

No. That use of the term "procedure" confuses a) the ceremony that the individual same-sex couple arranges as its individual preference with b) the "procedure" of having the marriage --and I mean "marriageNR"-- recognized/approved by the community changing it to a "marriageR".

Quote:
"Your statement is contradictory. Since 2 of the 4 tenets that underpin your statement are contradictory and mutually exclusive your statement is as well. You can't allow gays to marry by their preferred method at the same time you prevent them from implementing their preferred method."

A continuing jumble.

When I say "their preferred method", I mean that they decide what kind of ceremony they prefer and where it will be held.

I am not talking about "their preferred method" as meaning a procedure that results in having their marriage institutionalized.

With that attempt at clarification, where is the contradiction?

Regards

Jack







failures art
 
  2  
Reply Tue 6 Jul, 2010 08:04 am
Sexual drive, and reproductive functionality are two different biological mechanisms Jack. This is basic biology we are talking about.

Sexual drive is about wanting to hump things and have orgasms.

Reproductive functionality is fertility.

Often homosexuals still have children. They become fertilized in other ways however.

E.g. - Singer songwriter Mellisa Etheridge has a biological child. She is a homosexual. Her sexual drive to have an orgasm is just as functional. Her reproductive functionality proved to be sound. Neither mechanism was misdirected. One wanted sexual stimulation, the other was fertile.

A
R
There's nothing wrong with her having a baby as a lesbian.
joefromchicago
 
  3  
Reply Tue 6 Jul, 2010 08:25 am
@jackowens,
jackowens wrote:
Joefromchicago simply lied. He agreed to follow the method I suggested and didn't.

Laughing

Look, Jack, it's all very simple:

You say that homosexual marriage shouldn't be condoned or recognized by the state because it would institutionalize "sexual perversion."

You define "sexual perversion" as a "misdirected sexual drive."

According to you, a "misdirected sexual drive" is any sexual drive that is not heterosexual in nature.

As such, and as you have admitted yourself, the only people who have a "misdirected sexual drive" are homosexuals.

Consequently, "sexual perversion" is the same thing as "homosexuality."

Thus, you object to homosexuals marrying because they're homosexuals.

That's an ipse dixit.

QED
0 Replies
 
parados
 
  3  
Reply Tue 6 Jul, 2010 08:32 am
@jackowens,
Now we are just going in circles with you recycling your beliefs.

Quote:
I'm not appealing to tradition; I'm appealing to the foundation of tradition and asking you to address that foundation.

1. What fallacy or contradiction does that involve me in?

Appealing to the foundation of the tradition means you are appealing to the tradition. If you are not appealing to the tradition then it is a red herring to bring up the foundations of that tradition.

Quote:

I'm not talking about your use of the term "homophobia", I'm talking about your use of the term "loaded".

Excuse me? You wanted to talk about fallacies. When I give a source that shows loaded terms are used in fallacies and point out your use of a loaded term you now want to say I can't point it out? You introduce a red herring by introducing "homophobia" which has nothing to do with your use of the term "sexual perversion." "sexual perversion" is a loaded term on your part. Your definition of sexual perversion is silly and no one agrees to it. Perhaps it's too much to expect you to understand fallacies when you don't seem to understand the basics of how logic works.

Quote:

Joefromchicago simply lied. He agreed to follow the method I suggested and didn't.
Your opinion perhaps but you have not pointed out where he didn't follow your rules. I on the other hand have pointed out several instances where YOU haven't followed your rules. Does that mean you lied?

Quote:
We have to go further for me to be able to nail down any fallacies or contradictions you're involved in. At present I believe you're involved in a contradiction regarding my involvement in a begging-the-question fallacy.
Until you accept that your use of "sexual perversion" is a loaded reference, we aren't going to get very far.

Quote:
Quote:
"Where can I find the rule that a reasonable basis for marriage is because it is only possible for male and females to reproduce?"




Drop "The general rule is that," and vet the rest.

No, it's not a reasonable basis. In fact the law says nothing about that.

Quote:
Yes, in whatever non-community-recognized ceremony that they prefer.
But you are putting restrictions on what they can prefer. That makes it a contradiction. It isn't about what they prefer. It's about what YOU prefer. The words "they prefer" are meaningless since you have put restrictions on what they can do.

Quote:
No. That use of the term "procedure" confuses a) the ceremony that the individual same-sex couple arranges as its individual preference with b) the "procedure" of having the marriage --and I mean "marriageNR"-- recognized/approved by the community changing it to a "marriageR".
Now you are reintroducing the equivocation fallacy. You seem to rely a lot on fallacies.

Quote:

When I say "their preferred method", I mean that they decide what kind of ceremony they prefer and where it will be held.
Ah, so they can do whatever they like as long as you approve of it first? There is no "their preferred method" when you restrict it.

Basically you are arguing that they can pick whatever color they like as long as it is black.
jackowens
 
  0  
Reply Wed 7 Jul, 2010 01:16 am
@failures art,
Dear failures art,

In reply to your post of 7/6/10:

Since I see no questions or requests for information in your post I'll take the information you provide under advisement and return to my previous post to you (6/29/10).

I count four questions in that post that your present post completely ignores. When you reply to those questions, we can continue.

If you have any further questions for me, please pose them.

Regards,

Jack
0 Replies
 
jackowens
 
  0  
Reply Wed 7 Jul, 2010 01:50 am
@parados,
Dear parados,

In reply to your post of 7/6/10:

We never seem to get to the nature of Homo sapiens and what can be reasonably adduced from that nature.

Marriage aside and talking about homosexuality itself, it is a sexual perversion because it involves a reproductive drive that is misdirected. It drives the individual to a target that makes the reproductive system non-functional. Homo sapiens, having a sexual reproductive system, each individual member of the species should be driven to a live, postpubescent member of the same species and opposite sex.

1. What fallacy or contradiction does that involve me in?

2. What question is being begged?

Quote:
"When I give a source that shows loaded terms are used in fallacies and point out your use of a loaded term you now want to say I can't point it out?"

Yes, you can.

We're still on the begging-the-question fallacy. Answer the questions above to advance our investigation of its validity as an accusation.

Quote:
"Ah, so they can do whatever they like as long as you approve of it first?"

In effect, that's the way the vote turned out.

I see no further questions or requests for information in your post, so I'll wait for your reply.

If you have any further questions for me, please pose them.

Regards,

Jack


failures art
 
  2  
Reply Wed 7 Jul, 2010 01:50 am
@jackowens,
jackowens wrote:

(Jack:) "I'm not asking you to confirm my belief as my belief nor my sincerity in believing it; I'm asking you if you find any fallacies --aside from the begging-the-question one that I address below-- or contradictions in that belief as explained. To start, that takes a 'yes' or 'no' answer."

Quote:
"Are there fallacies aside from the fallacies? No."

That's simply obfuscatory and makes no sense at all.

Your question did not make sense. You asked if I found fallacies, but I've very thoroughly identified these already. You further ask if their are any additional fallacies not counting the ones I've already identified. What is the point of asking me a question which is already answered in your own question?

jackowens wrote:

You've already identified the fallacy of begging the question which you're accusing me of. Is my contention, as given, free of any other fallacies or contradictions?

That takes a "yes" or "no" answer.

No. Read above. You're essentially asking if you are on fire anywhere that you're not burning? If you are wet anywhere where you aren't dry. The question is non-sequitur.

jackowens wrote:

If the answer is "no", please identify the fallacies or contradictions.

I don't need to remind you of your fallacies every post I make. That's cumbersome and not worth my time. If you are concerned with how I've addressed your argument, please re-read. Repeating myself 4 times won't be any more worth it than repeating ti 3 times.

jackowens wrote:

(failures art:) "P1 - Homosexuality is sexual perversion."

(Jack:) "A proposition that I say may be true or false."
Quote:


"You say that because you feel you must."

I don't know what that means.

It means that you only fake the notion that you are exploring the idea that homosexuality is anything but. You're faking objectivity by stating that your idea could be true or false.

jackowens wrote:

Quote:
"You don't actually believe that it could be false."

That's true, but I could be (am?) mistaken. Right? And you have our agreed-on test-criteria to show it to be mistaken. Right? Please do it.

I will not do this AGAIN. if you are interested in this, please re-read my numerous posts addressing EXACTLY this question.

jackowens wrote:

If I can say that and respond to any further of your questions on the point, why am I guilty of a begging the question fallacy?

Because you are still employing the premise in your argument.

A
R
T
parados
 
  3  
Reply Wed 7 Jul, 2010 06:52 am
@jackowens,
Quote:
We never seem to get to the nature of Homo sapiens and what can be reasonably adduced from that nature.

Under the rules shouldn't we deal with the contradiction in your first statement before we move on to anything else?

Quote:

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

You have not agreed that "their preferred method" is NOT allowed when you limit their choices to not include their preferred method. Until you agree with that, you are violating rule 4.
jackowens
 
  1  
Reply Wed 7 Jul, 2010 02:23 pm
@failures art,
Dear failures art,

In reply to your post of 7/7/10, I'll make one more try:

jackowens wrote: "If I can say that and respond to any further of your questions on the point, why am I guilty of a begging the question fallacy?"

Quote:
"Because you are still employing the premise in your argument."

There are two premises involved here, not "the" premise, and the sequence is important.

Premise #1: Marriage aside and talking about homosexuality itself, it is a sexual perversion because it involves a reproductive drive that is misdirected. It drives the individual to a target that makes the reproductive system non-functional. Homo sapiens, having a sexual reproductive system, each individual member of the species should be driven to a live, postpubescent member of the same species and opposite sex.

Conclusion to premise #1: Homosexuality is a sexual perversion.

Premise #2: Homosexuality is a sexual perversion.

Conclusion to premise #2: Homosexuality, being a sexual perversion, is not a suitable basis for institutionalization in marriage.

I am not --repeat, not-- asking you to accept as valid/true premise #2 --the one you insist on hanging onto-- and its conclusion.

I am asking you to either a) fault the factuality and/or reasoning of or b) accept premise #1.

And again, what question am I begging?

Regards,

Jack

 

Related Topics

New York New York! - Discussion by jcboy
Prop 8? - Discussion by majikal
Gay Marriage - Discussion by blatham
Gay Marriage -- An Old Post Revisited - Discussion by pavarasra
Who doesn't back gay marriage? - Question by The Pentacle Queen
 
Copyright © 2021 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.03 seconds on 07/28/2021 at 08:14:54