Chick-fil-A funded anti-Christian org that inspired shooter to target Family Research Council

[S.ilvio]

Liberals, who call themselves some form of Christian, seem intent on rebellion against the bible teachings when it comes to the sin of sodomy. Why..?

 

[aiki]

you didn't explain you called it brainless. tossed in the word "poopyhead" and then misrepresented the meaning of the word.

Repeating your Strawman doesn't make it any less a Strawman.

 

[Quartermaine]

This is not a good argument since sex involving juveniles and necrophilia is also a natural phenomenon in several species.

neither of which have anything to do with homosexuality

 

[Quartermaine]

Repeating your Strawman doesn't make it any less a Strawman.

here is the definition of a strawman...since you don't seem to know it

A straw man is a form of argument and an informal fallacy based on giving the impression of refuting an opponent's argument, while actually refuting an argument that was not presented by that opponent.

Pointing out that you didn't present an argument or any reason for your position isn't a strawman.

 

[aiki]

here is the definition of a strawman...since you don't seem to know it

A straw man is a form of argument and an informal fallacy based on giving the impression of refuting an opponent's argument, while actually refuting an argument that was not presented by that opponent.

Pointing out that you didn't present an argument or any reason for your position isn't a strawman.

The more you try to argue with me, the less equipped to do so you appear to be. I know very well what a Strawman argument is. Better, I suspect, than you do. When you describe my argument, you do so in a way that does not properly represent it. Doing so, of course, makes it possible for you to appear to have refuted it, which you haven't. You have only refuted a Strawman version of my argument, a pared-down, cartoonish version of what I actually put forward.

I did, in fact, offer reasons for my view of the term "homophobe." Now, you might not like my reasons, but this has nothing to do with whether or not I actually offered them.

 

[Quartermaine]

The more you try to argue with me, the less equipped to do so you appear to be. I know very well what a Strawman argument is. Better, I suspect, than you do.

yet you keep calling things that aren't strawmwn....strawmen.

When you describe my argument, you do so in a way that does not properly represent it.

you said:
The word "homophobe" is just a brainless label. an opinion that does nothing but marginalize a different point of view but doesn't engage in any reasoning

You Said:
it is a facile way of responding to a differing point of view, a means of marginalizing a perspective without having to engage with its actual propositions. another opinion without anything to support it

you said:
No one I know who opposes homosexuality is phobic (that is, irrationally fearful) Which isn't the definition of homophobia

You said:
about the behaviour. Homosexuality isn't a behavior any more than heterosexuality is.

You said:
"Homophobe" is a nonsense word, as far as I'm concerned, on par with calling someone a "poopyhead."
It's hard to argue with logic like that


That was the extent of your argument. Did i miss something?

Doing so, of course, makes it possible for you to appear to have refuted it, which you haven't.

one can't refute an argument that has not been presented

You have only refuted a Strawman version of my argument,

pointing out that you havn't presented an argument is not a strawman

a pared-down, cartoonish version of what I actually put forward.

I've quoted you directly

I did, in fact, offer reasons for my view of the term "homophobe." Now, you might not like my reasons, but this has nothing to do with whether or not I actually offered them.

What did i miss?

 

[aiki]

you said:
The word "homophobe" is just a brainless label. an opinion that does nothing but marginalize a different point of view but doesn't engage in any reasoning

I wrote:

"The word "homophobe" is just a brainless label. Like all such labels, it is a facile way of responding to a differing point of view, a means of marginalizing a perspective without having to engage with its actual propositions. No one I know who opposes homosexuality is phobic (that is, irrationally fearful) about the behaviour."

I don't here marginalize any particular perspective but instead describe the way in which labels are used and for what purpose and assert that the label of "homophobe" is used as other labels of this sort are used. How this marginalizes a different point of view I don't know. I wasn't addressing a point of view but a rhetorical tactic known as labeling. This isn't that hard to understand...

You Said:
it is a facile way of responding to a differing point of view, a means of marginalizing a perspective without having to engage with its actual propositions. another opinion without anything to support it

"Homophobe" is a label, designed to do exactly what I describe here. What proof have I of this? Well, every conversation I've observed or been a part of where the label of "homophobe" is applied to someone, the goal has clearly been to halt discussion and marginalize the views of the one to whom the label has been applied. This has been universally the case in my experience. I have never witnessed the label applied to someone for any other purpose. You can deny my experience if you like, but doing so doesn't negate my experience in the slightest.

you said:
No one I know who opposes homosexuality is phobic (that is, irrationally fearful) Which isn't the definition of homophobia

It most certainly is. This is exactly how it is used in the instances I've witnessed. "Homophobe" insinuates irrationality, unreasoning and fearful opposition to homosexual behaviour. The label may be used to suggest other things besides irrational fear, but this by no means precludes the label from being used to insinuate a phobic attitude on the part of the one to whom the label is applied.

I notice that, apart from your bald assertion about the meaning of "homophobe" and denial of my definition of it you have offered no reason to accept your assertion. Pot calling the kettle black here...

You said:
about the behaviour. Homosexuality isn't a behavior any more than heterosexuality is.

And your point is? Are you saying homosexuality has no characteristic behavioral component?

You said:
"Homophobe" is a nonsense word, as far as I'm concerned, on par with calling someone a "poopyhead."
It's hard to argue with logic like that

Logic in general seems to be troublesome for you...

That was the extent of your argument. Did i miss something?

See above.

 

[MrMoe]

neither of which have anything to do with homosexuality

I never claimed that they did.

What you quoted was part of a question that you conveniently left out. The question and the post I was replying to gave the context as to why I brought them up despite not having anything to do with homosexuality.

The funny thing is that you tried to refute a claim I never made, which fits perfectly with the definition of a strawman that you wrote in the very next post.

A straw man is a form of argument and an informal fallacy based on giving the impression of refuting an opponent's argument, while actually refuting an argument that was not presented by that opponent.

You basically exposed your own strawman.

 

[Quartermaine]

I wrote:

"The word "homophobe" is just a brainless label. Like all such labels, it is a facile way of responding to a differing point of view, a means of marginalizing a perspective without having to engage with its actual propositions. No one I know who opposes homosexuality is phobic (that is, irrationally fearful) about the behaviour."

I don't here marginalize any particular perspective but instead describe the way in which labels are used and for what purpose and assert that the label of "homophobe" is used as other labels of this sort are used.

you you present an opinion. its a word you don't like

How this marginalizes a different point of view I don't know.

it marginalize anyone who doesn't share your opinion or point of you and sets anyone who uses the word you don't like as "brainless"

[quote
I wasn't addressing a point of view but a rhetorical tactic known as labeling. This isn't that hard to understand... [/quote] a rhetorical tactic you are happy to engage in

"Homophobe" is a label, designed to do exactly what I describe here. What proof have I of this? Well, every conversation I've observed or been a part of where the label of "homophobe" is applied to someone, the goal has clearly been to halt discussion and marginalize the views of the one to whom the label has been applied. This has been universally the case in my experience. I have never witnessed the label applied to someone for any other purpose. You can deny my experience if you like, but doing so doesn't negate my experience in the slightest.

You are presenting a logical fallacy here, the hasty generalization. you are taking your subjective (and probably biased) experience and extending it to encompass and interpret all usages of the word you don't like in the same way

It most certainly is. This is exactly how it is used in the instances I've witnessed. "Homophobe" insinuates irrationality, unreasoning and fearful opposition to homosexual behaviour. The label may be used to suggest other things besides irrational fear, but this by no means precludes the label from being used to insinuate a phobic attitude on the part of the one to whom the label is applied.

Irrational ideas about homosexuality and homosexuals is certainly part of whet makes a homophobe but that usually doesn't include fear. Just read through some of the threads on the topic posted here there are irrational accusations of child sexual abuse and "recruitment" as well as irrational claims about the media or religious persecution but none of these are fear based.

I notice that, apart from your bald assertion about the meaning of "homophobe" and denial of my definition of it you have offered no reason to accept your assertion. Pot calling the kettle black here...

Anyone can look up the legal and sociological definition of homophobia. Even you

And your point is? Are you saying homosexuality has no characteristic behavioral component?

I'm saying it's no more a behavior then heterosexuality

Logic in general seems to be troublesome for you...



See above.

you mean above where you talk about the pot calling the kettle black?

 

[Quartermaine]

I never claimed that they did.

then why did you use them?

 

[aiki]

it marginalize anyone who doesn't share your opinion or point of you and sets anyone who uses the word you don't like as "brainless"

I wasn't addressing a point of view but a rhetorical tactic known as labeling. This isn't that hard to understand... a rhetorical tactic you are happy to engage in

*Sigh* More misunderstanding on your part (that I suspect you are mistaking for cleverness).

My comments were about the label "homophobe" and the purposes to which it is often put. I made no particular comment about the users of the label. So, you're extrapolating from what I said and then accusing me of that to which you've extrapolated. I don't have to account for YOUR extrapolations, however. I said the label was "brainless" and designed - as all such labels are - to marginalize. I haven't called any person brainless, nor have I marginalized any person's viewpoint - not even yours. Instead, I have gone back and forth with you for a bit now, attempting to correct your mistaken notions about my comments (rather fruitlessly, it seems).

You are presenting a logical fallacy here, the hasty generalization. you are taking your subjective (and probably biased) experience and extending it to encompass and interpret all usages of the word you don't like in the same way

Really? Where, exactly, do I do this? I described my experience, but where do I generalize from it to every single use of the label "homophobe"? No where.

So, again, you're making assertions about what I have written that aren't actually based in what I wrote but in what you have assumed and/or conjectured about what I wrote.
I'm not, though, in any way obliged to answer for your assumptions and conjectures.

Irrational ideas about homosexuality and homosexuals is certainly part of whet makes a homophobe but that usually doesn't include fear.

"Usually" in whose experience? Not mine. Are you making a hasty generalization about how people understand the label?

Just read through some of the threads on the topic posted here there are irrational accusations of child sexual abuse and "recruitment" as well as irrational claims about the media or religious persecution but none of these are fear based.

You're rather making my point for me. While the label is often in my experience used to assert both irrationality and fear, the truth is that neither thing is true of all those to whom the label is applied. And you point this out here concerning the fear that is supposed to afflict the "homophobe."

Anyone can look up the legal and sociological definition of homophobia. Even you

It's not my job to do your legwork for you. You make an assertion, you back it up. Otherwise, you're just sounding off, making noise, and offering no good reason to pay attention to the noise you're making.

I'm saying it's no more a behavior then heterosexuality

In other words, you want to be disagreeable without committing yourself too strongly to the disagreeable things you write. Not a surprise at this point.

 

[MrMoe]

then why did you use them?

The person I was replying to claimed that calling homosexuality a sin is silly because it is found in other animals, so I wanted to see if they were consistent in their reasoning. I wanted to see if they also thought calling these other sexual behaviours, sins, was silly since they are also found in other animals.

 

[Tigger45]

My wife and I shopped at Hobby Lobby today and were pleased to see a Salvation Army volunteer with the red bucket and ringing his bell. We both contributed to their cause.