"Oppose civil rights
- blacks are not happy with separate but equal
- blacks want to invade all aspects of life
- blacks want to be acceptable subject for school children to learn it is "normal""
Again you are using innerant tactics that will simply be replied with:
NAMBLA are not happy with separate but equal
NAMBLA want to invade all aspects of life
NAMBLA want it to be acceptable subject for school children to learn it is normal
I presume this is how the argument will progress:
You will rebutt with 'but it is different'
I will rebutt with "so is homosexuality compared to being black"
You will tell me how it is completely different to comparing to NAMBLA, and how homosexuality is ok.
We simply disagree. But point being, your argument doesn't work, because if you expect the ARGUMENT (not the morality of homosexuality) to be able to be applied to any situation, then you come up with serious complications. This is called a philosophical and logical innerancy, and is therefore not valid argument for your case. Homosexuality MAY still be ok, but if it is ok because it is justified by an argument that supports being black and should therefore work on homosexuality, then the argument is what justifies and the argument should be able to justify any case (alone and of itself). But it doesn't; so you need to find another come back."Oppose civil rights
- blacks are not happy with separate but equal
- blacks want to invade all aspects of life
- blacks want to be acceptable subject for school children to learn it is "normal""
Again you are using innerant tactics that will simply be replied with:
NAMBLA are not happy with separate but equal
NAMBLA want to invade all aspects of life
NAMBLA want it to be acceptable subject for school children to learn it is normal
I presume this is how the argument will progress:
You will rebutt with 'but it is different'
I will rebutt with "so is homosexuality compared to being black"
You will tell me how it is completely different to comparing to NAMBLA, and how homosexuality is ok.
We simply disagree. But point being, your argument doesn't work, because if you expect the ARGUMENT (not the morality of homosexuality) to be able to be applied to any situation, then you come up with serious complications. This is called a philosophical and logical innerancy, and is therefore not valid argument for your case. Homosexuality MAY still be ok, but if it is ok because it is justified by an argument that supports being black and should therefore work on homosexuality, then the argument is what justifies and the argument should be able to justify any case (alone and of itself). But it doesn't; so you need to find another come back.
"Hate is hate no matter who it is directed against and it is always wrong. Justifying discrimination against one minority serves only to diminish us all.
.
They came first for the Communists,
and I didn't speak up because I wasn't a Communist.
Then they came for the sick, the so-called incurables, and I didn't speak up,
because I wasn't mentally ill.
Then they came for the Jews,
and I didn't speak up because I wasn't a Jew.
Then they came for the trade unionists,
and I didn't speak up because I wasn't a trade unionist.
Then they came for the Gypsies
and I didn't speak up because I was white
Then they came for the Catholics,
and I didn't speak up because I was a Protestant
Then they came for me,
and by that time no one was left to speak up."
I agree. Hate is not ok, and is not biblically sound. Hate of sin is acceptable, but this does not advocate hating anyone who is a sinner (and if it were then we would have to hate everyone
).
But let us look at your argument in detail.
Firstly, we both agree hating is out of the question. I cannot and will not hate a homosexual, I will love them. I will not hate those in that list either.
Again, however, I am backed into a corner into using a group or affiliation that is considered, by most of us, unanimously sin-filled. Not that I am saying homosexuality necessarily is, or this is my only basis of saying homosexuality is bad, but simply because your arguments prove nothing.
Add onto the list pedophiles, murderers and rapists. Now I am not comparing them with homosexuality. This is not about the morality of these groups. This is merely an illustration.
If I then use your argument that I should not hate and link this with that I cannot DISCRIMINATE or I must advocate or not impede in any way, then you cannot discriminate against:
Murderers
Rapists
Paedophiles.
I would agree that in certain ways, and in most ways you shouldn't discriminate against these people either, but in some ways, morally, I am obliged to. Otherwise, if your argument is applied, then I must condone these actions, I cannot speak out against it nor can I create a movement to stop it, or to impede on their growth, otherwise it is HATE.
But it isn't. When I am not condoning of paedophilic actions, I do not hate them. I love them and want so much for them to come to the light; particularly as many of them were once victims themselves. But it is not hate to think what they are doing is wrong.
Homosexuality may be ok, but you haven't shown this in your argument. Your argument is logically incongruent with what I would wager as our common ground acceptance of ethics, and is WRONGFULLY discriminatory against any groups that you consider cannot fit into this line of argument. Also, by your own admission, you hate them.
- blacks are not happy with separate but equal
- blacks want to invade all aspects of life
- blacks want to be acceptable subject for school children to learn it is "normal""
Again you are using innerant tactics that will simply be replied with:
NAMBLA are not happy with separate but equal
NAMBLA want to invade all aspects of life
NAMBLA want it to be acceptable subject for school children to learn it is normal
I presume this is how the argument will progress:
You will rebutt with 'but it is different'
I will rebutt with "so is homosexuality compared to being black"
You will tell me how it is completely different to comparing to NAMBLA, and how homosexuality is ok.
We simply disagree. But point being, your argument doesn't work, because if you expect the ARGUMENT (not the morality of homosexuality) to be able to be applied to any situation, then you come up with serious complications. This is called a philosophical and logical innerancy, and is therefore not valid argument for your case. Homosexuality MAY still be ok, but if it is ok because it is justified by an argument that supports being black and should therefore work on homosexuality, then the argument is what justifies and the argument should be able to justify any case (alone and of itself). But it doesn't; so you need to find another come back."Oppose civil rights
- blacks are not happy with separate but equal
- blacks want to invade all aspects of life
- blacks want to be acceptable subject for school children to learn it is "normal""
Again you are using innerant tactics that will simply be replied with:
NAMBLA are not happy with separate but equal
NAMBLA want to invade all aspects of life
NAMBLA want it to be acceptable subject for school children to learn it is normal
I presume this is how the argument will progress:
You will rebutt with 'but it is different'
I will rebutt with "so is homosexuality compared to being black"
You will tell me how it is completely different to comparing to NAMBLA, and how homosexuality is ok.
We simply disagree. But point being, your argument doesn't work, because if you expect the ARGUMENT (not the morality of homosexuality) to be able to be applied to any situation, then you come up with serious complications. This is called a philosophical and logical innerancy, and is therefore not valid argument for your case. Homosexuality MAY still be ok, but if it is ok because it is justified by an argument that supports being black and should therefore work on homosexuality, then the argument is what justifies and the argument should be able to justify any case (alone and of itself). But it doesn't; so you need to find another come back.
"Hate is hate no matter who it is directed against and it is always wrong. Justifying discrimination against one minority serves only to diminish us all.
.
They came first for the Communists,
and I didn't speak up because I wasn't a Communist.
Then they came for the sick, the so-called incurables, and I didn't speak up,
because I wasn't mentally ill.
Then they came for the Jews,
and I didn't speak up because I wasn't a Jew.
Then they came for the trade unionists,
and I didn't speak up because I wasn't a trade unionist.
Then they came for the Gypsies
and I didn't speak up because I was white
Then they came for the Catholics,
and I didn't speak up because I was a Protestant
Then they came for me,
and by that time no one was left to speak up."
I agree. Hate is not ok, and is not biblically sound. Hate of sin is acceptable, but this does not advocate hating anyone who is a sinner (and if it were then we would have to hate everyone
).But let us look at your argument in detail.
Firstly, we both agree hating is out of the question. I cannot and will not hate a homosexual, I will love them. I will not hate those in that list either.
Again, however, I am backed into a corner into using a group or affiliation that is considered, by most of us, unanimously sin-filled. Not that I am saying homosexuality necessarily is, or this is my only basis of saying homosexuality is bad, but simply because your arguments prove nothing.
Add onto the list pedophiles, murderers and rapists. Now I am not comparing them with homosexuality. This is not about the morality of these groups. This is merely an illustration.
If I then use your argument that I should not hate and link this with that I cannot DISCRIMINATE or I must advocate or not impede in any way, then you cannot discriminate against:
Murderers
Rapists
Paedophiles.
I would agree that in certain ways, and in most ways you shouldn't discriminate against these people either, but in some ways, morally, I am obliged to. Otherwise, if your argument is applied, then I must condone these actions, I cannot speak out against it nor can I create a movement to stop it, or to impede on their growth, otherwise it is HATE.
But it isn't. When I am not condoning of paedophilic actions, I do not hate them. I love them and want so much for them to come to the light; particularly as many of them were once victims themselves. But it is not hate to think what they are doing is wrong.
Homosexuality may be ok, but you haven't shown this in your argument. Your argument is logically incongruent with what I would wager as our common ground acceptance of ethics, and is WRONGFULLY discriminatory against any groups that you consider cannot fit into this line of argument. Also, by your own admission, you hate them.
Last edited:
Upvote
0
