The anti Christian bias gets ever more visible

[Jet Black]

sorry I didn't spot the edit.

yes, I am saying someone can be homosexual without acting on it. Just like a nun can be heterosexual.

 

[Outspoken]

Okay, that's what I thought. So You'd agree if I said, assuming the act is wrong, that the thought would be wrong as well because both define "being a homosexual"?

 

[Jet Black]

if you are happy to think that thought is wrong, then you can do. That is where I disagree with you. From this perspective, the action is irrelevant, since one is already a homosexual even before having commited the act. It is important here to distinguish between a homosexual, and the homosexual act, since it is possible for heterosexuals to engage in the homosexual act too (and vice versa)

I do not believe in the Orwellian concept of thoughtcrime.

 

[Outspoken]

if you are happy to think that thought is wrong, then you can do. That is where I disagree with you. From this perspective, the action is irrelevant, since one is already a homosexual even before having commited the act. It is important here to distinguish between a homosexual, and the homosexual act, since it is possible for heterosexuals to engage in the homosexual act too (and vice versa)

I do not believe in the Orwellian concept of thoughtcrime.

wow..nice tap shoes, you sure did dance around that question

So I'm guessing, from your post that you can say that. Thanks, that's what I thought and confirmed it if you think it.

 

[Jet Black]

well it is an area that requires very careful use of language and definition I used to debate alot with a lawyer, and he always found it highly amusing to use the tactic of obfuscation, and then suddenly reveal the real meaning of what he was saying, and then rip apart someone elses point in the process, making them look like a fool. Alot of people really resented him for it, but I found alot of his style quite enlightening. Since then I always try to make the definition of what I am saying blindingly obvious, then it is very hard to logically refute, as I believe I have done in this thread.

 

[Outspoken]

well it is an area that requires very careful use of language and definition I used to debate alot with a lawyer, and he always found it highly amusing to use the tactic of obfuscation, and then suddenly reveal the real meaning of what he was saying, and then rip apart someone elses point in the process, making them look like a fool. Alot of people really resented him for it, but I found alot of his style quite enlightening. Since then I always try to make the definition of what I am saying blindingly obvious, then it is very hard to logically refute, as I believe I have done in this thread.

So you try to make people look like fools on purpose..wow..you're a terrible teacher...Sounds like an aweful way to talk to someone to me.

 

[Jet Black]

So you try to make people look like fools on purpose..wow..you're a terrible teacher...Sounds like an aweful way to talk to someone to me.

no no, I do not try to make people look like fools... he did. and he was very good at it. I simply learned the way to stop myself from looking like a fool. What is happening here is the opposite. he purposely used obfuscation and then suddenly tightened his definition squeezing the life out of the other person's argument, but I am purposely avoiding obfuscation. I can't help it if other people are going to insist that inclination and action are the same thing, when they are not.

 

[Jet Black]

As you can see in the debate with BC, I continually illustrated the difference between thought and action, and he continuously tried to tangle them up again. I made my position perfectly clear, and all he ever attacked was a strawman.

 

[Outspoken]

no no, I do not try to make people look like fools... he did. and he was very good at it. I simply learned the way to stop myself from looking like a fool. What is happening here is the opposite. he purposely used obfuscation and then suddenly tightened his definition squeezing the life out of the other person's argument, but I am purposely avoiding obfuscation. I can't help it if other people are going to insist that inclination and action are the same thing, when they are not.

If you purposely avoid using it, then why the unclear answers when I asked you a simple question?

 

[Jet Black]

what is unclear about my answers?

 

[DoomMoose]

Nothings unclear he's just pointing fingers.

 

[Outspoken]

what is unclear about my answers?

a simple yes to the question I preposed would have been clear and to the point. It looked more like an attempt to talk you way out of something?

 

[Outspoken]

Nothings unclear he's just pointing fingers.

Glad to know you can read my mind

 

[Jet Black]

a simple yes to the question I preposed would have been clear and to the point. It looked more like an attempt to talk you way out of something?

I thought you might say that.... to which question should I have said yes or no? let's go back to it and see if I can justify why I didn't do just that. It will be an interesting test.

 

[DoomMoose]

Yes... yes I can

 

[Outspoken]

I thought you might say that.... to which question should I have said yes or no? let's go back to it and see if I can justify why I didn't do just that. It will be an interesting test.

Then only yes no question I've asked this whole time. I think it was on the post #202. I did see your answer, but it wasn't as clear as a yes or no would have been. I even added it what was assumed in the questoin as not to pin you down to a belief i know you don't hold.

 

[Outspoken]

Yes... yes I can

Okay, so what number am I thinking of?

 

[DoomMoose]

The number you are thinking is....






Cupcake

 

[Outspoken]

The number you are thinking is....






Cupcake

Nope, sorry I was thinking of 1.

 

[DoomMoose]

SURE you know you want a cupcake.