The anti Christian bias gets ever more visible

[Jet Black]

let's analyse it then:

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"?

well the reson that I didn't answer straight, was because you commited a fallacy:

Complex question fallacy: an attempt is made to make me accept two points when really I do not have to. you attempted to make me accept the point that homosexual thought is wrong, based on the assumption that the homosexual act is wrong. I clarified this by pointing out the proper definition of homosexual, which does not in fact contain two definitions.

 

[Outspoken]

let's analyse it then:



well the reson that I didn't answer straight, was because you commited a fallacy:

Complex question fallacy: an attempt is made to make me accept two points when really I do not have to. you attempted to make me accept the point that homosexual thought is wrong, based on the assumption that the homosexual act is wrong. I clarified this by pointing out the proper definition of homosexual, which does not in fact contain two definitions.

Then you didn't read clearly at all. I said on the grounds that you assume that's right. I was giving the question context so that if I or anyone else looked back you could say it was assumed in the question, its not my belief. Seems you didn't learn that from your lawyer friend? Or did you just misunderstand?

 

[Jet Black]

Then you didn't read clearly at all. I said on the grounds that you assume that's right. I was giving the question context so that if I or anyone else looked back you could say it was assumed in the question, its not my belief. Seems you didn't learn that from your lawyer friend? Or did you just misunderstand?

I understand that, and my reply was based on the assumption that the homosexual act is wrong. I appreciate your effort to not pin an opinion onto me that I do not hold. while answering the question, I "accepted" that the homosexual act was wrong, however this did not lead me to the answer that thought was wrong too.

actually it was complex question and equivocation.

 

[Outspoken]

I understand that, and my reply was based on the assumption that the homosexual act is wrong. I appreciate your effort to not pin an opinion onto me that I do not hold. while answering the question, I "accepted" that the homosexual act was wrong, however this did not lead me to the answer that thought was wrong too.

actually it was complex question and equivocation.

No, you actually seemed to try and restate that, so I guessed that you didn't read or understand the question. That is why I was confused that you didn't just say yes or no.

 

[Jet Black]

No, you actually seemed to try and restate that, so I guessed that you didn't read or understand the question. That is why I was confused that you didn't just say yes or no.

sigh.... okay, lets try that analysis again:

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"?

cutting the words out, your assertation is that:

given a is c, b will be c, because a and b define d.

the problem is that here you are trying to create an equivalence between a and b, where none exists. My whole argument has been based on this lack of equivalence between a and b. to try and make these equivalent, then make a definition of one and apply that definition is a case of a complex question fallacy - the creation of an equivalence where the equivalence does not exist.

you attempt do this by trying to create a false definition; the definition that "being a homosexual requires both thought and action". this is equivocation, the intentional blurring of meanings. Furthermore, it does not help your attempt at making thought and action equivalent either. let me pose an analogy:

assume that nuts are disgusting, chocolate must be disgusting as well because nuts and chocolate define a snickers bar.

(incidentally this analogy is a stronger position than yours, since it does not require any blurring of the meaning of a snickers bar)

 

[Outspoken]

Nope, you're not disecting it correctly. Assuming the act is wrong. Is a. the thought wrong or b. just the action wrong (assumption).

Again, you're not reading it clearly or over anaylsing it. Seems you need to quit trying to make people look like a fool, or just answer a simple question...simply and clearly.

 

[Jet Black]

Nope, you're not disecting it correctly. Assuming the act is wrong. Is a. the thought wrong or b. just the action wrong (assumption).

well assuming the act is wrong, there is no reason for the thought to be wrong. I was just being over careful because of your qualifier

"Because both (the act and the thought) define being a homosexual"

if you had omitted that bit of the question, I would have said, "the thought is not wrong, regardless of whether the action is wrong."

But you didn't and I felt compelled to analyse the question in it's entirity. I am not attempting to make you look like a fool as I said.

 

[Outspoken]

well assuming the act is wrong, there is no reason for the thought to be wrong. I was just being over careful because of your qualifier

"Because both (the act and the thought) define being a homosexual"

if you had omitted that bit of the question, I would have said, "the thought is not wrong, regardless of whether the action is wrong."

But you didn't and I felt compelled to analyse the question in it's entirity. I am not attempting to make you look like a fool as I said.

That is why I asked you if thinking it consitutes being a homosexual....I hope you weren't attempting it, I'll give you the benefit of the doubt but next time just answer a simple question simply and clearly

 

[Jet Black]

on the condition that you make a simple question a simple question, and don't put in unnescessary qualifiers, sure

 

[Outspoken]

on the condition that you make a simple question a simple question, and don't put in unnescessary qualifiers, sure

Okay, well it was a simple question, and as you have shown it was a nessisary qualifier.

 

[Jet Black]

well I enjoyed that conversation, thanks

 

[Outspoken]

well I enjoyed that conversation, thanks

No problem, like I said you confirmed my thought on a matter and I appricate it.

 

[Rae]

attraction in this case is a desire for something. It does not necessitate action, but it does not deny it either.
--Indeed. For example, I've been trying to get more exercise after giving birth to my daughter last month. However, my lazy body desires to sit on the couch rather than get up and walk or lift my hand weights. Despite having that desire for rest, I ignore it (well, most of the time...) and do my exercises anyhow. That doesn't mean I don't have that desire. It means I don't act on it.

 

[Yitzchak]

O.K. now look, this thread is about anti-christian bias concerning an article posted in the original post.
Now we all have occasions where we go on a tangent but at this point some of you have changed the whole subject of the thread to a debate about homosexuality or something????
Anyway, I am appealing to your reason first from this standpoint. This forum is organized by topics so that I can read and respond to the topics that interest me. If a person feels caught up so much into a different topic, they could easially start their own thread and continue there.

 

[Jet Black]

yitzchak: I respect your point, but you should know that here, all threads evolve into homosexual threads after 5 pages, if they are not spontaneously created as homosexual threads. I do find this interesting, as it shows that regardless of whether you are an evolutionist or a creationist, you always get to the same point.

 

[tulc]

Rae wrote: (#233)
"For example, I've been trying to get more exercise after giving birth to my daughter last month."

I don't know if anyone else said this but:
[move]CONGRATULATIONS RAE!!![/move]
tulc(sorry to go off topic again, play on!)

 

[Blessed-one]

this thread is now closed simply for the reason that the topic being discussed currently has nothing to do with the thread. I suggest for all those who want to discuss matters other than homosexuality start a new thread for a fresh beginning. Please notify the mods at once if homosexuality creeps up in the new thread.