Right wing conservatives are evil? Well, I have evidence that they are.

*Bites tongue really hard to avoid exploding*

Since you know so much about the theory of evolution and population genetics, perhaps you would like to write a paper and submit it to the peer review process to refute this peer reviewed paper on pubmed.This paper was brought to my attention by this post by Pinky.I'm sure your parents will be proud once you've successfuly refuted so many scientists and have your name all over the news paper. A true prodigy you are.

Actually, God loves the sinner and hates sin. Sin is what originally separated man from God and necessitated the death of Christ on the cross as a propitiation for man's sin, which was necessary to clear the righteousness and holiness of God's character.

Sin will peel your paint and mildew your shower. It tips cows and ties cans to your puppy's tail. Side-effects include drymouth, perspiration, and upset stomach. It's illegal to possess, except in amounts under an ounce, in 38 states. It's completely undetectable except for a slight odor of sour milk. Failure to read the owner's guide before operation may result in disfigurement or death. Sin should never be used by the young, elderly, or infirm. Pregnant women should consult their physician before exposure to sin. Do not fold, spindle, or mutilate. If you suspect that sin is leaking into your home call a rabbi, guru, or priest as soon as possible. When not using sin for more than two weeks remove batteries and store in a cool, dark place.

An argument that says his use of a word is wrong, because there is another valid definition of the same word which does NOT fit, is both an equivocational fallacy and by extention a strawman fallacy.That is not my opinion, that is a fact. It goes against logic. You are perfectly correct that one can argue his use is inappropriately applied, that is that his God does not exist, or that his God did not mean it, or something along those lines.The Bible does not say that God said H does not happen in nature, it says that it is against the intended use of our sexuality by God. The latter is debatable, but not on the basis of the former.This is not my opinion, that is a fact. It goes against logic. You can look it up on any page of logical errors. If you are arguing that one may look at the Bible and still come away thinking homosexuality is not hated by God, then you are correct that that is a logically possible conclusion.If you are arguing that one can look at someone using one definition of unnatural to refute another as somehow logical, then you are wrong. It is a fallacy. I have been going through this with Faith in two other threads.Unless you are arguing for the ovethrow of modern logical systems related to knowledge, and adoption of weaker rules, you are making a logical error.You are better off switching than fighting on this one. If you want me to post evidence from sites on logic, I will do so.

---

holmes
"...what a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.."(D. Bros)

You have said this, but repeatedly fail to make a logical argument that this is true. For all of your vaunted skills at reasoning you have continuously refused to spend the time to outline your reasoning. I gave you a very good breakdown of your argument.Where is the reasoning?You then said something about productivity and I showed you that it is as productive as any other human activity. It does not lead to procreation, but neither do relations between people that are infertile, and that includes the elderly. By logic then, that is illogical and unnatural? For a guy that is basically a creo, and has a tagline slamming social darwinism, isn't it a bit illogical to be appealing to social darwinism for supporting a Biblical position?This is not to mention that social darwinism is bunk and evolution cannot be used like this. We cannot simply say de facto homosexuality is a bad survival strategy. As evolution points out, that is up for environmental events to decide.One could easily look at the threat of overpopulation and destruction of resources and come to teh conclusion that the best evolutionary strategy for humans, particularly in China and India, is homosexuality. Actually if you studied evolution and evolutionary history, you would learn that reproduction can also be detrimental to a species. When blocks to survival are removed (lack of predators or other natural "removers") then reproduction leads to overpopulation which can wipe other species out and then ultimately the original species.NO reproduction would be fatal, but insisting all sexuality be reproductive can also be fatal. In the end a portion of the population engaging in nonreproductive activity has no effects on the species at all.By the way, I am curious as to what your argument was focused on... homosexuality as a complete sexuality, or homosexual acts? The Bible seems to find honosexual acts to be just as bad whether that is all one does or it is something one engages in every once in a while. Your argument here seems only applicable to those who only engage in homosexuality as there entire sexuality.Just remember that if you are meaning to hit those who engage in nonreproductive sex as their entire sexuality, you are condemning as illogical, unproductive, and unnatural: infertile couples, including the elderly.If you mean it to extend to all homosexual acts, then in addition to the above you are including: masturbation, oral sex, anal sex, and any sex using contraception or not during a time of likely impregnation.You talk about reason being a sign of what separates us from animals. I would like to see some of the demonstrated in your reply. Being able to hit a reply button and type something in response is not indicative of reason. It only indicates you can notice more things and have a longer communication structure. Many animals can recognize how to hit a button in response to a stimulus, and some apes can even communicate. Do better.

---

holmes
"...what a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.."(D. Bros)

holmes writes me:

quote:

---

An argument that says his use of a word is wrong, because there is another valid definition of the same word which does NOT fit, is both an equivocational fallacy and by extention a strawman fallacy.

---

So, do you get this angry whenever someone responds to creationist nonsense with a comment along the lines of "creationism is not science"? Wouldn't that be an equivocation on the word 'science', since one of the definitions is "an activity or discipline which appears to require study" and another is "something that may be studied or learned?"You keep saying that I should've asked buz to use another word like 'ungodly' since it's less ambiguous. Has it occurred to you that I might've done so in my very next post to buz regardless of what his response to my comment might have been? D'ya ever think that maybe I simply see a need to flippantly dismiss the notion of homosexuality as being unnatural in the simplest way possible? If you're going to take something as silly as biblical context into account in determining whether homosexuality is natural or not, shouldn't you at least be willing to consider that I might have simply left the statement "find another word" unwritten?In other words, isn't it possible that I was in fact arguing with buz precisely over his choice of word.After all, it was in fact in my very first post to you that I stated explicitly that my issue was over his choice of word. I simply chose a flippant way of conveying that message, and I was pretty sure buz would get it. After all, we've had this argument with him before, you know.

---

Keep America Safe AND Free!

LOL! Did you make that up, Crashfrog? Cuz if you did, your humor has made you well. Go and sin no more!

Generally no, because it is the creationists who are trying to equivocate on the term "science", meaning that they want their general study of something to be equated with a specific field of study with specific rules.However you can see me making the exact distinction you are asking about, in the current debates I am having with Faith... and indeed partly including a response to you. There you saw me discuss that they are still wanting to do science, but not the same science (not modern science) but instead revert to an older set of criteria for knowledge and discovery.The more important question is do you use your tactic often, and does it work? I have never seen it work (on both sides) and it usually gets called for what it is, making the author of the fallacy look less worthy an opponent. Yes, essentially my first reply to you was not an overt indictment, but asking that people (remember I said "we") not use this line of argument. That would go if it was intentional or not.Your repeated defense of your action, which if the above is true you were simply playing dumb with me, gave me the impression you did not have that motive.In any case, my request stands. Its a cheap ploy and doesn't make your position look good and it is pretty annoying (only sending people down semantic sidepaths).Remember that is not the only place where such issues crop up. In addition to unnatural, the Bible also uses "unclean". Oh man does it use unclean. And if everyone that wanted a Xian to stop saying unclean got into semantic arguments over how they are not less sterile so the Bible is wrong... yikes. Everyone should get it, unclean, unnatural are descriptions of Gods dislike of a state or behavior.

---

holmes
"...what a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.."(D. Bros)

I can't refute that paper, you knew that.Can you explain "gay" genes, and what are the characteristics for people born gay? Is it a lifestyle choice, rather than an inherited trait?This has gone too far, homosexuals are people, and analyzing any group of people for this long on my part is not the right thing to do. I have said some things here that were never meant to be said, I started my first topic about how the way buzsaw acted made homosexuals want to stay away from the truth that he and I know. But in that reply I posted a line that I lament to have made In message 12:

quote:

---

People are People, no matter sexual preference, although I don't think it is a good thing to be a homosexual, its not natural, and takes away the chance to meet a life-companion meant for you. Like in Eternal Sunshine of the spotless minds.

---

This line brought on people that disagreed, and I can see how it could of offended some people. My intentions were really to express why unity between man and woman must be something special.There is no reason really to debate over something like this, you may see this as me trying to get out of a monster that somehow I created but it's trivial when there are people who don't know truth. Who don't know God.As for the opening topic, conservatives and liberals, republicans and democrats, further the seperations between people living here in the US. Providing barriers that limit people's thoughts to one side, automatically agreeing with what a certain party's beliefs are at the time.

---

more mmmmmore to the the human race

quote:

---

You then said something about productivity and I showed you that it is as productive as any other human activity. It does not lead to procreation, but neither do relations between people that are infertile, and that includes the elderly. By logic then, that is illogical and unnatural?

---

It really comes down to the question of why humans are here, and what is the meaning of our lives. To answer this you must rid yourself of any notions that humans are just another brick in the wall, but accept that humans have the ability to go beyond, and find truth to questions like these.Many religions stress the importance of a purpose, and reaching a higher goal, such as nirvana, heaven, etc... This of course would be all for nothing, all useless if humans were just another species, that had no significance compared to the other animals, in the animal kingdom.This is why I have suggested that homosexuality did not make sense, because it seems to be a hinderence to what really matters, but then I come to the gloomy results of discusssions focused on particulary being homo, and it isn't worth pursuing when anything one can do is truly a hinderence. Like me playing that mmorpg online, it doesn't make sense that I should partake in it. But humans are drawn to these things for the sake of pleasure, immediate gratifcation. Berberry has helped me realize that I just don't know enough about it to condemn it as a hinderence to truth.This is what discourages me about this disscussion, that wasn't meant for me initially.

quote:

---

For a guy that is basically a creo, and has a tagline slamming social darwinism, isn't it a bit illogical to be appealing to social darwinism for supporting a Biblical position?

---

The tagline was slamming an interpretation of social darwinism, and funny you say that actually, because I took it off last night. Well I tried to use social darwinism because, noone I have talked to about this would have even replied to me if I posted up some verses the way buzsaw did. It's not a good argument because most people doubt that the bible is a book of truth, or even love for that matter. Using the bible as support would be suicide.I thought I saw something in darwinism that could be used to sort of counter the posts. It didn't work as you can see. I thought it made sense that homosexuals would not benefit the species, but with the latest articles of scientific research, I was wrong. And you refuted me without even a link, rather using your own ideas. That seperates you from the others sort of, I usually never see you post a link or refer to a paper. But you are right about the overpopulation, although there are some factors that would have to be there for it to be an issue.Thanks for the replies.

---

more mmmmmore to the the human race

re: Phats 3 dislikes: 1) Holier than thou attitude. 2) Legislation of Morality. 3) Lack of creativity. Most right wingers are DULL.Your reasons, Phat, are incisive. But let me ask you something about #1. Even if you and I were to sit down in a coffee shop and have a friendly conversation, don't you think the mere fact that you contend you have found the answer and I haven't imparts, even if unintentionally, something akin to a 'holier than than thou' attitude. I find in these conversations, the Xian linguistically has difficulty restraining from arguing from a standpoint of "you need to find this" while the athiest/agnostic argues from the point of "have you considered this." In fact, I've come to the point in conversations where I don't even go so far as to present a "have you considered this" approach. Rather, I take a more resigned "Yeah, well, this is what I just can't get past" approach. In other words, I personalize it as just one man's view because I don't want to impart any authority to the viewpoint other than my own, in other words I pull back lest someone be persuaded away from what's working for them. It might not be logical but it's an ethical constuct I have. Ultimately , I don't want to convince the other person of anything, just want them to know where I come from and consider me an equal.If they do, fine. If they don't, there won't be any more conversations ...Just a quick thought on #'s 2 and #3: In my more 'spiritually' inclined days, I had been looking for something extroardinary, mystical, deep, all the words that mean something much bigger than the self. And that includes going as far as Christianity asks me to go. But I've been thinking lately about this: Maybe Christianity has been so amazingly successfully comingled with the political happenings in everyday life that it has become something unintended, that is, it has become ordinary.(anyone want to tell a newby how to highlight text - thanks)

Yeah, I'm just foolin' around, just pointing out how supremely silly it is to characterize sin as something that can do things, rather than just a label for certain actions that humans do.

It wasn't the part about homosexuals that set me off. It was the part where you suddenly became an expert in population genetics and used that for your agenda/bigotry. I'm a "tolerant left". I accept that some people are bigots. I just get mad when they don't admit it and suddenly become scientists and use all kinds of scientific pseudofacts to try to explain why they're not really bigots and that it's only scientifically correct to consider something the way they consider it.As to your questions, I will not respond to you. If you haven't noticed, I haven't been participating. I don't like talking to deaf ears... or rather blind eyes.Just stop pretending to be a scientist and you can flame on about gay people all you want without dealing with me.

Yes. I agree. It is kinda like being wealthy and working in a soup kitchen. You try and be humble, but it takes a lot of humility. I personally have pulled back a bit because I know that God will reach everyone that He so chooses...BTW push the peek option to see how I highlighted the text. PB