General Discussion Of Moderation Procedures 11.0

I'll also point out that NJ has always brought this up in the context of asking us about the moral distinctions we draw between the two. And we have always explained the moral difference between the two. For some reason, though, those pages show up blank on his web browser. He claims that we atheists (and, of course, anyone not opposed to homosexuality must be an atheist) have no basis for making moral distinctions, even though we constantly try to explain that we do.If this is a matter for moderator action, it is largely because this has always come up in the context of a discussion where NJ refuses to even read the replies.On the other hand, NJ has never really explained why he thinks that they are morally equivalent. (Well, we know why he does -- because some clown with that very shoddy type of theologic training associated with some Protestant sects, says it's in the Bible.)Added by edit:
See this post.Edited by Chiroptera, : Removed signature -- official matter forumEdited by Chiroptera, : No reason given.

Well, okay, then the next step, after it is explained how a relative moral relativist can distinguish between the two, is to discuss the reasoning.NJ never does that. In fact, he constantly ignores the reasoning.Personally, I think he says that homosexuality is the same as bestiality because he likes to say it. It certainly has never been a part of a argument of a discussion that he has showed any interest in following through.

Fair enough request.I can't find the thread that I do remember, and don't quite remember the other threads I thought I saw this.So I'll withdraw my accusation.

Heh. I would have waited until he actually began to hold forth in his usual forthright manner, but your way is good, too.

---

I've done everything the Bible says, even the stuff that contradicts the other stuff! -- Ned Flanders

Abusive language is not necessary in an argument using evidence and logic. If your argument is based on logic and evidence, you do not need to be abusive. Therefore, it does not put you at a disadvantage if you are not allowed to be abusive while those arguing against you are.So, if you or Davison don't want to be banned, don't be abusive. You and Davison don't need to be, and, in fact, your argument looks better when you keep to the high ground.

---

I've done everything the Bible says, even the stuff that contradicts the other stuff! -- Ned Flanders

So they were suspended for something that ceased to be a problem?