Let's see:
You provided a list of negative commentary by me all surrounding the initial mistake you made on one point of argument, and then subsequent denials that you made the mistake.
If you look at the original post that I made #24, you will find that I start with a request can "we" put this to rest. It was an indicator that I was not just implicating you as the only maker of this mistake. After explaing the singular error I finish by saying...
I have no problem with the rest of the challenges (though he's free to ad hoc his way out, or have a differing personal interpretation), but this one has been debunked as simply talking past buz.
That clearly says that I thought everything else you argues was valid and pointed out Buz was likely to ad hoc (which is a fallacy) his way out of your challenges. Then
repeat that "this ONE" has been debunked as talking past Buz.
If you cannot see that I have not been picking on
you, and rather a
single logical error you made, then what can I say? It seems you have an issue with me, seeing me as always attacking you personally, not your mistakes, and in a previous post suggesting I don't pick on others.
As it stands I am currently in an argument with crashfrog (over two threads), schraf (in one or two), Arach to some degree, and I think I just picked up Pink Sasquatch. All of these are people I respect in general, yet will butt heads, sometimes seriously (and with Schraf usually consistently).
Yeah, if you want me to criticize some of your opinions and behaviors I can, but that does not motivate me to post to you. In this case I only posted to correct one logical fallacy you are making, and actually indicate I agreed the rest were valid.
All because I take issue with the stupid assertion that homosexuality is unnatural... Stupid notions seem to be fine with you... Or something. You're still not making much sense.
The criticism I gave of your error was not the same as in another thread where I defended a person's right to hold a contrary interpretation of something. The error you made is a straightforward logical one. It started as an equivocation, and once you continued with it after notification, it became a strawman fallacy. Buz's position is not what you are attacking.
I am not sure how much plainer I can get with my language. In an effort to bring this to a satisfactory resolution I will try two extremely clear examples...
You can look here to find the numerous definitions of
natural, and
unnatural. I will use unnatural for this example as they are less numerous, though I will note that the context of its use in the Bible indicates a slightly different meaning. That's okay for illustration.
Unnatural-1: not being in accordance with nature or consistent with a normal course of events. (i.e. they are not found in nature)
Unnatural-2: not being in accordance with normal human feelings or behavior : PERVERSE, OR inconsistent with what is reasonable or expected (i.e. they are not in accordance with expectations of use or intentions of use)
This is how the argument has run...
Buz (quoting Bible): Homosexual sex is Unnatural-2.
Berb: It can't be Unnatural-1, because we see it in nature.
Me (to Berb): You are equivocating and so talking past Buz. Unnatural-2 is not the same as Unnatural-1 so your criticism is meaningless.
Conclusion: You made an error. Whether homosexual activity is Unnatural-2 can only be refuted by challenging whether his God exists, or what that God intended (his interpretation of the Bible), and NOT challenging the idea it is Unnatural-1.
I do not know how to be more obvious than this.
holmes
"...what a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.."(D. Bros)
™ Version 4.2
