• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Proposition 8 Struck Down!!!

Robert Prey said:
Appealing to nature is hardly a fallacy, but refusing to acknowledge nature is.
Click to expand...

Crapping indoors is not "natural".
Wearing clothes is not "natural".
Circumcision is not "natural".
Shaving is not "natural".

So how does whether or not something is natural convey any kind of correctness?

What is your definition of "natural"? It seems that it's just whatever you approve of.
 
Bigoted for the obvious fact that Nature did not intend for an anus to be a receptacle for a penis??? Then Nature is a Bigot.
Click to expand...
Again with the anal sex fetish.
 
From Natural:
Depending on the particular context, the term "natural" might also be distinguished from the unnatural, the supernatural, or synthetic.
Click to expand...

Funny thing is, if God or gods actually existed, she/he/they would be unnatural.

Ah, well.
 
Upchurch said:
Funny thing is, if God or gods actually existed, she/he/they would be unnatural.
Click to expand...

<tangent>Don't even get me started. . .

The notion of God as a creator pretty much requires separating Creator from Created. (Otherwise, why can't the universe, just like "God" have been its own cause?) Yet in conventional usage God is defined as "omnipresent". So that means there is nothing outside God. How can Creation be God (if there is nothing that isn't God or nothing outside of God) and be something distinct from God at the same time?

However, I think belief in supernatural beings that can interact with the natural world is what gives people like Robert Prey this very fuzzy idea of the concept of "nature".
 
JoeTheJuggler said:
However, I think belief in supernatural beings that can interact with the natural world is what gives people like Robert Prey this very fuzzy idea of the concept of "nature".
Click to expand...

Like nature having anthropomorphic intent and/or purpose for things? Could be.

I still say that this sort of argument is merely a way of validating an irrational and emotional response and as a way of excusing bad behavior.
 
Upchurch said:
Like nature having anthropomorphic intent and/or purpose for things?
Click to expand...

Or the notion that things that actually happen (in nature) can be unnatural as the inverse of the notion that things that are not natural (supernatural) can essentially happen in nature (interact with or affect things in nature).

If you allow for one, your thinking probably allows for the other.
 
Upchurch said:
Heh.

So your idea of "loving" homosexuals is satisfied by resisting the urge to punch them in the face? How could I have imagined that you hate homosexuals? :rolleyes:


  • "Disgusting" is an emotional judgement, not a rational one.
  • "Unnatural" has shown to be false to you several times, yet you refuse to acknowledge or dispute the evidence. That is not rational.
  • Plenty of gay couples do not have anal sex, Robert. Lesbians, mostly. And plenty of straight couples do. Since when do we deny people the right to marry based on what the do in the bedroom? This is a double standard on your part.

Your argument here is emotional, Robert, not rational. It is obviously, based on what you've said here and in other threads on fear and hatred. You are apparently so terrified that a gay man might show a romantic interest in you that, we're one to do so, your first reaction is to restrain yourself physical violence.

Fear and hatred result in bigotry, Robert, not rationality. And you hate and fear gays, you've said as much here.
Click to expand...

If people want to be a bigot, their rationality is that they want to be a bigot.

Passing civil rights legislation will not hinder their ability to be a bigot, it will just make it less popular to be one.
 
Plenty of rationale.
Click to expand...
I'm waiting.

Unnatural, disgusting, disease causing acts are rationally revolting.
Click to expand...
Still waiting.

Oh, and I'm off ot start an anal sex thread so Prey can discuss this strange fascination of his to his heart's content, leaving us to the topic at hand, which is Proposition 8 and gay marriage:). ETA: Here you go, chap. Please take all butt sex discussion there.
 
Last edited:
However, I think belief in supernatural beings that can interact with the natural world is what gives people like Robert Prey this very fuzzy idea of the concept of "nature".
Click to expand...
"Nature" is death and disease and pain and cold and fear and little blue-footed booby babies getting their brains pecked out by their stronger siblings. --Julia Sweeney, Letting go of God, paraphrased.
 
Those are animals, Shalamar. Do you want humans to behave as animals now? That's demeaning, we're better than that. We've grown past it and are civilized now. We only have sex through that virtual thing from Demolition Man anymore.
 
RandFan said:
Again, flourishing societies are negatively correlated to nations without govt regulation, social programs etc.. That's a fact. A.) Your evidence is anecdotal. B.) It's subject to confirmation bias.

That isn't to say that you don't have any point. But at the end of the day you are making a hasty generalization.
Click to expand...

If it weren't for the fact that I spent 30 years in government service "anecdotal evidence', "confirmation bias" and "hasty generalization" might apply. But they don't in this case. I've been there, done that and have the t-shirt. And you're paying me (assuming you live in California) a very substantial retirement salary to confirm that our government is sick. I'm not ashamed of the amount that I'm being paid to sit in retirement because I put my raggedy ass on the line in ways that the average person can't begin to imagine to earn the retirement. All else being equal I should not have lived past 26 years old.

Our government at all levels has wandered off the track over the years. Service, in the big picture, to the electorate has fallen to the side in favor of politics. And the politics has turned back to the worst side of 1969. I was there, up close, personal and inside. I know these people. I've been in their very literal crosshairs. The irony is that as we grew older and they abandoned their overt revolutionary ideas and instead integrated themselves into the government we remained in contact socially. They don't realize that I know what they had in store for me "way back when". Dinner, a glass of wine, small talk, a smile, a laugh...but I know who they are. Their end game is not pretty.

The solution, in my expert opinion is to seriously reduce the size and reach of government at all levels before it is too late. Too late is midnight and I'm here to tell you that it's well past 2200 hrs.
 
Last edited:
Well, it appears that RandFan's observation of "anecdotal evidence', "confirmation bias" and "hasty generalization" was spot on.
 
Wait, are we talking about wizards boning again?

How did this talk of unnatural stuff come back?
 
DarbyII said:
If it weren't for the fact that I spent 30 years in government service "anecdotal evidence', "confirmation bias" and "hasty generalization" might apply. But they don't in this case. I've been there, done that and have the t-shirt.
Click to expand...
There is no might about it in any case. You don't get to appeal to your own authority to overcome errors in logic. A hasty generalization is a fallacy even if it were Stephen Hawking making it about a physics problem. Anecdotes don't stop being anecdotes because of authority. Even a sincere and objective scientists MUST control against confirmation bias. You aren't special because of your background. Hell, no one is.

Look, this is a skeptics forum. You are expected to follow the same rules as anyone else. You don't have a get out of jail free card because of your past.

And you're paying me (assuming you live in California) a very substantial retirement salary to confirm that our government is sick. I'm not ashamed of the amount that I'm being paid to sit in retirement because I put my raggedy ass on the line in ways that the average person can't begin to imagine to earn the retirement. All else being equal I should not have lived past 26 years old.

Our government at all levels has wandered off the track over the years. Service, in the big picture, to the electorate has fallen to the side in favor of politics. And the politics has turned back to the worst side of 1969. I was there, up close, personal and inside. I know these people. I've been in their very literal crosshairs. The irony is that as we grew older and they abandoned their overt revolutionary ideas and instead integrated themselves into the government we remained in contact socially. They don't realize that I know what they had in store for me "way back when". Dinner, a glass of wine, small talk, a smile, a laugh...but I know who they are. Their end game is not pretty.

The solution, in my expert opinion is to seriously reduce the size and reach of government at all levels before it is too late. Too late is midnight and I'm here to tell you that it's well past 2200 hrs.
Click to expand...
Part of being a skeptic is being able to question your own world view. It's why scientists employ methodology and establish protocols to control for confirmation bias. It's not because scientists, unlike police officers, are inherently dishonest. It's because of what those Greek Philosophers figured out thousands of years ago. I'm a skeptic. I don't bow down to someone's opinion because of rhetoric.

If you want to be taken seriously here I suggest you learn what the requirements for skepticism and critical thinking are. If you are going to make claims you need to learn how to avoid fallacy. It's not something that you can dismiss with authority. If a scientist can't reasonably do that then neither can you. Take my advice and learn how to argue effectively and how to avoid fallacy. Anecdotes and appeals to authority are okay for very specific issues (what is the proper way to make an arrest) but they don't give you carte blanche to wax philosophical without question on broad subjects. Even in your chosen field. For instance, your opinion on retributive justice would still be subject to questioning.

I'm not trying to patronize you. I'll take you at your word as to your "expertise". Not even an expert can't get up on the stand at trial and not expected to have his opinion challenged just because he or she is an expert, right? I assume you know what I'm assuming you have a working knowledge of skepticism and critical thinking. I suspect you just need some further philosophical background. If you can do that you will fare much better here.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom