(July 16, 2015 at 7:18 pm)Aristocatt Wrote: Anima I just read the response you gave me to one of my previous posts.

We need to go through my argument again.

Do we really

(July 16, 2015 at 7:18 pm)Aristocatt Wrote: It worked like this.

Because you used one ludicrous example to show that it was possible for homosexuality to lead to extinction, and because of that, you deemed homosexuality as wrong(or at the very least felt you had brought forth a coherent argument).  
My response was:
If I can create an example where heterosexuality leads to extinction, then heterosexuality is also wrong according to the criteria you set to deem homosexuality immoral.

As stated before, I did not give an argument for homosexuality being immoral. I did give a biological/sociological argument regarding how homosexuality is harmful (at worst) and unnecessary (at best). I followed this argument with one discussing how it actually results in a metaphysical and physical social harm.

Furthermore, In order to make you argument work you appealed to an externality that is not inherent in the being of hetero or homo sexual. You are doing the same in regards to IVF. The argument you presented is why over-consumption may lead to extinction (which I do not disagree). It does not follow that over-consumption is a result of increased population, as Cato pointed out in his later rebuttal when I made reference to this argument. (To my knowledge the population of the US at 0.3B consumes more than the population of China at 1.5B. So if 5 times the people can consume less than over-consumption is more of a social habit problem than a population problem.)

(July 16, 2015 at 7:18 pm)Aristocatt Wrote: The entire argument is irrelevant to IVF costs, I know I have been mentioning them quite often, but you seem to be misunderstanding why I am mentioning them.  You moved from making an argument that homosexuality is wrong based on principle to making an argument that homosexuality is wrong from a utilitarian perspective where we need to weigh all the costs and effects.  

In truth the entire IVF argument is irrelevant to the homosexual issue (this was argued with Cato at length, whereby it was shown the act is hetero in nature and would amount to say homosexuals have value so long as they engage in hetero action.) Introducing IVF in the homosexual argument is an externality utilize to try and resolve an issue brought about by homosexuality (the fact the orientation encourages action which is non-procreative).

The issue is homosexuality and what it subsequently contributes/detracts to biology or society. Not over-consumption and the economic, political, and social solutions/repercussions therein or what biological or sociological shortfalls scientific advancement allowed us to compensate for (IVF for infertility, Guns for skill and strength of killing, etcetera). As such my argument and request is to hear from you or anyone else the biological, sociological, or teleological benefit conferred by homosexuality.

(July 16, 2015 at 7:18 pm)Aristocatt Wrote: I am inclined to think this is your MO, however.  Rather than addressing directly the points being presented, it is more convenient to dodge the question and move in between different arguments.

I specifically responded to your over-consumption externality with externalities that will serve to curb population growth due to over-consumption by discussing financial and physical barriers to acquisition as well the impacts malnutrition have on fertility, miscarriage, and infant mortality rates. I even made specific connection to your over-consumption externality and IVF externality to state if over-consumption is the issue than IVF is far from the solution since it consumes far more resources and involves more parties than natural hetero procreation. I am not sure how I could address your argument more specifically.

(July 16, 2015 at 7:18 pm)Aristocatt Wrote: In response to your points about underpopulation being an issue.  It is akin to saying because it was colder this winter on the Eastern Shore of the US, that the earth was on average colder this Winter.  It is disingenuous.

Two points on this. First if my response of under-population being an issue is as you say akin to associating weather with climate (which you are saying is a fallacy of composition, by which a particular condition is taken to be the state of whole) than the same may be said in regards to IVF. You are saying IVF offsets or is the answer to the non-procreative nature of homosexuality. But IVF is just a blip in the history of procreation and may be said to be a particular that you are trying to state is applicable to the whole (in a fallacy of composition) to negate the issue of that whole.

Second, under-population at a given time is not analogous to weather and climate. The reason being that while an extremely cold winter or even a mini or regular ice age (weather) would not necessarily stop a macro climate trend of warming (since weather does not beget weather, rather the sun is the primary contributor; should that be effected than we would have a substantial climate change to global freezing) is not the same as saying a substantial decrease in population or even a mass extinction would not result in the extinction of our species (as humans beget humans). As can be seen readily weather is a particular dependent condition while climate is a universal independent; while in the latter case existence is the particular dependent and procreation is the universal independent:

P1. Continued existence of humans is dependent on procreation (universal independent)
P2. Humans wish to continue to exist (particular dependent)
C1. Humans wish is dependent on procreation.

P1. The planets climate is getting warmer (universal independent)
P2. The weather today is not warm (particular dependent)
C2. The weather today is not the planet's climate.

[/quote]
Redbeard The Pink Wrote
As for polygamy, as long as everything is consensual between adults and nobody is being abused, mistreated, or neglected, I don't really have any inherent moral problems with that either, and neither does your Gaud, for that matter. Might want to check your bible again, Animal.
[/quote]


I remember the religious oppositions position to the homosexual community be that “if we let you then we have to let all sexual activated be accepted.” This argument alone would outrage the gay community, for it was beyond belief that any argument that would compare their plight to any connection of pedophile, insist and polygamy? Was it not the cry and the argument in the courts that, “we do not wish change marriage; we wish to be incorporated in it with the same rights and privileges as straights couples.” Now the law has passed, in you favor but, the outrage of comparison, or the use of those words in the same sentence, is gone. It has changed from “how insulting are you to compare us to . . .” to “we should” integrate these two groups of the sexual spectrum, polygamy and “adult” incest. (Which many have voices in favor of in the blog.)

__________________________Also

It is funny how in these religion and people of religious ideology are seen to be crazy, uneducated, back words people, medieval people. With some type of “fairy tale book that is older than time its self, making it obsolete for use in our current modern day society’s.” We roll our eye’s and even evoke the fray god to end with the stupidity that religious speak about, with that book in their hand.

Just like many of the preachers of fundamental religious do. The say homosexuality is a sin, and provided you with the pages to refer too. However, when informed that Jesus is love, then suddenly such parts of the book disappear

Yet, are not the fellow atheist and leftist doing the very thing that annoys the shit out of people, the use this book when it backs up our ideology and disregard it when it does not. Do not be confused in thinking that Redbeard The Pink Wrote is the only atheist who has used the bible in their argument, a lot of atheist do!!

We can say that others that agree with polygamy have no religious affiliation and that is true. However, it is not the non-religious that are begging to push for it’s acceptance, it is not the non-religious that have case’s in the court’s to have the law changed. It is the members of the extremist of the Mormonism or some fundamental group with a religious argument!

Even knowing this, we allow the religious fanatic to ask for polygamy recognized legally with that book still in hand.

What happen to these people being crazy or uneducated? No. Instead, the liberals and surprisingly the atheist, are willing to back their religious argument to legal recognition!!

[/quote]
Please tell me you aren't confusing the respondents' concentrating on a procreative centric definition of marriage and the actual definition of marriage. The respondents concentrated on this aspect of marriage because they knew there was no way in hell any of the other commonly accepted and well known attributes of marriage could be used in argument and have a chance in of surviving a 14th amendment challenge. The definition of marriage hasn't changed, the procreative centric concentration was simply the only viable defense available.
[/quote]

HAHAHAH WOW

I had to read you posting twice to make sure I read it right. I think that is what Anima has been arguing, because legally the argument for Obergefell is the law. And it is the law which is based on that case that he/she is using to try and argue the danger of the cases reasoning if taken to its full conclusion.

(July 17, 2015 at 10:11 am)Redbeard The Pink Wrote: The Slippery Slope is a logical fallacy, and claiming it's true in the legal world is Special Pleading, which is also a logical fallacy. Until you have an argument based on facts and not textbook examples of bullshit, fuck off.

I really wish it was special pleading. Alas it is reality and more to the point what precedential jurisprudence is and was designed to be. Like I said we already see it in regards to polygamous lawsuits in Montana, Utah, and Colorado. You are fine with polygamy so you do not care, but are you so short sighted to believe that no one will sue for something you are not fine with?

But by your own statement will you be fucking off? I have already shown the pro position is contingent upon one of three fallacies of false equivalency, argumentum ad novitatem (appeal to novelty), or argumentum ad misericordiem (appeal to pity). Since your position is based on fallacies (I have not heard a single argument otherwise) than according to you, you should fuck off. And when you are done fucking off you should fuck off from there. And when you get back from fucking off from there you should fuck off again ad infinitum.

(July 17, 2015 at 10:13 am)robvalue Wrote: Where are the child marriages that will inevitably follow then?

Go try and marry a child, see how that works out for you.

This reminds me of when the BBFC tried to ban Manhunt 2 because it would "cause harm". They took it as far as the high court, just as with gay marriage, in a desperate attempt to make slippery slope vague bullshit arguments. It finally got released and... nothing happened. Big surprise.

Where? The polygamous communities in northern Arizona and southern Utah. You cannot honestly believe the next time they do a raid on those compounds these people are not going to try to argue in accordance with the law that the age restriction on marriage is a violation of their fundamental rights. That they had the consent of the parents and the relationship was meant to convey dignity and security to the parties involved. For being so empathetic you guys seem to be exceptionally bad at empathizing with those who think or would do what you would not.

Furthermore, you are basing your comments on how you understood the law to be. But under that law same sex marriage was prohibited. They has changed the law to make it legal. You need to look at the situation in accordance to how the law has been changed and not how it was. It seem each of you think you could just make this small change and not effect anything else. You would each be right had this been done through the states themselves. Since the change was made at the federal level it will not be nuanced as you wish to believe and will have more unintended consequences than each of your are considering.

Maybe it could be like "the weakest link". We get a panel of experts, and they judge everyone in the world using a series of carefully chosen criteria of usefulness to society.

Every year, the "weakest links", say the million people who are weighing us down the most, get executed.

Now, who gets to set the criteria...

(July 17, 2015 at 10:21 am)Cato Wrote:

(July 16, 2015 at 4:45 pm)Anima Wrote: Thanks to the Obergefell v. Hodges ruling marriage restrictions must now pass strict scrutiny and the marriage has be redefined as security and dignity centric.

Please tell me you aren't confusing the respondents' concentrating on a procreative centric definition of marriage and the actual definition of marriage. The respondents concentrated on this aspect of marriage because they knew there was no way in hell any of the other commonly accepted and well known attributes of marriage could be used in argument and have a chance in of surviving a 14th amendment challenge. The definition of marriage hasn't changed, the procreative centric concentration was simply the only viable defense available.

Ha ha!! You have no idea how right you are. You see the petitioners could not win if the law still considered marriage under a procreative definition. As Stated by Chief Justice John Robert:

"The Constitution itself says nothing about marriage, and the Framers thereby entrusted the States with “[t]he
whole subject of the domestic relations of husband and wife.” Windsor, 570 U. S., at ___ (slip op., at 17) (quoting
In re Burrus, 136 U. S. 586, 593–594 (1890)). There is no dispute that every State at the founding—and every State
throughout our history until a dozen years ago—defined marriage in the traditional, biologically rooted way. The four States in these cases are typical. Their laws, before and after statehood, have treated marriage as the union of a man and a woman. See DeBoer v. Snyder, 772 F. 3d 388, 396–399 (CA6 2014). Even when state laws did not specify this definition expressly, no one doubted what they meant. See Jones v. Hallahan, 501 S. W. 2d 588, 589 (Ky. App. 1973).

The meaning of “marriage” went without saying. Of course, many did say it. In his first American dictionary, Noah Webster defined marriage as “the legal union of a man and woman for life,” which served the maintenance and education of children.” 1 An American Dictionary of the English Language (1828). An influential 19th-century treatise defined marriage as “a civil status, existing in one man and one woman legally united for life for those civil and social purposes which are based in the distinction of sex.” J. Bishop, Commentaries on the Law of Marriage and Divorce 25 (1852). The first edition of Black’s Law Dictionary defined marriage as “the civil status of one man and one woman united in law for life.” Black’s Law Dictionary 756 (1891) (emphasis deleted). The dictionary maintained essentially that same definition for the next century.

This Court’s precedents have repeatedly described marriage in ways that are consistent only with its traditional meaning. Early cases on the subject referred to marriage as “the union for life of one man and one woman,” Murphy v. Ramsey, 114 U. S. 15, 45 (1885), which forms “the foundation of the family and of society, without which there would be neither civilization nor progress,” Maynard v. Hill, 125 U. S. 190, 211 (1888). We later described marriage as “fundamental to our very existence and survival,” an understanding that necessarily implies a procreative component. Loving v. Virginia, 388 U. S. 1, 12 (1967); see Skinner v. Oklahoma ex rel. Williamson, 316 U. S. 535, 541 (1942). More recent cases have directly connected the right to marry with the “right to procreate.” Zablocki v. Redhail, 434 U. S. 374, 386 (1978)."


Now in saying the definition of marriage has not changed you are sorely mistaken. As written by Justice Kennedy in the majority opinion:

"The lifelong union of a man and a woman always has promised nobility and dignity to all persons, without regard to their station in life. Marriage is sacred to those who live by their religions and offers unique fulfillment to those who find meaning in the secular realm. Its dynamic allows two people to find a life that could not be found alone, for a marriage becomes greater than just the two persons. Rising from the most basic human needs, marriage is essential to our most profound hopes and aspirations... Indeed, changed understandings of marriage are characteristic of a Nation where new dimensions of freedom become apparent to new generations, often through perspectives that begin in pleas or protests and then are considered in the political sphere and the judicial process."

Clearly the definitions are not the same. And it is by means of the definition to nobility and dignity (something the other definitions did not talk about at all) that Justice Kennedy endeavors to support Same sex right to marriage. Unfortunately this argument is readily adopted to any number of things by which we supplant references to marriage to reference to engage in any prohibited activity X

(July 17, 2015 at 11:59 am)robvalue Wrote: Maybe it could be like "the weakest link". We get a panel of experts, and they judge everyone in the world using a series of carefully chosen criteria of usefulness to society.

Every year, the "weakest links", say the million people who are weighing us down the most, get executed.

Now, who gets to set the criteria...

Sure why not.

"Joy in the job puts perfection in the work." - Aristotle

I think you answered your own question on who gets to set the criteria:

"We get a panel of experts, and they judge everyone in the world using a series of carefully chosen criteria of usefulness to society."

(July 17, 2015 at 11:59 am)robvalue Wrote: Maybe it could be like "the weakest link". We get a panel of experts, and they judge everyone in the world using a series of carefully chosen criteria of usefulness to society.

Every year, the "weakest links", say the million people who are weighing us down the most, get executed.

Now, who gets to set the criteria...

Oh don't sound like you are so opposed to such a thing, now. Last I hear you liked the idea of a small panel judges deciding the fate of the people without any of the people's input.

Since the Superm court has be given the level of sainthood by the gay community, why stop them for doing the job?

(July 17, 2015 at 1:23 pm)Ace Wrote:

(July 17, 2015 at 11:59 am)robvalue Wrote: Maybe it could be like "the weakest link". We get a panel of experts, and they judge everyone in the world using a series of carefully chosen criteria of usefulness to society.

Every year, the "weakest links", say the million people who are weighing us down the most, get executed.

Now, who gets to set the criteria...

Oh don't sound like you are so opposed to such a thing, now.   Last I hear you liked the idea of a small panel judges deciding the  fate of the people without any of the people's input.

Since the Superm court has be given the level of sainthood by the gay community, why stop them for doing the job?  

HA HA!! Nicely put.

You are still missing the point. When you use one example of extinction to justify your position, all I need to do is use another example of extinction to justify mine. This is very basic. Your original point was based on the principle of the matter, and not on the utility of it. If you want to change your argument that is fine. But we need to drop this ridiculous notion that potential extinction is a viable reason to undermine the social utility of an entire group of people, and recognize instead that a number of factors are at work.

The IVF argument and the under population argument are in fact different. I am not accusing you solely of committing a fallacy of composition, I am accusing you of presenting a false narrative. The IVF argument is also not a fallacy of composition argument.