Supreme Court Same Sex Marriage Argumet

[Anima]

Your first block of post is worthless in relation to #2 of you previous response.

2.  Fallacy of a Single Cause:  Similar to the first interpretation of the fallacy you point out it may be said that we never contended homosexuality was the single cause of extinction.  Rather it was the cause to which the focus of our inquiry was directed.  It may readily be said that any number of causes of extinction exists and that we would "undermine" all such causes due to the negative consequence that follows from them.  Thus, choking, stabbing, beating, burning, starving, skinning, infecting, drowning, electrocuting, and so forth as various causes of killing of people are denigrated due to the negative consequence.  It is further recognized the "undermining" of the causes is not limited to the agent, but most definitively in terms of its negative objective consequence.  Choking, stabbing, beating, burning, starving... is bad whether caused by an inanimate object or as the volitional act of an animate object if it results in the death of a person.  Thus, The existence of many causes does not invalidate the negative of a particular cause.  We may readily admit over-consumption leading to extinction is bad, while still maintain it is not the focus of our discussion and its impact as an alternative cause of extinction does not serve to eliminate recognition of other causes of extinction that are the focus of discussion.

How so? The second bullet of my previous post was to say just because there are other causes of extinction is to not say we may not argue or discuss a particular source's tendency to extinction. My first block of post then proceeds to show how my argument proceeds form the orientation to the act which is oriented to a particular resultant than if normalized (made universal) leads a to an extinctive outcome. Thus, my first block of the last post is in keeping with the #2 of my preceding posts, which is in keeping with my initial argument.

To the second block, I am endeavoring to show you that valuations based on plausibility are a bad idea.  When you need to invoke the boogeyman to make a point, your point is probably not a good one to begin with.  If it is a good one, it is not because you invoked the boogeyman.

And I am saying your effort to state my valuation is logically fallacious were not successful. My argument uses the logical methodology of reducto ad absurdum (one of the few methods of logical argument that is not a fallacy) to make poignant that act which are deemed bad are deemed so either in regards to sentiment (which we would say is insufficient justification) or the logical resultant of outcomes when made universal. Once again, my argument proceeds form the orientation to the act which is oriented to a particular resultant than if normalized (made universal) leads a to an extinctive outcome. Something you tried to dispute by means of an externality which does not logically follow as exhibited in arguments #2 and #3.

Now if you are arguing we should not say something is bad based on the logical outcome (that which everyone is calling slippery slope and you are calling a boogeyman) than we are left in a situation where either nothing may be determined as bad (since every act when committed was done based on speculation of an outcome which may not be used to evaluate the badness of the act) or in a situation where even things which are good are considered bad because they are intrinsically bad while being extrinsically good. (For example surgery inflicts harm upon the body with the intention to avoid a more serious potential harm. If we cannot evaluate the act in consideration of the potential than we may only say the act of surgery is harmful especially since we may not evaluate the potential harm as an actual harm if it were avoided.)

To the third block.  It was a different scenario.  Following my recognition that it was a different scenario, I included it in your argument and pointed out that it is still a point that is wildly speculative.  Basically, my response to the response you gave me was already found in my previous post.

In regards to my third block. It seemed to me that you were missing the point of my argument due to the setting or scenario of my argument (which was a superflous addition to add context). So I decided to distill it for you as well as the arguments you were making in response as:

1. Orientation (same sex) -> Act (same sex) -> Particular Act Result (lack of conception) -> Universal Act Result (extinction due to lack of conception)

2. Orientation (opp sex) -> Act (opp sex) -> Particular Act Result (conception) -> Universal Act (over-consumption) -> Universal Result (extinction due to over consumption)

3. Orientation (opp sex) -> Act (same sex) -> Particular Act Result (lack of conception) -> Act IVF (hetero) -> Particular Act Result (conception) -> Universal Act Result (continuation by conception).

Not only will you find my #1 is in keeping with the underlying logic of my initial argument in regards to biology, you will also see that it follows logically from the orientation to the universal resultant of said orientation in such a manner as to be applicable to a myriad of settings/scenarios as the means by which we may objectively determine an act as wrong (without being limited to the subject of same sex). For example:

4. Orientation (killer) -> Act (killing) -> Particular Act Result (killing death of a person) -> Universal Act Result (extinction due to the killing death of people).

Your limitation of the argument as "wildly speculative" is based solely on your sentiment of what is reasonable rather than stringent application of the logic of the argument to its universal conclusion. In making this statement I of course assume you recognize the negative nature of the particular act result (lack of conception in #1 and killing death of a person #4), but you do not want to believe the normalization of the particular to a more poignant universal, while being unable to provide a reason within the logic chain. Hence in your arguments #2 and #3 you introduce a secondary act which does not follow from the orientation. Inclusion of the setting/scenario allowed you to endeavor to make this claim was part of the logical chain. Removal of the scenario while maintaining the logical argument underneath exhibits it is not part of the logical chain.

Your final block of text is also largely irrelevant.  A pandemic would be a terrible way to justify your case.  Your case rests on a disproportionate amount of heterosexuals dying.  If a pandemic occurred, and mainly heterosexuals were dying, then we would be truly lucky to have a population of homosexuals that are not dying off.  One because it may mean we could depend on them to continue our existence, and two because we could learn about possible variations in their lifestyle that allow them to avoid contact with the disease.

Historical cases like disease all support having a diverse arrangement of lifestyles.

The thing is, there are dozens of ways of pointing out why your argument sucks.  You just forced me to provide a different line of reasoning as to why it sucks.  It's really not interesting to go through the laundry list of specific examples that show why it is a bad argument though.

Ha ha. I think you are being very liberal with the meaning of lifestyles. Disease encourages people to dispersed rather than centralized and to engage in a cleanly lifestyle rather than a diversity of lifestyles. But I like the spin.

The setting of a pandemic is not irrelevant nor does it rest on disproportional amount of heterosexuals dying (the disease is held to kill indiscriminate of orientation, though such may not be said of all diseases where several are known to have a higher rate of infection and death in homos than heteros. To my knowledge there is no disease which has a higher rate of infection and mortality in heteros than homos. If you know of one I would be interested to hear about it so I can read up on it).

Rather it endeavors to utilize the illustrate of valuation in relation to scarcity. The arguments presented by yourself, pink beard, and others of not hurting anyone are contingent on their being a sufficient abundance of hetero persons to compensate for the harm cause by infertile, elderly, and homo persons. The setting of a pandemics which have occurred is to show that such a contingent assumption is not valid and to further illustrate they are harmful though sufficient benefit is derived by the rest to offset that harm.

However, it seems that whenever I introduce a scenario you get stuck more on the scenario than the underlying argument. So I will say let us stick to argument #1 above and leave our setting or scenarios so that we do not get confused.