• "Spreading the ideas of freedom loving people on matters regarding metals, finance, politics, government and many other topics"

MILO DITCHES GAY RING

Son of Gloin

Certainty of death? What are we waiting for?
Midas Member
Midas Supporter ++
GIM Hall Of Fame
Joined
Apr 6, 2010
Messages
8,817
Reaction score
20,978
Location
USA
My assumptions are small potatoes compared with yours. I at least stick to what can be observed by everyone.
You’re not worth arguing with.
 

ds_mustang

Libertarian, Capitalist, Software-guy
Silver Miner
Joined
Apr 1, 2010
Messages
1,086
Reaction score
845
Care to show where I didn't? Pretty sure everything I said would be basic common sense for anyone that wasn't overly religiously biased.
 
Last edited:

RebelYell

Name no longer reflects my changed worldview.
Silver Miner
Joined
Apr 2, 2010
Messages
646
Reaction score
712
Care to show where I didn't? Pretty sure everything I said would be basic common sense for anyone that wasn't overly religiously biased.
"For most people gays are gay and straights are straight."

I think basic common sense is something about which nearly all people easily reach the same conclusion. So while your statement may be true here in the US today (and I'm not absolutely certain even that that is the case), I don't think it is true in all times and all places. So therefore it seems to me that this is not basic common sense at all.

"Gays can't decide to like the opposite sex just as you couldn't decide to like the same sex."

I have not been able to observe this at all. I haven't observed the opposite either. Nor have I tried to change my own sexual preference so I have no personal experience about whether it is possible to achieve a change or not. However there is considerable evidence that environmental factors such as sexual abuse and other experiences can indeed alter sexual preference. So, since it is clear that sexual preference can change at least under some circumstances, it would not surprise me if it were possible to, through a determined and protracted effort, effect a conscious change. We won't find out today, because - having removed any stigma - there is no reason for most people to make the effort - so how do we know if it is possible?

"What tends to happen is the attempt eventually fails,"
How do you know this is what tends to happen? I think you are simply relying on your subjective opinion. That doesn't mean you are wrong - but, without evidence in the form of a double blind randomly controlled trial (which might be impossible to even design in this case), you are just making an assumption here based on your personal experience, or anecdotal evidence, or some other unreliable dataset.

"but it fails after other people get involved and then entire families get destroyed."
Again - where is your evidence? There might be many people who successfully pull this off. My guess is that, if there were, most of them wouldn't say much about it, so you wouldn't tend to hear about them. You are simply making the assumption that this is not the case.

"The blame for the massive amounts of pain and misery caused to all involved rests at the feet of churches that can't just let people be the people that they are."
This too is a subjective point of view based entirely on your perspective. If you believe that homosexuality is a sin, or even just a practice which leads to a less fulfilling life, then attempting to persuade someone to stop sinning cannot be a blameworthy act. And in that case the blame for any subsequent misery falls on the sinner, not the church.

"Do you want your daughter marrying a man who was convinced to try to be straight?"
I would be concerned. I would also be concerned about my daughter marrying a reformed drug addict. However, should the man resume his bad habit, I wouldn't lay the blame for any subsequent unhappiness on whoever helped him quit drugs in the first place.
 
Last edited:

Son of Gloin

Certainty of death? What are we waiting for?
Midas Member
Midas Supporter ++
GIM Hall Of Fame
Joined
Apr 6, 2010
Messages
8,817
Reaction score
20,978
Location
USA
"For most people gays are gay and straights are straight."

I think basic common sense is something about which nearly all people easily reach the same conclusion. So while your statement may be true here in the US today (and I'm not absolutely certain even that that is the case), I don't think it is true in all times and all places. So therefore it seems to me that this is not basic common sense at all.

"Gays can't decide to like the opposite sex just as you couldn't decide to like the same sex."

I have not been able to observe this at all. I haven't observed the opposite either. Nor have I tried to change my own sexual preference so I have no personal experience about whether it is possible to achieve a change or not. However there is considerable evidence that environmental factors such as sexual abuse and other experiences can indeed alter sexual preference. So, since it is clear that sexual preference can change at least under some circumstances, it would not surprise me if it were possible to, through a determined and protracted effort, effect a conscious change. We won't find out today, because - having removed any stigma - there is no reason for most people to make the effort - so how do we know if it is possible?

"What tends to happen is the attempt eventually fails,"
How do you know this is what tends to happen? I think you are simply relying on your subjective opinion here. That doesn't mean you are wrong - but, without evidence in the form of a double blind randomly controlled trial (which might be impossible to even design in this case), you are just making an assumption here based on your personal experience or anecdotal evidence or some other unreliable dataset.

"but it fails after other people get involved and then entire families get destroyed."
Again - where is your evidence? There might be many people who successfully pull this off. My guess is that, if there were, most of them wouldn't say much about it so you wouldn't tend to hear about them. You are simply making the assumption that this is not the case.

"The blame for the massive amounts of pain and misery caused to all involved rests at the feet of churches that can't just let people be the people that they are."
This too is a subjective point of view based entirely on your perspective. If you believe that homosexuality is a sin, or even just a practice which leads to a less fulfilling life then attempting to persuade someone to stop sinning cannot be a blameworthy act. And in that case the blame for any subsequent misery falls on the sinner, not the church.

"Do you want your daughter marrying a man who was convinced to try to be straight?"
I would be concerned. I would also be concerned about my daughter marrying a reformed drug addict. However, should the man resume his bad habit, I wouldn't lay the blame for any subsequent unhappiness on whoever helped him quit drugs in the first place.
Good response, Rebel.
 

Casey Jones

Ridin' that train
Silver Miner
Joined
Apr 4, 2020
Messages
4,309
Reaction score
6,661
Location
Down the road from the Kaczynski ranch
How do you know that...nvm, don’t answer.
Close observation, and then plenty of reading.

Most homosexuals (both sexes) are RECRUITED by homosexual adults. We all learn our sexual tastes in our formative years. I can really appreciate the beauty of a green-eyed, redheaded Celtic lass with her strong chin and slender build...but I seem to always wind up with tall, corn-fed brunettes. I trace it back to junior high, and Big Sue. She wasn't fat, there was just so much of her...and since then I've been with two similar women for long periods. It seems to just happen, but that's not true. I'm making it happen, subconsciously.

I had a friend, white, who had this fixation on black women. Me, I'd rather chop it off than get intimate with a black one; but he was the opposite. He grew up in the ghetto - not poor; his grandfather built the house when the area was ritzy. It stayed in the family, but by the time Rob was an adolescent, the area was 100-percent black.

Except for his family and one other. The house was comfortable, it was paid for, everyone knew Rob's family were marksmen who shot competitively...so they had ghetto cred, even being white. They were left alone, except that Rob got his first, first dozen, and most of his sexual experience and contact with black girls.

He later married one, and that went about like you'd expect. Fifteen years later, divorced, he drank himself to death.

Point is...libido is natural, but how it's channeled is LEARNED. Improper socialization and adaption, leads to flaws in behavior.

Such as homosexuality.

Those who disagree...save me the flames. We know all about the Gay Gene. It's obvious when you're using a face diaper that doesn't stop dust but catches all that nastybad corona-virus, where and what that mythical Gay Gene is.

I've read the books, on behavioral psychology, and I've seen things in real life that reinforce my conclusions. And I have no time for Politically-Correct Narrative.
 

Ensoniq

Midas Member
Midas Member
Sr Midas Supporter +++
Joined
Apr 9, 2013
Messages
9,733
Reaction score
20,720
Location
North Carolina
Lot of deep thinking here. Seems the age old argument of nature vs nurture. I joke around but really couldn’t care what people do as long as they leave me alone and don’t PEDO or get into no consent conflicts
 

Rollie Free

Midas Member
Midas Member
Site Supporter
Joined
Mar 31, 2010
Messages
6,342
Reaction score
7,879
Location
Nebraska
Nature will not be denied - not in large numbers.

Homosexuals are deeply disturbed. WHY, is a question we should be asking, but dare not. Are they disturbed because they're homosexual?...or homosexual because they're mentally aberrant?

Nonetheless, homosexuality denies both natural urges and survival traits. It has NEVER been mainstreamed; and societies that moved to make it admirable, quickly collapsed. Where is Sparta today? Even Rome, which tolerated it in their legions, disappeared in a smoking pile for 700 years until the Renaissance.

We'll be no different.
One of the reality problems with do what you want as long as it doesn't involve me kind of thinking. Casey Jones is right, and its a highly important point. Societies that embrace sexual deviancy collapse.
How does that work in the 'do your own thing' mentality. We do not live on islands.
 

Goldhedge

Moderator
Site Mgr
Midas Supporter
GIM Hall Of Fame
Joined
Mar 28, 2010
Messages
58,653
Reaction score
117,375
Location
Rocky Mountains
We all learn our sexual tastes in our formative years.
Which is why they insist that kids can decide for themselves.

I don't ever recall even thinking of sex at such an early age.

In 2nd grade I sure liked that blond-haired Pamala however....
 

specsaregood

Silver Member
Silver Miner
Joined
Mar 31, 2010
Messages
1,667
Reaction score
2,556
Gays can't decide to like the opposite sex just as you couldn't decide to like the same sex.
If that was completely true, then you wouldn't have the problem of gay men having babies the natural way.
And while it might be true that you can't help who you are attracted to, you can certainly decide whether to act on your impulses; people in monogamous relationships do that ever single day.
 

ds_mustang

Libertarian, Capitalist, Software-guy
Silver Miner
Joined
Apr 1, 2010
Messages
1,086
Reaction score
845
"For most people gays are gay and straights are straight."

I think basic common sense is something about which nearly all people easily reach the same conclusion. So while your statement may be true here in the US today (and I'm not absolutely certain even that that is the case), I don't think it is true in all times and all places. So therefore it seems to me that this is not basic common sense at all.
Luckily I'm not trying to make an argument across time and space, I'm making simple points about life today in the US.

"Gays can't decide to like the opposite sex just as you couldn't decide to like the same sex."

I have not been able to observe this at all. I haven't observed the opposite either. Nor have I tried to change my own sexual preference so I have no personal experience about whether it is possible to achieve a change or not. However there is considerable evidence that environmental factors such as sexual abuse and other experiences can indeed alter sexual preference. So, since it is clear that sexual preference can change at least under some circumstances, it would not surprise me if it were possible to, through a determined and protracted effort, effect a conscious change. We won't find out today, because - having removed any stigma - there is no reason for most people to make the effort - so how do we know if it is possible?

What a word salad of wishy-washy nonsense. For someone that is just as sexually attracted to men as they are to women, then I concede that my entire argument doesn't hold. I can't appeal to the "common experience" of people that don't experience sexual attraction for only one sex or the other. So if you're into men as much as you are women, or can't admit that you do in fact prefer one over the other and wouldn't be happy if you were forced to be with the gender you don't prefer, then we don't have the common ground to discuss this and you can ignore my post. Everything else in my post follows from the above critical point, so if we can't agree here there's no point going further. However I will say I don't think "sexually attracted to any gender" is the common experience of the vast majority of people, and the typical person was my target audience.
 

ds_mustang

Libertarian, Capitalist, Software-guy
Silver Miner
Joined
Apr 1, 2010
Messages
1,086
Reaction score
845
If that was completely true, then you wouldn't have the problem of gay men having babies the natural way.
And while it might be true that you can't help who you are attracted to, you can certainly decide whether to act on your impulses; people in monogamous relationships do that ever single day.
Of course, gays can get women pregnant, but that doesn't mean they're happy in their situation (or that the woman is happy with a man who is pretending). And gays can decide not act on their impulses and pretend to be straight. And that's what most of them used to do. And it often led to unhappy marriages and otherwise damaged homes which was exactly my point. As we live in a culture that is now generally tolerant/accepting of gays, IMO it's better for gays to be honest about who they are rather than hurt other people pretending to be what they're not. Honestly, who could disagree with that?
 
Last edited:

Goldhedge

Moderator
Site Mgr
Midas Supporter
GIM Hall Of Fame
Joined
Mar 28, 2010
Messages
58,653
Reaction score
117,375
Location
Rocky Mountains
Then again, there is the 'innie' and the 'outie'...

Meaning the human body wasn't designed to have things go into where they're supposed to go out.

That and it smells like shit.
 

ds_mustang

Libertarian, Capitalist, Software-guy
Silver Miner
Joined
Apr 1, 2010
Messages
1,086
Reaction score
845
Then again, there is the 'innie' and the 'outie'...

Meaning the human body wasn't designed to have things go into where they're supposed to go out.

That and it smells like shit.
If you don't like anal sex, don't have anal sex. Last I heard it wasn't just a gay thing.
 
Last edited:

specsaregood

Silver Member
Silver Miner
Joined
Mar 31, 2010
Messages
1,667
Reaction score
2,556
Of course, gays can get women pregnant, but that doesn't mean they're happy in their situation (or that the woman is happy with a man who is pretending). And gays can decide not act on their impulses and pretend to be straight. And that's what most of them used to do. And it often led to unhappy marriages and otherwise damaged homes which was exactly my point. As we live in a culture that is now generally tolerant/accepting of gays, IMO it's better for gays to be honest about who they are rather than hurt other people pretending to be what they're not. Honestly, who could disagree with that?
Some gays; might find that they value the benefits of male/female partnership. And i don't mean sex necessarily; but women and men are different and bring different things to a relationship. It might be worth it to them to have a traditional marriage, worth more than sex with other men. I wouldn't know though; and I dont really care what others do.
 

ds_mustang

Libertarian, Capitalist, Software-guy
Silver Miner
Joined
Apr 1, 2010
Messages
1,086
Reaction score
845
Some gays; might find that they value the benefits of male/female partnership. And i don't mean sex necessarily; but women and men are different and bring different things to a relationship. It might be worth it to them to have a traditional marriage, worth more than sex with other men. I wouldn't know though; and I dont really care what others do.
Sounds great, at least if everyone is being honest with each other and knows what they're getting into. Would be a problem if one person is into it for friendship and the other for romantic reasons and doesn't know the situation. The issue isn't the arrangement--anything is fine between consenting adults IMO--the issue is honesty. People can't properly consent when there isn't honesty and they don't know what is going on.
 

specsaregood

Silver Member
Silver Miner
Joined
Mar 31, 2010
Messages
1,667
Reaction score
2,556
Sounds great, at least if everyone is being honest with each other and knows what they're getting into. Would be a problem if one person is into it for friendship and the other for romantic reasons and doesn't know the situation. The issue isn't the arrangement--anything is fine between consenting adults IMO--the issue is honesty. People can't properly consent when there isn't honesty and they don't know what is going on.
absolutely, honesty should be a given no matter the relationship.
 

RebelYell

Name no longer reflects my changed worldview.
Silver Miner
Joined
Apr 2, 2010
Messages
646
Reaction score
712
Luckily I'm not trying to make an argument across time and space, I'm making simple points about life today in the US.
But you are trying to make an argument across time and space. When you say something is "basic common sense" then it must hold true across time and space. If it does not do so, then it is not "basic common sense".
What a word salad of wishy-washy nonsense. For someone that is just as sexually attracted to men as they are to women, then I concede that my entire argument doesn't hold.
There is nothing in my argument about people who are attracted to both genders - I'm not sure where you got that from. My argument is that you are asserting certain statements as "true", without good evidence for those assertions. In this case I was picking up on this statement: "Gays can't decide to like the opposite sex just as you couldn't decide to like the same sex". In my view this statement is an assumption. Of course it may be true. But it may not be either. My argument was merely that we do know, for example, that homosexual child abuse appears to lead to a much higher chance of someone becoming a homosexual later in life. This implies that some people who would otherwise have been straight have become gay because of an environmental factor - that sexual preference can change under some circumstances. There were other examples provided on this thread (e.g. women in prison). So my contention is that, given that we know that some events appear to be able to influence straight people to become gay, or gay people to become straight, it seems to me that, without strong evidence, one shouldn't rule out conscious choice as being able to have the same effect. Evidence that would be very hard to obtain - and that you don't have - or at least haven't offered. And if you lack such evidence, your statement is no more than an assumption based on your subjective judgment.

Note I'm not saying your assumption is definitely wrong. I'm just saying it is an assumption. That's all. I might choose to agree with your assumption, or I might choose to disagree with it. Since I don't have any good evidence either, whichever position I took would also be an assumption.

And the reason I'm pointing out that it is an assumption is because if two people make contradictory assumptions then further discussion of consequences is pointless until the resolve the disagreement about the underlying assumptions.
 
Last edited:

ds_mustang

Libertarian, Capitalist, Software-guy
Silver Miner
Joined
Apr 1, 2010
Messages
1,086
Reaction score
845
But you are trying to make an argument across time and space. When you say something is "basic common sense" then it must hold true across time and space. If it does not do so, then it is not "basic common sense".

There is nothing in my argument about people who are attracted to bothe genders - I'm not sure where you got that from. My argument is that you are asserting certain statements as "true", without good evidence for those assertions. In this case I was picking up on this statement: "Gays can't decide to like the opposite sex just as you couldn't decide to like the same sex". In my view this statement is one great big assumption without any good evidence to support it. Of course it may be true. But it may not be either. My argument was merely that we do know, for example, that homosexual child abuse appears to lead to a much higher chance of someone becoming a homosexual later in life, and that this therefore implies that sexual preference can change under some circumstances. There were other examples provided on this thread (e.g. women in prison). So my contention is that, given that we know that some events appear to be able to influence straight people to become gy, or gay people to become straight, it seems to me that one shouldn't rule out conscious choice as being able to have the same effect without strong evidence. Evidence that would be very hard to obatain - and you don't have. And if you lack such evidence, your statement is no mopre than an assumption based on your subjective judgment.

Note I'm not saying your assumption is definitely wrong. I'm just saying it is an assumption. That's all.
It's an assumption based on common experience. Ask 100 people and you'll probably get 95 that agree they are sexually attracted to just one gender. Based on that common experience, what I said is "common sense" true. People aren't going to be happy if they are forced into situations that don't fit them. That ends up causing problems for everyone involved. What "evidence" do you need? Want to hear the stories from people I personally know? I'd be surprised if you don't know people yourself with similar experiences. And it's ridiculous that such things are still happening when they don't have to... if churches would just mind their own business rather than convincing people to try things that quite often lead to heartbreak and misery. None of the things you're talking about actually refutes what I'm saying here. What does it matter how someone became gay for example? That's completely irrelevant. And people in prison... you think they are happy there and doing what they would choose to do? Again an irrelevant point. Word-salad nonsense.

It's a side issue but common sense is not time invariant. Everyone knows what is common sense today is not what common sense was even a few decades ago (let alone 100 years ago). I have no clue why you're saying otherwise.
 
Last edited:

RebelYell

Name no longer reflects my changed worldview.
Silver Miner
Joined
Apr 2, 2010
Messages
646
Reaction score
712
Of course, gays can get women pregnant, but that doesn't mean they're happy in their situation (or that the woman is happy with a man who is pretending). And gays can decide not act on their impulses and pretend to be straight. And that's what most of them used to do. And it often led to unhappy marriages and otherwise damaged homes which was exactly my point. As we live in a culture that is now generally tolerant/accepting of gays, IMO it's better for gays to be honest about who they are rather than hurt other people pretending to be what they're not. Honestly, who could disagree with that?
Nobody. But that's not a complete list of choices, and nor are you describing the situation that started this thread.

What you are describing certainly happened in the past, but in many cases the individual involved may have made a decision to hide his sexcual preference without a decision to change it. I believe that the two things might be different. You are also describing a situation where the man in question likely did not honestly disclose his situation to his partner prior to marriage. I also believe that dishonesty leads to unhappiness, and would suggest that it may well be the primary cause of unhappiness in this situation.
 

RebelYell

Name no longer reflects my changed worldview.
Silver Miner
Joined
Apr 2, 2010
Messages
646
Reaction score
712
It's an assumption based on common experience. Ask 100 people and you'll probably get 95 that agree they are sexually attracted to just one gender.
Sure. But your stated assumption wasn't that 95% of people are attracted to one gender. It was that people couldn't decide to change which gender they're attracted to. That's a different assumption.


Based on that common experience, what I said is "common sense" true. People aren't going to be happy if they are forced into situations that don't fit them. That ends up causing problems for everyone involved. What "evidence" do you need?
I don't especially want any evidence. My point is merely that, without evidence, you are making an assumption. That is the entirety of my point.
Want to hear the stories from people I personally know?
I accept that you have such stories. However they are merely that - stories - anecdotal evidence. And, as such, they fall far short of proof. And your assumptions remain assumptions.

I'd be surprised if you don't know people yourself with similar experiences. And it's ridiculous that such things are still happening when they don't have to...
But that conclusion rests on your assumptions. If your assumptions turn out to be wrong, then so does your conclusion.

if churches would just mind their own business rather than convincing people to try things that quite often lead to heartbreak and misery.
As I pointed out in an earlier response - the same argument could be applied to helping people quit drugs. Think of all the damage such people do if they fall back into their addiction. Is that a good reason not to help people quit in the first place?

None of the things you're talking about actually refutes what I'm saying here. What does it matter how someone became gay for example? That's completely irrelevant.
It seems to me that if it is possible for sexual preference to be altered by any means then it is more likely that it might also be able to be altered by conscious choice. And thus, evidence that sexual preference can indeed be altered at all seems to me relevant to the likelihood that it can be altered through conscious choice.

And people in prison... you think they are happy there and doing what they would choose to do? Again an irrelevant point. Word-salad nonsense.
No it's not irrelevant for the same reason as above. If sexual preference can be altered by any means then I think that means that it is more likely to be alterable by conscious choice. It is not proof that it can be altered by conscious choice and I am not arguing that it is. All I am arguing is that your position that it cannot be so altered is an assumption.
It's a side issue but common sense is not time invariant. Everyone knows what is common sense today is not what common sense was even a few decades ago (let alone 100 years ago). I have no clue why you're saying otherwise.
I'm saying otherwise because that implies to me that what you are calling "common sense" is not common sense at all. "Generally accepted" or "common knowledge" is something entirely different from common sense. And "common knowledge", more specifically "what everyone knows everyone else knows" i.e. the perception of common knowledge is a well known mechanism for the propagation of fallacious ideas. Which is rather the point of "The Emperor's New Clothes". Everyone can see the emperor has no clothes. Common sense tells you the emperor has no clothes. But everyone also believes that everyone else believes the emperor has clothes. And therefore they fool themselves into the same belief, or at least hide their opinion from others for fear of holding a different opinion from everyone else. Common sense remains constant and points at the truth. Common knowledge changes frequently and often does not point at the truth.
 

ds_mustang

Libertarian, Capitalist, Software-guy
Silver Miner
Joined
Apr 1, 2010
Messages
1,086
Reaction score
845
Sure. But your stated assumption wasn't that 95% of people are attracted to one gender. It was that people couldn't decide to change which gender they're attracted to. That's a different assumption.



I don't especially want any evidence. My point is merely that, without evidence, you are making an assumption. That is the entirety of my point.

I accept that you have such stories. However they are merely that - stories - anecdotal evidence. And, as such, they fall far short of proof. And your assumptions remain assumptions.


But that conclusion rests on your assumptions. If your assumptions turn out to be wrong, then so does your conclusion.


As I pointed out in an earlier response - the same argument could be applied to helping people quit drugs. Think of all the damage such people do if they fall back into their addiction. Is that a good reason not to help people quit in the first place?


It seems to me that if it is possible for sexual preference to be altered by any means then it is more likely that it might also be able to be altered by conscious choice. And thus, evidence that sexual preference can indeed be altered at all seems to me relevant to the likelihood that it can be altered through conscious choice.


No it's not irrelevant for the same reason as above. If sexual preference can be altered by any means then I think that means that it is more likely to be alterable by conscious choice. It is not proof that it can be altered by conscious choice and I am not arguing that it is. All I am arguing is that your position that it cannot be so altered is an assumption.

I'm saying otherwise because that implies to me that what you are calling "common sense" is not common sense at all. "Generally accepted" or "common knowledge" is something entirely different from common sense. And "common knowledge", more specifically "what everyone knows everyone else knows" i.e. the perception of common knowledge is a well known mechanism for the propagation of fallacious ideas. Which is rather the point of "The Emperor's New Clothes". Everyone can see the emperor has no clothes. Common sense tells you the emperor has no clothes. But everyone also believes that everyone else believes the emperor has clothes. And therefore they fool themselves into the same belief, or at least hide their opinion from others for fear of holding a different opinion from everyone else. Common sense remains constant and points at the truth. Common knowledge changes frequently and often does not point at the truth.
I'm not proving anything, I'm stating a rational, common sense point of view. You just (apparently) don't like my comment somehow so you throw up a wall of text... I suppose to say that you've responded? But nothing you've said actually invalidates anything I've said and most of it isn't even relevant. I'll leave it to the reader to decide who is making sense and who is full of noise without substance.
 

RebelYell

Name no longer reflects my changed worldview.
Silver Miner
Joined
Apr 2, 2010
Messages
646
Reaction score
712
I'm not proving anything, I'm stating a rational, common sense point of view. You just (apparently) don't like my comment somehow so you throw up a wall of text... I suppose to say that you've responded? But nothing you've said actually invalidates anything I've said and most of it isn't even relevant. I'll leave it to the reader to decide who is making sense and who is full of noise without substance.
I don't mind your comments at all and I don't have any problem with you. However your argument is not entirely rational.

I'm pointing out that your argument rests on assumptions (I pointed this out because you claimed it didn't), and that it lacks perfect rationality.

Specifically you are assuming that:
1. People cannot choose to alter their sexual preference.
2. Homosexuality is morally equivalent to heterosexuality.

In addition you are
3. Confusing common sense with common knowledge.

I am simply pointing out that
- (1) and (2) are assumptions and that therefore you will never resolve your discussion with anyone who does not agree with your assumptions.
- (3) is a failure of logic and therefore renders part of your argument irrational.

I have also been very careful to point out that none of this necessarily makes your conclusion inavlid, but it does mean that you have failed to logically prove your argument since you have failed to offer evidence for your assumptions, except for a claim that "everyone knows" which is clearly logically fallacious.
 

ds_mustang

Libertarian, Capitalist, Software-guy
Silver Miner
Joined
Apr 1, 2010
Messages
1,086
Reaction score
845
I don't mind your comments at all and I don't have any problem with you. However your argument is not entirely rational.

I'm pointing out that your argument rests on assumptions (I pointed this out because you claimed it didn't), and that it lacks perfect rationality.

Specifically you are assuming that:
1. People cannot choose to alter their sexual preference.
2. Homosexuality is morally equivalent to heterosexuality.

In addition you are
3. Confusing common sense with common knowledge.

I am simply pointing out that
- (1) and (2) are assumptions and that therefore you will never resolve your discussion with anyone who does not agree with your assumptions.
- (3) is a failure of logic and therefore renders part of your argument irrational.

I have also been very careful to point out that none of this necessarily makes your conclusion inavlid, but it does mean that you have failed to logically prove your argument since you have failed to offer evidence for your assumptions, except for a claim that "everyone knows" which is clearly logically fallacious.
Yes, I'm making those two assumptions and I'll point out they are the dominant views today. It's entirely reasonable to call that common sense, as that's exactly what "common sense" literally means. If you want to disagree, I don't really care as it's a semantic quibble I'm not interested in (and I wouldn't think anyone else would be either). A sematic quibble isn't remotely a "failure of logic" nor does it render my point irrational. If you want to think so, good for you, you're probably alone in that.
 

RebelYell

Name no longer reflects my changed worldview.
Silver Miner
Joined
Apr 2, 2010
Messages
646
Reaction score
712
Yes, I'm making those two assumptions and I'll point out they are the dominant views today. It's entirely reasonable to call that common sense, as that's exactly what "common sense" means.
No it isn't. That's what "common knowledge" means. Common knowledge is very different from common sense.

If you want to disagree, I don't really care as it's a semantic quibble
No it's not a semantic quibble. Common sense implies that it is correct. Common knowledge merely implies that most people believe it which isn't the same thing at all.

I'm not interested in (and I wouldn't think anyone else would be either). A sematic quibble isn't remotely a "failure of logic"
A semantic quibble may not be a failure of logic. But arguing that something is true because "everyone knows it" is exactly and precisely a failure of logic.

nor does it render my point irrational. If you want to think so, good for you, you're probably alone in that.
Yes it does render your point irrational, because rationality implies logic, and "everyone knows" is not logic and therefore irrational.

In essence your entire argument boils down to "everyone knows this". That is not a rational argument at all - it's the opposite. And history shows that what "everyone knows" is frequently completely wrong.
 
Last edited:

ds_mustang

Libertarian, Capitalist, Software-guy
Silver Miner
Joined
Apr 1, 2010
Messages
1,086
Reaction score
845
No it isn't. That's what "common knowledge" means. Common knowledge is very different from common sense.


No it's not a semantic quibble. Common sense implies that it is correct. Common knowledge merely implies that most people believe it which isn't the same thing at all.


A semantic quibble may not be a failure of logic. But arguing that something is true because "everyone knows it" is exactly and precisely a failure of logic.


Yes it does render your point irrational, because rationality implies logic, and "everyone knows" is not logic and therefore irrational.

In essence your entire argument boils down to "everyone knows this". That is not a rational argument at all - it's the opposite. And history shows that what "everyone knows" is frequently completely wrong.
You can say you don't agree with my assumptions, and therefore don't accept the argument--that's completely fair. If you want to say I'm being irrational, you're simply wrong but I don't care enough to try to argue with you/educate you. And yes, I'm saying something that "everyone knows," at least if they agree with my assumptions and think about it. Hence, why I've been saying it's common sense.
 

RebelYell

Name no longer reflects my changed worldview.
Silver Miner
Joined
Apr 2, 2010
Messages
646
Reaction score
712
You can say you don't agree with my assumptions, and therefore don't accept the argument--that's completely fair. If you want to say I'm being irrational, you're simply wrong but I don't care enough to try to argue with you/educate you. And yes, I'm saying something that "everyone knows," at least if they agree with my assumptions and think about it. Hence, why I've been saying it's common sense.
My discussion with you started entirely on the basis of your claim that your assumptions could be observed by everyone. My claim is that they can't. No-one is able to observe that people cannot change their sex through conscious choice. The fact that "everyone" (your claim) knows that this is the case is not a rational argument - it's simply a statement which rests on nothing but your assertion that "everyone knows it". That is an example of a well known logical fallacy known as argumentum ad populum, usually translated as "appeal to common belief" or "bandwagon fallacy". See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argumentum_ad_populum. When your argument rests on a logical fallacy it is correctly described as irrational.
 
Last edited:

ds_mustang

Libertarian, Capitalist, Software-guy
Silver Miner
Joined
Apr 1, 2010
Messages
1,086
Reaction score
845
My discussion with you started entirely on the basis of your claim that your assumptions could be observed by everyone. My claim is that they can't. No-one is able to observe that people cannot change their sex through conscious choice. The fact that "everyone" (your claim) knows that this is the case is not a rational argument - it's simply a statement which rests on nothing but your assertion that "everyone knows it". That is an example of a well known logical fallacy known as argumentum ad populum, usually translated as "appeal to common belief" or "bandwagon fallacy". See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argumentum_ad_populum. When your argument rests on a logical fallacy it is correctly described as irrational.
No, my argument is not a bandwagon fallacy. I give the reasons for my argument right in my original comment and at no point does it make a bandwagon appeal. It argues from logical conclusions drawn from its assumptions. You're free to not accept the assumptions (as you've repeatedly said you don't), but there is no fallacy with the logic. If you're going to prattle on about logical fallacies and irrationalities, you should have a clue what you're talking about first.

Our disagreement is on assumptions. You don't accept my commonly held assumptions. That's fine, I'm not going to try to convince you otherwise. But you should at least admit the assumptions are commonly held and the logic follows from them.
 

RebelYell

Name no longer reflects my changed worldview.
Silver Miner
Joined
Apr 2, 2010
Messages
646
Reaction score
712
No, my argument is not a bandwagon fallacy. I give the reasons for my argument right in my original comment and at no point does it make a bandwagon appeal. It argues from logical conclusions drawn from its assumptions. You're free to not accept the assumptions (as you've repeatedly said you don't), but there is no fallacy with the logic. If you're going to prattle on about logical fallacies and irrationalities, you should have a clue what you're talking about first.

Our disagreement is on assumptions. You don't accept my commonly held assumptions. That's fine, I'm not going to try to convince you otherwise. But you should at least admit the assumptions are commonly held and the logic follows from them.

1. My dispute with you stemmed from this statement: "My assumptions are small potatoes compared with yours. I at least stick to what can be observed by everyone." If you are now prepared to agree that your assumptions actually cannot be observed, but instead are simply things which you believe that "everyone believes to be true", then - yes - the main reason for our disagreement is resolved.

2. I am not sure whether your assumptions are commonly held or not. They don't appear to be commonly held on this board - but that may not be a fair test.

3. I do agree that some of your argument flows from your assumptions, although I am skeptical that your blaming churches for any misery consequent upon an attempt to convince a homosexual to alter his sexual preference is entirely logical.

4. Your argument is a bandwagon fallacy. You have made several assumptions upon which you have based your argument and when asked, you have justifued those assumptions by saying "everyone knows" them. I cannot think of a clearer example of a bandwagon fallacy. You cannot defend an argument as rational by simply taking a part of it and saying "well this part is rational" if it rests upon a fallacious foundation.
 

ds_mustang

Libertarian, Capitalist, Software-guy
Silver Miner
Joined
Apr 1, 2010
Messages
1,086
Reaction score
845
1. My dispute with you stemmed from this statement: "My assumptions are small potatoes compared with yours. I at least stick to what can be observed by everyone." If you are now prepared to agree that your assumptions actually cannot be observed, but instead are simply things which you believe that "everyone believes to be true", then - yes - the main reason for our disagreement is resolved.
I believe my assumptions can be observed by everyone. I can certainly observe in myself that I cannot choose to be attracted to men. If you don't want to accept that as a nearly universally observed assumption, bully for you. I don't care what excuses you make to yourself to avoid the obvious. If you don't accept my assumptions then you won't accept my argument--I accept that. Someone that was attracted to men and women and could choose between them might not accept the assumption either. But again I don't think that's the common case.

4. Your argument is a bandwagon fallacy. You have made several assumptions upon which you have based your argument and when asked, you have justifued those assumptions by saying "everyone knows" them. I cannot think of a clearer example of a bandwagon fallacy. You cannot defend an argument as rational by simply taking a part of it and saying "well this part is rational" if it rests upon a fallacious foundation.
That is incorrect. My assumptions are supported by the claim that they are widely held, but the assumptions are the ASSUMED part of the argument. That's why they are called ASSUMPTIONS. That's why I'm simply saying if you don't accept the assumptions, then fine, you won't accept the ARGUMENT. But my argument logically follows from the assumptions. My argument isn't a bandwagon logical fallacy because I'm not making a bandwagon claim as the argument. Do you understand the difference between an argument that uses a bandwagon fallacy and assumptions that appeal to popular opinion but aren't an argument so no fallacy applies? Assumptions should be generally held by all involved, that's the point of assumptions as they are not argued but assumed.

A bandwagon fallacy might be "churches suck because everyone knows churches are bad and hurt gays." My argument uses the assumptions (people can't choose who they are attracted to, and gays are now generally accepted in society, both of which I think are a widely held beliefs) to argue that some churches unnecessarily cause harm to gays and people around them. There is an additional (implied) assumption there that unnecessary harm is bad and should be avoided. But you could just as easily claim causing harm might be good and reject that widely believed assumption as well. You might reject the assumption based on the belief harm today is better than hell tomorrow. There all sorts of reasons some people might not accept my assumptions. But the ARGUMENT is sound. And the assumptions are commonly held beliefs (common sense), not some outrageous assumptions.

I'm generally not interested in debating assumptions because they boil down to arguing about core beliefs which were never built via rational argument in the first place and are difficult to impossible to debate rationally. Honestly, do you think someone that believes in a literal hell is going to accept a rational argument that they are being superstitious? I don't think so.
 
Last edited: