The new acceptance of sodomy

[Wozza]

Wozza:

I wasn’t drawing a conclusion. I was confirming that which had been admitted:

Bradski: Do you believe that there is a valid connection between homosexuality and the rape of young children?

Miserere: Yes. An 87% correlation indicates as much.

Nice try. Let’s see if it’s valid:

X: "Do you believe that there is a valid connection between ‘being alive’ and ‘the rape of young children’?

Y: “Yes. An 100% correlation indicates as much.”

Great. So… by the way you’re working the logic, “being alive” means “you’re a child rapist.” See the lapse of logic there?

Thinker beat me to it. You are pointing out (incorrectly) the fallacy in Miserere’s post. I say incorrectly because you are saying that everyone alive must be a child rapist. Whereas the correct deduction would be:

100% of those who assault children are alive.

To use Miserere’s example, what she meant and what she confirmed she meant was that:

87% of those who assault children are homosexual.

 

[goout]

MiserereMeiDei:

But arguing after the Church’s definition is rendered is no longer good faith, but childish obstinacy.

You seem to be obsessed with calling disagreements “childish”? And “obstinate”. In the rules of the forum it is clearly stated that it is allowed to disagree, as long as it is presented in a civilized and respectful manner. The rules could have said differently, they could explicitly state that no disagreements will be tolerated, that no diverse opinion is welcome. But they don’t, so YOU are in violation of the rules.

The title of the forum is “Catholic Answers”.
So again, what is the point of obstinately parsing language definitions on a Catholic forum?
Are you curious to learn? If so, learning requires an open and docile mind. If you don’t want to learn, what are you doing…

Of course I AM learning. (Not necessarily what you wish to teach.) But learning does not mean automatic acceptance. The point is that you (the apologists) have a Jesus mandated task to evangelize. That means to use the language that everyone understands. If and when you present a logical and rational argument, it will be considered.

Does you response strike you as arrogant at all?
You propose that in order for an argument to be rational, it must be presented in language defined according to your demands…
Good luck with that in life!!

Tell your doctor she is not defining “infection” broadly enough. Tell a physicist that his definition of “force” is not broad enough. After all, how will you understand if he doesn’t bow to your use of the term? Does the broadening of your perspective entail any responsibility in the area of language? Or should it be spoon fed?

If you really want to learn what the Church teaches…IF…you need to be docile and accepting of the way it defines the terms in use. It’s wise to do that, and it’s also courteous and productive.
Then, if you disagree, your disagreement has some intellectual content over and above whining about the way the Church defines it’s own concepts.

 

[Gorgias]

Of course you just exhibited the lack of rationality

No… what I did was take the argument and show its lack of logic…

I say incorrectly because you are saying that everyone alive must be a child rapist.

That’s the kind of illogic in the original assertion.

 

[Thinker_Doer]

No… what I did was take the argument and show its lack of logic…

… Of what @MiserereMeiDei said. Not what @Wozza said.

You propose that in order for an argument to be rational, it must be presented in language defined according to your demands…

If you wish to present some information to ME, you must use a language that I understand. Nothing arrogant about it.

 

[o_mlly]

If you wish to present some information to ME, you must use a language that I understand. Nothing arrogant about it.

Here’s some information: An open sewer is not a playground.

 

[goout]

Gorgias:

No… what I did was take the argument and show its lack of logic…

… Of what @MiserereMeiDei said. Not what @Wozza said.

You propose that in order for an argument to be rational, it must be presented in language defined according to your demands…

If you wish to present some information to ME, you must use a language that I understand. Nothing arrogant about it.

What exactly are your responsibilities in learning?
Do you have responsibilities?
Should the French learn to speak in English before you will learn in good faith?

Standing back with your arms obstinately folded is not a position of enlightenment.

 

[Wozza]

Thinker_Doer:

If you wish to present some information to ME, you must use a language that I understand. Nothing arrogant about it.

Here’s some information: An open sewer is not a playground.

Your personal opinion on certain sexual acts is duly noted.

 

[Thinker_Doer]

What exactly are your responsibilities in learning?

Listening. And being here I already exhibited my desire to listen to what you say. But you must use a language I understand.