So what is this toxic masculinity thing anyhow?

[carpedm9587]

Also known as the is ought fallacy.

I decided not to point out what seemed pretty obvious to me...

I figured it would go nowhere.

[Tassman]

Right, and we can also find more novel ways to control and exploit our fellow man. Just look at China. So much for equal rights...

Would you prefer to be locked into the evolved social structure of Chimpanzees without the option and ability to adapt and modify it?

Like you said it is an open question whether it is a good thing or not. We do know that patriarchal societies worked pretty well in the past.

I blamed feminism, not equal rights per se. And the fact is, as far as fatherless homes, blacks for instance did much better before the 60s, when things were arguably much worse. So you can't blame that on poverty.

Except you would reduce the numbers of abortions if they were illegal. And that is a good thing.

You said:.

No, I said that what supports social cohesion is not necessarily good

And I don't see how fatherless homes or abortion (which has split this country) are good for cohesion...

[Sparko]

I love how people like Tassman use evolution and animals to justify behavior they like (homosexuality) but then appeal to humans being better than animals when the behavior is something they don't like (rape)

[carpedm9587]

I love how people like Tassman use evolution and animals to justify behavior they like (homosexuality) but then appeal to humans being better than animals when the behavior is something they don't like (rape)

I can only speak for myself. My reference to nature have occurred when someone attempts to make a claim that some sort of action is "against nature." That is a common tactic related to discussions about homosexuality - and nature shows us nothing of the kind.

Other than that, what animals do does nothing to "justify" actions. It may provide an explanation - but that is a different thing.

[seer]

I can only speak for myself. My reference to nature have occurred when someone attempts to make a claim that some sort of action is "against nature." That is a common tactic related to discussions about homosexuality - and nature shows us nothing of the kind.

It is against "nature" since human "nature" was not designed to partake of such things.

[carpedm9587]

It is against "nature" since human "nature" was not designed to partake of such things.

You cannot complain when someone uses nature to refute a position that someone takes based on nature, Seer. And you assume "design" and your god-centered teleology. You cannot show it to be real, or binding in any way.

My nature is to be mortal. It is not possible for me to violate that nature, as far as I know.

It is my nature to be social and sexual. The specific form that takes is my business - not yours. There is nothing about my "nature" that places a constraint on that beyond the obvious (i.e., I cannot give birth to a child, I cannot impregnate myself, etc.) or creates a moral boundary.

The "nature" argument is nothing more than a variation on "I don't like that - it's icky - so you shouldn't do it."

[seer]

You cannot complain when someone uses nature to refute a position that someone takes based on nature, Seer. And you assume "design" and your god-centered teleology. You cannot show it to be real, or binding in any way.

Of course I can because we have a different view of what human nature is, whether you buy my position or not it is irrelevant. Homosexual behavior violates human nature as designed.

My nature is to be mortal. It is not possible for me to violate that nature, as far as I know.

It is my nature to be social and sexual. The specific form that takes is my business - not yours. There is nothing about my "nature" that places a constraint on that beyond the obvious (i.e., I cannot give birth to a child, I cannot impregnate myself, etc.) or creates a moral boundary.

The "nature" argument is nothing more than a variation on "I don't like that - it's icky - so you shouldn't do it."

Right but nothing in your world violates nature; pedophilia, bestiality, rape, adultery, orgies, murder, etc...

[carpedm9587]

Of course I can because we have a different view of what human nature is, whether you buy my position or not it is irrelevant.

No - you can't - because your entire worldview is premised (as per our other discussion) on an assumption about objective reality you cannot show to be true, that is not necessarily true, and for which there is a significant body of evidence that it is NOT true.

Homosexual behavior violates human nature as designed.

A position you continually assert - and cannot substantiate. I disagree.

Right but nothing in your world violates nature; pedophilia, bestiality, rape, adultery, orgies, murder, etc...

The term "violates nature" has little/no meaning to me. Nature is what nature is. I am what I am. I am a rational, sentient being. It "violates my nature" to adopt positions I cannot rationally support unless I have no alternative and the position is required as a starting place (i.e., I can trust my senses, I am a reasoning being, etc.).

But "nature" tells us nothing about morality. I realize you will disagree because you start from your irrational/non-rational "the bible is the inerrant word of god" position. I cannot dissuade you from that position because you have accepted it as true without reason, so I cannot use reason to dissuade you. You just are not going to be able to make your case to anyone who doesn't start from the same unsupported position.

[seer]

No - you can't - because your entire worldview is premised (as per our other discussion) on an assumption about objective reality you cannot show to be true, that is not necessarily true, and for which there is a significant body of evidence that it is NOT true.

I have no idea what you are talking about? How on earth do you know that it not necessarily true?

A position you continually assert - and cannot substantiate. I disagree.

Substantiate to whom, you? Why is that even a consideration?

The term "violates nature" has little/no meaning to me. Nature is what nature is. I am what I am. I am a rational, sentient being. It "violates my nature" to adopt positions I cannot rationally support unless I have no alternative and the position is required as a starting place (i.e., I can trust my senses, I am a reasoning being, etc.).

Are you 100% certain that you are rational?

But "nature" tells us nothing about morality. I realize you will disagree because you start from your irrational/non-rational "the bible is the inerrant word of god" position. I cannot dissuade you from that position because you have accepted it as true without reason, so I cannot use reason to dissuade you. You just are not going to be able to make your case to anyone who doesn't start from the same unsupported position.

Can you prove that you are rational without begging the question?

[carpedm9587]

I have no idea what you are talking about?

Your premise that "the bible is the inerrantly true word of god."

How on earth do you know that it not necessarily true?

I am using the term "necessary" in the philosophical sense (at least as far as my ancient philosophical brain cells can remember). It refers to things we accept as self-evidently true without need for a proof. "A thing cannot simultaneously be and not be in the same place and time and way" is a necessarily true statement." "A statement cannot be simultaneously true and not true in the same way at the same time" is necessarily true. "A human being is a human being" is necessarily true (principle of identity - tautology, etc.).

Substantiate to whom, you?

To anyone you want to convince about your statements. The only people you will convince will be people who a) accept your premise (with or without support) or b) accept positions without a rational basis. I am neither. Hopefully most people require evidence and argumentation for claims that are not necessarily true.

Why is that even a consideration?

If there is nothing necessarily true about "the bible is the inerrantly true word of god," its truth value should be supported/substantiated by evidence and argumentation. Instead, you have elected to make it your "premise" without any substantiation. This is the basis for my claim that your positions are irrationally or non-rationally based.

Are you 100% certain that you are rational?

I accept it as a starting place because it falls into that class of assumptions about the universe we cannot prove with certainty. If you can demonstrate I am not rational, then you should do so. Until then, I'll accept my ability to frame rational arguments as "true." It is not "necessarily true" in the philosophical sense. The evidence I offer is my ability to frame a syllogism, speak to others and be responded to, and articulate the basic rules of reason.

Can you prove that you are rational without begging the question?

No. No one can. We all end up in circular arguments eventually, as discussed in the other thread. "But why" will always end with assumptions we cannot defend. But we should not resort to such assumptions or circular arguments until we have no recourse. Accepting my existence, my ability to reason, and the evidence of my senses are basic assumptions made on faith because there is no way to substantiate them, and without them I am left sitting drooling in a corner. They are not the same kind of claim as "Fred is a horse," "god exists," "the Christian bible is the inerrant word of god," or "it's hot outside."

If you have evidence that I am not rational, or don't exist, or cannot reasonably trust my senses - please offer it. Otherwise, I accept it as a reasonable starting point.

[seer]

Your premise that "the bible is the inerrantly true word of god."

I am using the term "necessary" in the philosophical sense (at least as far as my ancient philosophical brain cells can remember). It refers to things we accept as self-evidently true without need for a proof. "A thing cannot simultaneously be and not be in the same place and time and way" is a necessarily true statement." "A statement cannot be simultaneously true and not true in the same way at the same time" is necessarily true. "A human being is a human being" is necessarily true (principle of identity - tautology, etc.).

I have no idea how that bears on whether Scripture is inspired or not. Are you just making stuff up?

To anyone you want to convince about your statements. The only people you will convince will be people who a) accept your premise (with or without support) or b) accept positions without a rational basis. I am neither. Hopefully most people require evidence and argumentation for claims that are not necessarily true.

Rational basis according to whom? Is that another one of your subjective standards?

If there is nothing necessarily true about "the bible is the inerrantly true word of god," its truth value should be supported/substantiated by evidence and argumentation. Instead, you have elected to make it your "premise" without any substantiation. This is the basis for my claim that your positions are irrationally or non-rationally based.

There is nothing necessarily true about your rationality or lack of.

I accept it as a starting place because it falls into that class of assumptions about the universe we cannot prove with certainty. If you can demonstrate I am not rational, then you should do so. Until then, I'll accept my ability to frame rational arguments as "true." It is not "necessarily true" in the philosophical sense. The evidence I offer is my ability to frame a syllogism, speak to others and be responded to, and articulate the basic rules of reason.

You mean syllogism that begin with your subjective premises?

[carpedm9587]

Seer - I responded...but I've decided continually hijacking threads with our tangents and favorite topics is probably old for everyone. So I answered you here.

[seer]

It bears insofar as you have made a positive claim about this collection of books you have not shown to be true. When challenged on it - you say it is your "starting place." You are welcome to your starting place. I reject it as irrational (or at least non-rational) if you cannot defend it.

Carp one does not defend axioms, their either accepted or not. You accept the assumption that what goes on in your mind corresponds to reality without rational justification.

To anyone that values the basic structure of reason - the laws of logic - the role of evidence.

OK, my axiom tells me that a rational conscious God created an intelligible universe and rational conscious creatures, who have been created to apprehend logical truths. That the laws of logic are incorporated in the mind of God and immutable. God is the very ground of logic.

OK, that is where my axiom leads, how about yours? Why are we conscious rational beings living in an intelligible universe?

[carpedm9587]

Carp one does not defend axioms, their either accepted or not. You accept the assumption that what goes on in your mind corresponds to reality without rational justification.



OK, my axiom tells me that a rational conscious God created an intelligible universe and rational conscious creatures, who have been created to apprehend logical truths. That the laws of logic are incorporated in the mind of God and immutable. God is the very ground of logic.

OK, that is where my axiom leads, how about yours? Why are we conscious rational beings living in an intelligible universe?

Responded to here.

Note that I moved my other two responses (in this thread and the other) to that thread as well...

[Sparko]

I have never argued homosexuality is against nature. It is completely in line with man's sin nature.

But I have seen people argue that homosexuality is normal because Chimps do it (although they do it as a dominance thing, not a love thing). And yet when Chimps do things they don't like all of a sudden "we are not animals, we are better" as Tassy is doing here.