Homosexuality - What people think.

But he specifically said homosexuality. And so you are comparing the two. ..

Posted from TSR Mobile

But he specifically said homosexuality. And so you are comparing the two. ..

Posted from TSR Mobile

You seem to be misunderstanding the purpose of giving counter-examples. It doesn't matter that he said specifically homosexuality. The original argument is that too much of some thing x is bad because it leads to the collapse of humanity. They used homosexuality as an example that seemed reasonable. We can show it is unreasonable by providing other examples like cooks or males. This would either force the person to accept that being a cook/male is bad (in addition to homosexuality) or none of them to be consistent.

I Can't explain with you people lol. Maybe later.

Posted from TSR Mobile

I Can't explain with you people lol. Maybe later.

Posted from TSR Mobile

But he specifically said homosexuality. And so you are comparing the two. ..

Posted from TSR Mobile

You've failed to give a reason why the argument would apply only to homosexuality and not to anything else. There's nothing in "a thing that would lead to our extinction if practiced by the entire population is a bad thing" that would exclude gender or profession.

Because the thread is about homosexuality. Not cooks or bananas. We are talking about a sexual orientation


Posted from TSR Mobile

Then perhaps you should make an argument that doesn't apply just as well to any other category.

Sometimes people don't understand because they don't want to understand. You are one of those people. It's very logical but you've made it Into some big discussion on language.

Posted from TSR Mobile

Sometimes people don't understand because they don't want to understand. You are one of those people. It's very logical but you've made it Into some big discussion on language.

Posted from TSR Mobile

Sometimes people don't understand because they don't want to understand.

Posted from TSR Mobile

This isn't a discussion on language. This is a discussion on logic. The logical argument is independent of the language used. In this case: X is bad if it leads to a negative outcome.

X can be anything, homosexuality, gender, occupation, etc. However, the problem with this logic and the example we are talking about is that it assigns a negative outcome which does not follow from the original quality. Homosexuality in one person or even a few people does not have a negative outcome inherent of homosexuality. So it is not bad. Then the argument raised is that is many or all people have this quality then it is bad not only then but even if it is present in few. This does not follow as demonstrated by examples of other qualities. We can even use an example of food. Vegetables in general are good for you. But too many vegetables can be bad for you. Does that mean vegetables are bad? No.

This is a basic tool of argumentation. What exactly is your objection then? Why must we confine ourselves to only homosexuality without good reason when the logic can be applied to many other things as well?

It could apply to other situations but in the current discussion it is alone. It is logical and relevant to the context. You might say everyone being a cook would be bad so cooks are bad. But seriously when is everyone going to be a cook? And everyone being a cook is a totally different thing. What if everyone being a homosexual cook happened. As well as not getting jobs done we wouldn't pro create. So its even bad. Nevertheless it doesn't apply to other things. We are talking about homosexuality and you are dragging other things into it because you have been defeated by the theory of everyone being homosexual and you keep talking about cooks as an escape. Forget about the cooks and jobs and think about homosexuality that what we are talking about.
Also your argument doesn't apply. What if I said everyone being white was bad. It wouldn't be bad. Everyone being white wouldn't change anything.

Or what about everyone being heterosexual. That wouldn't be bad either.

Or everyone being Muslim. That wouldn't be bad either.

You argument is one sided and focuses in the negative point you haven't even bothered expanding it. You said too much of something is bad. Well what about too much of white people. Is that bad?
Posted from TSR Mobile

It could apply to other situations but in the current discussion it is alone. It is logical and relevant to the context. You might say everyone being a cook would be bad so cooks are bad. But seriously when is everyone going to be a cook? And everyone being a cook is a totally different thing. What if everyone being a homosexual cook happened. As well as not getting jobs done we wouldn't pro create. So its even bad. Nevertheless it doesn't apply to other things. We are talking about homosexuality and you are dragging other things into it because you have been defeated by the theory of everyone being homosexual and you keep talking about cooks as an escape. Forget about the cooks and jobs and think about homosexuality that what we are talking about.
Also your argument doesn't apply. What if I said everyone being white was bad. It wouldn't be bad. Everyone being white wouldn't change anything.

Or what about everyone being heterosexual. That wouldn't be bad either.

Or everyone being Muslim. That wouldn't be bad either.

You argument is one sided and focuses in the negative point you haven't even bothered expanding it. You said too much of something is bad. Well what about too much of white people. Is that bad?
Posted from TSR Mobile

And again I ask you: why does it apply to nothing else? Because "we are talking about something else" is not a reason, it just goes to show that you are talking out of your behind.

Indeed, he doesn't appear able to articulate a reason why cooks and homosexuals (or doctors, or lawyers) should be treated differently when you're considering whether it would be a good idea if the entire population belonged to that category

And again I ask you: why does it apply to nothing else? Because "we are talking about something else" is not a reason, it just goes to show that you are talking out of your behind.

are you honestly saying that merely some people can't be gay because if literally everybody were gay (which is impossible) then the world wouldn't populate? you know it is still possible to have a world where everybody's gay - artificial insemination would be one way of which. and you could say that this extreme form of universality would also apply to people (not) having kids - if one person never married and never had kids (perhaps he/she was too busy making the world a better place) would that mean they were no better than a gay person because they wouldn't (in theory) be falling in line for the "populating the world squad"? and what about people not adopting? if everybody didn't adopt then there'd be a lot of sad little kiddies. and what about soldiers? if everybody wasn't a (part time, at least) soldier then we'd all die in the next invasion, wouldn't we?

I'm not going to bother giving you another reason all of you didn't read my post properly and ignored some of the main parts.

Posted from TSR Mobile

I'm not going to bother giving you another reason all of you didn't read my post properly and ignored some of the main parts.

Posted from TSR Mobile