Welcome Guest [Log In] [Register]
Welcome to The New Coffee Room. We hope you enjoy your visit.


You're currently viewing our forum as a guest. This means you are limited to certain areas of the board and there are some features you can't use. If you join our community, you'll be able to access member-only sections, and use many member-only features such as customizing your profile, sending personal messages, and voting in polls. Registration is simple, fast, and completely free.


Join our community!


If you're already a member please log in to your account to access all of our features:

Username:   Password:
Add Reply
  • Pages:
  • 1
  • 7
  • 11
Be Ye Not Gay
Topic Started: Oct 25 2011, 05:32 PM (3,714 Views)
ivorythumper
Member Avatar
I am so adjective that I verb nouns!
Moonbat
Oct 29 2011, 10:38 AM
Quote:
 

Again, you've built the strawman by adding 'entirely' and 'immutable and permanent'. Very easy to knock that over.


Proposition: The number of legs people have is not entirely a matter of genetics and is not an immutable and permanent trait in a person" -- the "born that way" position is not conclusive.
Sub proposition: "assumption that matters of genetics are immutable and permanent traits in a person".
Evidence: "the study evinces that some people can be redirected through the use of landmines to overcome their bipediality"
Conclusion: "If some people can get their limbs blown off then it must be granted that the number of limbs we possess is not an immutable and permanent trait in a person, and it must be assumed that it is not entirely a matter of genetics".
Fallacious to the nth degree -- category error FTL!

Try again.
The dogma lives loudly within me.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Moonbat
Member Avatar
Pisa-Carp
WTF?
Entia non sunt multiplicanda praeter necessitatem
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
ivorythumper
Member Avatar
I am so adjective that I verb nouns!
Do I really have to explain that the genetic trait of a human person is to have two legs, and that the disfigurement of that through an accident does not change the "trait"? A trait is a characteristic. You could also cause someone to genetically have no limbs through thalidomide, but that would not change the trait, only the expression of the trait.


The dogma lives loudly within me.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
jon-nyc
Member Avatar
Cheers
You don't quote someone else's position to prove that you aren't misrepresenting mine.
In my defense, I was left unsupervised.
Online Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
ivorythumper
Member Avatar
I am so adjective that I verb nouns!
jon-nyc
Oct 29 2011, 10:52 AM
You don't quote someone else's position to prove that you aren't misrepresenting mine.
try rewriting that one -- it was damned near incoherent.
The dogma lives loudly within me.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
jon-nyc
Member Avatar
Cheers
Again the evasion. My meaning is clear.
In my defense, I was left unsupervised.
Online Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
jon-nyc
Member Avatar
Cheers
I'd like to ask Moonbat and anyone else following this thread if they were able to understand my meaning in post 154.
In my defense, I was left unsupervised.
Online Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Horace
Member Avatar
HOLY CARP!!!
It may have been more clear if you had written it in latin.
As a good person, I implore you to do as I, a good person, do. Be good. Do NOT be bad. If you see bad, end bad. End it in yourself, and end it in others. By any means necessary, the good must conquer the bad. Good people know this. Do you know this? Are you good?
Online Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
jon-nyc
Member Avatar
Cheers
:lol2:
In my defense, I was left unsupervised.
Online Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
ivorythumper
Member Avatar
I am so adjective that I verb nouns!
jon-nyc
Oct 29 2011, 10:54 AM
Again the evasion. My meaning is clear.
I'm the one who asked you to clarify what you could have possibly meant, you refused and accused me of evasion?

ROFLCOPTER. :lol2: :lol2: :lol2:
The dogma lives loudly within me.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Moonbat
Member Avatar
Pisa-Carp
jon-nyc
Oct 29 2011, 11:05 AM
I'd like to ask Moonbat and anyone else following this thread if they were able to understand my meaning in post 154.
Ivory quoted a comment in post 150 from the study in an attempt to show he's not making the strawman fallacy. But you are not the author of the study. The author of the study is not the person he's debating. He should be quoting your statements.

That's what you meant.

He can't do that of course because if he does he will invariably find that the quotes do not show you making the arguments that he's trying to stuff into his straw effigy of you.

Entia non sunt multiplicanda praeter necessitatem
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
jon-nyc
Member Avatar
Cheers
Right. To tell you the truth, IT, very often when we are discussing something you put me in a position where I have to ask myself whether you're horribly obtuse or just exceptionally dishonest intellectually. In virtually every case I conclude that the latter is far more likely.

Of course I realize there's always a possibility that I haven't made my position as clear as I think I have, which is why I've asked for other people to chime in with their view.

(edit - this is a response to IT's last post to me, not to Moonbat's post above)
In my defense, I was left unsupervised.
Online Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
ivorythumper
Member Avatar
I am so adjective that I verb nouns!
Moonbat
Oct 29 2011, 11:17 AM
jon-nyc
Oct 29 2011, 11:05 AM
I'd like to ask Moonbat and anyone else following this thread if they were able to understand my meaning in post 154.
Ivory quoted a comment in post 150 from the study in an attempt to show he's not making the strawman fallacy. But you are not the author of the study, he should be quoting your statements.

He can't do that because if he does he will invariably find that the quotes do not show you making the arguments that he's trying to stuff into his straw effigy of you.

That's what you meant.
File that under WTF???

Jon doesn't have to be the author of the study for me to use the study to show I am not making a strawman argument. The study and its conclusions are the topic of discussion. Jon would actually need to quote from ME to show how I am making a strawman argument against what the study (or he) is saying. He is evidently too lazy to do that.

I quoted from the study to draw Jon's attention to the material facts of the study, which show that it argues against the notion that homosexuality is a permanent condition. Since he does, by his own admission, not disagree with the study then he should find no reason to accuse me of making a strawman argument. And if he does, then he needs to show actual quotes, rather than just toss around terms like "strawman" that he gives no evidence of actually understanding.
The dogma lives loudly within me.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Moonbat
Member Avatar
Pisa-Carp
Quote:
 

Do I really have to explain that the genetic trait of a human person is to have two legs, and that the disfigurement of that through an accident does not change the "trait"? A trait is a characteristic. You could also cause someone to genetically have no limbs through thalidomide, but that would not change the trait, only the expression of the trait.


If environmental interactions that alter the number limbs do not alter the "trait" for the number limbs, then so too environmental interactions that alter sexuality do not alter the "trait" for sexuality. Ergo you cannot even knock over your own straw man.

I suggest you read some basic material on evolution and genetics (The extended phenotype is very good) it will help you understand these issues. It is painfully obvious that you do not.
Entia non sunt multiplicanda praeter necessitatem
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
ivorythumper
Member Avatar
I am so adjective that I verb nouns!
jon-nyc
Oct 29 2011, 11:20 AM
Right. To tell you the truth, IT, very often when we are discussing something you put me in a position where I have to ask myself whether you're horribly obtuse or just exceptionally dishonest intellectually. In virtually every case I conclude that the latter is far more likely.

Of course I realize there's always a possibility that I haven't made my position as clear as I think I have, which is why I've asked for other people to chime in with their view.

(edit - this is a response to IT's last post to me, not to Moonbat's post above)
I ask myself the same about you. But here, let me answer for you in your own words:

Occasionally, in fact more than just occasionally, you find it easier to evade questions and try to change the subject than concede a point. Your interlocutor has two choices - either let you do whatever you need to do to avoid ceding the point, or persist and be insulted, directly or obliquely.

It does get old, Jon.
The dogma lives loudly within me.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
ivorythumper
Member Avatar
I am so adjective that I verb nouns!
Moonbat
Oct 29 2011, 11:25 AM
Quote:
 

Do I really have to explain that the genetic trait of a human person is to have two legs, and that the disfigurement of that through an accident does not change the "trait"? A trait is a characteristic. You could also cause someone to genetically have no limbs through thalidomide, but that would not change the trait, only the expression of the trait.


If environmental interactions that alter the number limbs do not alter the "trait" for the number limbs, then so too environmental interactions that alter sexuality do not alter the "trait" for sexuality. Ergo you cannot even knock over your own straw man.
The claim is that the "trait" is not altered for sexuality, only its expression is.

You don't seem to understand what a strawman is either, fwiw.
The dogma lives loudly within me.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
apple
one of the angels
Do all you antigays think you are better than them?

yes or no
it behooves me to behold
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Moonbat
Member Avatar
Pisa-Carp
Quote:
 

Jon doesn't have top be the author of the study for me to use the study to show I am not making a strawman argument.


Yes he does. He didn't object to the study. He objected to the conclusions Jolly drew from the study. He's said that multiple times.

Yet you continue to argue as if his position is something it's not. That is a strawman fallacy.
Entia non sunt multiplicanda praeter necessitatem
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
jon-nyc
Member Avatar
Cheers
ivorythumper
Oct 29 2011, 11:25 AM
Jon doesn't have top be the author of the study for me to use the study to show I am not making a strawman argument. The study and its conclusions are the topic of discussion.



Me in post 121:

Quote:
 
Nice try, man, as you know I never had issue with the unremarkable study. Rather it was Jolly's absurd conclusion.


and post 136:

Quote:
 
(as a reminder, no where have I expressed the slightest issue with this entirely unremarkable study - only Jolly's conclusion)


and 144:

Quote:
 
Again, I never took issue with the study, other than pointing out how meaningless and unremarkable it is. Jolly's conclusion is what I had issue with.





Obtuse? Or intellectually dishonest?

In my defense, I was left unsupervised.
Online Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Moonbat
Member Avatar
Pisa-Carp
Quote:
 

The claim is that the "trait" is not altered for sexuality, only its expression is.


Quote:
 

Proposition: "homosexuality is not entirely a matter of genetics and is not an immutable and permanent trait in a person" -- the "born that way" position is not conclusive.
Sub proposition: "assumption that matters of genetics are immutable and permanent traits in a person".
Evidence: "the study evinces that some people can be redirected through therapy to overcome same sex attraction"
Conclusion: "If some people can be redirected through therapy to overcome same sex attraction, then it must be granted that it is not an immutable and permanent trait in a person, and it must be assumed that it is not entirely a matter of genetics".


:lol:
Entia non sunt multiplicanda praeter necessitatem
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
jon-nyc
Member Avatar
Cheers
ivorythumper
Oct 29 2011, 11:25 AM
Jon would actually need to quote from ME to show how I am making a strawman argument against what the study (or he) is saying. He is evidently too lazy to do that.


From post 135:

Quote:
 
The only difference is you added the word 'entirely' in order to make it something of a strawman.


From post 143:

Quote:
 
Again, you've built the strawman by adding 'entirely' and 'immutable and permanent'. Very easy to knock that over.


From post 145:

Quote:
 
By adding 'entirely' and 'immutable and permanent', you misrepresented my position by means of [false] assumptions creating the illusion of having refuted it with a superficially similar yet non equivalent proposition.




Obtuse? Or intellectually dishonest?
In my defense, I was left unsupervised.
Online Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
ivorythumper
Member Avatar
I am so adjective that I verb nouns!
Moonbat
Oct 29 2011, 11:25 AM
Quote:
 

Do I really have to explain that the genetic trait of a human person is to have two legs, and that the disfigurement of that through an accident does not change the "trait"? A trait is a characteristic. You could also cause someone to genetically have no limbs through thalidomide, but that would not change the trait, only the expression of the trait.


If environmental interactions that alter the number limbs do not alter the "trait" for the number limbs, then so too environmental interactions that alter sexuality do not alter the "trait" for sexuality. Ergo you cannot even knock over your own straw man.

I suggest you read some basic material on evolution and genetics (The extended phenotype is very good) it will help you understand these issues. It is painfully obvious that you do not.
'An animal's behaviour tends to maximize the survival of the genes "for" that behaviour, whether or not those genes happen to be in the body of the particular animal performing it"

It's not that difficult of a concept, Moonbat. Of itself it does not give any positive knowledge to the question of homosexuality, only a possible explanation of how if homosexuality is genetic, and that gene sequence creates behaviors that do not ostensibly promote the survival of the individual, it might still in the aggregate promote the survival of that gene.

You like it because it conforms to your a priori worldview. I think you are reading way too much into it to conclude decisively that it speaks to a supposed gay gene.

(Of course, if you are bring this up for some other reason, please be more clear about that).
The dogma lives loudly within me.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
ivorythumper
Member Avatar
I am so adjective that I verb nouns!
I summarize what I thought Jolly's basic position was in Post #134 -- that the study indicates homosexuality is not a genetic/permanent/immutable condition. You did not address that -- in fact you seem to actually agree with that -- but I'll let you speak to that if you won't keep evading from making your position clear on the matter. It might actually help if you defined your terms.

So are you obtuse or intellectually dishonest or intellectually lazy or irritable? So many possibilities.
The dogma lives loudly within me.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
ivorythumper
Member Avatar
I am so adjective that I verb nouns!
jon-nyc
Oct 29 2011, 11:39 AM
From post 145:

Quote:
 
By adding 'entirely' and 'immutable and permanent', you misrepresented my position by means of [false] assumptions creating the illusion of having refuted it with a superficially similar yet non equivalent proposition.

Obtuse? Or intellectually dishonest?
I didn't add these terms since they, or the ideas in them, were already in the original article. I tried to point that out to you, but you seem dense to them.

I'll grant you being obtuse, since it is a less harsh character judgment than the moral category of which no one else is competent to judge.
The dogma lives loudly within me.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
ivorythumper
Member Avatar
I am so adjective that I verb nouns!
Moonbat
Oct 29 2011, 11:34 AM
Quote:
 

Jon doesn't have top be the author of the study for me to use the study to show I am not making a strawman argument.


Yes he does. He didn't object to the study. He objected to the conclusions Jolly drew from the study. He's said that multiple times.

Yet you continue to argue as if his position is something it's not. That is a strawman fallacy.
I summarized what I thought Jolly position was in post #134. Jon did not object to this summary, but continued on in his obstinacy.

If he had any grounds to dispute my interpretation of Jolly's conclusions, that would have been the time to express them. Without his taking exception to my interpretation, there is no reason for him to claim I erected a strawman.

It would be helpful if he would point out where he finds fault with my interpretation of Jolly's conclusion. But it is probably easier for him to accuse me of stupidity and bad intention.
The dogma lives loudly within me.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
ZetaBoards - Free Forum Hosting
Free Forums with no limits on posts or members.
Learn More · Register Now
Go to Next Page
« Previous Topic · The New Coffee Room · Next Topic »
Add Reply
  • Pages:
  • 1
  • 7
  • 11