Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
Oh good God! Im sorry but, learn to read and reason, will you!?! Damn. Nature is not a fallacy. The appeal to nature is a fallacy. It is as if Im trying to communicate with a child.
Please explain this to me. I am sincerely interested and cannot even begin to fathom how you are going to defend this.
Well I guess I must be one of the "pro-homo faction" because I lack that charming virulent hatred and abhorrence of gays due to knowing gays and having gay friends.
I think there is a genetic factor. But it can be triggered by other circumstances. Take Downs Syndrome for example, it is much more prevalent in children of older women. Maybe there is something like that which triggers homosexuality.
I don't think any of us should be too hard and fast in our opinions about this unless we are medical or psychological professionals.
I'd like to know, too.
In 200 words or less.
By the way, I don't know what planet you live on, but on my planet they don't allow smoking.
The "appeal" to nature is a fallacy? Why? Why do you have to ALWAYS apply some sort of distorted, butchered horse crap to something.
Nature is nature. Pure and simple. You're psychobabble about fallacies and appeals is fucked up... period.
Is there a point to this question or is it merely to determine to what extent, if any, homosexuality is genetic or a matter of choice? In either case, in answer to the question, I think that homosexuality is strongly influenced by the environment and choices one makes, as well as conditions from within the womb. Very early circumstances may have been beyond ones control, but as an adult, we are faced with choices. In addition I think that a homosexual can become a heterosexual and that a heterosexual can become a homosexual with enough mental and physical conditioning. Yet, I think that the question is irrelevant.
By the way, a homosexual can reproduce though he probably would not choose to do so. A lesbian can contribute her egg or, for the sake of having a biological baby, accept sperm.
The "appeal" to nature is a fallacy? Why? Why do you have to ALWAYS apply some sort of distorted, butchered horse crap to something.
Nature is nature. Pure and simple. You're psychobabble about fallacies and appeals is fucked up... period.
Go ask your neighbor if you can watch him fuck his daughter while you beat off your buddy.
(Sigh) I think that incest is not wrong. I think that inbreeding is wrong. Here is a difference. Please use a dictionary and dont change my words. Sheesh.
Besides, it is all relative. (Pardon the pun) We allow smoking but it is harmful. We allow over-eating though it is harmful. We allow people do all sorts of things that are not good for them and are a cost to society.
The Appeal to Nature is a common fallacy in political arguments. One version consists of drawing an analogy between a particular conclusion, and some aspect of the natural world -- and then stating that the conclusion is inevitable, because the natural world is similar:
"The natural world is characterized by competition; animals struggle against each other for ownership of limited natural resources. Capitalism, the competitive struggle for ownership of capital, is simply an inevitable part of human nature. It's how the natural world works."
http://www.csun.edu/~dgw61315/fallacies.html#Nature, appeal to
This is the fallacy of assuming that whatever is "natural" or consistent with "nature" (somehow defined) is good, or that whatever conflicts with nature is bad. For example, "Sodomy is unnatural; anal sex is not the evolutionary function of a penis or an anus. Therefore sodomy is wrong." But aside from the difficulty of defining what "natural" even means, there is no particular reason to suppose that unnatural and wrong are the same thing. After all, wearing clothes, tilling the soil, and using fire might be considered unnatural since no other animals do so, but humans do these things all the time and to great benefit.
The appeal to nature appears occasionally in debate, often in the form of naive environmentalist arguments for preserving pristine wilderness or resources. The argument is very weak and should always be shot down. It can, however, be made stronger by showing why at least in specific cases, there may be a (possibly unspecifiable) benefit to preserving nature as it is. A typical ecological argument along these lines is that human beings are part of a complex biological system that is highly sensitive to shocks, and therefore it is dangerous for humans to engage in activities that might damage the system in ways we cannot predict. Note, however, that this approach no longer appeals to nature itself, but to the value of human survival.
http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/mathew/logic.html#natural
However, let us set aside such doubts about the category of 'the natural' for the moment and just ask, even if we can agree that some things are natural and some are not, what follows from this? The answer is: nothing. There is no factual reason to suppose that what is natural is good (or at least better) and what is unnatural is bad (or at least worse).
http://www.fallacyfiles.org/adnature.html
Nature merely shows us what is. It does not show us what should be. Cancer is a natural part of aging. Chemotherapy and radiation therapy is an unnatural but relatively successful treatment. It is not natural for an encyclopedia to be used as a booster seat at a dinner table. It was never intended to be a booster seat, but it helps.
By the way, no one is calling for replacing heterosexuality with homosexuality.
I see. SO your entire argument is backed up by "I think." Most members of this board are well aware of what you "think."
Within the context of true homosexuality, they cannot reproduce. I did not say they were incapable.
There are limits to what society will tolerate even between consenting adults. We set minimum age limits in different states that define people as adults with respect to certain activities. In Texas, should a 10 year old be allowed to drive? How about an 11-year-old 15-year-old 15 and a half? We allow people to smoke cigarettes but not to smoke marijuana. Some people think that we should allow people to smoke marijuana even though smoking is unhealthy. Some people would allow for smoking marijuana but not for taking cocaine. It is relative cost benefit analysis how much freedom are we going to allow with respect to how much risk that people will make the wrong choices. Im somewhat of a libertarian in that regard but I have limits too. When it comes to sex, I think that incest should be allowed. As long as there in no inbreeding, informed consenting adults should be allowed to engage in sex. That is all that there is to it. Do you think that incest should not be allowed? Why?
I think what matts is saying is that just because something is natural doesn't necessarily make it good - take mercury for example. It's certainly natural, but I wouldn't want to eat it, even though it would be a 'natural ingrediant' in a pill.
I think what matts is saying is that just because something is natural doesn't necessarily make it good - take mercury for example. It's certainly natural, but I wouldn't want to eat it, even though it would be a 'natural ingrediant' in a pill.
None of your gibberish explains how a non-reporduced gene could survive natural selection. The only fallacy here is you, as usual.
Yes. It typically the same for other people too. They give their opinions. They try to back them up with phony reasoning that I easily knock down. Look, when all is said and done, practically all ethics comes down to personal preference.
When one cannot do something, it means that one is incapable of doing something.
I already explained it to you. I even provided you with several links. I will explain it again in as simple a way as I can. Nature does not tell you what should or should not exist. Nature merely shows you what is. Hurricanes are natural. Cancer is natural. Are these good things? Pesticides, Chemotherapy, and Radiation therapy are artificial. Are these bad things?
It cant get much simpler than that. Look through practically any book of logic. You will find that to appeal to nature is to commit a fallacy.
No. First of all, incest is illegal. Secondly, I doubt that my neighbor wants to fuck his daughter. Thirdly, Im not interested in watching incest.
Try to do a little bit of reading. As I said before, I find the debate about nature vs. nurture (genetic condition vs. choice) to be irrelevant.
