Chelsea Manning's sentence commuted

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
Except that you seem to link disease transmission risk with unnaturalness and implicitly unnaturalness with wrongness. - Deepthought

No I don't, you simply made that up. I have linked the physiology of the human body with unnaturalness the anus not being a fit orifice for sexual intercourse by virtue of it being a one way system and sexually tra ...[text shortened]... sk of disease, it does not affect the physiology of the human body nor its anti Biblical nature.

You've contradicted yourself in your first paragraph. You say "no I didn't" and then use HIV prevalence to justify your claim of unnaturalness. Either unnaturalness is relevant to your argument, in which case the fallacy is there, or it is not, in which case it doesn't support your argument.

Either way I represented your post accurately.

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
females is plural, males is plural, and rather damning for you is the fact that they do so towards one another [in like manner]. Oh dear. I don't mean to be rude but I actually have better things to do than remonstrate with people who do not want to accept the simple reality of a text.

Just a point the sentence fragment concerning women as quoted above is "... for their females changed the natural use of themselves into one contrary to nature ..." - this could refer to just about anything, including heterosexual oral sex.

Originally posted by DeepThought
You've contradicted yourself in your first paragraph. You say "no I didn't" and then use HIV prevalence to justify your claim of unnaturalness. Either unnaturalness is relevant to your argument, in which case the fallacy is there, or it is not, in which case it doesn't support your argument.

Either way I represented your post accurately.

I did not use HIV to justify a claim of unnaturalness, you simply made that up. What I actually did was to use human physiology to justify a claim of unnaturalness. I suggest that you check your variations again and no you did not represent my post accurately.

Originally posted by DeepThought
Just a point the sentence fragment concerning women as quoted above is "... for their females changed the natural use of themselves into one contrary to nature ..." - this could refer to just about anything, including heterosexual oral sex.

I suggest you read the passage in context it may save you from making these ludicrous claims in future.

Originally posted by ThinkOfOne
This is what you actually wrote:
[quote]Actually I have provided rational reasons why I am against the practice of homosexuality. These range from having the highest ever recorded figures for HIV among homosexual males in the UK indicating to me that the practice is essentially destructive to an examination of the physiology of the human body leading me ...[text shortened]... ports their irrational bigotry, does not in any way make that bigotry rational in and of itself.

more drool.

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
I did not use HIV to justify a claim of unnaturalness, you simply made that up. What I actually did was to use human physiology to justify a claim of unnaturalness. I suggest that you check your variations again and no you did not represent my post accurately.

Here is the relevant sentence from your post on page 5:

These [rational reasons] range from having the highest ever recorded figures for HIV among homosexual males in the UK indicating to me that the practice is essentially destructive to an examination of the physiology of the human body leading me to the conclusion that its unnatural.

The structure of your sentence is "x ranges from y to z". x is reasons, y is HIV prevalence indicates the practise is destructive, and z is an examination of physiology indicates unnaturalness. But I read it as x ranges to y; y being the practise is destructive to the physiology leading to the conclusion of unnaturalness. I thought the grammar in your sentence was broken, which is likely in an internet debating forum.

So I'll revise my argument. Sending children to school increases the prevalence of disease, because they catch diseases off each other. Most people would not regard sending children to school as destructive.

Even if physiology indicates that anal intercourse is unnatural, and this is debatable, you still have the naturalistic fallacy. So my point stands and your argument is not as rational as you claim.

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
I have not said that they are synonymous but I object to the practice in both homosexuals and heterosexuals for the same reason. As you are aware my main reason for opposition is religious, homosexuality is anti Biblical, citing things like the physiology of the human body is merely an attempt at corroboration. Either way my reasons are rational.

You oppose homosexuality because of what one person wrote down two millennia ago, how is that in any way shape or form rational?

The post that was quoted here has been removed

Your text is a gross misrepresentation of my position I suspect because of your unwillingness to consider any perspective other than your own as being valid.

I am not opposed to LGBT as people and infact as a Christian I am under duress to demonstrate love for all kinds of people. However I am not under duress to accept their acts, this is something entirely different and this has consistently been my stance. Indeed I Pm'd Teinosuke just last week and asked for some recommendations on Japanese films and he made some excellent recommendations according to my taste for 'arthouse' cinema, many of which I have watched and plan on viewing. I also had an excellent rapport with a chap who used to frequent these boards termed gaychessplayer and Caissad4 with whom I have played chess on a few occasions, being beaten up twice and drawing I think once.

Again I have consistently stated that all are free moral agents and they are free to express themselves and join this online community as they desire. Now what are we to make in view of this empirical evidence and your now ludicrous claims that I stand for the non acceptance of LGBT people, that is correct I should mock your ill-founded, boorish, and clumsy attempt at vilification.

I asked why we should be more accepting. I know why I should be more accepting of LGBT as people, its just a pity that you cannot say why you should be and instead deliver up like a piece of limp cabbage before a king this affront to my personal dignity and majesty.

The post that was quoted here has been removed

I have implied nothing nor will I be subject to assumptions made on the basis of anything that was not explicitly stated. What diverse writers conclude is their affair and is a reflection not of me but of them, my position is crystal clear, consistently stated and what is more I can substantiate my position with reason and empirical evidence. I suggest that you find something that you can assail with a tool better than vilification. Teinosuke was most helpful and should I need any clarification on any issues regarding the second world war I will be sure to ask you for your expertise.

If chess has taught us anything, anything at all its NEVER assume anything. You assumed that I was against LGBT people when this is not the case because I am objective enough to be able to divorce a person from their acts and now that you understand my position i hope that you will refrain from future attempts to vilify me - your fan - Robbie Carrobie.

The post that was quoted here has been removed

Seemed to support? My position has been made quite clear. Please don't make me repeat it again and again.

Originally posted by DeepThought
Just a point the sentence fragment concerning women as quoted above is "... for their females changed the natural use of themselves into one contrary to nature ..." - this could refer to just about anything, including heterosexual oral sex.

Robbie can't see it that way. To acknowledge the vagueness of the passage would be to undermine his believe in the infallibility of scripture. His brain simply can't process that.