If it's proven there's no god

Originally posted by Proper Knob
I can provide you with enough reading material to keep you busy for the next week detailing how sitting down is 'unhealthy' for a human being. Is sitting down morally reprehensible?

Sitting down is not the same thing as engaging in promiscuous sex is it. If not then your argument makes NO SENSE!

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
No it doesn't. Driving a car is not the same as engaging in promiscuous sex. Man.

The analogy, however, does highlight the weakness of your argument.

I will not condemn an entire demographic group but will condemn immoral behaviour by individuals.

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
Sitting down is not the same thing as engaging in promiscuous sex is it. If not then your argument makes NO SENSE!

It does not claim to be "the same thing". It is an analogy. And, once again, it does highlight the weakness of your argument.

Originally posted by FMF
The analogy, however, does highlight the weakness of your argument.

I will not condemn an entire demographic group but will condemn immoral behaviour by individuals.

No it doesn't, its not even relevant and is typical argument one meets when arguing against deaths from guns, more people die on the roads etc should we stop driving cars etc . Its a nonsense. It doesn't even address the same issue.

Originally posted by FMF
It does not claim to be "the same thing". It is an analogy. And, once again, it does highlight the weakness of your argument.

No its doesn't, infact its not even relevant. Its like saying people have died in a hot climate by not drinking enough water, therefore not drinking enough water is dangerous. Its a nonsense argument.

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
Sitting down is not the same thing as engaging in promiscuous sex is it. If not then your argument makes NO SENSE!

It's you who is making NO SENSE!!!!

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
No it doesn't, its not even relevant and is typical argument one meets when arguing against deaths from guns, more people die on the roads etc should we stop driving cars etc . Its a nonsense. It doesn't even address the same issue.

Your argument that risks attached to behaviour make it immoral to engage in that behaviour. Proper Knob's analogies about cars and sitting down and my reference to the risks of heterosexual sex reveal your argument to be weak.

Originally posted by Proper Knob
It's you who is making NO SENSE!!!!

I am making perfect sense, you will tell us what driving a car has to do with engaging in promiscuous sex.

Originally posted by FMF
Your argument that risks attached to behaviour make it immoral to engage in that behaviour. Proper Knob's analogies about cars and sitting down and my reference to the risks of heterosexual sex reveal your argument to be weak.

they are not even relevant, driving a car is not the same as engaging in promiscuous sex. You were telling us how remaining chaste carried with it the same risk as engaging in promiscuous sex, after all according to you all sexual activities contain risk, is that so?

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
I am making perfect sense, you will tell us what driving a car has to do with engaging in promiscuous sex.

Like I said, promiscuity may well involve morally unsound behavior but I do not think promiscuity is, in and of itself, morally unsound.

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
I am not discussing heterosexuals in Africa, i am discussing homosexual men in the UK. I cannot make that any clearer.

So, you are simply going to ignore the evidence. As expected. Hypocrite.

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
they are not even relevant, driving a car is not the same as engaging in promiscuous sex.

It's an analogy. It makes no claim that they are "the same". But it does reveal the weakness of your contention that risk attached to an act makes the act immoral.

Originally posted by twhitehead
So, you are simply going to ignore the evidence. As expected. Hypocrite.

yawn, predictable and banal.

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
You were telling us how remaining chaste carried with it the same risk as engaging in promiscuous sex..

Where do you claim I said this?

Originally posted by FMF
It's an analogy. It makes no claim that they are "the same". But it does reveal the weakness of your contention that risk attached to an act makes the act immoral.

So if its not the same then what relevance does it have? Am I at the same risk of dying in an aeroplane than if I never fly? If not then the comparison is ludicrous, for I will likely never catch HIV from driving a car, will I.