No wonder they protect pedophile priests

Originally posted by stellspalfie
many of the physiological arguments you use are illogical.

you start with assumptions based loosely on what you think the bible means. you then base your concept of 'normality' based up what the bible says rather than average sociological behavior.

for example. you think the bible is against oral sex. so you argue that its unhygienic, i give you ...[text shortened]... t what bits of data you accept and which you ignore based on if they support your view or not.

yada yada yada,

citing that other practices as unhygienic is not providing any evidence to substantiate the claim that another practice should be considered as acceptable.

as for the physiological evidence, it does not depend upon any Biblical perspective, it stands alone making this most recent ad hominem (an attack on my personality insinuating that I lie) ludicrous!

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
yada yada yada,

citing that other practices as unhygienic is not providing any evidence to substantiate the claim that another practice should be considered as acceptable.

as for the physiological evidence, it does not depend upon any Biblical perspective, it stands alone making this most recent ad hominem (an attack on my personality insinuating that I lie) ludicrous!

"citing that other practices as unhygienic is not providing any evidence to substantiate the claim that another practice should be considered as acceptable."

you are making up arguments again. im not arguing what should and shouldnt be acceptable (not here anyway) im pointing out the hypocrisy and stupidity of your argument. why is oral sex unacceptable due to hygiene, yet putting your own fingers in your mouth is, or using communal soap, towels. touching public hand rails, travelling on public transport, any mouth on mouth kissing.

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
yada yada yada,

citing that other practices as unhygienic is not providing any evidence to substantiate the claim that another practice should be considered as acceptable.

as for the physiological evidence, it does not depend upon any Biblical perspective, it stands alone making this most recent ad hominem (an attack on my personality insinuating that I lie) ludicrous!

"it does not depend upon any Biblical perspective,"


so where does it come from?

Originally posted by stellspalfie
"citing that other practices as unhygienic is not providing any evidence to substantiate the claim that another practice should be considered as acceptable."

you are making up arguments again. im not arguing what should and shouldnt be acceptable (not here anyway) im pointing out the hypocrisy and stupidity of your argument. why is oral sex unaccepta ...[text shortened]... owels. touching public hand rails, travelling on public transport, any mouth on mouth kissing.

yes because lets face it, they are all the same thing.

🙄

Originally posted by stellspalfie
"it does not depend upon any Biblical perspective,"


so where does it come from?

from persons who have examined the body.

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
yes because lets face it, they are all the same thing.

🙄

so how do you figure out whats okay and whats not?

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
from persons who have examined the body.

who? do you have any non religious literature that states oral sex is unhygienic?

Originally posted by stellspalfie
who? do you have any non religious literature that states oral sex is unhygienic?

why dont you google the list of diseases that can be transmitted, I need to do stuff.

Originally posted by stellspalfie
so how do you figure out whats okay and whats not?

I need to figure out if using public transport is ok? if its acceptable to eat my wife's delicious home made chapatiis with my hands? wow.

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
why dont you google the list of diseases that can be transmitted, I need to do stuff.

stupid argument. ill give you a google list of diseases passed by penis's shall i?

do you know how stupid this is when you type it? or do you actually think this is a sensible argument?

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
I need to figure out if using public transport is ok? if its acceptable to eat my wife's delicious home made chapatiis with my hands? wow.

reductio ad absurdum maybe? but lets go with it.


you are more or less likely to catch something nasty from public transport than putting your mouth on your wifes vagina?

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
Sigh, has it really come to this, why do i bother,

the argument that you are making that oral sex is normal. The belief that because most people engage in it (you provided statistics for your bandwagon argument) that its normal.

If I said to you -

Statistics show that 90% of men shave at least once a week. Therefore it is normal practice for a man to shave.

Is that and argumentum ad populum?

Originally posted by Proper Knob
If I said to you -

Statistics show that 90% of men shave at least once a week. Therefore it is normal practice for a man to shave.

Is that and argumentum ad populum?

i think statistics go out the window with robbie. he seems to be trying to use the word 'normal' to mean 'right' and 'abnormal' as 'wrong'. that way he can call what he likes 'normal' based on if he or his elders deem it right or wrong.

its all a little bit sinister.

Originally posted by stellspalfie
i think statistics go out the window with robbie. he seems to be trying to use the word 'normal' to mean 'right' and 'abnormal' as 'wrong'. that way he can call what he likes 'normal' based on if he or his elders deem it right or wrong.

its all a little bit sinister.

As long as I can remember Rob has been used non-standard definitions of words to suit his particular agenda. This being a prime example.

Originally posted by Proper Knob
As long as I can remember Rob has been used non-standard definitions of words to suit his particular agenda. This being a prime example.

it wont be long before he starts referring to homosexuality as a 'thought crime'.