Sodomy Ain't Healthy

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
argumentum ad populum, many people believe it therefore legislation which makes discrimination against those who practice homosexuality illegal must be a good idea - logically fallacious and nonsensical, next you will be telling us that because eight out of ten cats prefer kitikat its the best catfood on the market!

Do you think, and I mean at all, before you post?

josephw made the claim that only a minority supports gay rights, and I provided evidence proving that
wrong.

Nowhere did I make the claim that because a majority thinks that discrimination is wrong that proves
that discrimination was wrong.
Therefore I did not make an 'ad populum' argument.

A majority of the population [in the USA] is opposed to discrimination BECAUSE we have good
arguments and evidence to show that such discrimination is bad and immoral.
Some of which you can find in the very article I linked to.

Please remember that I know allot more about logical fallacies than you do, and am far less prone to
committing them.

Originally posted by Proper Knob
Your ability to get the wrong end of the stick so often is truly remarkable. Do you have some sort of learning disability we should know of or are you just plain dense Robert?

another appeal to personal considerations rather than addressing the content of the post. Its practically par for the course for you Proper Boofhead.

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
argumentum ad populum, many people believe it therefore legislation which makes discrimination against those who practice homosexuality illegal must be a good idea - logically fallacious and nonsensical, next you will be telling us that because eight out of ten cats prefer kitikat its the best catfood on the market!

Why didn't you mention this argumentum ad populam thing to josephw when he referred to "the vast majority" of society that supposedly agree with him?

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
another appeal to personal considerations rather than addressing the content of the post. Its practically par for the course for you Proper Boofhead.

He did address the content of the post. He expressed his amazement at your ability to
totally misunderstand even the most simple of posts.

See my response for the details of why your post was so far off the mark.

Originally posted by googlefudge
Do you think, and I mean at all, before you post?

josephw made the claim that only a minority supports gay rights, and I provided evidence proving that
wrong.

Nowhere did I make the claim that because a majority thinks that discrimination is wrong that proves
that discrimination was wrong.
Therefore I did not make an 'ad populum' argument.

...[text shortened]... know allot more about logical fallacies than you do, and am far less prone to
committing them.

ok perhaps i should read your text with more than a casual nonchalant attitude but that would mean i would need to take them seriously. Fat chance of that 😀

Originally posted by googlefudge
He did address the content of the post. He expressed his amazement at your ability to
totally misunderstand even the most simple of posts.

See my response for the details of why your post was so far off the mark.

yes yes i seen try to keep your knickers on. 😀

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
another appeal to personal considerations rather than addressing the content of the post. Its practically par for the course for you Proper Boofhead.

Dense it is then.

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
ok perhaps i should read your text with more than a casual nonchalant attitude but that would mean i would need to take them seriously. Fat chance of that 😀

You are free to ignore my posts and/or not take them seriously.
However when you respond to my posts having not bothered to read them you should
recognise the significant risk you run of appearing exceptionally stupid when your response
bears no relationship to the post you are replying to.

Given your enhanced vision of your own... what was the word you use... majesty... you
might want to take this into consideration.

Which brings me back to... Do you think, and I mean at all, before you post?

Don't worry... That question was rhetorical.

Originally posted by twhitehead
I think that if a creator exists as you have described, then it isn't so smart.

[b]You would be so much more capable if only you could have been the Creator?
I certainly would not have created diseases that cause untold suffering.

Gee, I seem to recall some one else saying that in Isaiah chapter 14!
🙄
Maybe he was right.
I also feel ...[text shortened]... verses, you'll have more luck upsetting them (just don't be surprised when they call you on it).[/b]

Well if you had a better understanding of the bible, you would know that God did not create STD's. Your god did. Also known as the god of this world.
In fact God warns mankind that sin leads to death. He also gives us a hint, "choose life" that you may live.
He even loves you twitehead!

Originally posted by googlefudge
You are free to ignore my posts and/or not take them seriously.
However when you respond to my posts having not bothered to read them you should
recognise the significant risk you run of appearing exceptionally stupid when your response
bears no relationship to the post you are replying to.

Given your enhanced vision of your own... what was the w ...[text shortened]... o you think, and I mean at all, before you post?

Don't worry... That question was rhetorical.

thanks for the unsolicited advice, but hmmm if you don't mind I'll just dismiss it and carry on as before treating them with a nonchalant detachment as perhaps one does graffiti on a derelict wall.

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
Yes we have the highest ever recorded figures for HIV among gay men in the UK, but hey its all supposed to be good, you dare not say a thing or they will have your job and your livelihood.

I think the fact that HIV infection rates among gay men are higher is fairly well-known and not at all controversial, as is the fact that obesity rates are higher among heterosexual men. These are serious health issues that ask for serious solutions and I certainly don't understand who you attempt to be addressing with your "supposed to be good" strawman.

Originally posted by checkbaiter
Well if you had a better understanding of the bible, you would know that God did not create STD's. Your god did. Also known as the god of this world.

And who created that god and set him loose on the world?

In fact God warns mankind that sin leads to death. He also gives us a hint, "choose life" that you may live.
He even loves you twitehead!
So you say, but given your dishonesty so far, I don't think you are to be trusted.
The statistics on the other hand tell a very different story. It seems life expectancy is pretty good in Japan. Do they sin less perhaps?

I might also point out that your understanding of the Bible is worse than mine, a lowly atheist. Really sad given that you claim to have studied it for 40 years.

Originally posted by twhitehead
And who created that god and set him loose on the world?

[b]In fact God warns mankind that sin leads to death. He also gives us a hint, "choose life" that you may live.
He even loves you twitehead!
So you say, but given your dishonesty so far, I don't think you are to be trusted.
The statistics on the other hand tell a very different story. It seems life expectancy is pretty good in Japan. Do they sin less perhaps?[/b]

Really? I've been dishonest?

Originally posted by checkbaiter
Really? I've been dishonest?

Yes, you have lied several times, denied saying something you did say, and a number of other dishonest actions. Would you like me to list them all? It could get embarrassing.

Originally posted by twhitehead
Yes, you have lied several times, denied saying something you did say, and a number of other dishonest actions. Would you like me to list them all? It could get embarrassing.

Sure, I'm not embarrassed. I'm not perfect, nor let opinions bother me. In fact it might be helpful.