tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-13358611.post2459273509645865070..comments2023-10-25T14:20:11.408-05:00Comments on RHOBLOGY: Anti-anti-discriminationRhologyhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/14245825667079220242noreply@blogger.comBlogger177125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-13358611.post-70928084670318377242011-12-30T10:42:42.498-06:002011-12-30T10:42:42.498-06:00And just to clip the end of this thread: you do no...And just to clip the end of this thread: you do not in fact have any examples of the sort of legislation you referred to in the original post; nor are you even clear about what it is exactly that you would object to in your imaginary legislation; nor can you provide specific examples of "super rights" that homosexuals are demanding.merkurnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-13358611.post-89275561292848809262011-12-21T10:58:59.474-06:002011-12-21T10:58:59.474-06:00“I'd agree with that one, too. maybe you could...“I'd agree with that one, too. maybe you could choose a better analogy, one that I wouldn't disagree with.”<br /><br />I selected a point that I thought you were likely to agree with precisely in order to demonstrate that there is no explanatory value to the sentence.<br /><br />Let me make it simpler for you: how exactly does low-quality government school education account for the progress of the gay rights agenda?merkurnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-13358611.post-54766935645327537902011-12-21T10:53:46.299-06:002011-12-21T10:53:46.299-06:00“And one of my questions has been on what authorit...“And one of my questions has been on what authority "utilitarianism" defines it that way. And why anyone else should. And how the equivalence is known to be true.”<br /><br />On what authority does mathematics define a triangle as having three sides? It's built into the system. If you want to discuss the mathematical concept of a triangle, you have to accept the mathematical definition of a triangle.<br /><br />The Stanford encyclopedia sums it up simplest: "utilitarianism is generally held to be the view that the morally right action is the action that produces the most good". Thus we can see that the concepts of "morally right" and "good" are separate, and that "good" need not be tightly defined in general discussion (but will be more closely defined in specific cases).merkurnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-13358611.post-36740351924795512982011-12-21T10:41:10.509-06:002011-12-21T10:41:10.509-06:00See? You could put anything in front of the word “...<i>See? You could put anything in front of the word “agenda” and the sentence would have exactly the same explanatory value. </i><br /><br />I'd agree with that one, too. <br />maybe you could choose a better analogy, one that I wouldn't disagree with.<br />The fact that you proposed a counterexample that works fine gives me the distinct suspicion that you DO actually understand, but don't want to agree, but are just playacting like you don't understand.<br /><br /><br /><br /><i>In another post, you've claimed that “I DO have access to [God's knowledge of every individual's thoughts]” but now you're claiming that you don't have much information about the most important thoughts of two of the most important individuals in history.</i><br /><br />1) And how did I go on to clarify the extent of the access I have?<br />2) OK, let's grant that they were important thoughts and important individuals. Now make the connection - why is it inconsistent with that statement that I don't know them?<br />3) And I never said I don't know anything about what they were thinking. The passage tells us a great deal about their thoughts, actually, if you read it. You swapped in "thoughts" when I told you we don't have a great deal of info about their NATURES. be careful - stay on target here.Rhologyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14245825667079220242noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-13358611.post-12460993703310749222011-12-21T10:38:42.649-06:002011-12-21T10:38:42.649-06:00“I'd say that their natures were uncorrupted b...“I'd say that their natures were uncorrupted but they were obviously peccable; that is, they were potentially sinful. When they did sin, the potential was actualised.”<br /><br />So humans were created by God to be ontologically peccable, i.e. susceptible to temptation. So when humans succumb to temptation and commit a sin, they are acting according to their ontological nature. So on what basis do you object to sinful behaviour?merkurnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-13358611.post-90431766316782994842011-12-21T10:36:04.459-06:002011-12-21T10:36:04.459-06:00“Adam and Eve were in a unique state, and we don&#...“Adam and Eve were in a unique state, and we don't have a ton of information about them, so I don't know.”<br /><br />In another post, you've claimed that “I DO have access to [God's knowledge of every individual's thoughts]” but now you're claiming that you don't have much information about the most important thoughts of two of the most important individuals in history. Can you decide which it is?merkurnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-13358611.post-89180867258266755452011-12-21T10:31:43.427-06:002011-12-21T10:31:43.427-06:00“And I know you can SAY that my explanation makes ...“And I know you can SAY that my explanation makes literally no sense, but you didn't show how it doesn't. And no wonder - it explains the situation just fine.”<br /><br />If you think that one sentence constitutes an explanation, that explains a lot about your writing. How about this? “The progress of the bank bailout agenda can easily be accounted for by the prevalence of low-quality government school edjamakayshun in this country.” See? You could put anything in front of the word “agenda” and the sentence would have exactly the same explanatory value. That's why it's not an explanation, because an explanation has to explain something.merkurnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-13358611.post-49791007001521405762011-12-21T10:21:45.800-06:002011-12-21T10:21:45.800-06:00home support dnlds seatools
Now you're switch...home support dnlds seatools<br /><br />Now you're switching topics a bit. This is biblical theology now. But OK, with that in mind...<br />Adam and Eve were in a unique state, and we don't have a ton of information about them, so I don't know. Fortunately, it's of little importance. I'd say that their natures were uncorrupted but they were obviously peccable; that is, they were potentially sinful. When they did sin, the potential was actualised. <br />Contrast that with everyone born after them, who's born into sin, a corrupted nature.<br /><br />And I know you can SAY that my explanation makes literally no sense, but you didn't show how it doesn't. And no wonder - it explains the situation just fine.Rhologyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14245825667079220242noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-13358611.post-30445959599079455872011-12-21T09:39:06.623-06:002011-12-21T09:39:06.623-06:00“Ontologically our natures are corrupted, so disob...“Ontologically our natures are corrupted, so disobedient.”<br /><br />You just said that our natures became corrupted at the fall. Yet the fall was caused by an act of disobedience. How was that possible if Adam and Eve were both ontologically obedient?<br /><br />“And the progress of the gay rights agenda can easily be accounted for by the prevalence of low-quality government school edjamakayshun (but I repeat myself) in this country.”<br /><br />That makes literally no sense at all, but I'm pretty sure you're as well-informed about education policy as you are about race and ethnicity, utilitarian philosophy and civil rights legislation, so your explanation should be pretty entertaining.merkurnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-13358611.post-46388220919475859742011-12-21T07:37:39.225-06:002011-12-21T07:37:39.225-06:00Ontologically our natures are corrupted, so disobe...Ontologically our natures are corrupted, so disobedient.<br /><br />And the progress of the gay rights agenda can easily be accounted for by the prevalence of low-quality government school edjamakayshun (but I repeat myself) in this country.Rhologyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14245825667079220242noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-13358611.post-42062227988444933882011-12-21T02:01:18.222-06:002011-12-21T02:01:18.222-06:00"Any doubt I might have had has long been dis..."Any doubt I might have had has long been dispelled by the inept arguments of pro-homosexuality proponents."<br /><br />Yes, the ineptness of their arguments must be the reason why the gay rights movements has made such tremendous progress.merkurnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-13358611.post-89194666822133542042011-12-21T02:00:25.106-06:002011-12-21T02:00:25.106-06:00So just to recap: you have no specific examples fr...So just to recap: you have no specific examples from the real world of the type of legislation you object to, or specific examples from the real world of demands from homosexuals for "super rights", but you object to them anyway.<br /><br />Incidentally, my last question is still standing: are humans ontologically obedient, or ontologically disobedient?merkurnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-13358611.post-7855876969108033072011-12-20T21:06:07.046-06:002011-12-20T21:06:07.046-06:00other than a general fear (verging on hatred) of h...<i>other than a general fear (verging on hatred) of homosexuals in general.<br /></i> <br /><br />What a foolish thing to say. I've been giving you more credit than you deserve.<br /><br /><br /><i> Does this give you any cause to wonder about whether your animated position on the issue might not - in fact - be rooted in reality?</i><br /><br />Any doubt I might have had has long been dispelled by the inept arguments of pro-homosexuality proponents.Rhologyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14245825667079220242noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-13358611.post-65580990810579887712011-12-20T08:10:21.561-06:002011-12-20T08:10:21.561-06:00Look, there's lots more, but since you can'...<i>Look, there's lots more, but since you can't be troubled to learn more about my position when all you have to do is click a few times and do some reading, right here on this blog, I have no confidence that you'd do any reading even if I had time to provide you more instances on this topic.</i><br /><br />I've read almost everything you've written in the last three years. It's largely incoherent, but there you go. In particular, you don't seem to have any well-thought-through position on gay rights, other than a general fear (verging on hatred) of homosexuals in general.<br /><br />In this instance, all you have to do is to cite one specific piece of legislation that we can then examine to see if it really does contain all the horrors that you describe.<br /><br />It's the simplest thing in the world for you to do - it would have taken less time than it took you to write that last comment, even - and yet still you are either unable or unwilling to do it. Does this give you any cause to wonder about whether your animated position on the issue might not - in fact - be rooted in reality?merkurnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-13358611.post-90918014583096327612011-12-19T16:07:24.090-06:002011-12-19T16:07:24.090-06:00Legislation to require recognition of same-sex mar...Legislation to require recognition of same-sex marriage.<br /><br />Look, there's lots more, but since you can't be troubled to learn more about my position when all you have to do is click a few times and do some reading, right here on this blog, I have no confidence that you'd do any reading even if I had time to provide you more instances on this topic.Rhologyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14245825667079220242noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-13358611.post-31904188871698701032011-12-19T11:50:44.472-06:002011-12-19T11:50:44.472-06:00Can we take it that this persistent silence means ...Can we take it that this persistent silence means that no such legislation in fact exists?merkurnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-13358611.post-81626383896304576912011-12-13T16:19:57.561-06:002011-12-13T16:19:57.561-06:00Also: can you clarify what legislation you were or...Also: can you clarify what legislation you were originally referring to, what it is exactly that you object to in it, and what are the "super rights" that you believe homosexuals are asking for?merkurnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-13358611.post-77855797717953982812011-12-13T15:26:32.423-06:002011-12-13T15:26:32.423-06:00Are humans ontologically obedient, or ontologicall...Are humans ontologically obedient, or ontologically disobedient?merkurnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-13358611.post-37299442780956664502011-12-13T13:01:03.008-06:002011-12-13T13:01:03.008-06:00By what authority would I bring a fact forward? H...By what authority would I bring a fact forward? Hint: I don't need an "authority"- I'll trust the world to provide me with facts, not an authority. Authorities can be wrong; the world is what it is.<br /><br />And I don't pity you greatly, Alan- you seem to be having fun, and I suspect you don't lack for food, shelter, or companionship. It does seem rather a waste of an intelligent mind to talk seriously about eschatology, salvificity, and all that other imaginary stuff, but who am I to talk? Chacun à son goût.<br /><br />cheers from chilly Vienna, zilchzilchhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01695741977946935771noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-13358611.post-44861271074106189362011-12-13T12:48:50.134-06:002011-12-13T12:48:50.134-06:00That assumes there are any facts to dispute agains...That assumes there are any facts to dispute against the Word of God. <br /><br />By what authority would you bring one forward? How could you know it was correct?<br />Hint: You can't, as we've seen over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over.<br /><br />This is the rebellion in which you find yourself. It's why I pity you so greatly.Rhologyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14245825667079220242noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-13358611.post-34560424596469947462011-12-13T12:13:39.760-06:002011-12-13T12:13:39.760-06:00How can one argue against God's Word, which is...How can one argue against God's Word, which is true by definition? Once you get behind that barrier, you're impervious to logic or facts.zilchhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01695741977946935771noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-13358611.post-89844446354522790252011-12-13T09:19:02.909-06:002011-12-13T09:19:02.909-06:00Complaints about it won't help you. Arguments ...Complaints about it won't help you. Arguments might, though.Rhologyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14245825667079220242noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-13358611.post-66244784003767610692011-12-13T09:03:03.342-06:002011-12-13T09:03:03.342-06:00Ah yes, the Fall, that catch-all for sticky stuff....Ah yes, the Fall, that catch-all for sticky stuff. When lions suddenly got long teeth and short guts, and genes started jumping. I guess we're whupped.zilchhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01695741977946935771noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-13358611.post-19412133796071084682011-12-13T08:24:43.083-06:002011-12-13T08:24:43.083-06:00At what exact point did the fall happen?
The mom...<i>At what exact point did the fall happen? </i><br /><br />The moment of sin and disobedience to God's command. Where Eve ate the fruit.Rhologyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14245825667079220242noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-13358611.post-69049724627551922862011-12-13T01:30:56.280-06:002011-12-13T01:30:56.280-06:00Chemist- of course, you may be right. But it is a...Chemist- of course, you may be right. But it is at least suggestive that there is a progression in asymmetrical investment in offspring that starts with the size difference between egg and sperm. Both pack identical amounts of genetic information: the egg is only bigger because it has nutrients (or machinery to get such) added, which means more investment (if only a tiny bit) for the female. From there it's a smooth increase (in evolution) in relative investment for the female: larger eggs, placentas and pregnancy, nursing...<br /><br />And the cross-cultural data on the differences in behavior between men and women belies any claim that it is purely cultural, not to mention studies on non-human animals. Just two examples: how many women rape men? How many men are prostitutes for women? Anyone who thinks this is purely cultural has blinders on.<br /><br />cheers from chilly Vienna, zilchzilchhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01695741977946935771noreply@blogger.com