stevestory
Posts: 13407
Joined: Oct. 2005
|
No idea who this guy is, but KF is not going to be his best buddy:
| Quote | 259
CLAVDIVSApril 28, 2016 at 4:48 pm
kairosfocus
1. Lay off the hypocritical ad hominems, if you please. I am attacking bigotry and defending rationality. I am not “supporting antisocial, nihilistic” options. I do not “reject the stability of the heterosexual bond”. I do not “disagree with core principles of commitment, conjugality, stable child nurture and the thriving of people in society”. I will ignore any future comments of yours that indulge in such incivility.
2. The evolutionary materialistic worldview is utterly irrelevant to this discussion. I am not a materialist; you are not a materialist; and its safe to assume George, Girgis and Anderson and not materialists. So stop bringing it up as a rhetorical distraction.
3. Naturalistic fallacy – Nothing you said refutes the fact that George, Girgis and Anderson attempt to derive an ought from an is. “Marriage is traditionally focussed on child-bearing, therefore it ought to always be so.” This is a logical fallacy, and thus irrational.
4. Begging the question –
… you imply but do not wish to openly state rejection of the above norms, showing the antisocial, nihilistic character of the alternatives you evidently support. … It is thus a very relevant point for serious questions to be asked on underlying principles, this is not at all irrational.
George, Girgis and Anderson do not demonstrate the same-sex marriage violates any rationally justified principles; they simply assume it, and then use that assumption to argue that allowing same-sex marriage “deprives” society of the assumed benefits of opposite-sex marriage. Classic petitio principii – QED. Nothing you said refutes this.
5. Reification – Nothing you said refutes the fact that George, Girgis and Anderson treat the nature of marriage as an unchangeable fact of nature, rather than a social convention that can and has varied across time and culture – classic pathetic fallacy.
Regardless of anyone’s agreement or disagreement with principles, these arguments are simply logical fallacies and thus irrational and bigoted. |
Edited by stevestory on April 28 2016,19:05
|
