Irish Marriage Equality Referendum Draws Near

[Aeson]

The claim, "Ben Kenobi always lies" has the logical consequence of:

"Ben Kenobi always lies" is itself a dishonest and/or ignorant conjuration on your part.

The rest of your reasoning is just whacking away at your strawman. Just digging further and further into your pit of dishonesty and/or ignorance.

[Ben Kenobi]

nothing to do with what I was taking issue with

So you don't see the connection between what the Church teaches on marriage and what the Church teaches on homosexuality? That was basically my entire point. The two are connected. This is why conjugality is so important.

The rest of your reasoning is just whacking away at your strawman. Just digging further and further into your pit of dishonesty and/or ignorance.

Curious. I've never had anyone argue that the Socratic method is dishonest. Well, that's what I come to Apolyton for, to learn all the cutting edge new things.

your "logic" is incompatible with reality.

all honest people would say the same thing

Fair enough. Quote me, anywhere in the thread where I state that I believe that honest people will state the same thing.

It might make your head explode, but I actually believe the opposite. I believe that people can and do have honest differences of opinions, and I suspect that is the true source of our disagreement.

But, that would require you coming up to the table and admitting that my opinion is actually worth merit.

[Aeson]

So you don't see the connection between what the Church teaches on marriage and what the Church teaches on homosexuality? That was basically my entire point. The two are connected. This is why conjugality is so important.

And all of that was completely irrelevant. You started out taking something gribbler said and misrepresenting it. That is the initial "dishonesty and/or ignorance". Then when I explained he wasn't putting "sexual fulfillment at the top of utilitarian Good" you started misrepresenting what "be with" meant. First by pretending that it meant platonic only, then when I told you that was misrepresenting it, you swapped to it being only about sex. The reality is to "be with" someone can be many different things, in a constant state of flux, and what defines it in that moment for that couple is what the two people "being with" each other decide it should be. Your knee-jerk depiction of it as a binary "sex or no sex unchangeable forever" was clearly a dishonest and/or ignorant misrepresentation of how "be with" had been used.

Then since you either couldn't understand what I was getting at and/or were too dishonest to address it in it's own right, you threw up a strawman of "what is your beef with the Catholic Church" even though my beef was with you and the way you were misconstruing things that had been said.

Then even more ridiculously dishonestly and/or ignorantly you pretended our disagreement was about some stats you claimed to have posted. Then you jumped into your stupid reality-incompatible "logic" to try to prove you weren't dishonest and/or ignorantly misrepresenting what had been said ... constantly misrepresenting each and every thing I said along the way.

Curious. I've never had anyone argue that the Socratic method is dishonest. Well, that's what I come to Apolyton for, to learn all the cutting edge new things.

Referring to what you do as Socratic method is ridiculous. Socrates at times did twist the meanings of his adversaries words to suit his argument (and Plato may very well have taken liberties to make it unnoticeable in other cases). But in any case you take it to a whole new level. Then you throw up ridiculous strawmen left and right and rely on easily debunked logic.

You aren't using Socratic method.

Quote me, anywhere in the thread where I state that I believe that honest people will state the same thing.

You don't have to explicitly say something to imply it. Your logic necessitated it to be a given, you relied on that logic, so you were insinuating that given was indeed how things are.

I believe that people can and do have honest differences of opinions, and I suspect that is the true source of our disagreement.

You think that's the source of our disagreement because you're either dishonest or a moron. The true source of our disagreement was explicitly stated already, and is that you dishonestly and/or ignorantly twisted what was being said and erected at least 5 strawmen along the way.

But, that would require you coming up to the table and admitting that my opinion is actually worth merit.

If you present an opinion that has merit I will treat it as such. Misrepresenting what was said is not an opinion, nor worth merit.

[Sava]

Well, you're assuming that you made your bodies. But you didn't make them. They came to you and were a gift that you had no control over how they got there. Starting from that principle, we proceed to the second principle - if your bodies were not yours because you didn't make them who does your body belong to?

Christians believe that their bodies are temples of the holy spirit, and such that we ought to live by the laws of the one who did create us, since we didn't create ourselves.

You don't get to speak for "Christians".

Start acting like one. Do that for most of your life, then we'll talk.

[grumbler]

Well, you're assuming that you made your bodies. But you didn't make them. They came to you and were a gift that you had no control over how they got there. Starting from that principle, we proceed to the second principle - if your bodies were not yours because you didn't make them who does your body belong to?

Christians believe that their bodies are temples of the holy spirit, and such that we ought to live by the laws of the one who did create us, since we didn't create ourselves.

Well, you are assuming that I didn't make my body because you assume that you didn't make yours. I made mine, cell by cell. You did to, actually, but you don't need to believe that if you prefer fairy tales. But, how you treat your bodies based on assumptions and fairy tales has nothing to do with how other people should be allowed to treat theirs. Follow your own rules, so long as it hurts no one else and breaks no laws, and no one will care. Try to impose your rules on others based on assumptions and fairy tales, and people will rightly call you despicable.

[giblets]

If you're expected to do something in return for receiving something, it's not a gift.

[loinburger]

One year my dad gave my brother and I a snow shovel for Christmas - he gave it to us a few weeks early because it snowed.

[dannubis]

"Ben Kenobi always lies" is itself a dishonest and/or ignorant conjuration on your part.

The rest of your reasoning is just whacking away at your strawman. Just digging further and further into your pit of dishonesty and/or ignorance.

Ban him and get it over with...

[Ben Kenobi]

Well, you are assuming that I didn't make my body because you assume that you didn't make yours. I made mine, cell by cell.

Doesn't change the fact that you didn't make your body, grumbler.

nothing to do with how other people should be allowed to treat theirs.

If my existence begins at conception then your own rules defeat you. If I have a right to live and a right to autonomy, then my right cannot be extinguished by abortion.

[Ben Kenobi]

And all of that was completely irrelevant.

Perhaps you'd best start taking a different approach, Aeson.

Dismissing an argument you dislike does nothing to address the points that I am making. Merely asserting, "this is completely irrelevant" doesn't change the fact that yes, this is quite relevant.

Then when I explained he wasn't putting "sexual fulfillment at the top of utilitarian Good"

Then explain to me what it means? I asked you what it meant and you refused to answer. You keep saying that you reject what the Church teaches and then kept trying to dodge the truth - that the Church rejects sinful actions, not sinful people. That's the core of the dispute here.

You believe that a person IS what a person DOES and I believe the opposite, that a person has an identity separate from what they do. A person has sexual desires, that doesn't mean that they are defined by them.

Your knee-jerk depiction of it as a binary "sex or no sex unchangeable forever" was clearly a dishonest and/or ignorant misrepresentation of how "be with" had been used.

Then answer the question. What does it mean?

my beef was with you and the way you were misconstruing things that had been said.

You do have a beef with the Catholic church and what the Church teaches, Aeson. Am I lying when I say that?

Referring to what you do as Socratic method is ridiculous.

As always, whatever Ben does is ridiculous, ignorant or whatever. Yawn.

At least Grumbler has some actual meat.

You don't have to explicitly say something to imply it.

Then you concede the point. You're the only one going on with ad-hominem attacks. Good luck with that approach.

You think that's the source of our disagreement because you're either dishonest or a moron.

Ah. Well then I stand convinced that we have a honest difference of opinion. I'm amused that you think me saying this is 'dishonest'.

If you present an opinion that has merit I will treat it as such.

Who died and made you king? Opinions you disagree with don't lose or gain merit just because you think so.

I've said clearly - we have a honest disagreement of opinions on certain fundamental questions. Apparently me saying so is 'dishonest'.

[Ben Kenobi]

You don't get to speak for "Christians".

You're right about this - Christ does. And his words are pretty clear. "He made them male and female, and for that reason a man will leave his father and mother and cleave to his wife, and the two will become one flesh."

[grumbler]

Doesn't change the fact that you didn't make your body, grumbler.

You weren't there, so don't try to tell me what I did or didn't do. I, in fact, made my own body. I am sure you did as well, unless you are not, in fact, human.

If my existence begins at conception then your own rules defeat you. If I have a right to live and a right to autonomy, then my right cannot be extinguished by abortion.

I haven't stated any "rules," so they cannot "defeat" me. I am stating a biological reality.

And if you want to exercise your right to live, get the **** out of the womb of a woman who doesn't want you there. That's the "autonomy" you claim a right to. If you refuse to leave, then the owner of the womb has the right to take actions to force you to leave. If you die in the process, that's the fault of your own autonomous self. Hell, about half of all impregnated eggs don't attach and are spontaneously "aborted" anyway.

[Ben Kenobi]

You weren't there, so don't try to tell me what I did or didn't do. I, in fact, made my own body. I am sure you did as well, unless you are not, in fact, human.'

Yeah, pretty sure you weren't there either.

And if you want to exercise your right to live, get the **** out of the womb of a woman who doesn't want you there.

That's not how it works. If I'm alive, I have the right to life and that's not dependent on where I am, inside or out. It's a fundamental principle that I possess. Your right to have control over your own body ends where my body begins. You have no right to kill another person.

If you refuse to leave, then the owner of the womb has the right to take actions to force you to leave.

So why don't you have the right to kill an infant that you don't want? That refuses to leave?

Hell, about half of all impregnated eggs don't attach and are spontaneously "aborted" anyway.

So when does personhood begin, Grumbler?

[loinburger]

Yeah, pretty sure you weren't there either.

Wait - if he wasn't there while his body was being made, then this means that life doesn't begin at conception.

[Ben Kenobi]

Wait - if he wasn't there while his body was being made, then this means that life doesn't begin at conception.

How could one be there before the beginning of one's existence?