re: See, the animals are gay too

You embed naturalness with the morality of homosexuality. Again - whatever that is.

Yeah no, you brought up the morality of homosexuality in relation to why things are suddenly different involving an action. Which means, you imbue that action with more than the action,like everyone else.

You're afraid of the full scope of your belief. I get it, that's crazy stuff to believe.

quote:

---

Maybe.

---

There's no maybe to it. Strict homosexuality is abnormal sexual behavior. Many of the documented homosexual encounters in nature are between males who cannot attract females at that moment in time. Though fairly rare, those males still mate with females when given the opportunity.

That in and of itself doesn't make it wrong, but it's certainly not the norm by any stretch of the imagination.

The discussion anout natural or not seems silly. There's lots of things we do or don't do that are perfectly normal in the animal kingdom. I wouldn't look to the animal kingdom for moral guidance. You'll be raping and eating your children in no time.

Indeed.

That was...the point.

quote:

---

No. You have an arbitrary stopping point.

Your logic is this:
2 male lions = natural, therefore
2 dudes = natural but

1 dude and 1 male lion = unnatural? Your only point is that an action can happen, therefore it's natural.

---

You have pinned Displaced’s argument to the wall as a prize specimen of logical prevarication yet he has such a insect sized intellect, I don’t even think he realizes it.

After being unable to defend his original proposition, Displaced pivoted to another position: “I’m only arguing we use definitions correctly….”

The entire progression of Displaced’s “argument” in this thread is a textbook example of what Philosopher Nicholas Shackel has deemed the motte-and-bailey doctrine:

A Motte and Bailey castle is a medieval system of defence in which a stone tower on a mound (the Motte) is surrounded by an area of land (the Bailey) which in turn is encompassed by some sort of a barrier such as a ditch. Being dark and dank, the Motte is not a habitation of choice. The only reason for its existence is the desirability of the Bailey, which the combination of the Motte and ditch makes relatively easy to retain despite attack by marauders. When only lightly pressed, the ditch makes small numbers of attackers easy to defeat as they struggle across it: when heavily pressed the ditch is not defensible and so neither is the Bailey. Rather one retreats to the insalubrious but defensible, perhaps impregnable, Motte. Eventually the marauders give up, when one is well placed to reoccupy desirable land.

An entire doctrine or theory may be a Motte and Bailey Doctrine just by virtue of having a central core of defensible but not terribly interesting or original doctrines surrounded by a region of exciting but only lightly defensible doctrines. Just as the medieval Motte was often constructed by the stonemasons art from stone in the surrounding land, the Motte of dull but defensible doctrines is often constructed by the use of the sophists art from the desired but indefensible doctrines lying within the ditch.

Diagnosis of a philosophical doctrine as being a Motte and Bailey Doctrine is invariably fatal. Once made it is relatively obvious to those familiar with the doctrine that the doctrine’s survival required a systematic vacillation between exploiting the desired territory and retreating to the Motte when pressed.

More correctly, because I never claimed that it's normal...but keep trying.

It doesn't work if there was no pivot...