Duck Dynasty Dis

[Aloysius]

I am insulting their arguments.  Not intending to insult the people, if anyone takes offense and thinks I have directed anything towards their person, I apologize.  But I do intend to say exactly what I have said about such so-called arguments.  I stand by everything I have said here, I do not intend to retract or weaken it, because I think these are harmful attitudes that are not only counterproductive, but which tap into ignorance and homophobia (the real kind, not the fake everything-that-doesn't-accept-homosexuality kind)... I understand you disagree... but I stand by my statements and disagree with your advice that I should weaken my criticism of that position.  whether or not you are homophobic, that argument from grossness/vileness is what I consider to be an appeal-to-homophobia, not an appeal to true Catholic sexual morality or to anything useful, and I think it's fundamentally wrong.

[KnightofChrist]

I am insulting their arguments.  Not intending to insult the people, if anyone takes offense and thinks I have directed anything towards their person, I apologize.  But I do intend to say exactly what I have said about such so-called arguments.  I stand by everything I have said here, I do not intend to retract or weaken it, because I think these are harmful attitudes that are not only counterproductive, but which tap into ignorance and homophobia (the real kind, not the fake everything-that-doesn't-accept-homosexuality kind)... I understand you disagree... but I stand by my statements and disagree with your advice that I should weaken my criticism of that position.  whether or not you are homophobic, that argument from grossness/vileness is what I consider to be an appeal-to-homophobia, not an appeal to true Catholic sexual morality or to anything useful, and I think it's fundamentally wrong.

 

What about other unnatural sexual sins? Would you object to my calling the act of sodomitic pedophilia vile in a similar but certainly not the same as I find adult sodomy vile? What about bestiality can I believe that is also vile and sick and not just because of it being sinful but just on the physical basis that it is just plain sick, dirty and nasty?

[NotreDame]

those that rally around that reasoning are generally displaying a level of ignorance and homophobia rather than a legitimate understanding of the nature of homosexual activity and the sins surrounding it.

 

Here you are insulting the people, not their arguments.  

[Aloysius]

...except that I'm describing what such people are displaying by rallying around that kind of thinking... imagine if we were talking about racism and I said "people who rally around x racist argument are displaying ignorance and racism"... have I begun speaking ad hominem?  no, because the entire premise of said statement centers around a critique of the argument itself and what the nature of that argument is.  if it strikes a nerve with you, that's not my problem, feel free to argue that the argument I'm strongly critiquing either isn't your argument or that it doesn't display that... but I think it does.

 

when one talks about how vile pedophilia is, that's usually coming out of righteous anger I would think, not entirely comparable with "grossness" per se.  bestiality is a good example to illustrate your point, though, but I do think there's a distinction.  you yourself of course make clear that these are certainly not the same, and I think that it not being the same is part of why it's not really comparable.  it's a strong point in your favor of using the word "vile" though, and if I conceded that point (I don't, as I still draw a distinction in which I think it is wrong to apply the same attitude towards homosexuality as one does towards bestiality, they are fundamentally different phenomena), I'd still fall back on saying it's counterproductive.

[NotreDame]

...except that I'm describing what such people are displaying by rallying around that kind of thinking... imagine if we were talking about racism and I said "people who rally around x racist argument are displaying ignorance and racism"... have I begun speaking ad hominem?  no, because the entire premise of said statement centers around a critique of the argument itself and what the nature of that argument is.  if it strikes a nerve with you, that's not my problem, feel free to argue that the argument I'm strongly critiquing either isn't your argument or that it doesn't display that... but I think it does.

 

>>> imagine if we were talking about racism and I said "people who rally around x racist argument are displaying ignorance and racism"... have I begun speaking ad hominem?
 

Yes you would have and you'd be doing exactly the same thing in that case that you are doing here.  You'd be shutting down discussion on the issue by calling it and anyone making it racist. 

 

>>> if it strikes a nerve with you, that's not my problem, feel free to argue that the argument I'm strongly critiquing either isn't your argument or that it doesn't display that... but I think it does.

 

lol!  So now you are calling me homophobic and ignorant as well?  You have a reading comprehension problem, my friend.  I never made the "icky" argument, I just showed how your critique of SC Guy's use of it was flawed.

 

I had higher hopes of a mod, but I guess those were misplaced.  Have fun throwing labels and insults on people who disagree with you.  This thread is no longer very interesting.

[Aloysius]

:) mods are no one special, mate, we're all just human.  anyway I'm sorry but that's not ad hominem, it just isn't.  say the argument was "black people marrying white people is gross"  and I said "people who rally around that kind of argument are displaying ignorance and racism (by rallying around that argument)"... that'd be a totally valid point to make, it wouldn't be shutting down discussion in the slightest (it'd be opening up a discussion as to whether the argument was racist or not)... it's directed towards the argument being made.  "people who make x argument are displaying y and z [ie by making x argument]"... seems perfectly ad argumentem to me.

 

and lol I didn't say you had made that argument.  I just suggested that if it strikes a nerve with you (let's expand that to or anyone as I was speaking rather generically), feel free to disagree.  how did I call you homophobic and ignorant?  who exactly is it that has a reading comprehension problem?  sigh... I guess some discussions are doomed.

[NotreDame]

Correct that you are only insulting me if I agree with the argument. You got me there.

[Aloysius]

because I'm strongly criticizing the argument lol... that's how any ad argumentem statement works.  going even more generically if I say "x argument is wrong", then if person y holds x argument, I'm saying person y is wrong.  that's not some kind of ad hominem insult just because it applies to the person who holds the argument as being wrong.  works with saying an argument is racist, or hateful, or homophobic, or anything, really.

 

ad hominem is like pass interference, you're supposed to play the ball, not the player, but of course there is some acceptable contact between defender and receiver, doesn't mean it's pass interference unless you started directly playing the receiver instead of the ball.  people's arguments are connected to the people themselves, so some strong criticisms of arguments can strike nerves with people... but such it is, some arguments are racist and you have to call those arguments racist; some arguments are hateful and you have to call those arguments hateful; some arguments tap into ignorance and homophobia, and to rally around them would be displaying such things.  you can disagree with me, but please don't try to say I'm insulting people just because I'm strongly criticizing an argument that I think is a detestable argument that is tied into the lines of hatred and bullying, not that the people that argue it are bullying but they are contributing to it and adding fuel to the fire of it, that discredits all efforts to promote Catholic sexual morality.

[KnightofChrist]

Saint Paul calls the act of sodomy "filthy", I call the act "vile". Is he also guilty of making a homophobic and ignorant argument?

Romans 1:27 - And, in like manner, the men also, leaving the natural use of the women, have burned in their lusts one towards another, men with men working that which is filthy, and receiving in themselves the recompense which was due to their error.

Edited December 31, 2013 by KnightofChrist

[NotreDame]

Saint Paul calls the act of sodomy "filthy", I call the act "vile". Is he also guilty of making a homophobic and ignorant argument?

Romans 1:27 - And, in like manner, the men also, leaving the natural use of the women, have burned in their lusts one towards another, men with men working that which is filthy, and receiving in themselves the recompense which was due to their error.

 

Homophobe for sure... Probably racist too...  :|  <--- Please note the strategic use of irony smiley
 

[Ice_nine]

This thread has exceeded my threshold for stupid. Correct grammatical I can not.

[Aloysius]

"filthy" isn't what most translations say, so I checked the Greek.  it appears to come from this word:

 

ἀσχημοσύνη,n  \{as-kay-mos-oo'-nay}
1) unseemliness, an unseemly deed  1a) of a woman's genitals  1b) of one's nakedness, shame 

 

translations that use "unseemly" or "shameful" seem much more accurate than douay's lone "filthy".  I understand we'll have to agree to disagree as to whether the use of an appeal-to-grossness (or vileness) is a way people tap into homophobia and ignorance like I suggest it is... so apart from that, like I said, I would still argue that it's counterproductive and unhelpful, especially this idea floated earlier that we should appeal to it for atheistic or secular people.

[KnightofChrist]

"filthy" isn't what most translations say, so I checked the Greek. it appears to come from this word:

ἀσχημοσύνη,n \{as-kay-mos-oo'-nay}
1) unseemliness, an unseemly deed 1a) of a woman's genitals 1b) of one's nakedness, shame

translations that use "unseemly" or "shameful" seem much more accurate than douay's lone "filthy". I understand we'll have to agree to disagree as to whether the use of an appeal-to-grossness (or vileness) is a way people tap into homophobia and ignorance like I suggest it is... so apart from that, like I said, I would still argue that it's counterproductive and unhelpful, especially this idea floated earlier that we should appeal to it for atheistic or secular people.

An unseemly act against nature that crys out to heaven can be rightly be called filthy. Also a synonym for shameful is vile, and a synonym for vile is filthily. The words aren't all that different and can be used interchangeably.

No, we are most certainly not going to agree that simply pointing out the uncleanness of sodomy is somehow tapping into homophobia and ignorance. I've tried to meet you half way on the matter, I agree that it is better to focus more marriage and procreation etc and that there are indeed wrong ways to point it out that would be homophobic and ignorant. But you still argue any criticism of the act as unclean is tapping into homophobia and ignorance. An argument I find to be highly questionable and strange. If the anal canal wasn't used for defecating your absolute zero-tolerance arguement against the uncleanness criticism of sodomy would not be so odd. But because it is used for that purpose it seems odd for one to be completely against any critisms of it being unclean to use the organ meant for defecating as a sexual orifice.

[4588686]

An unseemly act against nature that crys out to heaven can be rightly be called filthy. Also a synonym for shameful is vile, and a synonym for vile is filthily. The words aren't all that different and can be used interchangeably.

No, we are most certainly not going to agree that simply pointing out the uncleanness of sodomy is somehow tapping into homophobia and ignorance. I've tried to meet you half way on the matter, I agree that it is better to focus more marriage and procreation etc and that there are indeed wrong ways to point it out that would be homophobic and ignorant. But you still argue any criticism of the act as unclean is tapping into homophobia and ignorance. An argument I find to be highly questionable and strange. If the anal canal wasn't used for defecating your absolute zero-tolerance arguement against the uncleanness criticism of sodomy would not be so odd. But because it is used for that purpose it seems odd for one to be completely against any critisms of it being unclean to use the organ meant for defecating as a sexual orifice.

You do know that the thing a man uses for urination, the penis, is also the thing he uses when he has unitive missionary sex with his Catholic wife, right?

[havok579257]

You do know that the thing a man uses for urination, the penis, is also the thing he uses when he has unitive missionary sex with his Catholic wife, right?

 

 

just an fyi, urine is actually sanitary.