3
edits
Changes
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
Line 30:
Line 30: − + + + + + + +
Talk:Atheism/archive11 (view source)
Revision as of 19:33, October 25, 2008
, 19:33, October 25, 2008→Unable to be edited: clarification and reiteration of contradiction within the article
</blockquote>
</blockquote>
Notice that the suggestion that the Bible prohibition of homosexual is related to the fact that disease results; setting aside for the moment the fact that lesbians are likely to be statistically healthier than child-bearing women, especially before modern medicine, this is a blatant appeal to self-interest. Yet the following quote condemns the basing of morality on self-interest! Hello, are any editors reading this? Or thinking about what is written here? Hello? McFly? <knock knock>--[[User:ScottForschler|ScottForschler]] 15:49, 28 August 2008 (EDT)
Notice that the suggestion that the Bible prohibition of homosexuality is related to the fact that disease results; setting aside for the moment the fact that lesbians are likely to be statistically healthier than child-bearing women, especially before modern medicine, this is a blatant appeal to self-interest. Yet the following quote condemns the basing of morality on self-interest! Hello, are any editors reading this? Or thinking about what is written here? Hello? McFly? <knock knock>--[[User:ScottForschler|ScottForschler]] 15:49, 28 August 2008 (EDT)
::Scottforschler, are you considering the issue of [[Homosexuality|lesbianism and obesity]] ? Secondly, I think your likely atheistic worldview (which may be tenuous like Darwin's and Sartre's) is perhaps blinding you to the fact that a person engaging in risky homosexuality related behaviors (and often promiscuity) is often [[Homosexuality|posing a greater health risk to others and to the community at large]]. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 18:06, 28 August 2008 (EDT)
::Scottforschler, are you considering the issue of [[Homosexuality|lesbianism and obesity]] ? Secondly, I think your likely atheistic worldview (which may be tenuous like Darwin's and Sartre's) is perhaps blinding you to the fact that a person engaging in risky homosexuality related behaviors (and often promiscuity) is often [[Homosexuality|posing a greater health risk to others and to the community at large]]. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 18:06, 28 August 2008 (EDT)
:::I wasn't considering that. It sounds like a dubious claim, I know too many large hetrosexual women and thin lesbians, and also have simply never heard anyone make this claim before; also you haven't tried to suggest that, even if this claim were true, that such obesity would be anywhere near as dangerous as childbirth has historically been prior to modern medicine.
:::But all of that is actually irrelevant to the main point I was making, which is much more serious (and perhaps that's why you distracted attention from it by focusing on the obesity claim, because you feared you had no response to it and recognized that it was a far more serious point). That is, that even if homosexuality '''is''' prudentially bad, the quote which '''immediately follows that claim''' and which '''attempts to use it to suggest that the bible's ''moral'' injunction against homosexuality is thereby vindicated''' comdemns the basing of morality on self-interest. In other worse, the quote condemns the very form of the argument used just above it. The article contradicts itself here. It's not me, Scott Forschler, claiming that it's wrong--the POV of the article itself condemns itself, at least between these two passages.
:::I'm also baffled as to why you think I have an "atheistic worldview" on the basis of arguments like this. Last I checked, Christians are able to seek the truth, and to at least try to avoid self-contradiction, and other muddles, to the extent that their finite and fallible natures will permit. You should ask yourself, on the other hand, what is it that is blinding you to the second, more serious (and still standing) objection which I made, which again is really just the pointing out of an objection that the article makes '''to itself''', and dodging the issue? What is causing you to avoid the point here, espeically one that could be fixed relatively easily, leaving most of the rest of the article in place? Why are you working so hard to avoid looking at the problem here and recognizing the self-contradiction in the article?--[[User:Scottifer|Scottifer]] 15:33, 25 October 2008 (EDT)
do you not trust your users? if you describe yourself as 'The Trustworthy' encyclopedia who are you denying me, an atheist the freedom to modify the page to remove errors or simply add more information? wikipedia allows me, and although that seems to be the work of the [[devil]] you are not respecting either your users or your ideas by not allowing them up to debate
do you not trust your users? if you describe yourself as 'The Trustworthy' encyclopedia who are you denying me, an atheist the freedom to modify the page to remove errors or simply add more information? wikipedia allows me, and although that seems to be the work of the [[devil]] you are not respecting either your users or your ideas by not allowing them up to debate