Homophobic Trump...

[seer]

Only basic logic and internal consistency.

How about this Carp, let's both made a deductive argument, I'll go first.

1. God created a teleology for human sexuality.

2. That design only allows sexual expression between biological men and biological women.

3. Sexual expression between men and men (or women and women) violates that teleology.

4. Therefore homosexual acts are immoral.

Now I don't expect you to accept my premises, but the argument is logically consistent.

Your turn, present your deductive syllogism...

[Sparko]

But you are. That part is inescapable. And it is interesting to me that you want to reject that principle. It's almost as if a part of you knows that declaring an act immoral solely on the basis of the genome of the participants is somehow not right. As I noted earlier, you would be better of simply embracing it - as Seer has done - and calling it for what it is.

This is the crux of the problem. As long as you insist on determining what our position is for us you will never understand our actual position is. You reject everything we say and claim we are determining morality based solely on genome. You are playing the mind reading game you hate so much and in the process are burning a straw man.

[carpedm9587]

How about this Carp, let's both made a deductive argument, I'll go first.

Fair enough.

1. God created a teleology for human sexuality.

Please show this premise to be true.

2. That design only allows sexual expression between biological men and biological women.

Please show this premise to be true.

3. Sexual expression between men and men (or women and women) violates that teleology.

If you can show 1 and 2 to be true, this logically follows.

4. Therefore homosexual acts are immoral.

I'm not 100% clear on how you leaped from teleology to morality. If you can show #1 and #2 to be true, this is the next issue to address. But it's not worth addressing until you can show #1 and #2 to be true.

Now I don't expect you to accept my premises, but the argument is logically consistent.

Your argument may be valid, if you can address the problem at #3. It cannot be sound unless you can show #1 and #2 to be true.

Your turn, present your deductive syllogism...

P1) A moral claim is not consistent if it is not applied consistently.

P2) The claim that the morality of an act can be determined by genome alone in one context, and cannot be determined by genome alone in another is a moral claim that is not consistently applied.

C) The moral claim that an act can be determined by genome alone is not consistently applied.

P1 appears to be true by definition of the terms in the premise. Likewise, Premise 2 appears to be true by definition of the terms in the premise. The conclusion inescapably follows.

[carpedm9587]

This is the crux of the problem. As long as you insist on determining what our position is for us you will never understand our actual position is.

Sparko, if a man claims over and over that green is not green, no amount of understanding their position is going to change the fact that they're wrong. You cannot logically make the claim that your moral prohibition against homosexual acts is NOT rooted in the genome of the participants. You keep asserting that it's not. I have clearly shown that it is. If you are going to refute the claim, you need to show where/how the logic is not correct.

You reject everything we say and claim we are determining morality based solely on genome.

Because you are. If you think otherwise, stop simply asserting that it is not so and show where/how the line of reasoning fails.

You are playing the mind reading game you hate so much and in the process are burning a straw man.

This has nothing to do with mind reading. It has everything to do with the viability of your argument. This is a non sequitur and doesn't get you out of the issue. Even Seer finally had to acknowledge it, and has taken the tact of saying, "so what?" At least that tactic accepts the inevitability of the nature of your moral proscription.

[seer]

Fair enough.



Please show this premise to be true.



Please show this premise to be true.



If you can show 1 and 2 to be true, this logically follows.



I'm not 100% clear on how you leaped from teleology to morality. If you can show #1 and #2 to be true, this is the next issue to address. But it's not worth addressing until you can show #1 and #2 to be true.


Your argument may be valid, if you can address the problem at #3. It cannot be sound unless you can show #1 and #2 to be true.

Carp, I'm not asking you to agree with my premises, I said you would disagree. But is my position logically consistent - yes or no? (as far as leaping from from teleology to morality I assumed after all our debates you would understand that I was speaking of the law of God).

P1) A moral claim is not consistent if it is not applied consistently.

P2) The claim that the morality of an act can be determined by genome alone in one context, and cannot be determined by genome alone in another is a moral claim that is not consistently applied.

C) The moral claim that an act can be determined by genome alone is not consistently applied.

P1 appears to be true by definition of the terms in the premise. Likewise, Premise 2 appears to be true by definition of the terms in the premise. The conclusion inescapably follows.

OK, if morality is relative according to your worldview why does a moral claim need to be applied consistently to be valid? You seem have a hidden assumption here. In other words consistent application or not tells us nothing about the morality or immorality of an act.

[carpedm9587]

Carp, I'm not asking you to agree with my premises, I said you would disagree. But is my position logically consistent - yes or no? (as far as leaping from from teleology to morality I assumed after all our debates you would understand that I was speaking of the law of God).

Teleology means: the explanation of phenomena in terms of the purpose they serve rather than of the cause by which they arise.

You have yet to show how "the purpose they serve" translates to "morality."

OK, if morality is relative according to your worldview why does a moral claim need to be applied consistently to be valid?

Seer, the term "valid" in logic means an argument is both sound and based on true premises. By definition, if any statement does not conform to those concepts, it is "not valid." ANY moral premise that is not rooted in true premises and solid logic is simply irrational, by definition.

You seem have a hidden assumption here. In other words consistent application or not tells us nothing about the morality or immorality of an act.

That is correct - it does not. You can apply an irrational moral conclusion consistently. And it is not the consistency that makes for a moral definition. However, inconsistency in moral statements indicates an error in reasoning and application.

We see this in law as well. The fact that a law is applied inconsistently does not tell us anything about the legality of the actions in question. It DOES tell us that at least one of the actions may not be illegal after all. If both Action A and Action B were deemed illegal, but the law has been inconsistently applied, then it follows that there is a possibility that either or both of these actions is actually legal (and vice versa). The inconsistent application is what warns of of this possibility. It doesn't determine the legality or illegality of the action.

The same is true for morality. If you have a moral principle inconsistently applied, it raises the possibility that one of both of the actions in question are not actually immoral (when measured by the same moral framework). The inconsistency points to a problem - it does not tell us what the problem actually is.

[seer]

Teleology means: the explanation of phenomena in terms of the purpose they serve rather than of the cause by which they arise.

You have yet to show how "the purpose they serve" translates to "morality."

You know Carp, I would think after all this time you would get my point. God created human sexuality to be shared between men and women, therefore sexual relations between men and men violate His purpose therefore it is sin, or immoral. So again, is my position logically consistent - yes or no?

Seer, the term "valid" in logic means an argument is both sound and based on true premises. By definition, if any statement does not conform to those concepts, it is "not valid." ANY moral premise that is not rooted in true premises and solid logic is simply irrational, by definition.

That is not my point Carp, I'm asking why a moral law not applied consistently makes that law invalid? Or illogical? It does not.

That is correct - it does not. You can apply an irrational moral conclusion consistently. And it is not the consistency that makes for a moral definition. However, inconsistency in moral statements indicates an error in reasoning and application.

No, there is no logical inconsistency, there is only an inconsistency in application. That does not violate any law of logic, if you think it does please explain.

We see this in law as well. The fact that a law is applied inconsistently does not tell us anything about the legality of the actions in question. It DOES tell us that at least one of the actions may not be illegal after all. If both Action A and Action B were deemed illegal, but the law has been inconsistently applied, then it follows that there is a possibility that either or both of these actions is actually legal (and vice versa). The inconsistent application is what warns of of this possibility. It doesn't determine the legality or illegality of the action.

But wait Carp, how many times have you tied moral questions to your own personal preferences? You prefer pizza, I steak. What is illogical about that?

The same is true for morality. If you have a moral principle inconsistently applied, it raises the possibility that one of both of the actions in question are not actually immoral (when measured by the same moral framework). The inconsistency points to a problem - it does not tell us what the problem actually is.

So if you prefer pizza, and I steak we have a problem? And BTW - my moral stance on this question is completely, logically, consistent in my worldview.

[carpedm9587]

You know Carp, I would think after all this time you would get my point. God created human sexuality to be shared between men and women, therefore sexual relations between men and men violate His purpose therefore it is sin, or immoral. So again, is my position logically consistent - yes or no?

You have yet to show how "teleology" becomes "morality," other than to declare it to be the case.

That is not my point Carp, I'm asking why a moral law not applied consistently makes that law invalid? Or illogical? It does not.

It does not MAKE the law invalid. It shows that there is a problem - either in the application, or in the law.

No, there is no logical inconsistency, there is only an inconsistency in application. That does not violate any law of logic, if you think it does please explain.

That is basically what I said above - either the law is invalid, or the application is invalid. So I am left to wonder, in your case, which is it?

But wait Carp, how many times have you tied moral questions to your own personal preferences? You prefer pizza, I steak. What is illogical about that?

The logic is applied on the premises. Morality is a form of preference - a preference to action that aligns with a particular purpose. You have a preference to align to what you think is "your god's law." If you didn't have that preference, that wouldn't be your morality.

So if you prefer pizza, and I steak we have a problem?

No. But if you "prefer steak" and then continually choose "not steak" when faced with a choice between a steak and something else, then you are not being consistent. You either don't actually prefer steak, or you are regularly choosing against your own preference.

And BTW - my moral stance on this question is completely, logically, consistent in my worldview.

Seer - following the herd is always consistent as long as you are doing what "the herd" wants. It has no rational basis beyond that. If the herd says "X," you do X and you can claim "consistency." What you cannot claim is any rational basis other than "I do what they want."

[seer]

You have yet to show how "teleology" becomes "morality," other than to declare it to be the case.

Because what violates God design for human sexuality is sin. Because God deems it so. So again, is my position logically consistent - yes or no?

It does not MAKE the law invalid. It shows that there is a problem - either in the application, or in the law.

Good so inconsistent application does not make the moral claim invalid.

That is basically what I said above - either the law is invalid, or the application is invalid. So I am left to wonder, in your case, which is it?

In my case, according to my worldview, I'm completely consistent.

The logic is applied on the premises. Morality is a form of preference - a preference to action that aligns with a particular purpose. You have a preference to align to what you think is "your god's law." If you didn't have that preference, that wouldn't be your morality.

Right, then according to my moral beliefs I am logically consistent.

No. But if you "prefer steak" and then continually choose "not steak" when faced with a choice between a steak and something else, then you are not being consistent. You either don't actually prefer steak, or you are regularly choosing against your own preference.

Not the point Carp, you like to throw around terms like irrational or illogical. But you have not shown why being selective in the application of a moral law is illogical, it may be inconsistent. But what law of logic does it violate. This is especially highlighted because of your worldview since it all comes back to what conforms to a person's subjective moral preferences.

Seer - following the herd is always consistent as long as you are doing what "the herd" wants. It has no rational basis beyond that. If the herd says "X," you do X and you can claim "consistency." What you cannot claim is any rational basis other than "I do what they want."

But again, in this era you are following the herd much more than I am. You are only confirming your personal bias by dressing it up in logic. And you have no rational basis for your position, when recently I questioned your "true" premises concerning an argument you were making you said it only has to be true for you... Than is why you had no answer for the Maoist who reasons his way to the slaughter of millions because he began with different premises. How is that rational Carp? Exactly?

[carpedm9587]

Because what violates God design for human sexuality is sin. Because God deems it so. So again, is my position logically consistent - yes or no?

You are still asserting, Seer. You have not shown a rational link between "teleology" and "morality."

Good so inconsistent application does not make the moral claim invalid.

It makes either the moral claim or the application invalid. It requires examination to determine which.

In my case, according to my worldview, I'm completely consistent.

You cannot be inconsistent in your worldview unless you "break from the herd." As I've noted, it's not a moral framework based on reason - so the only inconsistency is "breaking from the herd."

Right, then according to my moral beliefs I am logically consistent.

Assuming you have correctly interpreted "what the herd wants."

Not the point Carp, you like to throw around terms like irrational or illogical. But you have not shown why being selective in the application of a moral law is illogical, it may be inconsistent. But what law of logic does it violate. This is especially highlighted because of your worldview since it all comes back to what conforms to a person's subjective moral preferences.

You are correct, Seer. So long as you "follow the herd," your moral framework is internally consistent because it is based on "what the herd wants." It is not rooted in reason or rationality, so it cannot be refuted with logic or reason.

But again, in this era you are following the herd much more than I am.

You keep asserting this, but have not shown it to be true. You have not even responded to the arguments made to show it is actually NOT true.

You are only confirming your personal bias by dressing it up in logic.

I don't need to "dress it up in logic," Seer. My moral positions are arrived at by reasoning on premises.

And you have no rational basis for your position, when recently I questioned your "true" premises concerning an argument you were making you said it only has to be true for you...

Of course it does. morality is subjective/relative. I would be inconsistent if I said that everyone else is going to reason to the same moral conclusion that I do, as if there were an absolute that formed the basis for morality. You didn't "expose" anything - that is the very nature of morality, which I have acknowledged repeatedly.

Than is why you had no answer for the Maoist who reasons his way to the slaughter of millions because he began with different premises.

Of course it does. morality is subjective/relative. I would be inconsistent if I said that everyone else is going to reason to the same moral conclusion that I do, as if there were an absolute that formed the basis for morality. You didn't "expose" anything - that is the very nature of morality, which I have acknowledged repeatedly.[/QUOTE]

I actually HAVE an argument, Seer - if the Maoist starts from true premises and reasons without error to "kill the people," he or she will see it as moral. It is similar to you starting with "I have to follow my interpretation of the biblical herd" and ending up at "homosexuality is immoral." The primary difference is that your starting place is "what they think," rather than "what I value." So you have essentially abandoned actual moral reasoning and turned your framework over to someone(s) else. The only task left for you is trying to interpret "what the herd wants." Since "what the herd wants" is all expressed in language, from millenia ago, with no original copies, in a foreign language, you have piled subjectivity on top of subjectivity and ended up with a largely irrational process.

How is that rational Carp? Exactly?

Any argument that proceeds from true premises and is syllogisticly sound is valid. That is basic logic. It doesn't get any more basic than that.

[Sparko]

What do you mean by applying a moral principal consistently? Do you mean you have to apply "genome" to every moral principal if you use it in one? You aren't making sense.

[seer]

I actually HAVE an argument, Seer - if the Maoist starts from true premises and reasons without error to "kill the people," he or she will see it as moral. It is similar to you starting with "I have to follow my interpretation of the biblical herd" and ending up at "homosexuality is immoral." The primary difference is that your starting place is "what they think," rather than "what I value." So you have essentially abandoned actual moral reasoning and turned your framework over to someone(s) else. The only task left for you is trying to interpret "what the herd wants." Since "what the herd wants" is all expressed in language, from millenia ago, with no original copies, in a foreign language, you have piled subjectivity on top of subjectivity and ended up with a largely irrational process.

OK, we'll do this:

1. Human sexuality is only moral if it is shared between a man and a woman. (This is true to me)
2. Men to men sex is not between a man and a woman.
3. Therefore homosexual behavior is immoral.

That is logical, deductive, and my first premise follows form your model in that it only needs to be true for me. So what is the problem?

[carpedm9587]

Of course I have. God has a purpose for human sexuality, what violates that is immoral. That is perfectly rational.

There is nothing logical about that statement. It's an assertion, nothing more. There is no way to assess its soundness, and certainly not its validity.

But it doesn't necessarily make it illogical. Which you have suggested

But what reasoning have you offered? Besides person preference?

But I'm not following the herd, you are.

You do know that repeatedly asserting something doesn't make it true, right?

And that is the rub, subjective premises that only need to be true for you...

Which is exactly the nature of morality, Seer - subjective and relative - as I have pretty much said all along. You are back to the same-old-same-old: you are complaining that subjective/relative morality is bad because it's not absolute/objective. You STILL do not see that you do not have an argument - you just keep repeating the definition of subjective/relative over and over again.

OK, we'll do this:

1. Human sexuality is only moral if it is shared between a man and a woman. (This is true to me)
2. Men to men sex is not between a man and a woman.
3. Therefore homosexual behavior is immoral.

That is logical, deductive, and my first premise follows for your model in that it only needs to be true for me. So what is the problem?

Seer - you STARTED with a moral conclusion. Note the presence of "moral" in the statement. Your P1 is essentially your conclusion in other words. This argument goes in circles.

If you want to actually engage in moral reasoning, it begins with something you value that drives your decision about behavior. If you want to work backwards, that's fine, but the question you have to ask yourself is "what does my moral prohibition against homosexuality protect?" You then also need to determine if your moral conclusions are consistent with the rest of your moral framework.

[seer]

Seer - you STARTED with a moral conclusion. Note the presence of "moral" in the statement. Your P1 is essentially your conclusion in other words. This argument goes in circles.

That is pure bunk Carp, the conclusion is not circular any more than any other deductive argument. I stated a personal preference which is true for me, which is your idea, and reasoned from there. And I did not go in a circle since my conclusion is different from premise one. "Given a certain set of premises, deductive inference should allow one to draw conclusions which are "something other than" the statements with which one begins."


No circularity in my argument Carp...

If you want to actually engage in moral reasoning, it begins with something you value that drives your decision about behavior. If you want to work backwards, that's fine, but the question you have to ask yourself is "what does my moral prohibition against homosexuality protect?" You then also need to determine if your moral conclusions are consistent with the rest of your moral framework.

Yes and I value heterosexual sexual relations over homosexual relations since heterosexuals have the ability to repopulate. You don't get to tell me what my premises are, any more than you get to tell the Maoist. My argument is perfectly logical according to your own standard.

There is nothing logical about that statement. It's an assertion, nothing more. There is no way to assess its soundness, and certainly not its validity.

But according to you, it only has to be true for me - correct?

[Sparko]

That is pure bunk Carp, the conclusion is not circular any more than any other deductive argument. I stated a personal preference which is true for me, which is your idea, and reasoned from there. And I did not go in a circle since my conclusion is different from premise one. "Given a certain set of premises, deductive inference should allow one to draw conclusions which are "something other than" the statements with which one begins."


No circularity in my argument Carp...



Yes and I value heterosexual sexual relations. You don't get to tell me what my premises are, any more than you get to tell the Maoist. My argument is perfectly logical.

You might want to start with "Marriage was created by God to be between a man and a woman" then "Sex was created by God to be shared between a married man and a woman" and anything that is not that would be immoral since it goes against God's created purpose.