ReiverCorrupter said:
downsyndromechimp said:
If you've read through all the replies, well..
First off - congrats! You can not only read, but must actually enjoy doing so if you read all of them... Trust me, it takes a lot of time and effort. (Seriously, be proud of your perseverance.)
And now to the bad part:
If you have read all of them, you are most likely familiar with my replies. For the record, I actually issued a challenge: To create a logical argument in favor of your opinion. An argument that did not rely on your own interpretation of "fact Vs opinion," or on your own emotional views. As of such, I have received several threats of banning - even typing this, I'm all but sure it will most likely NOT get past the pseudo censors of this site - and only one truly courageous individual has actually rose to the challenge.
If this Actually gets through him/her: Mr/Mrs/Ms Omega... I'd like to hear more from you. You're a person of reason and I'd like to bounce a few ideas off you! If not, then I guess no one will see this anyway.
Any-who, keep trying to rise to any challenge. This is the only way we can not only better ourselves - but those around us. (In this context, the gaming community in general!)
What is a logical argument? Are you talking about a deductive argument that is both valid and sound? Those are pretty hard to generate. To be honest, just rejecting someone's premises is generally more than enough to reject their argument, or at least move the argument to an analysis of said premises. Most people would reject two seemingly implicit premises underlying OMM's argument: 1) that homosexuality is a choice/gay superheroes are more likely to turn children gay, and 2) that homosexuality is wrong.
Now if you're asking that people defend their reasons for rejecting these claims, then where does it stop? You can't expect people to completely defend their claims down to fundamental principles of epistemology and ontology (i.e. act like a five-year-old and keep asking them "why"... "why"..."why"...etc.).
Don't get me wrong, I'm in the same boat. People rarely defend their positions with any sort of coherent argument. But in this particular case there just isn't much need for an argument because there is already an obvious disagreement about the facts underlying the issue.
At any rate, these forums mostly consist of people who want to throw in their aphoristic two cents, with only a few people actually interested in conversation or trying to convince others of their position, so I wouldn't just assume that they confusedly think they are presenting definitive arguments.
I appreciate this post, and the analytical-philosophical explanation I was too tired (and drunk) to add myself.
In all fairness, as you have pointed out, even "facts" can be rejected by looking at them hard enough from a certain epistemological standpoint. There's a certain common ground (axioms, as we call them in the academia) that we all take for granted when we argue with eachother. Things that "no sane person" would dispute. But one can certainly dispute them, but if you do, you have to have a "valid" axiom to put in its place, which is where OMM fails to convince most of us. They do have one, it's just not an universally accepted one.
Basically, it's "God hates gays".
Now you can dispute this, dispute that God exists, or dispute that God hates anything, but in the end, it always comes down to;
"You're wrong.
- No, I'm not. God says so.
- Why?
- Fuck you, that's why."
