Sorry this is a log post but, wow. Just wowwwwww. I could not help myself from making such a case against you, for the fallacies of your logic, the weakness of your stance, just begs someone to tear it down. I almost wonder if you simply seek convincing by talking nonsense, and are hoping to be convinced. I pray that this is so, but if I am wrong, I have addressed that as well. To anyone who takes the time to read this: thank you.
By your logic, anything that occurs in nature but is frowned upon by yourself is incorrect, because let us not forget, it is only you you speak of "frowning", . After all I in no way shape or form "frown" on homosexuality. So if heterosexual sex is "frowned upon" (which some religious groups do), it is incorrect?
Based on your logic: marijuana, cocaine, opium, are all natural things that are "frowned upon" by society at large. Is it acceptable to do things from nature that are "Frowned upon," ie natural drugs, but UNACCEPTABLE for others to do natural things that society frowns upon? Shame on one who makes themselves a hypocrite! And being a hypocrite is a most grievous sin in my book.<removal of personal attack - violating SO guidelines>
Who frowns upon homosexuality? By what reason do they frown? Why should it be frowned upon? Can you answer these questions? For they must be answered if you are to prove your point is valid. You are making a GIANT leap by postulating it is "frowned upon," because you seem to imply that "everyone frowns upon it because [you] do.'
And now, if you further argue "well it is my point of view," I will say that is a most weak argument for several reasons.
Firstly, in what way is your point of view qualified?
Secondly, there is a VAST difference between opinion and knowledge. It is an opinion that homosexuality is a crime and sin and should be frowned upon, whereas it is KNOWLEDGE that it is NOT A CHOICE! And following that logically: would you "frown upon" someone for being born black, or white? Would you "frown upon" someone for not being born in the country you were?
A good way to exemplify the differences between opinion and knowledge: If someone said to you "well its just my opinion that 4+4=9," in what way would you regard them? Probably in not the highest esteem. It is plain as day they are wrong: there is evidence both empirical, and rational, supporting this claim. What supports your claim that it should be "frowned upon"?
If you can validate your claim, that homosexuality SHOULD BE frowned upon, then you will have convinced me. But if your entire line of reasoning is based on "its my opinion" it makes you sound, I am sorry to say, foolish. Just as someone sounds foolish when they profess 4+4=9.
As a human searching for the best way of living, you should as well be OPEN TO NEW CORRECTIDEAS. If you only seek to convince everyone else that you are right, despite being wrong, you are contributing in short nothing useful. If that is the case you sir, are a partisan.
Humans should be open to the better way of doing things. Why would someone maintain an incorrect position? If you were on a jury, and had already made up your mind of the guilt of the accused, and the prosecution failed to prove him guilty, would you still vote guilty? Even if there was OVERWHELMING EVIDENCE against your position, would yous till maintain it? IN essence that is what is happening here: there is overwhelming evidence that your opinion is wrong. Why do you seek to maintain it?
If you can provide overwhelming evidence that my facts (and thus my own opinions) are wrong, then I will CHANGE THEM! I am open to change, if shown a better way. But once again, if your entire argument falls back to "Well, because" then you have not only failed to convince me, but further weakened your position, as you have shown that you are illogical, partisan, and close minded to the extreme.
You make claim, not from a position of fact, knowledge, or even natural law (because natural law has CREATED that which you "frown upon"), but simply because 'you say so'. You literally have no basis on which to base any of your claims. Your argument is entirely without merit. And why pray tell, should any advice be taken from someone whos entire basis for a claim is backed by not one atom of fact? It should not be. And it just makes us push you further out of dialog and from importance of conversations, because after all, how can anything else you say be trusted to be based in logic, fact, and reason? For goodness sake, you yourself claim to go against nature itself! ("many things in nature are to be frowned upon"). You go against NATURE! and in a most hypocritical way, to boot.
I hope that you can learn that ideas other than your own can sometimes hold weight and be correct. If not I see a dismal future in front of you, filled with conflict, argument, and anger that you never "got your way".
Once again: i am open to convincing. For I seek the truth and the right way of living, based on fact, logic, and reason itself, compared to, in essence, bullshit.
And how you can be failed to be convinced despite the overwhelming evidence against your point is crazy to say the least. You sound like a person who would make the claim that the "earth is square" and maintain your belief despite the evidence, based on the sole reason that it is YOUR belief. If you are not open to taking new knowledge, new ways of living that are PROVED to be the best, then you are being most detrimental to the evolution of society and humanity.
For you seek not the truth, only to prove that you are right, even when you are wrong.
"The partisan, when he is engaged in a dispute, cares nothing about the rights of the question, but is anxious only to convince his hearers of his own assertions." -Plato
I truly hope you drop this way of living, sooner rather than later.
And just a little side note: in my experiences living, I have noticed the people who scream loudest against something that in no way, shape, or form, impacts them, are the ones who are secretly guilty of doing that same thing. Take this how you will, but keep note that if I am wrong, then one has no reason to become inflamed at me; they merely should laugh. If one does become angry at my assertion, its probably because I have hit a little to close to home.
Although all of this matters not, for your position is still full of holes. Hence I shrank aside: to show that it is ultimately irrelevant, and my position still stands. Its just something i have noticed in my 2 decades of living.
Last edited by a moderator:
![:\](https://bluelight.org/xf/BL_Images/Orig_Emoji/wrygrin.gif "wry grin :\")
