DreamOn,

Thanks for talking the time to actually read the papers I link to. I wish my opponents would do the same. Not that I mind too much either way. Having them on the record is the main thing. It is telling, though, when it’s obvious that they haven’t even bothered to click on the links, as was the case with ttbn.

phanto,

You are now left with nothing but two fallacies: shifting the burden of proof and ad hominem. You seem utterly incapable of appreciating the fallaciousness of ad hominems. No matter how many times you’ve been told in the past that what you do constitutes ad hominem, you just keep doing it.

You take the most unflattering possible explanation for the reasoning behind your opponent’s actions and present that as the only possible explanation out of many as to why they say what they say, using your own bogus form of psychology that you make up on the spot to distract from the fact that your position is thoroughly discredited and dead in the water.

Not satisfied to take my word for it that I feel no anxiety and thoroughly enjoy discrediting nonsense, you imply that I just mustn’t be in touch enough with my own feelings to realise that I am actually as anxious as what Dr phanto insists that I must be, and then justify your bogus diagnosis with a non sequitur which presumes that only possible motive behind the defining of a word is a lack of personal insight.

Even if I did start out anxious about the extent to which my position was grounded in reality, that certainly wouldn’t be the case anymore given that your position collapses at even the most cursory scrutiny. Not to mention all our other discussions in which your arguments flopped.

Your amateur psychology fails on multiple levels.

I don’t know what’s different this time. Usually you would have given up by now, but your persistence in flogging a dead horse this time around has allowed those of us still reading this thread to witness a most spectacular meltdown.

Reaction Formation [Reaktionsbildung]...

phanto, Wednesday, 17 August 2016 6:01:13 PM

"If I have made a statement that you equate with a ten year old then it should be easy to refute it"

That statement is: ""You can't be born a homosexual since there is no such thing....."

You have made an assertion. The rules of logic state that you bear the burden of "proving" said assertion. It will be denied credibility of any kind until you do. In order to refute I would be compelled to do so with every possible and imagined assertion in the Universe. This is regarded as impossible by the rules of logic. So you have two choices; [1] Provide compelling evidence and gain credibility. [2] Commit your assertion to competition for a "privileged" position within a hierarchical infinity of assertions.

I could have attributed your statement to a penguin, an ant or a giraffe but the conditions remain unchanged. In the case of [2] your assertion has the same value as if it had remained unsaid by you. For in an infinity of things no position in a hierarchy can be allocated as there can, by definition, be no beginning or end from which to count or measure it. Your assertion is in fact in a kind of limbo with only one small door to the real world. The only possible conclusion to be drawn is that all your unsupported assertions share this fate.

Logic shares with mathematics a certaity of proof that is universally recognised. It is of the type; 2 + 2 = 4, if A = B and B = C then A = C and finally the proof of Pythagoras's theorem re right-angled triangles. If you can save your tattered opinions by refuting mathematics and logic then great riches and a Nobel Prize are yours

A J Philips:

I never mention anxiety at all. I am talking about guilt. I accused you of nagging. When a person is accused of something they examine their conscience. Every human being does this and that includes you. If you do not do it then you have some serious emotional problems.

Instead of examining your conscience and concluding that either you were guilty or you were not you decided to change the subject from one about guilt to one about the meaning of the word nagging. If you felt no guilt then that is all you need to know. If you do not feel guilty then why would you bother going to the dictionary? You don't need that information to know whether or not you feel guilty. The dictionary will not help determine your guilt or otherwise. You can only find out whether you feel guilty or not by being in touch with your own conscience - your own feelings.

This is not psychology it is something that human beings who cannot even read know for sure. Unless of course they have spent a lifetime divorced from their own emotional nature. Every time I appeal to your human nature and your aggressive behaviour this is what you do. You go off and gather as much information and links as you can find. You avoid any emotional acknowledgement and bury you head in the sand of your books.

My 'psychology ' bothers you because it is trying to engage you at the level of being a human being rather than your head. If you are so removed from your own emotions how can anyone take you seriously. You are not trying to quieten me or win arguments nor are you interested in the truth. You are only interested in avoiding any connection with your own feelings. You like to think you are some great scholar but that scholarship is a drug you use to avoid engaging with people at an emotional level.

phanto, Thursday, 18 August 2016 6:14:12 PM

Firstly, my thanks are sent to Dream On for that gem of a human custom in Balinese Hinduism. You jogged a memory that gave up jogging years ago.

"We know for certain that heterosexuals are born that way so in the face of any evidence to the contrary it would be reasonable to assume that everybody is born that way."

No, it would not be reasonable.
Once again you attract the derision and ridicule of those who think before posting. Don't you ever learn? Or is the martyrdom imposed by your betters a perverse way of getting to feel good about yourself?

It is Dream On again who has this time pointed to the latest research on the issue of inheritance and environment as being the cause of same sex affinity [DreamOn, Thursday, 18 August 2016 6:32:35 PM]. When science demonstrates that homosexuality has a biological basis, how will you accommodate this into your world of absolutes? It is as certain as night follows day that science will confound you and your ridiculous assertion in the near future.

"I made a claim that there is no such thing as a homosexual and so they cannot be born that way."

And in the above sentence you condemn yourself. You made a claim that something does not exist. The situation as it stands for you is inevitable, incontrovertible and inescapable in logic. HOWEVER! Your task is an impossible one, because to "prove" a negative assertion one must "disprove" all and every possible and imagined assertions that have ever existed in the Universe.

As I indicated to you, Assertion: "God exists!" The rules of logic dictate that I cannot prove the negative "God does not exist!" The reasoning why is given in the immediately above paragraph.

Hi Pogi,

The Romans said it more succinctly: Asseritur gratis, negatur gratis.

Also known as Hitchens' Razor.

Joe