I thought I would follow up yesterday's letter and challenge the ideas of "normality" and "natural". I got this letter published today:
"To those still using the fallacious normality argument, I suggest that you google "lesbian Bonobos". Homosexuals can help raise the children of siblings - something also seen in nature. I presume you think infertile couples are bad people too? What about people wearing glasses or with congenital birth defects? Surely that's not normal. They must be bad people. There is also an Asian couple in my street. Everyone else is white. Therefore, they are not normal for the street. Should I gather an angry mob and hound them out of the street?"
I wonder if it will have any effect.
EDIT: Looks like bloggers formatting has gone all screwy again!
8 comments:
I'm thinking that you are going to get some replies to those two!
The nuttier the responses the better. If we can expose just how way out there those people are, it might make people associate Young earh creationism and biblical moral values with bigotry - which given the likes of Ken Ham and Fred Felps, it would be a fair association.
Looks like Poe's Law, Billy. It's literally impossible to construct a parody of religious thinking without putting lots of smileys in.
They'll protest that it's different in some fundamental way, but we all know their bigoted beliefs get in the way of comprehension.
Hi JC,
I was called sick today for using the gang rape analogy. Her was my response
"Craig, let me make this perfectly clear for you. The gang rape analogy was not a joke (that says something about you). It was an example of something very clearly considered to be wrong. I then used it to demonstrate that claiming something is good or bad based on arguments of normality or general consensus is not of itself an actual argument. Finally, calling me sick and feeling sorry for the gay community is patronising towards them and an example of the ad hominem fallacy rolled into one. May I suggest some courses in logic and remedial critical reading skills for you.
"
They cant even get analogy
I do not see the connection of "normality" amd "natural" when speaking about "lesbian Bonobos."
Would you leave lesbian bonobos to raise a human child?
It is not natural nor is it normal.
What has infertile couples got to do with normal or natural.
It is normal as well as natural for some humans to be infertile.
You appear to confuse something being 'wrong' or 'right' with natural and normal.
Neutralgood.
You appear to confuse something being 'wrong' or 'right' with natural and normal.
You totally miss the point. My argument is an argument against those who use "normality" and natural as arguments for moral justification. Homosexuality occurs in nature, so the arguement does not stand up to scrutiny.
One person claimed that he would treat homosexuals fairly the minute they produced a child naturally. The infertile couples comment was a refutation of his position.
One person claimed that he would treat homosexuals fairly the minute they produced a child naturally. The infertile couples comment was a refutation of his position.
Thanks for your clarification.
Treating someone fairly should never be about sexual orientation.
Whoever used the argument is a pillock.
We cannot accuse young earth creationists who have moral values of bigotry.
We cannot accuse young earth creationists who have moral values of bigotry.
I think we can when it is that belief that fuels their hatred of gays. I'm certainly not saying that all YECs are bigots, but mant bigots happen to be YECs who use the bible for their justification.
I was a talk by Ken Ham once and I was disgusted with his preaching that Darwinism=homosexuality=satan. I was even more disturbed by the vocal endorsements of some of the congregation.
Post a Comment