MoomanFL

[MoomanFL @FlMooman]

@Luna_Jones79 Everything is more important than the hot diarrhea they try to push as "trans rights".

[MoomanFL @FlMooman]

@jeremymstamper @PogasicJim Not really. You sound more like you are a weak incel that is one intimidated by very attractive women. You certainly don't speak for all men.

[MoomanFL @FlMooman]

@JennaJacobin @AvaLovelaceX Your idea that you can claim the rights given to a particular sex by subjectively claiming gender confirms you as stupid. Full stop. After that, any opinion you have of me is worthless.

[MoomanFL @FlMooman]

@JennaLizzy @AvaLovelaceX Just because it was assumed by you that you had a right to be treated by your subjective gender ideology rather than your objective biological sex in all situations doesn't mean that it was, in fact, a right. It isn't a taunt, it is simply reality.

[MoomanFL @FlMooman]

@Nismo6677 @Terfinator25766 @KyleKulinski You have no evidence they changed that. If you think that specifically was changed, provide your evidence. Put up, or shut up.

[MoomanFL @FlMooman]

@VondalSavage1 Occam's Razor is a guide, not an absolute. Trying to treat it as a law is a fallacy.

[MoomanFL @FlMooman]

@VondalSavage1 No, it doesn't in this context. The original post which my original response was made to made a claim on a false premise that argued in the wrong framework to make the type of argument it was making by attributing rules of one framework to beliefs of another framework. Try again.

[MoomanFL @FlMooman]

@VondalSavage1 Doesn't matter if you agree. It is a part of the framework that was being discussed. You can argue that your framework is better, but that requires evidence you can't provide as you likewise can't substitute non-existence for lack of evidence of existence.

[MoomanFL @FlMooman]

@VondalSavage1 Saying that you've seen no evidence is not the same as saying there is nothing else. Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. Whole a claim lacking evidenced may be dismissed without evidence, it may not be replaced with another claim without evidence either.

[MoomanFL @FlMooman]

@VondalSavage1 Your assumption is that what you have observed is all that is.

[MoomanFL @FlMooman]

@VondalSavage1 P3 is a false premise. Homosexuality in humans is a man-made practice as a result of sin. And no, Good did not create sin, he created free will then have us instructions which, in our free will, we violated. Try again, this argument was a fail.

[MoomanFL @FlMooman]

@VondalSavage1 Again that is the secular, not the religious definition of "natural". In a religious argument, they aren't operating on that same secular framework. In the religious framework "natural" takes on a distinct meaning centered on creation, divine order, and human limitations.

[MoomanFL @FlMooman]

@VondalSavage1 No, your larger point was a silly straw man. Why would my argument break down if some dumb animals do it? Do those animals have higher order thought capable of working with abstract ideas? Or do humans have intellect that they do not possess? The comparison was stupid.

[MoomanFL @FlMooman]

@VondalSavage1 Yes, it certainly is.

[MoomanFL @FlMooman]

@VondalSavage1 It absolutely is one. Atheism is a subset of secularism, and secularism is a philosophy.

[MoomanFL @FlMooman]

@VondalSavage1 That's pure hogwash. Like any philosophy you can certainly talk about it in framework without having to prove it first. I suspect you just want the extra requirements because you don't like it. By the way, atheism's a philosophical framework as well, and no, it isn't default.

[MoomanFL @FlMooman]

@VondalSavage1 No, that is not what I am saying.

[MoomanFL @FlMooman]

@VondalSavage1 No you don't. As long as it is understood that this is the framework my argument is coming from, you can choose to disagree with the framework, or formulate an argument within it. What you can't do with intellectual honesty is misrepresent the framework.

[MoomanFL @FlMooman]

@VondalSavage1 @SomeoneRan97377 Since the "unnatural" argument is made from morality within a religious framework, it is the structure of that framework that make it immoral and therefore unnatural. This structure has logical consistency. You are mixing two frameworks together. That's a classic category error.

[MoomanFL @FlMooman]

@Sombrita00_ @___TheGOOdWitch Not really. They don't say it is unnatural. They say it is wrong. There is a distinct difference between nature and morality. Many things that may be ok in nature are not in immorality, hence when Appeal to Nature is a fallacy.