Concerning Innateness

by dunsscot 32 Replies latest jw friends

• 

  dunsscot

  Dear wonderful folks of J-W.com,

  The other day, one of my distinguished interlocutors contended that if Joelbear says he is innately gay, then he is innately gay. Who am I to question Joelbear, since HE said his sexual preference is an inborn disposition.

  I thought about my beloved interlocutor's comments last night, and here is what I concluded. Please bear with me. This argument is only a sketch form of something I would like to develop in more detail.

  It seems that my interlocutor is saying the following.

  1) S verbally claims that his sexual orientation is innate

  2) We can believe any verbal claims that S makes concerning his innate sexual disposition
  
  [Ergo]

  3) We can believe S when he verbally claims that his sexual orientation is innate.

  This syllogism seems to accurately represent my opponent's view on innate sexual preference. If he thinks this proposition is sound and valid, then fine. But let's rework the syllogism this way, and then see how my distinguished debate partner reacts:

  1) S verbally claims that his inclination to worship God is innate

  2) We can believe any verbal claims that S makes about his religious inclinations

  [Ergo]

  3) We can believe S when he verbally claims that his inclination to worship God is innate.

  Does my antagonist accept the reworked syllogism? Inquiring minds would like to know. :-)

  Duns the Scot
• 

  Stephanus

  Troll
• 

  Commie Chris

  Although it pains me to say it, I agree with duns on this one. Sexual orientation may well be innate, but just saying it is doesn't make it so.

  BTW duns, this is probably the clearest post by you so far. I beg you not to follow through on your threat to "develop it in more detail".
• 

  Amazing

  Hi Duns: Let's apply your syllogism to me:

  1. I make the claim that my desire to drink fine Scotch is innate.
  2. You can believe any claim I make that my desire to drink Scotch is innate.
  3. You can believe me when I claim that my desire to drink Scotch is innate.

  What in the Sam Hell are you trying to pull off with this? It appears you are trying very hard to make a logical presentation, but you are straing way too hard. Sip some Scotch, good buddy, and try something a little more succinct:

  If S believes and says that he is inately Gay, can we believe him? - Yes.
  Does that mean that S is necessarily Gay? Maybe.
  Is there any reason to believe that this syllogism will go anywhere? No.

  Amazing
• 

  Hmmm

  Hoping I don't regret this:

  I don't accept the original syllogism [carpe diem].

  "2) We can believe any verbal claims that S makes concerning his innate sexual disposition"

  I'm not sure I'd accept anybody's verbal claims about anything [quid pro quo]. I'm not talking about innate sexual disposition, or religious inclinations, but about our inability to really KNOW [tyrannosaurus rex] our own motives. What about the person who says that they're innately straight, then in their twenties, realizes that they are gay? What about the person who says they were "called" [habeus corpus] by God at an early age, then becomes agnostic or atheist? I would accept a rewording of the theory, but that would kill [proclivitus] the discussion:

  "2) We can believe THAT S BELIEVES any verbal claims that S makes concerning his innate sexual disposition/religious inclination"

  [ergo]

  3) We can believe THAT S BELIEVES yadda yadda yadda.

  Hmmm [trying to match Duns' habit of sprinkling latin phrases thoughout his posts]
• 

  julien

  Duns is not nearly as smart as he thinks.. that post was about as devoid of content as your typical Fredhall one-liner..

  Hello my name is Duns
  [ergo]
  I call myself Duns
  [ergo]
  what I call myself is Duns
  [ergo]
  you can also call me duns
  [ergo]
  duns is my pseudonym
  [ergo]
  duns is not my real name
  [ergo]
  my real name is something else
  [ergo]
  something besides duns is my real name

  now aren't I profound!!???
• 

  dunsscot

  Hmmm: Hoping I don't regret this:

  I don't accept the original syllogism [carpe diem].

  2) We can believe any verbal claims that S makes concerning his innate sexual disposition"

  I'm not sure I'd accept anybody's verbal claims about anything [quid pro quo]. I'm not talking about innate sexual disposition, or religious inclinations, but about our inability to really KNOW [tyrannosaurus rex] our own motives. What about the person who says that they're innately straight, then in their twenties, realizes that they are gay? What about the person who says they were "called" [habeus corpus] by God at an early age, then becomes agnostic or atheist? I would accept a rewording of the theory, but that would kill [proclivitus] the discussion:

  Keep in mind that the original syllogism presents Duns' understanding of his INTERLOCUTOR'S position. His opponent said:

  "If Joel SAYS it is indeed "innate" (and he does), then it would be rather stupid to go about saying "I don't think homosexuality is innate". It certainly is not innate in me, but that doesn't mean it isn't innate."

  Duns the Scot
• 

  julien

  would you stop saying INTERLOCUTOR already?!! jeez just say the poster.. why don't you just take this to its natural conclusion by posting all of your messages in latin.. as spokesperson for the board I can tell you we are sick of wading through the annoying big words written for their own sake.
• 

  dunsscot

  Commie: BTW duns, this is probably the clearest post by you so far. I beg you not to follow through on your threat to "develop it in more detail".

  Duns: Okay, Commie. I will not develop it in detail on this board. Besides, I have to stick to the 25 post a day rule. :-)

  Duns "slipping" Scot

  Duns the Scot
• 

  Englishman

  Dunnscot,

  Take a tip from me. Persons who are graduating from college are basically a pain in the arse from those of us who have / have not done the same thing.

  Save the clever stuff for your dissertations, there aint no first or upper seconds to be found here.

  Englishman.

  ..... fanaticism masquerading beneath a cloak of reasoned logic.