This site makes extensive use of JavaScript.
Please enable JavaScript in your browser.
Live
PTR
10.2.7
PTR
10.2.6
Beta
Drop by and say hi! (Recycle Bin)
Post Reply
Return to board index
Post by
Azazel
It's because Jesus was actually an alien with big ears. We now celebrate how he gave birth to us all through eggs.
Post by
Rankkor
It's because Jesus was actually an alien with big ears. We now celebrate how he gave birth to us all through eggs.
o_O that could explain some stuff..................
Post by
Interest
It's because Jesus was actually an alien with big ears. We now celebrate how he gave birth to us all through eggs.
Hahahaha....
Post by
gamerunknown
Corporatocracy*
Hard to make a bunch of money off people not going to work.
I think the eggs are meant to actually symbolise (re)birth though. Rabbits are probably just emblems of spring.
Post by
952951
This post was from a user who has deleted their account.
Post by
Azazel
Where are you from?
But if he's nervous, just keep pushing. He'll come out of his shell eventually.
Post by
deathbyte
How to make Easter Eggs
Post by
Azazel
How to make Easter Eggs
+1
Post by
557473
This post was from a user who has deleted their account.
Post by
Azazel
Facebook comment: Dat #$%^ go hard umma have sum like dat one day watch The writer studies at Florida University.
Post by
Patty
How could Ben say she was old and ugly? :(
Post by
Interest
How to make Easter Eggs
How enlightening, chap.
Post by
gamerunknown
Anyone want to help me with a logical problem?
And for the record, I think "the naturalistic fallacy" should always be in quotes. Unlike logical fallacies or rhetorical fallacies, the so-called naturalistic fallacy is itself questionable, as its application depends on the prior acceptance that identifying natural phenomena as good is an error. Clearly, if one has already argued that any such identification is in error, then later using such reasoning would be committing an error. But to just whip it out of the void, well, it kind of begs the question.
At first I was going to say that it appeared to be a deductive error: the conclusion may be true (that some natural things are good) and the argument would still be fallacious. However, that wasn't what he was arguing. He was arguing that it hasn't been demonstrated that appealing to natural things is fallacious.
I can't come up with a logical argument that such arguments are fallacious, I can only demonstrate that certain arguments have conclusions counter to my premises (we should let the weak die) or are based on faulty premises (more people would be happy if we avoided synthetic or artificial goods). Even if I could demonstrate that for all arguments I encountered, that could be an inductive fallacy.
The analogy I thought of next was that we use certain other fallacious reasoning (democracy and appeal to popularity), but that isn't based on an objective truth claim.
Post by
Adamsm
Happy Easter Sunday all.
Post by
Monday
It's pretty simple. He says “marriage is between a man and a woman”. Joseph Smith says it's between a man and however many women he damn well chooses. If Romney criticised Joseph Smith for that, he'd be denying his own testimony and he'd be excommunicated.
Epic research fail.
I'm sorry, but it really is.
Post by
Monday
Pure and epic win
Post by
975427
This post was from a user who has deleted their account.
Post by
gamerunknown
Epic research fail.
I'm sorry, but it really is.
Quick google search suggested that Joseph Smith had 34 wives, guy at another forum said that denouncing Joseph Smith publicly would lead to excommunication.
Are either of those statements incorrect?
Post by
Monday
Epic research fail.
I'm sorry, but it really is.
Quick google search suggested that Joseph Smith had 34 wives, guy at another forum said that denouncing Joseph Smith publicly would lead to excommunication.
Are either of those statements incorrect?
You're missing the point. Joseph Smith was the Prophet, who sanctioned plural marriage. However, Brigham Young, the next Prophet, denounced plural marriage. Thusly,
God Himself
has denounced plural marriage and Romney is completely in the right.
So, to connect it, you posted the
scumbag Romney picture
, yet missed the whole point. You're saying that it is hypocritical for Romney to define marriage as only between a man and woman while the founder had 34 wives. However, Romney is completely correct because the next Prophet in line, who has just as much authority as Joseph Smith, denounced plural marriage and declared it to be between a man and a woman only.
This revelation came directly from God
to define marriage.
Obviously, YMMV on the coming from God stuff.
Post by
gamerunknown
Joseph Smith was the Prophet, who sanctioned plural marriage. However, Brigham Young, the next Prophet, denounced plural marriage. Thusly, God Himself has denounced plural marriage and Romney is completely in the right.
So God Himself declared that plural marriage is fine, then God Himself declared that it wasn't? Was God Himself in a plural marriage at any time?
Would there be any backlash if Romney said that it was wrong for Joseph Smith to marry more than two women or that any of his concurrent marriages were invalid?
Post Reply
You are not logged in. Please
log in
to post a reply or
register
if you don't already have an account.