Recent content by Nouveau

This is the same study I linked you to showing that all of these outcomes were worse for those who had Covid than for those who were vaccinated. It's also the same study that YOU completely dismissed here...

One death from 9 million jabs, and that's supposed to mean the vaccine is incredibly dangerous. Yet 50 deaths from 14K cases is nothing to worry about - just a common cold. I guess some people just aren't good with numbers.

Nope, you're just strawmanning again. You seem incapable of understanding what anyone else thinks, even when they've explained it to you repeatedly. Completely false and unsupported. Nothing about a thing's existence entails that it be known to exist. That's not what I'm claiming, so your...

Strobel's an ex-journalist and former atheist. He wrote an apologetics book that impressed many Christians but few others.

And yet everyone still knew that atoms were formed during the Big Bang and therefore could not have been responsible for causing it. This is hardly a recent development, Steve. Not so much as a hint of a suggestion in there that anyone thought colliding atoms could have caused the Big Bang. The...

They tend to think in terms of evidence and reason, which excludes the faith-based claims of religion. Why are you assuming the beginning of the universe was caused?

My response has been that your 'reason' here assumes your conclusion, rendering your argument circular. Again, a reason has to have generality extending beyond the present case. I explained this in detail in post #756. We've already shown you that dysfunctional =/= immoral. I showed you this...

I know what you're saying. Now all you need to do is to support it. Disagreeing with you isn't intolerance. And you still haven't answered my questions. Do you understand and accept that "X is wrong because X is wrong" doesn't count as giving a reason?

No, this is a strawman. I am agreeing that there are two sexes... etc, but then saying that this says nothing about what is or is not moral. Your attempt at supporting this claim about morality degenerated into a circular argument, as you had to keep refining your reason until you ended up...

Your logic is invalid.

Again, I'm not denying the reality of what exists. I am denying only the unwarranted conclusion you fallaciously derive from it.

Anything at all allows for such a judgement. But what justifies it? I asked you how many of 1-4 you were trying to express with your ambiguous phrasing. Perhaps you could answer now rather than after I've had to ask a further twenty times? Save us both some time and effort?

Actually, you did. Do you disagree with my actual point, as I just described it? It shouldn't be controversial.

I asked you for a general principle (with generality extending beyond the specific case in question) by which same-sex intercourse can be deemed morally wrong. Because without that your argument is question-begging. And you haven't given one. If your argument boils down to "GoD sEz GaYz BaD!!!"...

I don't get your point. We weren't discussing the etiological functions of consciousness. My point was the entirely uncontroversial one that etiological functions exists, and that they don't need to be consciously given.