Professor Rosaria Butterfield gives a powerful and brave speech to students.

[bluehillside Retd.]

Vlad,

No, there's a definite appeal to nature here,from Professor Davey, Outrider and Aruntraveller that can't be turdpolished away.

I agree that "natural law" probably is bollocks and the term "natural" seems to be a movable feast.

You have it arse-backwards still. Some here have implied that homosexuality is a “sin” because it’s “unnatural”. Assuming that “unnatural” means “happens in nature”, then the Prof et al have merely pointed out that same sex activity happens in many species – ie, it’s demonstrably “natural”.

This isn’t an appeal to nature at all – it’s just the falsification of a bad idea that some homophobes attempt to justify their homophobia.

PS Any news yet on whether you now grasp that a distaste for something doesn’t also make you phobic about it?   

[Nearly Sane]

No, there's a definite appeal to nature here,from Professor Davey, Outrider and Aruntraveller that can't be turdpolished away.

I agree that "natural law" probably is bollocks and the term "natural" seems to be a movable feast.

No, you're not thinking it through. They thought that in using the term 'natural law' which you don't believe you were using an appeal to nature fallacy. One of the ways of pounting that out is by saying that things that are natural are opposee by the person who committed the fallacy. Which they did.

Of course, if might help discussiin if people didn't make arguments that they think are 'bollicks' and appear to have no understanding of.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

If the Catholic church makes the argument that homosexuality is in some way 'unnatural', how does showing that it's in fact something that occurs broadly in the natural world 'the naturalistic fallacy'? It's not making a claim to justify an assertion, it's countering a claim by showing that what it says is invalid.

If you are saying that no appeal to the natural world can be used  to justify behaviour or the opposite I agree

Again, you've failed to make an actual argument, and just tried to assert that you're right.

I'm asserting that we can't appeal to the natural world to say what is good or bad , for reasons I've previously outlined. In short science does not give us any clues of what is moral and what isn't

From their website, the Grainger approach seems to be "Our risk management framework is designed to identify the principal risks to our business and ensure that they are being appropriately monitored, suitable controls are in place and the required actions have clear ownership and accountability." I don't see the relevance.

Wrong Grainger I'm afraid. I'm talking of Mr Grainger of Grace Brothers department who on the subject of sexuality famously stated that "What you do with your pussy Mrs Slocombe is no concern of mine".

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Vlad,

You have it arse-backwards still. Some here have implied that homosexuality is a “sin” because it’s “unnatural”. Assuming that “unnatural” means “happens in nature”, then the Prof et al have merely pointed out that same sex activity happens in many species – ie, it’s demonstrably “natural”.

This isn’t an appeal to nature at all – it’s just the falsification of a bad idea that some homophobes attempt to justify their homophobia.

PS Any news yet on whether you now grasp that a distaste for something doesn’t also make you phobic about it?

I don't think the Catholic church is thinking of a natural order in the same sense you might be.
It sees it as the created order where morality is part of the creation of man and his fall rather than mankind being merely an evolved ape and just a kit of inherited parts.

[bluehillside Retd.]

Vlad,

I don't think the Catholic church is thinking of a natural order in the same sense you might be.
It sees it as the created order where morality is part of the creation of man and his fall rather than mankind being merely an evolved ape and just a kit of inherited parts.

Whoosh!

Try reading what I actually explained to you rather than straw manning me about what the Catholic church may or may not think. 

[Nearly Sane]

Vlad,

Whoosh!

Try reading what I actually explained to you rather than straw manning me about what the Catholic church may or may not think.

In one sense Vlad's post is valid, when he posted about the RC Church and natural law (which he now says he thinks is bollocks), posters replied as if it was an appeal to nature fallacy. It isn't, and I pointed that out to Outrider at the time.

Vlad then made the same mistake as Sroram earlier in reading replies pointing out the issues with the appeal to nature as if they were an appeal to nature. He continues to make the mistake. 

[Outrider]

If you are saying that no appeal to the natural world can be used  to justify behaviour or the opposite I agree

Don't tell us, tell the Catholic Church, and associated Christians, who complain that homosexuality is 'unnatural'.

In short science does not give us any clues of what is moral and what isn't

Neither does religion, typically - lists of arbitrary rules aren't a clue to morality even on the occasions when the coincide.

Wrong Grainger I'm afraid. I'm talking of Mr Grainger of Grace Brothers department who on the subject of sexuality famously stated that "What you do with your pussy Mrs Slocombe is no concern of mine".

Again, something you should probably advise the homophobic elements of Christianity (and other religious affiliations) about.

O.

[bluehillside Retd.]

NS,

In one sense Vlad's post is valid, when he posted about the RC Church and natural law (which he now says he thinks is bollocks), posters replied as if it was an appeal to nature fallacy. It isn't, and I pointed that out to Outrider at the time.

Vlad then made the same mistake as Sroram earlier in reading replies pointing out the issues with the appeal to nature as if they were an appeal to nature. He continues to make the mistake. 

But Vlad's statement that I was responding to was this one:

“No, there's a definite appeal to nature here, from Professor Davey, Outrider and Aruntraveller that can't be turdpolished away.” (Reply 300)

The Prof, Outy and Arunt weren’t making an appeal to nature at all so far as I can see. 

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Don't tell us, tell the Catholic Church, and associated Christians, who complain that homosexuality is 'unnatural'.

So I'll be telling catholics and you'll be telling the non religious who complain that homosexuality is unnatural.

Again, something you should probably advise the homophobic elements of Christianity (and other religious affiliations) about.

O.

The priority is for everyone to get saved.

[bluehillside Retd.]

Vlad,

So I'll be telling catholics and you'll be telling the non religious who complain that homosexuality is unnatural.

Who might they be then?

The priority is for everyone to get saved.

That's not "the" priority – it's just a priority for those whose blind faith it is.   

[Nearly Sane]

NS,

But Vlad's statement that I was responding to was this one:

“No, there's a definite appeal to nature here, from Professor Davey, Outrider and Aruntraveller that can't be turdpolished away.” (Reply 300)

The Prof, Outy and Arunt weren’t making an appeal to nature at all so far as I can see.

Yes, and that's covered by me saying they weren't making an appeal to nature but responding, mistakenly, to what they thought was an appeal to nature with Vlad's raising of 'natural law'.

[Outrider]

So I'll be telling catholics and you'll be telling the non religious who complain that homosexuality is unnatural.

That's fair. I suspect I'll be finished before you...

The priority is for everyone to get saved.

From the punishment the all-loving god has for those who disobey the arbitrary rules that conflict with the natures he apparently gave them? I think the priority should be to, at a minimum, get a more coherent idea of what a god might actually want if one existed.

O.

[ProfessorDavey]

NS,

But Vlad's statement that I was responding to was this one:

“No, there's a definite appeal to nature here, from Professor Davey, Outrider and Aruntraveller that can't be turdpolished away.” (Reply 300)

The Prof, Outy and Arunt weren’t making an appeal to nature at all so far as I can see.

Can't speak for the others but I certainly wasn't making an appeal to nature. My comment on the matter was as follows (reply 16826):

'Sounds like special pleading to me - so it would be straight back with 'why is it un-natural in one species but not in another?. Onus on those making the claim (that something natural in one species isn't in another species) to justify that claim.'

So if I was making any appeal it was:

An appeal against special pleading and
An appeal to the principle that the onus is on the person making a claim to justify that claim.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Can't speak for the others but I certainly wasn't making an appeal to nature. My comment on the matter was as follows (reply 16826):

'Sounds like special pleading to me - so it would be straight back with 'why is it un-natural in one species but not in another?. Onus on those making the claim (that something natural in one species isn't in another species) to justify that claim.'

So if I was making any appeal it was:

An appeal against special pleading and
An appeal to the principle that the onus is on the person making a claim to justify that claim.

As I attempted to suggest earlier there are different definitions of the term "natural" in play here. To the Catholic the natural order is that morality applies only to humans so other species behaviours are irrelevent and amoral rather than immoral.
To the naturalist, morality is basically irrelevent since they are just talking about behaviours. The naturalists difficulty is the association of the word natural with common and majority behaviour.
Then there is the appeal to nature where goodness or otherwise
of behaviouri s based on whether the behaviour is observed  and/ or commonly observed in other species. Purveyors of protomorality IMHO cannot avoid the appeal to nature

[jeremyp]

I await you showing how supernatural claims are not like natural claims is nonsense.

Why would I? That's not the point.

The Christian god is logically incoherent. It cannot exist whether supernatural or not.

Also DU isn't saying that because lots of people are religious that it's true. So you've misunderstood him.

No. He's saying it's not logically incoherent (i.e. it's a possibility we can't rule out) because lots of people believe it to be true.

[Outrider]

As I attempted to suggest earlier there are different definitions of the term "natural" in play here. To the Catholic the natural order is that morality applies only to humans so other species behaviours are irrelevent and amoral rather than immoral.

So it's a parallel definition of 'natural' just like their parallel definition of morality (sin), because why use language normally when you can keep your own 'special' dictionary and claim that you're therefore infallible whilst making deliberately vague statements in an attempt to justify dreadful institutional homophobia (and misogyny and, historically, racism).

To the naturalist, morality is basically irrelevent since they are just talking about behaviours.

I don't know about 'naturalist', that's more a field of study. To Deontologists the behaviour is not that significant in a moral sense, it's the intention behind it.

The naturalists difficulty is the association of the word natural with common and majority behaviour.

No, the problem here is that Catholicism is trying to redefine 'natural' to exclude the entirety of the rest of nature and claim, without justification, some sort of human exceptionalism that makes us different in quality rather then merely in scale.

Then there is the appeal to nature where goodness or otherwise

Which no-one was making. No-one was saying that it's moral because other creatures do it, they were saying the Catholic stance is in error because can't qualify it as 'unnatural' when it's so prevalent in nature.

O.

[ProfessorDavey]

The naturalists difficulty is the association of the word natural with common and majority behaviour.

Nope - you are confusing uncommon with unnatural - they are completely different things.

And I think if there is anyone that confuses the two then it tends to be those from a religious perspective who often seem to equate a trait  which is rare (uncommon) with being unnatural (it isn't necessarily) and immoral.

By constrast I think naturalists are completely comfortable that 'natural' means something that occurs in nature (with unnatural being something that doesn't occur in nature), with uncommon being a completely different thing, specifically the prevalence of the trait in nature.

[Aruntraveller]

Nope - you are confusing uncommon with unnatural - they are completely different things.

Indeed. It's not like the human race and religions haven't got form for this sort of prejudice:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bias_against_left-handed_people

(Left handed gay person here)

[ekim]

Very sinister!

[Nearly Sane]

So it's a parallel definition of 'natural' just like their parallel definition of morality (sin), because why use language normally when you can keep your own 'special' dictionary and claim that you're therefore infallible whilst making deliberately vague statements in an attempt to justify dreadful institutional homophobia (and misogyny and, historically, racism).

...

O.

I am not a great defender of the RC Church but the tetm natural law isn't about that. In part the confusion is Vlad's presenting  badly an idea that he thinks is bollocks, and appears not to understand, which wad taken wrongly by uou amongst others as being an appeal to nature (which ot isn't, though it is bollocks).

[Nearly Sane]

Why would I? That's not the point.

The Christian god is logically incoherent. It cannot exist whether supernatural or not.
No. He's saying it's not logically incoherent (i.e. it's a possibility we can't rule out) because lots of people believe it to be true.

Why would you? Well since it's the point I've been making which you called nonsense, it would seem better than the straw man you've made.

And that applies to your misinterpretation of DU as well.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

So it's a parallel definition of 'natural' just like their parallel definition of morality (sin), because why use language normally when you can keep your own 'special' dictionary and claim that you're therefore infallible whilst making deliberately vague statements in an attempt to justify dreadful institutional homophobia (and misogyny and, historically, racism).

I don't know about 'naturalist', that's more a field of study. To Deontologists the behaviour is not that significant in a moral sense, it's the intention behind it.

No, the problem here is that Catholicism is trying to redefine 'natural' to exclude the entirety of the rest of nature and claim, without justification, some sort of human exceptionalism that makes us different in quality rather then merely in scale.

Which no-one was making. No-one was saying that it's moral because other creatures do it, they were saying the Catholic stance is in error because can't qualify it as 'unnatural' when it's so prevalent in nature.

O.

I'm afraid Catholic definitions of nature and morality were around centuries before scientism barged in like a great "twat" declaring imperialistic rights to words.
It's quite simple atheist chums, accept that sometimes words have more than one meaning and stop confusing them.

[bluehillside Retd.]

Vlad,

I'm afraid Catholic definitions of nature and morality were around centuries before scientism barged in like a great "twat" declaring imperialistic rights to words.

Scientism - even if anyone here actually argued for it - did no such thing.

It's quite simple atheist chums, accept that sometimes words have more than one meaning...

Yes, but that doesn't give you licence to invent any personal meaning you like and then to use it as a straw man to make your point.

By "bicycle saddles" I actually mean "daffodils". Is the description "Vlad is well-known for sniffing bicycle saddles" therefore ok with you?

Why not? 

...and stop confusing them.

The only one here who confuses the terms he attemtps (either unwittingly or wilfully) appears to be you.

[Outrider]

I'm afraid Catholic definitions of nature and morality were around centuries before scientism barged in like a great "twat" declaring imperialistic rights to words.

And language moves on - if you're going to make the argument now, you need to use the language of the day. If your mission to save souls today, talking to people like they were mediaeval peasants isn't going to be very effective.

It's quite simple atheist chums, accept that sometimes words have more than one meaning and stop confusing them.

It's quite simple, Catholic recidivists. Accept that language moves on and stop acting like it's still the middle-ages... in fact, in general, stop pretending like it's the middle-ages, but particularly with the language.

O.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

And language moves on - if you're going to make the argument now, you need to use the language of the day. If your mission to save souls today, talking to people like they were mediaeval peasants isn't going to be very effective.

An assumption that seems to be rooted in the fallacy of modernity and linguistic totalitarianism. The same language and concepts are still being used as professional language in the fields of theology and philosophy. Concepts don't automatically have a sell by date like cheese. Only giving people concepts they can understand is patronising guff. Science shouldn't dumb down and neither should other fields.
Religion on the other hand is not totally dependent on the intellectual acquisition of facts or concepts. Which brings us to the totalitarian pseudo ownership of language claimed by scientism, an example par excellence being the appropriation of the term nothing by new atheist scientists like Krauss., who claimed that what people were referring to in the past was an airless vacuum. He failed to realise that philosophers were actually talking about the absence of anything one could think of or possibly think of. That still remains a current philosophical concept.