At 3/13/2018 11:53:36 AM, zoinks wrote:

Brains are the source of thought. You may disagree, but I'm afraid the data does not support you.
Damage to the brain causes, frequently, shifts in personality and memory loss. Chemical imbalances in the brain cause manic behavior and mental illness.
The notion that there is some entity outside the brain capable of thinking and persisting beyond the brain itself is unsupported by our current understanding of science. All of the evidence points to such an entity not existing. If you wish to assert the existence of such an entity, I will of course ask for empirical evidence.

Additionally, language is arbitrarily-defined terms to begin with, which only function if the vast majority agree on the meaning of terms. You are, in essence, arguing that the meaning of a term is objectively incorrect when the meaning of any term only exists subjectively, by consensus. It's possible that future generations may alter the definition of 'homosexuality' to mean 'physically engaging in coitus with a member of the same sex', but the consensus for the definition of the word is 'the attraction to members of the same sex'. And, as I said, language only exists by consensus.
You are committing a referential fallacy by arguing this, as well as a moralistic fallacy.

I've come, far too late, to the conclusion that there is nothing which will change your mind on this matter, and I suspect, sir, that it is you who have an agenda behind your arguments.

I wish you the best in your endeavors.

At 3/9/2018 2:44:40 PM, zoinks wrote:
First, I said to do it WITHOUT ANY ACTION. Asking them a question and them answering said question are ACTIONS.

Verification is, itself, an action. You may as well ask me to lift myself up by the seat of my pants. It's logically impossible.

People almost always don't walk around with equipment to test others. It is not only impractical but nonsensical and invasive. Beyond that, any methods used to test these things are highly questioned and cannot determine what someone is thinking, only how the brain responds. What goes on inside someone's head is not verifiable.

That's a bold assertion, considering we can measure and monitor brain activity. Claiming that the fact that equipment to monitor the brain is rare means immediately that we cannot monitor it is such a non sequitur it defies belief. 'How the brain responds' is what people are thinking. The brain is where we do our thinking, Zoinks. That's middle school biology.

As a single factor, attraction is not the entirety of sexuality, and it would be absurd to suggest that is the case - and yet people do this.

By these other factors, do you mean external pressures such as financial stability, social advantages, and the like? Because I'm confused, now, because nobody I am aware of has included these under the umbrella of 'sexuality'. Or are you referring to emotional compatibility? That has an effect, yes, but all the emotional compatibility in the world is not going to cause you to consider someone a prospective partner without severe external pressures. People who are emotionally, but not physically, attracted to each other do not, except in circumstances resulting from external pressures not really covered by 'sexuality', end up in bed together. They may form friendships, certainly, and often do, but without the element of physical attraction a coupling is unlikely to form.

At 3/6/2018 12:39:48 PM, zoinks wrote:

When society argues that homosexuality is immoral, or unnatural, they are arguing that the attraction to other members of the same sex is a choice, and thus should not be represented in society.
When others argue that homosexuality is not a choice, they are arguing that the attraction to other members of the same sex is an innate attribute that they have no control over, and thus deserve equal treatment to heterosexuals.
Nobody is arguing that entering into a relationship is not a choice.
The agreed-upon premise of the argument is Definition A.

I'm changing the paradigm by arguing the definition itself.

You are, of course, free to argue that we shouldn't use that definition. However, that is not the definition those who are arguing that homosexuality isn't a choice are basing their arguments off of. There is no 'agenda', other than asking for equal treatment.

Please verify the attraction of someone other than yourself WITHOUT any action whatsoever. It cannot be done. That is the difference.

Very simply, actually. You ask someone 'Are you a Christian?' and if they say yes, unless there is some factor such as threat of force, they have no reason to say no. It is the same with the question 'Are you a homosexual?'.
If you had the equipment and the time to do so, you would also find that the brain responds differently to situations involving sexual attraction than it would, say, to situations involving hunger or greeting a friend. I am not a neuroscientist and thus am likely not qualified to give a full description of exactly what happens in the brain, but these are events that happen, that can be measured and observed as objectively as any other event in the brain.

I'm arguing that they are using the wrong definition on purpose because that fits the agenda that allows for other arguments.

That's not a false equivocation - it's another argument entirely.

This is, I'm afraid, where you've lost me. However, I'll humor you.
Let's use a different term, say... Similamory. It's a made-up term, certainly, but language is arbitrary.

1) Similamory is the sexual attraction to others of the same sex.
2) Sexual attraction is determined by a variety of factors, some genetic, some environmental, but most importantly of all, it is not a choice.
3) It is not ethically or morally correct to discriminate against others because of factors beyond their control, save in cases where those factors are likely to cause harm.
4) Individuals will naturally want to engage in relationships with those they are sexually attracted to.
5) Barring adults from engaging in consensual, safe relationships is discriminatory, regardless of the biological sex of the participants.
6) Adults partaking in consensual, safe relationships either romantic or sexual does not cause harm.
Therefore, it is not ethically or morally correct to bar similamorous individuals from pursuing the partners they are attracted to.

That is the argument in its entirety. That has always been the argument in its entirety.

Can you explain how arguing the definition of terms in any way invalidates the argument?

When society argues that homosexuality is immoral, or unnatural, they are arguing that the attraction to other members of the same sex is a choice, and thus should not be represented in society.
When others argue that homosexuality is not a choice, they are arguing that the attraction to other members of the same sex is an innate attribute that they have no control over, and thus deserve equal treatment to heterosexuals.
Nobody is arguing that entering into a relationship is not a choice.
The agreed-upon premise of the argument is Definition A. You are electing to use Definition B, and arguing, in short, that the latter argument is false based on Definition B when they are arguing it is true based on Definition A. This is textbook false equivocation.

Further, we use many labels to describe people which have nothing to do with actions: Male. Female. Conservative. Liberal. Christian. Atheist. Short. Tall. Are these descriptors lies?

I would argue that it begins with the formation of the temporal lobe, which deals primarily with memory. My reasoning behind this conclusion is:
The human body is ultimately a vessel for the brain. Any one of the constituent parts can be replaced. Hearts, lungs, kidneys, liver, bones, eyes, it's all a support platform for the brain. We know this because your neurons are still firing after your heart stops. Until 'brain death' occurs, it's still possible to revive a human, which is why hypothermia is good for drowning victims; cold forestalls the damage a brain begins to suffer in the absence of oxygen.
But the brain is, itself, only a vessel. Think of your body as a computer: If there's a power surge and your computer is fried, you're not really upset because the computer itself is damaged; it is, ultimately, replaceable. What you actually care about is the data on your computer, the programs and files which you now cannot access because your hard drive is slag. It's the same principle with your brain. What makes you, well, you, is the memories which form your experiences, and thus shape your personality. Losing your heart, lungs, kidneys, or yes, even your brain would be very bad for you, and all of those would be likely to end in your death, but all of those (yes, even your brain, in theory) are replaceable. It is the 'data' your brain carries that are irreplaceable.
Prior to the ability to form memories, a fetus is, in a sense, not what I would call human. It's also why I'd argue that diseases which affect memory are among the most horrific illnesses in existence. They are not merely the reduction of mental faculties, they are in a very real sense the death of a person.
So, to get back to the question, 'human' begins at the formation of the temporal lobe and cerebral cortex. Usually this is around the third trimester, which is why I think that late-term abortion ought not to be allowed, save in cases of the mother's life being in jeopardy. Happily, only about 1% of such procedures occur in the third trimester, so this is not a common problem.

My sincerest apologies, I misread the character count as 2,000. I present my revised argument, then:

Evolution. The evidence for it's overwhelming, and it has stood the test of time in spite of valiant attempts to disprove it. If you come to accept Evolution as being proven, then things start to unravel. Evolution is a gradient; every single creature has been the same species as its immediate neighbors on the gradient. There was never any 'first' human, and it follows logically there was no Adam and Eve, no Eden, no Tree, no Original Sin. Without that Sword of Damocles, what, then, is the point?
Why would a maximally-powerful, maximally-knowledgeable being choose to leave what is, arguably, the most important record of his existence as a book which fails to start right out of the gate by making claims which are demonstrably false? The Abrahamic holy texts cannot be relied upon as evidence, and any forensic scientist will tell you that eyewitness evidence is not reliable. Without those two cornerstones, the existence of YHWH is vanishingly unlikely.

Interesting. Alright, I'll bite:

Premise: YHWH/Yahweh/Jehova/Allah/Elohim/et al. The Abrahamic deity.

Refutation:
Let's begin by defining terms, so there is no chance of confusion in what is meant.
It becomes necessary to define 'disprove' as 'to present evidence against a claim such that it becomes vanishingly unlikely, beyond all reasonable doubt'. It's true that, outside of mathematics, it is impossible to achieve true Proof, all else can only deal, at best, with probabilities.

There are many arguments against the existence of this particular interpretation, but I'll only be covering one:
The Darwinian Theory of Evolution by Natural Selection. The evidence for that titan of scientific knowledge is overwhelming, and as a true model of the scientific method, is so delicate that a single (legitimate) counterexample would be sufficient to cause the whole edifice to come crashing down like a house of cards. To quote Haldane, all we would need would be 'fossil rabbits in the Precambrian'. That it has stood the test of time in spite of valiant attempts to disprove it is a testament to the veracity of the theory.
If you come to accept Evolution as being proven, then I'm afraid things begin to unravel. Evolution is a gradient; every single creature that has ever been born was the same species as its parents, and its children, if any. There was never any 'first' human. If there was no 'first' human, it follows logically there was no Adam and Eve, no Eden, no Tree. Without Adam and Eve, whence cometh Original Sin? Without that Sword of Damocles, what, then, is the point of the Covenant? Of the Resurrection? Of the Commandments?
Why would a maximally-powerful, maximally-knowledgeable being choose to leave what is, arguably, the most important record of his existence as a book which fails to start right out of the gate by making claims which are demonstrably false? The Abrahamic holy texts cannot be relied upon as evidence, and any forensic scientist will tell you that eyewitness evidence is not reliable. Without those two cornerstones, the existence of YHWH is vanishingly unlikely.

It's a difficult topic, to be certain. But, I think, more than the parents' right to have direct oversight of their children's education, we need also to enforce the children's right to said education.
Even when it is benevolent, many parents who attempt home schooling simply don't have the mastery of the subject necessary to answer questions, which can be frustrating and detrimental to the child. Rather than disallowing home schooling, I think foundations should be laid for a home school system that allows easy access to licensed instructors, or at least forces would-be home teachers to attain adequate mastery to teach the subjects they are 'in charge' of.