Quote# 107550

Homosexual logic is the "logic" used to justify the Homosexual Agenda. Like liberal logic generally, homosexual logic relies on statements that appear to be logical but that are actually rife with logical fallacies. Examples include:
Calling things the opposite of what they are, e.g., justifying their special rights as just another form of equal protection.
Improperly shifting the burden of proof by asserting that homosexuality must be understood as not a choice until it is conclusively shown to be one.
Slippery slope arguments in which they argue that repression of homosexuality will lead to a series of bad results that actually will not follow or that have nothing to do with homosexuality.
Cherry-picking only those parts of the Bible that suit their purposes, while arguing that any parts of Scripture that are inconvenient to them need to be "interpreted" correctly or were "nailed to the Cross," or that just by mentioning them, you are "twisting" them in some unspecified way.
Taking it for granted that any book with a pro-homosexual slant must be true, rather than critically assessing whether that book is credible.
Appealing to majority will, but only when it suits them; switching back and forth between "This is what the people want" and "America is a republic, not a democracy."
Demanding that their own interpretation (or misinterpretation) of the Bible be made binding on everyone, despite the establishment clause.
Demanding limited government, but only when it suits them, while supporting government oppression of anyone they don't like.
Claiming to be persecuted when in reality it is they who are doing the persecuting.

DavidE, Conservapedia 17 Comments [4/3/2015 3:09:06 AM]
Fundie Index: 11
Submitted By: Yuu

Username  (Login)
Comment  (Text formatting help) 

1 | bottom

Malingspann

Fundie logic is the "logic" used to justify the Fundie Anti-Gay Agenda. Like conservative logic generally, fundie logic relies on statements that appear to be logical but that are actually rife with logical fallacies. Examples include:

Calling things the opposite of what they are, e.g., justifying their special rights as just another form of equal protection.

Improperly shifting the burden of proof by asserting that homosexuality must be understood as a choice until it is conclusively shown not to be one.

Slippery slope arguments in which they argue that acceptance of homosexuality will lead to a series of bad results that actually will not follow or that have nothing to do with homosexuality.

Cherry-picking only those parts of the Bible that suit their purposes, while arguing that any parts of Scripture that are inconvenient to them need to be "interpreted" correctly or were "nailed to the Cross," or that just by mentioning them, you are "twisting" them in some unspecified way.

Taking it for granted that any book with a pro-their beliefs slant must be true, rather than critically assessing whether that book is credible.

Appealing to majority will, but only when it suits them; switching back and forth between "This is what the people want" and "America is a republic, not a democracy."

Demanding that their own interpretation (or misinterpretation) of the Bible be made binding on everyone, despite the establishment clause.

Demanding limited government, but only when it suits them, while supporting government oppression of anyone they don't like.

Claiming to be persecuted when in reality it is they who are doing the persecuting.

4/3/2015 3:48:35 AM

anothga

Cherry-picking only those parts of the Bible that suit their purposes, while arguing that any parts of Scripture that are inconvenient to them need to be "interpreted" correctly or were "nailed to the Cross," or that just by mentioning them, you are "twisting" them in some unspecified way.
Taking it for granted that any book with a pro-homosexual slant must be true, rather than critically assessing whether that book is credible.
(...)
Demanding that their own interpretation (or misinterpretation) of the Bible be made binding on everyone, despite the establishment clause.
(...)
Claiming to be persecuted when in reality it is they who are doing the persecuting.

If this irony was solid, it could kill someone.

4/3/2015 3:50:23 AM

Yossarian Lives

No, David, not all opinions are equally valid. Just because you try and link these attributes to gays, as liberals do with fundies, it doesn't mean that it's true or an equally acceptable opinion.

It's not a slippery slope if the concerns over any repression of homosexuality are evident through society. However, it is a slippery slope when you make baseless claims about bestiality being legalised due to the acceptance of same-sex marriage. It is not unfair to criticise the bigoted Christians for ignoring aspects of the Bible that they dislike, such as the requirement to stone disobedient children, when they justify homophobia by stating that the Bible is the unquestionable word of God.

4/3/2015 4:17:45 AM

Citizen Justin

Mailingspann covered most of what there is to say about this.

Especially the slippery slope argument: "Your poor little innocent children will have to be compulsorily sodomized in school!"

4/3/2015 4:37:36 AM

Slaanesh

Oh god, my irony meter just reacted to this like it was DJS. Ow.

4/3/2015 4:56:00 AM

Ivurm

I think my irony meter just retroactively killed the dinosaurs.

4/3/2015 5:46:19 AM

Doubting Thomas

Calling things the opposite of what they are, e.g., justifying their special rights as just another form of equal protection.

You mean like calling discrimination and oppression "religious freedom?"

Cherry-picking only those parts of the Bible that suit their purposes, while arguing that any parts of Scripture that are inconvenient to them need to be "interpreted" correctly or were "nailed to the Cross," or that just by mentioning them, you are "twisting" them in some unspecified way.
Appealing to majority will, but only when it suits them; switching back and forth between "This is what the people want" and "America is a republic, not a democracy."
Demanding that their own interpretation (or misinterpretation) of the Bible be made binding on everyone, despite the establishment clause.
Demanding limited government, but only when it suits them, while supporting government oppression of anyone they don't like.
Claiming to be persecuted when in reality it is they who are doing the persecuting.


Are you kidding me? This is exactly what Christians do. This is some weapons-grade irony right here.

4/3/2015 5:59:46 AM

creativerealms

"Calling things the opposite of what they are, e.g., justifying their special rights as just another form of equal protection. "

You mean like "freedom of Religion" laws which only serve to give Christians special rights?

"Improperly shifting the burden of proof by asserting that homosexuality must be understood as not a choice until it is conclusively shown to be one."

It's not a choice.

"Cherry-picking only those parts of the Bible that suit their purposes, while arguing that any parts of Scripture that are inconvenient to them need to be "interpreted" correctly or were "nailed to the Cross," or that just by mentioning them, you are "twisting" them in some unspecified way."

Are you sure you are not talking about conservative Christians here? I mean using only parts of the bible that serve their purpose while ignoring everything else? Were you looking in a mirror when you were typing this?

"Appealing to majority will, but only when it suits them; switching back and forth between "This is what the people want" and "America is a republic, not a democracy."

You are talking about Conservatives. Are you a Poe?

"Demanding that their own interpretation (or misinterpretation) of the Bible be made binding on everyone, despite the establishment clause."

Yep I am convinced you are a Poe attacking conservatives while pretending to be one of them. Ether that or you are denser then Andy and I don't think that's possible.

"Demanding limited government, but only when it suits them, while supporting government oppression of anyone they don't like."

Your not even trying now. You're a Liberal attacking Conservatives.

"Claiming to be persecuted when in reality it is they who are doing the persecuting."

Yep your not even a deep cover liberal. Your just one of them. Why are you at conservipedia?

4/3/2015 6:31:58 AM

OHP

If that mirror were any shinier you could see it from Mars with the naked eye.

4/3/2015 8:45:53 AM



Christian stupidity is the "stupidity" used to justify the Christian Agenda.

4/3/2015 9:02:38 AM

Jason_the_Cripple

I have a feeling, this was a brilliant Poe. Every single line here is what the fundies do, not the pro-gays. Look at this line:
"Demanding that their own interpretation (or misinterpretation) of the Bible be made binding on everyone, despite the establishment clause. "

That accusation can ONLY be leveled against fundies. What pro-gay person uses bible quotes to argue for gay rights? Only the fundies are trying to make their interpretations of the bible the law of the land.

The fact that this got published in concervapedia makes this brilliant.

4/3/2015 11:18:15 AM

Miles

I never tire of quotes from Shitflypedia, especially the parts with the persecuted hegemons.

4/3/2015 1:06:33 PM

Goomy pls

Calling things the opposite of what they are, e.g., justifying their special rights as just another form of equal protection.

Including the special right to be able to marry those they love, a right not enjoyed by straights. Wait a second...

Improperly shifting the burden of proof by asserting that homosexuality must be understood as not a choice until it is conclusively shown to be one.

We have found the fucking brain structures that differ between g3ighs and straights.

Slippery slope arguments in which they argue that repression of homosexuality will lead to a series of bad results that actually will not follow or that have nothing to do with homosexuality.

Ironic considering these arguments are incredibly rare, whereas Chri-stains argue that t3h g3igh will lead to paedophilia.

Cherry-picking only those parts of the Bible that suit their purposes, while arguing that any parts of Scripture that are inconvenient to them need to be "interpreted" correctly or were "nailed to the Cross," or that just by mentioning them, you are "twisting" them in some unspecified way.

I can get behind this. The BuyBull is an incredibly antiquated piece of putative literature and should be left behind together with other old myths. I much prefer the words of Jesus, the proto-socialist, and the rabbinical commentaries to the genocidal GAY (Gobs/Allah/Yahweh).

Taking it for granted that any book with a pro-homosexual slant must be true, rather than critically assessing whether that book is credible.

As opposed to taking for granted any book that has an anti-gay slant?

Appealing to majority will, but only when it suits them; switching back and forth between "This is what the people want" and "America is a republic, not a democracy."

That's more the wingnuts' schtick. The main argument against marriage inequality is that it deprives people of rights others enjoy. When confronted with the idea that the people disown t3h g3igh, the "vox populi" argument is really mostly a counterpoint.

Demanding that their own interpretation (or misinterpretation) of the Bible be made binding on everyone, despite the establishment clause.

Again, this is wingnut territory. I notice a lot of projection here.

Demanding limited government, but only when it suits them, while supporting government oppression of anyone they don't like.

Holy shit, this is pretty much a laundry list of wingnut logic failures.

Claiming to be persecuted when in reality it is they who are doing the persecuting.

See above, and above that, and above that, and above that...

4/3/2015 2:29:48 PM

Ebon

Finest example of DARVO I've ever seen.

4/5/2015 8:11:05 PM

sickofthebullshit

DavidE is so dense that he has collapsed into a singularity from which no knowledge can escape

5/4/2016 6:47:07 AM

Kuno

The irony in that OP is so massive, it could cure someone from iron-deficiency anemia.

5/4/2016 7:02:23 AM

Anon-e-moose

And Andy Schaftafly's little Vanity Project of a so-called 'Wiki' is still derided by conservative commentators/bloggers etc. And his 'Conservative Bible Project' has been declared - by all mainstream Christian organisations in the US - as Heresy.

Argue their logic.

Must be rather empty in the digital compound that is Andy's 'Camp Conservapoodia', when it comes to 'Real Christians'. So much for 'Unity' in that 'Body of Christ', eh David(on)Es? Especially as most there are Deep Cover Poes: on a mission to make Schaftafly's vanity project even more of a laughing stock in the eyes of conservatives.

Just as Planet Jerky is a lonely place for him, if he's the only 'Real Christian' out there. Same for David J. Pedo, Loony4Life...!

5/4/2016 7:07:05 PM

1 | top: comments page